Buying a Cayenne: S at 56k miles, or Turbo S at 90k?
Discussion
It looks like my trusty old XC70 is nearing the end of its useful life as it approaches 200k miles with things starting to go wrong so I've decided that I'd like to run an old Cayenne next. It has to be a V8, I'm not interested in the V6 or the diesel. Just looking at various options and a couple have caught my eye. Both are 2006 cars, one is an S (340bhp, 0-60 7.2 seconds) at 56k miles with a few options but no air suspension and without a few creature comforts, while the other is a Turbo S (521bhp, 0-60 5.2 seconds) with a lot more kit including air suspension and rear seat dvd player etc. The Turbo S is also significantly more expensive than the S (£7.5k vs £11k).
I'll be doing around 25k miles per year and I'd like to keep the car going for at least 3-4 years, more if possible. My head says S with the lower miles but my heart aches for the 521 horses. Both the cars seem to be in a decent condition and I would continue to look after whatever car I buy properly, get it serviced on time etc.
Which would you go for if you were in the same position?
I'll be doing around 25k miles per year and I'd like to keep the car going for at least 3-4 years, more if possible. My head says S with the lower miles but my heart aches for the 521 horses. Both the cars seem to be in a decent condition and I would continue to look after whatever car I buy properly, get it serviced on time etc.
Which would you go for if you were in the same position?
My sister had an S and I've got to say you're a brave man for running one for 25k miles a year. It was £100+ to fill up every week and she use to only get 150 miles out of the tank. She only kept it 10 months and it threw around £3k worth of faults in that time, although she got everything done at the main dealers so it would have been a lot less if taken to an independent.
But to answer your question, definitely turbo, the S felt sightly under powered.
But to answer your question, definitely turbo, the S felt sightly under powered.
Indeed whichever I go for it won't be worth much after a few years, and yes, it'll use a hell of a lot of petrol in that time but those aren't too important. The vast majority, probably >90%, of the miles will be on cruise control on the motorway. Reliability is my priority and where my head falls down is that it'd be 18-20 months of driving out of a planned ownership of around 48 to get the S to the current mileage of the Turbo S. Can I get a Cayenne to 200k miles with "good" ownership or is 150k miles more realistic?
I'm still hankering after the Turbo S but two things worry me, the gearbox and the air suspension. Both seem to be expensive to put right so the S without air suspension and less powerful engine might be more sensible.
Are these likely to last 200k miles if well looked after? Mrs QQ thinks I'm mad to even consider paying nearly 50% more for a car with 60% more miles on the clock and I'm struggling to answer back!
Are these likely to last 200k miles if well looked after? Mrs QQ thinks I'm mad to even consider paying nearly 50% more for a car with 60% more miles on the clock and I'm struggling to answer back!
As far as I'm aware, the 4.5 N/A engine in the S is virtually guaranteed to suffer very expensive failure, whereas the Turbo engine is far more solid. Air suspension isn't vastly expensive to replace nowadays provided you have a decent indy, not sure about the gearbox but I wouldn't have thought it'd be any worse than any other older, premium SUV
I currently have a Turbo S, lets just say...awesome car to drive. All the comfort,gadgets etc and the get up and go to keep up (leave behind ! ) with most.
I had a 'regular' Turbo previously and that was on circa 250k miles so yes, they will do the mileage with decent maintenance.
I believe the S can and does suffer from bore scoring issues which the Turbo models are not prone to.
You only live once,
Turbo S.
I had a 'regular' Turbo previously and that was on circa 250k miles so yes, they will do the mileage with decent maintenance.
I believe the S can and does suffer from bore scoring issues which the Turbo models are not prone to.
You only live once,
Turbo S.
i previously had S and its under powered compared to turbos versions but still reasonably quick. however running costs are not far off turbo'd versions and you get a lot more for the money with the turbo S so I would stretch to that if I could.
You will always wish you bought the Turbo S so do it.
You will always wish you bought the Turbo S so do it.
The Motorist said:
90,000 isn't high for a 2006 car. The problem is starting to do big mileage in a car that is already 10 years old. Fuel and maintainance, tax and insurance budget for annual running costs minimum £7500 before depreciation. But it's a lot of enjoyment if it goes well.
At the least.My 4.2 Q7 is leaving my ownership imminently and over the 2years I have had it I have covered 55k miles and it’s cost me a shade over £21k all in and that’s with 2 sets of tyres and one set of discs and pads all round but those 3 combined are only £1500 of the £21k
I’d factor more like £10k easy.
Don't entirely agree with some of these comments.
It's true that the V8s have a reputation for some engine problems - as do most of the 911s, Boxsters and Caymans from the same era - but the idea that you're virtually guaranteed failure is a massive exaggeration.
