Silverbullet951

If you think about it, This Ken guy( who sounds like a REAL *****) keeps posting negative comments about porsches and the new Cayenne, maybe becuase you can't afford one? Maybe. He can't afford a new gt2 or 996 TT or a new C4S or any other expensive Porsche so he get's a boxster. He keeps posting negative comments on the Cayenne, yet you convinced no one. You have not changed the mind of one person. You are entitled to your own opinion of course, but why do you keep posting the same thing over and over again? You want to convince people that the FX is better, because you have one, and you can't afford a Cayenne which you know is better. Notice how he only talks about the Cayenne S? You have accomplished only one thing KEN, you have pushed people away from this board with your stupid negative comments. If you don't be careful, you'll just become the new AMAF, and that's not good. A person who test drove the Cayenne, and had nothing but good to say about it. What's wrong with that? Your better off not posting anymore, or you'll get lot's of enemies (if you don't already have any).

P-seller

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by John H. in DC Area:
<strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Maybe not mystique, but there needs to be some enduring aspirational allure for the Cayenne to succeed selling 15-20,000 every year. The 911 seems to cultivate this evergreen, regenerating pool of aspirational buyers. Can the Cayenne do that? Porsche has made a good start with the Cayenne's performance characteristics, but is that really going to be enough to keep the buyers coming back year after year? Only time will tell.

If true, the hint that Porsche may be tweaking the looks of the Cayenne for release in 2004, referenced in the Fortune mag interview of Wiedeking, would be a huge admission that the current looks are not as alluring as they could be.</strong>[/QUOTE]

John, I think youre exactly right. Will the Cayenne be drawing buyers that aspire to one like a 911? Who knows? But whatever you think of the styling, I think Porsche needs to be given their due for the dynamics. Maybe the car will be restyled faster than the normal products, It wont make the first ones obsolete or anything.

Guys, dont tell anyone I said this, but there is more to Porsche cars than beauty. Take the 996 cab, that car is far from beautiful IMO. From some angles it looks a little peculiar even, with the hard top on, it even looks ugly from some angles. Do you think that the looks have negatively impacted the cars sales?

I think what Porsche was trying for was a look that would age well, and share the family resemblence to the rest of the products. Like most of us, the C does look better from some angles than others, but I dont really see any major styling faux paus. Is there a beuatiful SUV? Does your heart skip a beat when you see a LX 470 lumber by? Or a dodge durango? or LR discovery?

Remember when the 996 was launched? The faithful panned the styling. 5 model years have passsed, now the styling is OK, even praised by most. Is it possible that the Cayennes styling will grow on some?

Hopefully cayennes styling updates will be on a faster schedule than what we are used to. Every four years or so, people can come in, the car will be noticeably different, and they will buy again.

Right now, we have customers in 99 911's who dont see enough difference in the 2003 stuff to trade out of their 99's. Even though the resale values have taken a drop, these guys dont care because they enjoy driving their cars, and consider a long model cycle good for them, becuase the cars look so similiar, the average joe wont know it's a 99 instead of an 02 or 03.

A long product cycle actually hurts sales some IMO.

Peace
PS

Bob S. 1984 Silver

Here's a thought, not a nastygram about the Cayenne. Anyone can tell a 911 from blocks away because of its unique shape. How will one differentiate between SUVs at that distance?

Exclusivity is the reason that the Porsche side view has not substantially changed over the decades. "On a clear day...."

Anir

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by P-seller:
<strong>Like most of us, the C does look better from some angles than others, but I dont really see any major styling faux paus. Is there a beuatiful SUV? Does your heart skip a beat when you see a LX 470 lumber by? Or a dodge durango? or LR discovery?...A long product cycle actually hurts sales some IMO.

Peace
PS</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">PS,

It's not just a question of whether a certain SUV is as beautiful as a sports car (hard to accomplish), but whether its design is cohesive. Of course, I'm biased, but I find the Range Rover to be a beautiful truck, particularly the '03 model, and I feel the same way about Dodge truck products. They have strong, masculine lines that support the traditional truck look.

The Cayenne's design suffers from several peculiarities, and yes, I've read the designer's explanations for why it's styled this way. Nonetheless, it leads to a non-cohesive design. Examples include the gaping air intakes, the wedge-like sports car type of front end, the poor flow of the c-pillars into the rear haunches. If it looked OK, it wouldn't be slated for a re-do one year after its launch.

Of course, in your line of work (and for Porsche as a company), sales figures are key. You want to sell as much product as absolutely possible. However, care should be taken to do this responsibly, with an eye on the future because the most valuable commodity that Porsche possesses is its brand value, name recognition, reputation, or whatever you want to call it. That took many years and a lot of hard work to create.

A long product cycle is precisely why the 911 is a legend. The style barely changed in over 30 years. Folks who own a '65 or '78 or '89 Porsche can be just as proud of their cars as someone with a '97 993. There's a clear ancestry, and no compelling need to have to toss away your wonderful car simply to get the updated model, because the cars don't look outdated and were built to last.

It may not be in your best interest as a salesperson, nor in Porsche's best interst as a company seeking to maximize short term profits, but it's certainly wonderful for enthusiasts and helped create the passionate feelings that so many of us have for Porsche. That has been good for Porsche in the long run. Don't be too eager to throw that away.

ked

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Anir:
it leads to a non-cohesive design. Examples include the gaping air intakes, the wedge-like sports car type of front end, the poor flow of the c-pillars into the rear haunches.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Anir, since you've been so good to address SUV elements-of-style, these points may be a good basis to deconstruct the C's controversial design. Please keep in mind, I have yet to see one in the flesh...

- the gaping air intakes certainly evoke the 911, & provide the required opening that supports cooling of a front engined vehicle that can tow 7K lbs. under the worst conditions (hot, dry, high altitude climbing). We are all familiar w/ high performance and commercial duty vehicles that go into thermal overload after about 10-20 minutes severe use. This cannot be allowed to happen to a Porsche.

- I LIKE a wedge, sports car like front end - even on a SUV - what can I say? When you have a SUV that will do 165, aerodynamic balance is not to be overlooked, & if the front end solves that, I certainly don't find it objectionable.

- The C pillars are interesting. It reminds me of the soft shoulder look of the 356 - 911. I don't mind it, I might even like it. The C does not look like other SUVs despite all the teasing about the Sante Fe. I have no preconceived notions of what is "the right SUV look", so I think I will enjoy walking up to one for the first time ("without baggage"). That is how & when I will know if it is cohesive within the Porsche context. Who knows - it might even stand the test of time.

Anir

Kevin,

With all sincerity, I am glad that you find the Cayenne's design attractive. I have no desire to see Porsche fail in this endeavor. With respect to grafting a sports car front end onto a truck/SUV, maybe I am in the minority because Maserati seems to be considering doing the same with the upcoming Kubang.

However, it would appear that the Cayenne has received a lot of negative press regarding its asthetics. That either means it's ugly to most folks, or that it is so forward-thinking that we just haven't gotten used to it.

I seem to be most attracted to cars originally designed quite some years ago (e.g. 911, Range Rover), so maybe I'm just old-fashioned when it comes to automotive design.

Have a great weekend.

John H. in DC Area

Kevin, with respect to the styling of the Cayenne, I appreciate your providing a detailed view of what you find attractive and/or functional about the styling. I've been waiting for someone to do that for a while now so we can engage in a reasoned discussion of the Cayenne's styling elements without someone simply shouting "if you don't like it, shut up" or "it looks like a Porsche so it must be gorgeous." We can do this without it degrading into name calling or ad hominem attacks. We're merely analyzing the style of a vehicle here, so none of this is to be taken personally (I know that's hard when we're talking about our beloved Porsche). And I'm not killing any Cayenne sales because the thing is already sold out ( ) , most people are buying it for its monster performance, and the people who like its style are going to buy it no matter what I say. So don't take any of this personally. Here goes ...

There's no doubt the huge air intakes are necessary for cooling. But the nose of the Cayenne, despite its similarities to the 911, is actually its weakest styling point, IMO, with the side view of the entire vehicle running a close second. The facia around the huge air intakes has very delicately styled edges which completely fail to mitigate an essentially bulbous (nearly ovoid) nose. Given how large the air intakes must be, the headlight styling and side of the nose could have been much bolder and more substantial to eliminate the egg-like impression. We know that a desire for some aerodynamic qualities (in an SUV?!) and some similarity to the revered 911 led Porsche to pursue a smooth and delicately sculpted front end.

