When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I don't think it was a myth at all! How else do you explain the 928?
The existence of the 928 is akin to the existence of the Mach E from Ford. Just like Porsche in 1970 and their concerns about the long term sustinence of the 911, Ford knows the days of the ICE Mustang will come to an end. When? No one can predict? So they hedge their bets and build a sports EV to capture the emerging market all while leveraging the Mustang brand and heritage.
Projekt 928 lays it out well. Porsche in 1970 was far along in the delevopment of a mid engine V8 sports car that was to be, "a big Porsche to expand the 911 line upwards". Not a replacement, but an expansion. This project was based on the.EA 266 program they were developing for VW. Porsche invested a lot of resources, people and facilities (creation of what was to become their Design Center). When VW pulled the plug on EA 266, Porsche had to cancel the mid engine project. From the ashes of this program the 928 was developed. But again not as replacement for the 911, but as an upmarket expansion of Porsche sports cars. Just like the Mach E didn't replace the Mustang, the 928 never replaced the 911 because that was never the purpose of the car to begin with.
Thank you, Nate. I was hoping that you would chime in. That's some extremely good information. From your email exchanges, it sounds like they didn't expect the 928 to replace the 911 in terms of function and market, but that they initially thought that the market was changing to no longer support the 911 and that the market would prefer a GT style car. When they decided (under new management) that the 911 market would persist, they kept the 911 line while also pursuing the GT market. Does that sound right to you?
Your analogy with the Ford Mustang SUV is a very good one.
In Page 2 of the article that Crumpler posted (linked to above by Nate), it states that the 911 was not going to replace the 911, it was adding to the line. That's a 1975 article. Even before the car was released, everyone in the industry knew and agreed that it was not a replacement.
Given the seemingly overwhelming evidence that the 928 was not viewed as a 911 replacement (an unwitting "successor" at best if the 911 was forced out of production by legislation), how does that affect the story about the 911 roadmap timeline being extended onto the wall in a meeting? It seems to me that the only conclusion is that the then President of Porsche was upset that the staff was considering the eventual conclusion of the 911 lifecycle, and he did not want the 911 lifecycle to ever end. Unrelated to any other Porsche models that they were developing or selling.
I remember seeing some articles about that incident with a first hand account from someone that was there. Does anyone know where they can be found?
Guys - with due respect for your research, I don't see "overwhelming evidence" that the 928 was not viewed as the 911 replacement. To the contrary, based on Nate's correspondence with Porsche itself, it seems like the old standard line is indeed true? How do you square these contradictions?
PS - reading the whole thing - that clipped article says in the very next sentence about the 928 not intended to replace the 911, that the 928 will survive the 911 and that the 911, at least as is what known and configured at the time, did not have that much longer to go. Seems to me the evidence supports the popular theory, based on a lot of what I am seeing here
"Surviving" is far from being a replacement. Just as the definition of "successor" is not "replacement". Every article, every email exchange, everything...states that it was not a replacement. That, at best, they expected the 911 to no longer be viable for either market or legislative reasons, and were looking for a product to continue to sell into the perceived changing market or changing legal landscape. Not a replacement...a product that the company could sell.
So, if it is out right stated by the company, by internal training material describing the role and purpose of the 928, by 3rd party sources of the era and by company staff of the era that the 928 was never intended as a replacement. But you see one line saying that the 928 was expected to last longer than the 911, you translate the last statement into "the 928 was intended to replace the 911 as a sports car aimed at buyers who wanted a 911-esque sports car"?
You are cherry picking sentence fragments. See this from Porsche itself, per Nate's post:
In the presidency of Peter W. Schutz the 928 was not seen as a successor any more - instead Schutz needed the 928 as the top-end-product of his diversified full-product-line to appeal even high-class business clients. Schutz knew that the 911 was a cash-cow and the core-identity of the company, so he decided to reinvest in the development of the 911.
What does "not a successor anymore" mean? Obviously means that it was a successor prior thereto. I am hardly grabbing one line. I want to believe you guys, but if I took what you've presented so far to a jury, I'd lose.
So the crux of my follow-up question is why did they choose to try to succeed the 911 with a such a different type of car, a GT car, and not another sports car for which they already had a large customer base to draw from?
Best regards,
Nathan
The answer is Demographics. By 1977 the first of the baby boomers were entering their 30's and with lots of disposable income. The Greatest Generation was now running the country, wealthy and in their mid 50's and looking for comfort. Disco was all the rage and at the time style and luxury was paramount over performance (racing). The days of race on Sunday and sell on Monday were giving way to the Personal Luxury coupe. This was a trend that every automaker faced, Even the Camaro Z28 package was just basically a sway bar and a bunch of stickers by 1978 and offered with a 3 speed Auto. A shadow of it's IMSA glory from the late 60's.
