Cayenne S vs. X5 4.4
07-12-2003, 05:08 PM
#61
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I see where you are going but I guess the difference is that I am not considering either for their looks and neither is any good off-road compared to a Jeep with lockers.
Both the X5 and the Cayenne will get stuck in 10 feet in the slippery stuff without different tires....and then with those tires they won't handle for crap.
Comparing the two is what 100,000 people will do over the next year or so...they compete for the same purchase money.
I see no reason (of substance) to rule out the X5 based on my needs. Can you provide any good reasons to buy the Cayenne without expressing you obvious dislike for the X5?
Both the X5 and the Cayenne will get stuck in 10 feet in the slippery stuff without different tires....and then with those tires they won't handle for crap.
Comparing the two is what 100,000 people will do over the next year or so...they compete for the same purchase money.
I see no reason (of substance) to rule out the X5 based on my needs. Can you provide any good reasons to buy the Cayenne without expressing you obvious dislike for the X5?
07-12-2003, 06:18 PM
#62
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 1,572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by DC from Cape Cod:
I see no reason (of substance) to rule out the X5 based on my needs. Can you provide any good reasons to buy the Cayenne without expressing you obvious dislike for the X5?[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Your needs are "very" unique. I agree most people will compare C/Treg to the X5 in dollar terms. Perhaps you will agree most people who own SUV's shouldn't. America suffers from underutilized auto capability. In my experience most will not go off road, but chain requirements will make 4X4's attractive. You appear to have a lot of hardware. Most people don't have the luxury of space for that.
If you long distances (250 miles) to drive in snow, tow (6000lb)in high altitude and park in cities - help me out; what car would you recommend.
I see no reason (of substance) to rule out the X5 based on my needs. Can you provide any good reasons to buy the Cayenne without expressing you obvious dislike for the X5?[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Your needs are "very" unique. I agree most people will compare C/Treg to the X5 in dollar terms. Perhaps you will agree most people who own SUV's shouldn't. America suffers from underutilized auto capability. In my experience most will not go off road, but chain requirements will make 4X4's attractive. You appear to have a lot of hardware. Most people don't have the luxury of space for that.
If you long distances (250 miles) to drive in snow, tow (6000lb)in high altitude and park in cities - help me out; what car would you recommend.
07-12-2003, 06:56 PM
#63
Moderator !x4
DC You misunderstand, I actually like the X5, I just do not have a use for it. My driving mix demands something else, forget likes and dislikes here.
I concluded that the same reason I decided to get the ML430 when I did is still valid, the best available for the job (btw that was a great car, I enjoyed every minute of it), now the best is the Cayenne.
I am not likely to go climbing mountains with it but I do go places where the repair costs to an X5 would prevent me using it.
I actally believe that the competition for the X5 2003 or 2004 is the FX45 not the Cayanne.
I go with Torags here.
I concluded that the same reason I decided to get the ML430 when I did is still valid, the best available for the job (btw that was a great car, I enjoyed every minute of it), now the best is the Cayenne.
I am not likely to go climbing mountains with it but I do go places where the repair costs to an X5 would prevent me using it.
I actally believe that the competition for the X5 2003 or 2004 is the FX45 not the Cayanne.
I go with Torags here.
07-12-2003, 10:02 PM
#64
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
My apologies - I meant no offense. I was only trying to describe my admittedly unique situation.
To your situation...high altitude would suggest a Turbo but that would seriously limit your options. The other alternative is a large displacement - high torque engine but those usually only appear in large SUV's which can be difficult to park.
I think I woold look at a Tahoe (or similar model). Lots of power, relatively lower theft rate and relatively inexpansive to repair if you are going to get dinged a lot in the city. Besides, you can get 60 month 0% financing and get a 2003 model at or under invoice right now.
The FX45 isn't possible (for me) as it doesn't qualify for the Sched. 179 deduction. IMO, the Cayenne (with factory performance tires) is no good for anything beyond snowy roads so I consider it direct competition for the X5...so much so that I am having trouble finding meaningful differences between the two of them.
The fact that the Porsche dealer is 90 minutes away v.s. 5 for the BMW dealer is fast becoming one of the more important factors (and it should not be). I am going for a test drive this week and hopefully giving the Turbo a shot...that might simply matters. For the heck of it, I was also going to try the H2, the Escalade, the Denali and the navigator...it might make for a fun day to take off from work.
To your situation...high altitude would suggest a Turbo but that would seriously limit your options. The other alternative is a large displacement - high torque engine but those usually only appear in large SUV's which can be difficult to park.
I think I woold look at a Tahoe (or similar model). Lots of power, relatively lower theft rate and relatively inexpansive to repair if you are going to get dinged a lot in the city. Besides, you can get 60 month 0% financing and get a 2003 model at or under invoice right now.