From a side or diagonal view, however, the nose, because of the severely upturned underside necessary to achieve the front ground clearance and angle of attack for serious offroading, ends up looking pinched and not very strong or menacing at all. Most would agree that the nose is one of the few areas of potential strong visual appeal in SUVs and trucks. But here the Cayenne suffers from the same styling limitation which plagues many SUV's, and not sports cars or most sports sedans at all: from the side, the nose gets drowned out by the comparatively larger body that an SUV has to have behind the nose. The Cayenne suffers from this more than most, because the nose is comparatively small and ovoid. A very telling photo, which makes me gag when I see it (even as to all three SUV's), is presented in the Car magazine road test in the thread on this forum, at about the 5th page down. It shows all three SUVs, the X5, the Cayenne (in the foreground), and the ML55 all going at speed in a line from left to right. Because of the lighting conditions, one can't see much surface detail at all on any of the vehicles. According to the Cayenne's designers, the nuanced surface detail is apparently the strength of the Cayenne's style. But the surface detail is so nuanced that it's lost in the photo and all one can see is the simple profile/shape of the SUVs. I see a short nose affixed to a hamster body. Perfectly rounded by the C pillar and rear window. I simply can never, ever bring myself to call that image "gorgeous" or in any other way compellingly strong.

I imagine that Porsche was severely limited by working off a platform and sharing panels with the Touareg. The Touareg looks like a perfectly harmonious VW vehicle. I think the modern VW designs (Passat, Jetta, et al), though successful, are not bold or dynamic at all, and poor Porsche has suffered greatly in the styling area as a result of this one vehicle needing to satisfy VW's design mission.

My guess is that the quick restyling (if one is actually happening) will strengthen the delicately styled front fascia and the wheel arches/fenders.

Strong points? This thing ROCKS! on road and off. Oh, styling strong points? If I had to say, the straight-on rear view, with the sloped shoulders. Also, the straight-on front view, because for a second, with no hint of the big body trailing behind, one is tricked into thinking he's actually looking at a 911 Turbo.

Also, for all you Cayenne fans who actually read my post all the way to this point, here's a little treat: <a href="http://www.trucktrend.com/roadtests/suv/163_0302_porsche/" target="_blank">Motor Trend's Truck Trend Article on the Cayenne in Australia</a>

Cheers!

Brent 89-GT

The FIRST thing they should do is get rid of that base 18" wheel design, it is absolutely hiddeous.

I like the look of the S with one of the optional wheels. The Turbos front end is so full of grille it looks a little overwraught.

mpm '95 C4

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by P-seller:
<strong>Remember when the 996 was launched? The faithful panned the styling. 5 model years have passed, now the styling is OK, even praised by most. Is it possible that the Cayennes styling will grow on some?

Hopefully cayennes styling updates will be on a faster schedule than what we are used to. Every four years or so, people can come in, the car will be noticeably different, and they will buy again.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Check resale prices lately on Boxsters and 996s? Look out below!!! Why is that? It isn't about performance, handling, and braking. It has much more to do with style, both inside and out. IMHO, Porsche in all it eagerness to make money, has lost it's design edge so far in the water cooling era. The turbo, GT 2/3, and C4S are making strides, but the design leadership advantage has been lost. So I'd say instead of "praise", it's more that styling is only now coming around - and that Carerra has finally go its own face. And "the return to our roots" restyling direction (found in the 997) has been recognized by Porsche (and applauded here).

The impact to resale prices has an additional longer term profitability factor for Porsche. If Porsche resale values don't hold, then residuals will be an added disadvantage for all those addicted to leasing. A lot of those "savior Boxsters" and "new to the P-car customer fold" 996s were leases - made even more available due to favorable residuals. What happens if that continues to weaken?

But back to design, John H. frames a great design debate about the P-fish. And as you said they wanted to keep the lines inside the family. But, it would appear VAG executed the design more completely then Porsche. They tried to hard to make the face resemble a 996 - instead of coming up with a fresh design. This is especially true because it is a truck. People buy SUVs because they depict a tough 'go anywhere' attitude. We grew up in the family station wagon era, but the SUV gives us the opportunity to be adventurous - or at least appear that way.

The design is very weak and disconnected - "pushed up" at the ends - as John so articulately describes. The rockers and wheel choice add to that "disconnection from the road" feel - while every road going Porsche screams "connected". Even though we all know how tough it really is, it doesn't look the part, and in soft colors the lumpy corners really standout. Make sure all you clients get dark (preferably black) ones <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .

It has been debated here that no SUV can look good - I flatly disagree. The Rover, the X5 (my biggest criticism is lack of useful interior space), the T-egg, the G-wagon, and even the H2 (form fitting function - even though I'd never buy one) are all well executed designs. That is why they have sold so well - and will sell - in the case of the H2 and T-egg.

So it would appear it's back to the drawing board for Porsche, while the T-egg gets rave reviews as "the better looking and better value" of the two. The comparisons will be made, and it is quickly becoming the word-of-mouth comment.

As much as a redesign is needed, it's too bad they didn't get it right the first time. It spells trouble for the success of this rig, and I guess we'll just have to wait and see what that means for Porsche. If nothing else, it continues to be great automotive history and drama unfolding infront of us, for those of us who actually spend a lot of time caring about these things - another indication that I need to get a life

I do wish you and John Murray and Porsche all the best in selling as many of these things as you can.

Anir

John,

Excellent summary on the styling faux paus of the Cayenne.

At times, I wonder if I'm just getting older, and the younger generation simply has a different sense of style than I do (i.e. they just "get" the Cayenne). Then, I realize that I'm only 35 years old and must be younger or at least no older than Porsche's target audience for the Cayenne and 911.

Porsche has already lost at least one potential customer based on styling. We purchased the Rover last September after seeing the Cayenne pics. I was in the market for a luxury SUV and absolutely love my 993TT, but I could not bring myself to want to pay close to $100K for something that looks that non-cohesive.

fbfisher

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mpm '95 C4:
[QB][QUOTE]Originally posted by P-seller:
[qb]Remember when the 996 was launched? The faithful panned the styling. 5 model years have passed, now the styling is OK, even praised by most.

After two pages of this thread I wondered why I was bothering. After seven I wanted to kill myself.

But with all of the flaming and the astute observations, how did you let P-seller get away with this one. Do I understand you to think that the 996 styling is "praised by most"? REALLY? Who are these "most" and what are they driving? Maybe MOST 996 owners, though some, if not many, of those concede (after a few drinks) that the 996 is not the most attractive of the 911 series.

I do not praise the style of the 996. I have seen the C in the flesh and I am not impressed.

Christian S.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by fbfisher:
<strong>After two pages of this thread I wondered why I was bothering. After seven I wanted to kill myself. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Hey, don't let us stop you... But you know, I think you're onto something, none of the 911 successors have improved on the 70's styling. All pretty unimaginative if you ask me - as if the company didn't have enough money to come up with an original design. Until 1998 of course.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by mpm '95 C4:
<strong>Check resale prices lately on Boxsters and 996s? Look out below!!! Why is that? It isn't about performance, handling, and braking. It has much more to do with style, both inside and out. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Partly to do with style mpm, most definitely interior. For some reason Porsche managed to come up with a contemporary and class leading interior for the 928, but for everything else..... well disappointing is an understatement. Some poaching of Audi/VW production expertise seems the obvious move.

The exterior - well the sharing of Boxster front end was never going to help and despite the financial pressures, they ought to have been able to make the design more distinctive from its cheaper sister. That's hindsight though and at the time the backs were much closer to the wall. I like the new 996 front end and reckon the Carrera, Targa, C4S and Turbo are all excellent.

Prices dropping is unsurprising considering the recession we are facing, the length of the model run and the success of the models. The cars remain excellent, don't seem to be falling to bits and I suspect will still command a premium against their competitors in age and mileage (more's the pity!).

Brent 89-GT

When has styling ever been a big deal at Porsche? They have never had the look of a Ferrari or Lotus. Instead they are functional, durable, and inconspicuous, all of which contribute to speed.

The 911 has never looked exotic. The pre '89's have a classic style, the 964's are ugly, the 993's are gorgeous. I personally like the styling of both the Boxster and 996. The rear view of the Boxster is all sportscar, very well done. The overall look of the 996 is powerful and sleek, I like it.

The whole point is though, Porsche has never been about "looks" IMO. Why expect that the Cayenne would be driven by looks?

John H. in DC Area

I respectfully disagree, Brent. I don't think Porsches are inconspicuously styled at all. Style has always been an important component of Porsche's approach to creating their cars. Engineering and functionality have been the company's principal priorities with their sports cars, but it is undeniable that style is important. Harm Lagaay goes on ad nauseum about the Porsche style and its many-decade history. He says its important that the Porsche style and identity flow through all the cars. The rear fenders, the profile view of the 911, the headlamps, all are the product of style, not just function. They all go together to create a visual allure. Form has followed function, sure, but style has definitely been overlayed on top of that.

Now, Porsche style is not Ferrari style, or Italian style, or Lotus style, as you say, and it is somewhat quirky, but there is a Porsche style nonetheless. There's a difference between an exotic sports car (think rare, ultra high performance, and expensive) and exotic style. I would argue that the style of the 911 is in fact exotic, simply by virtue of the fact that there is no other car on the face of the earth that looks like it. That fits my definition of exotic. The Boxster's style, though sleek and inspired by the 550, and despite Toyota's MR2, is in fact exotic in that there are no other cars that look like it. (Is it an exotic sports car, as that term is loosely defined? No. Different issue. Are there lots of Boxsters on the road, sure. But the design of that car is unique and atypical for modern cars. That means it is visually styled for a purpose, to evoke a modern interpretation of an older classic, in order to appeal to buyers). What's the evidence that style is important? 1) Porsche says so; 2) Porsche has made both subtle and dramatic changes to the visages of its cars over the years to distinguish the styles of models and of models from evolution to evolution; to make the cars more appealing in the modern era (the 993 and 996); 4) the marketing folks have had increasingly strong input on product decisions at post-modern Porsche, and you can bet that they have some strong ideas about what style will sell (hence the 996).

Also, Porsche's design prowess is as legendary as its engineering prowess. Countless non-automotive manufacturers hire Porsche to design the aesthetics of their products, as well as engineer them.

So, I agree with you that Porsche is not ALL about looks, but I disagree in that looks seem to be very very important to the company. The Company knows that most Porsche buyers are concerned about them too. The folks who say I'll pay a ton of money for a vehicle about which I don't give a crap how it looks, as long as it handles well and is durable, are few and far between, IMO. They would be the ultra-enthusiasts, not the garden variety buyers of big ticket vehicles. Given the recent Porsche product evolution, we know that Porsche wants more of the latter, while somehow hanging on to the former, in order to drive sales higher. The G-Wagon, e.g., is styled to look utilitarian, that didn't happen by accident. Ironically, I think the Cayenne could benefit from a more robust, rugged style. Or, it could benefit from even more sleek, muscular lines. But hitting it straight up the middle is probably the least appealing approach.

It took forethought, planning, a design team, and lots of money to come up with a Cayenne that is styled the way it is. In other words, the look of the Cayenne is/was important to Porsche. They have stated that they wanted it to be toned down, to have nuanced surface styling, and to appeal to a wider audience that won't want an ostentatious visual style (read: women). That they seemed to have missed the mark (in varying degrees and in various ways) in the eyes of so many can't simply be explained away by saying that styling wasn't important to or was an afterthought for Porsche.

P-seller

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by fbfisher:
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by mpm '95 C4:
[QB][QUOTE]Originally posted by P-seller:
[qb]Remember when the 996 was launched? The faithful panned the styling. 5 model years have passed, now the styling is OK, even praised by most.

After two pages of this thread I wondered why I was bothering. After seven I wanted to kill myself.

But with all of the flaming and the astute observations, how did you let P-seller get away with this one. Do I understand you to think that the 996 styling is "praised by most"? REALLY? Who are these "most" and what are they driving? Maybe MOST 996 owners, though some, if not many, of those concede (after a few drinks) that the 996 is not the most attractive of the 911 series.

I do not praise the style of the 996. I have seen the C in the flesh and I am not impressed.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Well... I was referring to the MOST that count the most. Prospects. I never said the 996 line was the most beautiful of the series either. Me, I kinda like the 91 Turbo as my personal favorite. Each is different. But since there is no 993 factory minting 993's, I think it's good that most of the Prospects this car was desgined for, find the design pleasing, at least, if not beautiful. Their opinion actually matters more than yours, since we need people to support the company by buying current stuff.

I seriously believe that we are looking at a repeat of some Porsche product launches.

Boxster... was well recieved by the prospects
Panned by most of the "purists"
Went on to be successful, design/styling largely unchanged. The car that literally changed the company.

996... Lukewarm reaction from prospects as they awaited nod of approval from the "faithful"
nod comes in 2000. 996 largely unchanged after 5 years, becomes base of most exciting and desireble Porsche products ever.

Cayenne, another car panned by the "faithful" seemes likely to repeat this pattern.

I forgot to mention this earlier, but that whole C pilliar peculiarness, is easy to get over when you look down the flank, of the C,from the drivers seat, out of the side view mirror. These cars have that familiar "hippy" look that the coupes have.

When I saw that, I knew that this car was indeed a porsche, and that it would rock, on the road at least.

peace
PS