Last edited by icsamerica; 04-08-2022 at 10:01 AM.
Linderpat, you are doing what you claim others are doing. Cherry picking one statement, from a contemporary researcher, and ignoring not only the context and definitions of the terms used, but also ignoring the multitude of statements from the era in question.
You have clearly picked your stand and will ignore all evidence to the contrary, as is your right. But, don't expect to change minds with that approach.
Instead, present your own verifiable evidence.
It might help you see the perspective of product developers if you better understood how product lifecycles function with multiple products within the same organization. You could talk to any "scrum master" for an eye opening look into the fast paced methodology used by the previous generation of software development groups.
There is no way anyone would look at a luxury gt car and consider it a replacement for a spartan sports car. Coincidental life cycles do not imply replacement intent. At best, it might replace the gross income, but not the actual product.
If you ignore 100% of the data and evidence and statements from that era, and only focus on that one statement that you've cherry picked, and take it out of context and a flexible definition of successor, then you have summarized your body of evidence. But, you haven't actually produced any evidence yet.
This drives me crazy... Every time I hear someone repeat the same old refrain like a parrot who can read the internet. All the while seemingly unaware of the history and what actually occurred on the ground at the time........... 2. All the early marketing materials, clearly suggest and stated it was a "Luxury Car" (photo 1)
..........
Another weird myth about 928 (that's often repeated in articles and videos) was that it was outrageously expensive. It wasn't. In 1993 the GTS cost 85K. About the same as BMW 850i. Mercedes 600 SL was 115K-120K.
I'm definitely with @linderpat on this one. I dislike using this kind of jargon, but your biases are getting in the way of fact. I don't care how many third party articles, videos, spectators say one story; if the authoritative source, Porsche's Historical Museum and Archives, says another. If we agree that Porsche itself would be the definitive, authoritative source per se Youtube, it's pretty clearly written:
"In 1977 the 928 was presented. Initially the 928 was purposed to be the successor of the 911 that was built since 1964.Right in the beginning of Fuhrmanns presidency he was faced with a global oil-crisis and exacerbating environmental policy – especially in the US. Fuhrmann favoured the front-engine concept, because environmental policy (e.g. EPA) targeted mostly front-engine concepts (e.g. crash-structure, noise and exhaust-pollution). Additionally he thought – as an engineer – the 911 was coming to an end. He thought that the engineers had to invest so much more time and energy to catch up with new generation sports cars that would cost half the price. In the presidency of Peter W. Schutz the 928 was not seen as a successor any more - instead Schutz needed the 928 as the top-end-product of his diversified full-product-line to appeal even high-class business clients. Schutz knew that the 911 was a cash-cow and the core-identity of the company, so he decided to reinvest in the development of the 911."
So, you take a contemporary comment, loosely interpret successor to mean replacement, and ignore the printed document from porsche itself from the 70's explaining the purpose of the 928? Who's ignoring facts in order to support a personal position? I'm just reading the black and white, not interpreting anything or taking it out of context.
I'll say it again. Present evidence. You haven't yet.
Please do, I would welcome verifiable evidence. Post it.
...
You have clearly picked your stand and will ignore all evidence to the contrary, as is your right. But, don't expect to change minds with that approach.
Instead, present your own verifiable evidence.
It might help you see the perspective of product developers if you better understood how product lifecycles function with multiple products within the same organization. You could talk to any "scrum master" for an eye opening look into the fast paced methodology used by the previous generation of software development groups.
If you ignore 100% of the data and evidence and statements from that era, and only focus on that one statement that you've cherry picked, and take it out of context and a flexible definition of successor, then you have summarized your body of evidence. But, you haven't actually produced any evidence yet.
Originally Posted by Bulvot
So, you take a contemporary comment, loosely interpret successor to mean replacement, and ignore the printed document from porsche itself from the 70's explaining the purpose of the 928? Who's ignoring facts in order to support a personal position? I'm just reading the black and white, not interpreting anything or taking it out of context.
I'll say it again. Present evidence. You haven't yet.
Please do, I would welcome verifiable evidence. Post it.
Whoa whoa there cowboy, we don't need to present any evidence - that's not how it works. The whole world thinks as we do, which is what YOU are trying to dispell. Thus, the burden of proof is on you to present evidence to change our minds, NOT the other way around.
BTW - I have decades of experience in product dev, thank you. I know how it works. FYI
04-08-2022, 03:31 AM