The FX45 isn't possible (for me) as it doesn't qualify for the Sched. 179 deduction. IMO, the Cayenne (with factory performance tires) is no good for anything beyond snowy roads so I consider it direct competition for the X5...so much so that I am having trouble finding meaningful differences between the two of them.
The fact that the Porsche dealer is 90 minutes away v.s. 5 for the BMW dealer is fast becoming one of the more important factors (and it should not be). I am going for a test drive this week and hopefully giving the Turbo a shot...that might simply matters. For the heck of it, I was also going to try the H2, the Escalade, the Denali and the navigator...it might make for a fun day to take off from work.
07-12-2003, 10:11 PM
#65
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Isle of Palms, SC
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Given that I don't need to carry stuff (we have another larger SUV) or tow stuff (see previous) or go off-road (I have a built Jeep) and I am only doing this for the write-off....does this effect your thoughts?"
If you don't have to carry cargo, tow, or go off-road, why would you even consider the X5 (let alone the Cayenne)? In my view, the X5 is a poor compromise vehicle. Like the FX45, it's a sport wagon trying to pass itself off as an SUV and, in the end, fails on both counts.
Have you considered an the E55, RS6, or M5? How about the S6 or 540 sport wagon? There are a lot of sedans and a few wagons out there that are far superior to the X5 and Cayenne in terms of on-road performance while preserving some level of practicality. Most wagons (even my old S4 Avant) have more interior cargo space than the X5.
Given your latest comments, I'd definitely recommend going back to the drawing board.
If you don't have to carry cargo, tow, or go off-road, why would you even consider the X5 (let alone the Cayenne)? In my view, the X5 is a poor compromise vehicle. Like the FX45, it's a sport wagon trying to pass itself off as an SUV and, in the end, fails on both counts.
Have you considered an the E55, RS6, or M5? How about the S6 or 540 sport wagon? There are a lot of sedans and a few wagons out there that are far superior to the X5 and Cayenne in terms of on-road performance while preserving some level of practicality. Most wagons (even my old S4 Avant) have more interior cargo space than the X5.
Given your latest comments, I'd definitely recommend going back to the drawing board.
07-12-2003, 10:29 PM
#66
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Jim,
No can do - the vehicle MUST qualify for Sched. 179 deduction (GVWR over 6000 pounds).
I already have a 2002 E46 M3, 1998 911 C2S, 2003 Honda Pilot and a 1986 CJ-7 so I am trying to find something that fits in.
No can do - the vehicle MUST qualify for Sched. 179 deduction (GVWR over 6000 pounds).
I already have a 2002 E46 M3, 1998 911 C2S, 2003 Honda Pilot and a 1986 CJ-7 so I am trying to find something that fits in.
07-12-2003, 11:01 PM
#67
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Isle of Palms, SC
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, you have four vehicles, and you're looking to acquire a fifth for the tax deduction. But, to get the tax deduction vehicle #5 must have a GVWR > 6,000 pounds. It's scenarios like this that make me really appreciate how royally screwed up our tax code is.
It seems to me that discussing the relative merits of two vehicles, niether of which you actually need, seems rather pointless.
It seems to me that discussing the relative merits of two vehicles, niether of which you actually need, seems rather pointless.
07-13-2003, 12:39 AM
#69
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 1,572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by JBH:
<strong>Thanks Jim - that is the most insightful comment I have read in the last two pages.
Now...maybe this thread will just end with that</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Not likely......... I too need it for the write off. The code says 6000lb my acct includes my tools. And yes Jim, our tax code is screwed up. GW wanted to stoke the economy. I hope the Germans appreciate his efforts.
<strong>Thanks Jim - that is the most insightful comment I have read in the last two pages.
Now...maybe this thread will just end with that</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Not likely......... I too need it for the write off. The code says 6000lb my acct includes my tools. And yes Jim, our tax code is screwed up. GW wanted to stoke the economy. I hope the Germans appreciate his efforts.
07-13-2003, 01:34 AM
#70
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I earned it, I pay the legal amount of taxes on it and I will decide how I spend it. You may not agree but I promise not to tell you how to spend yours if you don't tell me how to spend what I earned...deal?
If I want judgement, I'll invite my mother-in-law to stay with us for the weekend.....but I'd much rather talk cars.
May we put the rest of this behind us and move forward?
If I want judgement, I'll invite my mother-in-law to stay with us for the weekend.....but I'd much rather talk cars.
May we put the rest of this behind us and move forward?
07-13-2003, 02:02 AM
#71
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Isle of Palms, SC
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC, please do not take offense. It wasn't you I was passing judgment on, just the ham-handed attempt at economic stimulus by our current administration. I wonder if they commissioned someone at Haliburton to do a study to determine how much this tax incentive would increase annual fuel consumption. I wonder if anyone's bonus is tied to said increase.
Maybe I'm just getting cynical. Too late.
Maybe I'm just getting cynical. Too late.
07-13-2003, 02:13 AM
#72
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Understood...none taken.
I too wonder at the need for this.....but also realize that given the 43% savings I would be crazy NOT to buy.
For what is it worth...the Jeep sees about 750 miles per year...it was a frame-off restoration project. The 911 sees about 2,500 miles per year - it is a garage queen fair weather toy. The M3 is my daily driver and that only get about 3,500 miles per year. I don't use much gas.
The wife drives the heck out of the Pilot and we bought that because it got good mileage for the type of vehicle it is. Do you know how hard it is to find an SUV big enough to put all the kids/friends/stuff in and still find one that gets decent mileage?
This SUV/SAV purchase will only see limited use for business...perhaps 2,500 miles per year. I just want something I get use in the snow and something that will handle and perform well.
I too wonder at the need for this.....but also realize that given the 43% savings I would be crazy NOT to buy.
For what is it worth...the Jeep sees about 750 miles per year...it was a frame-off restoration project. The 911 sees about 2,500 miles per year - it is a garage queen fair weather toy. The M3 is my daily driver and that only get about 3,500 miles per year. I don't use much gas.
The wife drives the heck out of the Pilot and we bought that because it got good mileage for the type of vehicle it is. Do you know how hard it is to find an SUV big enough to put all the kids/friends/stuff in and still find one that gets decent mileage?
This SUV/SAV purchase will only see limited use for business...perhaps 2,500 miles per year. I just want something I get use in the snow and something that will handle and perform well.
07-13-2003, 03:08 AM
#73
Racer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...to put X5 lovers in this discussion to rest watch two German tests from the very respective and technical professional auto magazine for:
1. Cayenne S comparo with X546 and RangeRover
2. Cayenne S comparo with X546
(and many more one may select...)
<a href="http://motorvision.sport1.de/coremedia/generator/www.motorvision.de/Rubriken/Videos/Motorvision/Videos/Vergleichstest/Paare/mv43_203er_20Vergleich.html" target="_blank">http://motorvision.sport1.de/coremedia/generator/www.motorvision.de/Rubriken/Videos/Motorvision/Videos/Vergleichstest/Paare/mv43_203er_20Vergleich.html</a>
If you want to watch and listen:
1. Just choose desired connection (DSL or ISDN) and player. Before you choose make sure that "Test: Vergleichstest", "Marke: Paare" and "Typ: SUVs von BMW, Rover und Porsche" are all marked red.
2. And then the second test BMW X5 and Cayenne S... Before you choose make sure that "Test: Vergleichstest", "Marke: Paare" and "Typ: Porsche Cayenne vs. x5" are all marked red.
Sorry, in German only. But you can see everything.
... some translations for first movie...
Overall verdict: SUV's in general and these ones in particular are no winner cars as they just consume too much fuel (ecologically unfriendly), they are too big (for crowded European cities) and too heavy. Winner of the comparison: Cayenne S, BMW second, Rover third.
Porsche C S:
positive: sports car-like handling onroad and excellent offroad capabilities, brakes, price tag
negative: interior quality, fuel consumption
BMW X546:
positive: good handling onroad, comfort, power, brakes
negative: offroad capabilities, price tag, fuel consumption
Range Rover tuned by Hartge:
positive: offroad capabilities, interior, comfort
negative: onroad handling (too soft), price tag, fuel consumption, brakes
Thanks very much to a German member of this board for that ngfan.
...Watching real life driving quality of the car not just dumb 0-60 comparo, but also 0-120, 60-80, 80-120 and handling/braking/slalom/lane change driving dynamics one clearly sees Cayenne S vs X advantages/disadvantages. Cayenne S wins hands down...But I wish Cayenne S to be far far far superior to X5. It's not, it's just far superior
Cayenne S has only one minus, it weights about 300 kg more than X (about 1000 poungs). Still it's equiped with potent engine and available sport mode stiff air suspension to minimize body roll... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
If one is not blind and deaf, one may put X5 to rest...for that comparison.
...and (for some X5 lovers on this topic) please,... do not even attempt to comparo X546 vs Cayenne Turbo. It's laughable... Or please go back to studies
German auto magazine tests are technical and on a much higher professional level that anything published in the US auto press, which is in majority childish or manufacturer dollar dependent. So one can not get balanced professional view/opinion from these magazines
Only may rely on your real professional test drive experience. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
...and some X5 lovers actually base their opinion on that US auto press. "Theorytisioners" better become "practitioners".
For them I'd suggest Cayenne S test drive. After that intelligent individual will clearly see Cayenne S advantages in comparison to X5any. X5 lover may complain about 2% of some minor minuses in Cayenne S but forget about 98% of major plusses <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
...one more link for ML55, X546 and Cayenne S Autobild german good auto magazine comparo with good statistics:
<a href="http://216.239.39.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.autobild.de/suche/artikel.php%3Fartikel_id%3D3882%26artikel_seite%3D0%26A_SESS%3D8386c8b33 bc22490ac0f3387542bcc1c" target="_blank">http://216.239.39.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.autobild.de/suche/artikel.php%3Fartikel_id%3D3882%26artikel_seite%3D0%26A_SESS%3D8386c8b33 bc22490ac0f3387542bcc1c</a>
... sorry if google translator doesn't translate smoofly from german...
Good luck with your Cayennes.
See if it's helpful...
OZRacing
1. Cayenne S comparo with X546 and RangeRover
2. Cayenne S comparo with X546
(and many more one may select...)
<a href="http://motorvision.sport1.de/coremedia/generator/www.motorvision.de/Rubriken/Videos/Motorvision/Videos/Vergleichstest/Paare/mv43_203er_20Vergleich.html" target="_blank">http://motorvision.sport1.de/coremedia/generator/www.motorvision.de/Rubriken/Videos/Motorvision/Videos/Vergleichstest/Paare/mv43_203er_20Vergleich.html</a>
If you want to watch and listen:
1. Just choose desired connection (DSL or ISDN) and player. Before you choose make sure that "Test: Vergleichstest", "Marke: Paare" and "Typ: SUVs von BMW, Rover und Porsche" are all marked red.
2. And then the second test BMW X5 and Cayenne S... Before you choose make sure that "Test: Vergleichstest", "Marke: Paare" and "Typ: Porsche Cayenne vs. x5" are all marked red.
Sorry, in German only. But you can see everything.
... some translations for first movie...
Overall verdict: SUV's in general and these ones in particular are no winner cars as they just consume too much fuel (ecologically unfriendly), they are too big (for crowded European cities) and too heavy. Winner of the comparison: Cayenne S, BMW second, Rover third.
Porsche C S:
positive: sports car-like handling onroad and excellent offroad capabilities, brakes, price tag
negative: interior quality, fuel consumption
BMW X546:
positive: good handling onroad, comfort, power, brakes
negative: offroad capabilities, price tag, fuel consumption
Range Rover tuned by Hartge:
positive: offroad capabilities, interior, comfort
negative: onroad handling (too soft), price tag, fuel consumption, brakes
Thanks very much to a German member of this board for that ngfan.
...Watching real life driving quality of the car not just dumb 0-60 comparo, but also 0-120, 60-80, 80-120 and handling/braking/slalom/lane change driving dynamics one clearly sees Cayenne S vs X advantages/disadvantages. Cayenne S wins hands down...But I wish Cayenne S to be far far far superior to X5. It's not, it's just far superior
Cayenne S has only one minus, it weights about 300 kg more than X (about 1000 poungs). Still it's equiped with potent engine and available sport mode stiff air suspension to minimize body roll... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> If one is not blind and deaf, one may put X5 to rest...for that comparison.
...and (for some X5 lovers on this topic) please,... do not even attempt to comparo X546 vs Cayenne Turbo. It's laughable...
Or please go back to studies German auto magazine tests are technical and on a much higher professional level that anything published in the US auto press, which is in majority childish or manufacturer dollar dependent. So one can not get balanced professional view/opinion from these magazines
Only may rely on your real professional test drive experience. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
...and some X5 lovers actually base their opinion on that US auto press. "Theorytisioners" better become "practitioners".
For them I'd suggest Cayenne S test drive. After that intelligent individual will clearly see Cayenne S advantages in comparison to X5any. X5 lover may complain about 2% of some minor minuses in Cayenne S but forget about 98% of major plusses <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
...one more link for ML55, X546 and Cayenne S Autobild german good auto magazine comparo with good statistics:
<a href="http://216.239.39.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.autobild.de/suche/artikel.php%3Fartikel_id%3D3882%26artikel_seite%3D0%26A_SESS%3D8386c8b33 bc22490ac0f3387542bcc1c" target="_blank">http://216.239.39.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.autobild.de/suche/artikel.php%3Fartikel_id%3D3882%26artikel_seite%3D0%26A_SESS%3D8386c8b33 bc22490ac0f3387542bcc1c</a>
... sorry if google translator doesn't translate smoofly from german...
Good luck with your Cayennes.
See if it's helpful...
OZRacing
07-13-2003, 09:52 AM
#75
Moderator !x4
OZR
Thanks for a great ! input. I think each of us who have laid down our $ have actually arrived at similar conclusions in our own way.
Except for section 179 which my guess does not exist over there.
Thanks for a great ! input. I think each of us who have laid down our $ have actually arrived at similar conclusions in our own way.
Except for section 179 which my guess does not exist over there.