There have been many similar threads in the past - usually on the Porsche forum - and the consensus is pretty much always "buy the turbo, it won't cost more to run and you won't have an engine failure".
I've owned a 4.5S for 5 years now and have absolutely no regrets, and no desire to have owned a turbo. As the OP has said - the turbo costs more to buy, and I didn't need / wasn't willing to pay the extra. It was more than I'd allowed in the budget.
The N/A S is plenty fast enough for a car like this and will still leave behind most average cars fairly easily if you want.
Mine cost me quite a lot in the early years but I can't remember the last time I had to spend money on it. In that time, mine has gone from ~80k miles to ~105k miles.
I think they are fabulous cars - they are comfortable on motorways, and surprising fun down a twisty road if you stick the suspension in sport / manual gear change. They drive like a car far smaller. The only reason I've not upgraded to a newer one is simply that the one thing I don't like (~15mpg short journeys and probably still under 20mpg long journeys) isn't any better on a newer one. So apart from it being shinier, I don't think I'd gain much for the extra money.
The one thing I would say : Don't buy one without air. Yes it can be expensive to fix (one of my shocks leaked and it was ~£800 if I remember correctly), but it really does allow the car to have multiple personalities. I wouldn't buy one with standard spring suspension.
It's true that the V8s have a reputation for some engine problems - as do most of the 911s, Boxsters and Caymans from the same era - but the idea that you're virtually guaranteed failure is a massive exaggeration.
There have been many similar threads in the past - usually on the Porsche forum - and the consensus is pretty much always "buy the turbo, it won't cost more to run and you won't have an engine failure".
I've owned a 4.5S for 5 years now and have absolutely no regrets, and no desire to have owned a turbo. As the OP has said - the turbo costs more to buy, and I didn't need / wasn't willing to pay the extra. It was more than I'd allowed in the budget.
The N/A S is plenty fast enough for a car like this and will still leave behind most average cars fairly easily if you want.
Mine cost me quite a lot in the early years but I can't remember the last time I had to spend money on it. In that time, mine has gone from ~80k miles to ~105k miles.
I think they are fabulous cars - they are comfortable on motorways, and surprising fun down a twisty road if you stick the suspension in sport / manual gear change. They drive like a car far smaller. The only reason I've not upgraded to a newer one is simply that the one thing I don't like (~15mpg short journeys and probably still under 20mpg long journeys) isn't any better on a newer one. So apart from it being shinier, I don't think I'd gain much for the extra money.
The one thing I would say : Don't buy one without air. Yes it can be expensive to fix (one of my shocks leaked and it was ~£800 if I remember correctly), but it really does allow the car to have multiple personalities. I wouldn't buy one with standard spring suspension.
Dr mojo said:
You will always wish you bought the Turbo S so do it.
In 5 years of ownership, I've never once wished I'd bought a turbo version.I've driven a friend's Turbo S, which I went into thinking would be epic. A Porsche V8 520 hp!
In realty, I found it sluggish, unresponsive and (relatively) slow.
At the time, I drove a Guiletta QV.
I previously had an RS6 (V10). The Cayenne Turbo S was nowhere near as fast as an RS6.
In realty, I found it sluggish, unresponsive and (relatively) slow.
At the time, I drove a Guiletta QV.
I previously had an RS6 (V10). The Cayenne Turbo S was nowhere near as fast as an RS6.
sneezer212 said:
I've driven a friend's Turbo S, which I went into thinking would be epic. A Porsche V8 520 hp!
In realty, I found it sluggish, unresponsive and (relatively) slow.
At the time, I drove a Guiletta QV.
I previously had an RS6 (V10). The Cayenne Turbo S was nowhere near as fast as an RS6.
I'm sure there are many cars faster. It's not as fast as my Ferrari or the 911 turbo I sold a couple of years ago either. Still think that they're relatively quick cars though (including the non-turbo I have). But it's all subjective.In realty, I found it sluggish, unresponsive and (relatively) slow.
At the time, I drove a Guiletta QV.
I previously had an RS6 (V10). The Cayenne Turbo S was nowhere near as fast as an RS6.
alorotom said:
At the least.
My 4.2 Q7 is leaving my ownership imminently and over the 2years I have had it I have covered 55k miles and it’s cost me a shade over £21k all in and that’s with 2 sets of tyres and one set of discs and pads all round but those 3 combined are only £1500 of the £21k
I’d factor more like £10k easy.
I was trying not to depress him too much! Did say "at least" and excluded depreciation. But I agree with you.My 4.2 Q7 is leaving my ownership imminently and over the 2years I have had it I have covered 55k miles and it’s cost me a shade over £21k all in and that’s with 2 sets of tyres and one set of discs and pads all round but those 3 combined are only £1500 of the £21k
I’d factor more like £10k easy.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff