Mercedes Rep takes hit. Just like Porsche's will.
02-07-2002, 04:02 PM
#16
R.I.P.
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New London, NH & Naples
Posts: 3,770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to belabor this thread, but the current issue of Consumer Reports tests "luxury cars" (their terminology). Included in the tests was the Lexux LS300, which in their opinion was s tarted up Camry that didn't perform as well as the Camry....and the profit was in the different cosmetics, which, by the way, CR wasn't even impressed with. Make interesting reading. <img src="graemlins/wave.gif" border="0" alt="[byebye]" />
02-07-2002, 08:04 PM
#18
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Los Angeles/Honolulu
Posts: 1,298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anir, thanks for the heads up on the M3. I drove the 6 spd convertible today and it really was impressive. Coming from a V8 Porsche it feels strange to wind an engine that far around for the HP and torque but not as bad as a Honda S2000.
They are no longer marking the cars up but selling them at sticker so now it comes down to availability. Since I've never owned a convertible I'm not sure I want one now but it's what they have available.
K
They are no longer marking the cars up but selling them at sticker so now it comes down to availability. Since I've never owned a convertible I'm not sure I want one now but it's what they have available.
K
02-07-2002, 09:16 PM
#19
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
[quote]Originally posted by Kaz:
<strong>Anir, thanks for the heads up on the M3. I drove the 6 spd convertible today and it really was impressive...hey are no longer marking the cars up but selling them at sticker so now it comes down to availability. Since I've never owned a convertible I'm not sure I want one now but it's what they have available.
K</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kaz,
Supply has caught up with demand on the new M3s, and you should be able to get one at MSRP, or maybe a bit lower if crafty.
If I had to choose just one car for all purpose (sporty road driving, hauling the family, occasional track days, reliability, interesting engineering, good residuals), it would have to be an E46 M3. Not to say that I don't love my 993TT, but the M3 is a hell of a lot of car for the money.
<img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[burnout]" />
<strong>Anir, thanks for the heads up on the M3. I drove the 6 spd convertible today and it really was impressive...hey are no longer marking the cars up but selling them at sticker so now it comes down to availability. Since I've never owned a convertible I'm not sure I want one now but it's what they have available.
K</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kaz,
Supply has caught up with demand on the new M3s, and you should be able to get one at MSRP, or maybe a bit lower if crafty.
If I had to choose just one car for all purpose (sporty road driving, hauling the family, occasional track days, reliability, interesting engineering, good residuals), it would have to be an E46 M3. Not to say that I don't love my 993TT, but the M3 is a hell of a lot of car for the money.
<img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[burnout]" />
02-08-2002, 12:14 AM
#20
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Los Angeles/Honolulu
Posts: 1,298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southbay offered sticker on the convertible, the lease guy I've got working on it found a coupe a few hours north and they want 3 grand over sticker which puts that particular car (6spd) at the price of the convertible or a few hundred under. I wasn't too hot on the convertible but I'll buy the convertible before paying the same money for a coupe. We'll see how crafty I can get here in So Cal.
K <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />
K <img src="graemlins/yltype.gif" border="0" alt="[typing]" />
02-14-2002, 10:37 AM
#23
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Originally posted by roschpe:
[QB]
The fact that the interior on the 996 was, to put it bluntly, garbage, signals to me that Porsche is going the same direction. The "newbies", may be amazed, but those people who have any experiences with old 911's, 964's and 993's are disappointed.
The fact is that Porsche interiors have always been crap. They just go crappier with the 996! Unless you were willing to spend $5000+ for a proper leather interior from the Exclusive department Porsche never cared about what its customers thought about the interior of their cars.
At Porsche it's always been about the engineering not the interior. And that's what's really disappointing about Porsche. Take the 3.4 liter motor in the 1999-2001 996. Very poor engine. Now they're going to try to salvage it by dumping it into the Boxster S.
Ironically the Turbo Cayenne may actually be an engineering step up!
[QB]
The fact that the interior on the 996 was, to put it bluntly, garbage, signals to me that Porsche is going the same direction. The "newbies", may be amazed, but those people who have any experiences with old 911's, 964's and 993's are disappointed.
The fact is that Porsche interiors have always been crap. They just go crappier with the 996! Unless you were willing to spend $5000+ for a proper leather interior from the Exclusive department Porsche never cared about what its customers thought about the interior of their cars.
At Porsche it's always been about the engineering not the interior. And that's what's really disappointing about Porsche. Take the 3.4 liter motor in the 1999-2001 996. Very poor engine. Now they're going to try to salvage it by dumping it into the Boxster S.
Ironically the Turbo Cayenne may actually be an engineering step up!
02-14-2002, 05:20 PM
#24
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark S.
I know what you mean, but the motor itself is not junk. As I have mentioned before in posts months ago, the 3.4L motor is strong.
The strength of any motor is in part measured by how well it is sealed. The block on the 3.4L motor is well sealed up to 1200hp, as per Porsche Motorsports. Now that is not to say that you can squeeze 1200hp out of it.
But what it does say is that with higher quality components, like stronger rods, pistons, cams, etc, more hp can be gaind fom that motor.
FVD out of Germany is boring the 3.4L motor to 3.6L, 3.8L, 3.9L and 4.0L, and getting over 400hp out of it.
So in response, Porsche does not have to junk the motor, they just need to put higher quality components in the motor.
I know what you mean, but the motor itself is not junk. As I have mentioned before in posts months ago, the 3.4L motor is strong.
The strength of any motor is in part measured by how well it is sealed. The block on the 3.4L motor is well sealed up to 1200hp, as per Porsche Motorsports. Now that is not to say that you can squeeze 1200hp out of it.
But what it does say is that with higher quality components, like stronger rods, pistons, cams, etc, more hp can be gaind fom that motor.
FVD out of Germany is boring the 3.4L motor to 3.6L, 3.8L, 3.9L and 4.0L, and getting over 400hp out of it.
So in response, Porsche does not have to junk the motor, they just need to put higher quality components in the motor.
02-14-2002, 08:38 PM
#25
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: ^^ Werk 1 pictured Yr '00 .. Vail, Colorado
Posts: 2,522
Received 72 Likes
on
59 Posts
Regarding the 996 motor, Doesn't the 996tt use the engine block of old instead of the newer 996's.
During the 996 development I recall engineering speciffic's and foundry issues limiting the 3.4 engines output. Also, Mfr. tolerances of this engine range are along the Toyota scheme of things. Is the 996 3.4 junk? I dunno, the MY2000's we used while at the Porsche Driving Experience were a blast.
Paradigm shifts are fluid even for the allmighty
at PAG.
During the 996 development I recall engineering speciffic's and foundry issues limiting the 3.4 engines output. Also, Mfr. tolerances of this engine range are along the Toyota scheme of things. Is the 996 3.4 junk? I dunno, the MY2000's we used while at the Porsche Driving Experience were a blast.
Paradigm shifts are fluid even for the allmighty
at PAG.
02-15-2002, 11:46 AM
#26
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the 996TT is built of the same old tried and true 3.6 block. I don't know about 1200HP out of the 3.4 block, but you have to ask yourself why did Porsche abandon the 3.4 block and go back to the old 3.6 block on which to build their future platform.
I do know that they tested a turbo charged 3.4 and it couldn't handle it - zero reliability.
I can then only surmise that they do not think much of it at all. I mean, come on, the 3.4 in less than one year has gone from the engine of choice in the 911 to the engine in the Boxster S and in a few years it will be the engine in the base model Boxster.
Hmmm? I say its a salvage operation! It's certianly not a motor on which to build any future platform.
I do know that they tested a turbo charged 3.4 and it couldn't handle it - zero reliability.
I can then only surmise that they do not think much of it at all. I mean, come on, the 3.4 in less than one year has gone from the engine of choice in the 911 to the engine in the Boxster S and in a few years it will be the engine in the base model Boxster.
Hmmm? I say its a salvage operation! It's certianly not a motor on which to build any future platform.
02-17-2002, 03:59 AM
#28
Instructor
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what a tread, started off with SUV bashing and ended with engine blocks on 996tt? hmmmm
Notes on Mercs & BMWs that I have noticed. In the UK, MB SL from 1980 to 1988 is highly sort after for build, reliability, looks etc.
Funny that, when the cars first made their debut, there were many who compared it to the SLs from the 1960s and slated the 80s models as ugly, unreliable, poor build, lack of performance (on even SL500) as it was too heavy. How times change.
Same as the M3s of the 80s & 90s. They were slated for pretty much the same things.
Many reckon the 2.7RS as being the best Porsche ever made because it was light or spartan (depending on who comments), fast and handled very well. Build quality was never mentioned.
Today we are all bashing SUVs, 996TTs & 996s. Manufacturers have option lists for those who want a bit more than the 'std' interior or performance.
I had rather support Porsche on their SUV mission as I believe they do need to stay profitable as an independent manufacturer. Once they do get back into Motorsport like Le Mans, Paris to Dakar rally and maybe F1 we all would benefit from the results as they would have the funds to sustain longer-term developments. Only makes sense.
Notes on Mercs & BMWs that I have noticed. In the UK, MB SL from 1980 to 1988 is highly sort after for build, reliability, looks etc.
Funny that, when the cars first made their debut, there were many who compared it to the SLs from the 1960s and slated the 80s models as ugly, unreliable, poor build, lack of performance (on even SL500) as it was too heavy. How times change.
Same as the M3s of the 80s & 90s. They were slated for pretty much the same things.
Many reckon the 2.7RS as being the best Porsche ever made because it was light or spartan (depending on who comments), fast and handled very well. Build quality was never mentioned.
Today we are all bashing SUVs, 996TTs & 996s. Manufacturers have option lists for those who want a bit more than the 'std' interior or performance.
I had rather support Porsche on their SUV mission as I believe they do need to stay profitable as an independent manufacturer. Once they do get back into Motorsport like Le Mans, Paris to Dakar rally and maybe F1 we all would benefit from the results as they would have the funds to sustain longer-term developments. Only makes sense.
02-21-2002, 06:36 PM
#30
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all comes down to this:
There are only two ways for a manufacturer to increase profits.
1. Increase sales
2. Cut costs
0f course, there are many factors that figure into this. Even Porsche employees deserve raises like you and I care to enjoy on a yearly basis. Raw materials, marketing, engineering, etc., etc. Not to mention the secondary market is very influential when dealing with Porsche.
Now I agree that it is somewhat of a drag that the mystique of the Porsche brand reputation would be diluted by ownership by those who some might refer to as "unworthy" but that is the price we pay for Porsche's solvency. And that is just the time-honored tradition of slamming the door on everyone else after we've had ours. I see that quite a bit in the real estate industry.
Where I don't agree, however, is that cost cutting must always include degradation of quality. I think quality is often the low-hanging fruit targeted by management who don't think too well outside the box. Witness the Japanese industry advances in the late 1970s and 1980s. Japan used to mean crap. Yes, they have had their problems of late...but you can't argue against what they pulled off during that aforementioned period of time. I work for Intel and the computer industry is another example I like to throw out for an interesting comparison. While the PC business is less mature than the auto industry, it is an industry characterized by increasing quality every year, along with commensurate falling costs. Can you imagine what we would be driving if the auto industry attained that level of innovation? We'd be driving 400HP/60MPG vehicles offered at 10K per, with MTBF figures of 300,000 miles, and no servicing required for the lifetime of the vehicle.
There are only two ways for a manufacturer to increase profits.
1. Increase sales
2. Cut costs
0f course, there are many factors that figure into this. Even Porsche employees deserve raises like you and I care to enjoy on a yearly basis. Raw materials, marketing, engineering, etc., etc. Not to mention the secondary market is very influential when dealing with Porsche.
Now I agree that it is somewhat of a drag that the mystique of the Porsche brand reputation would be diluted by ownership by those who some might refer to as "unworthy" but that is the price we pay for Porsche's solvency. And that is just the time-honored tradition of slamming the door on everyone else after we've had ours. I see that quite a bit in the real estate industry.
Where I don't agree, however, is that cost cutting must always include degradation of quality. I think quality is often the low-hanging fruit targeted by management who don't think too well outside the box. Witness the Japanese industry advances in the late 1970s and 1980s. Japan used to mean crap. Yes, they have had their problems of late...but you can't argue against what they pulled off during that aforementioned period of time. I work for Intel and the computer industry is another example I like to throw out for an interesting comparison. While the PC business is less mature than the auto industry, it is an industry characterized by increasing quality every year, along with commensurate falling costs. Can you imagine what we would be driving if the auto industry attained that level of innovation? We'd be driving 400HP/60MPG vehicles offered at 10K per, with MTBF figures of 300,000 miles, and no servicing required for the lifetime of the vehicle.