Cayenne Crusher - FX45
02-10-2003, 06:38 PM
#61
Race Director
Well the "S" in suv is not the tradition meaning of sport and "U" is not off-road
I have said it before and I will say it again
so here it goes
The SUV is mix between the Jeep CJ type vehicle with tons of off-road sporting nature and vehicle with utility that could carry resonable amounts of people and gear.
In the early days there were
Jeep, Pick-up truck, Cars
The SUV married all of these.
So
The "S" in SUV means off-road fun driving in so much as people go off-road just for the fun of it.
The "U" in SUV means it has some practicality in that it can carry more that two people with some gear or a nice large amount of gear with two.
(Jeeps like the CJ really lacked like this)
V = Obvious.
To me the Cayenne is a jacked up station wagon that can go off-road only to save its life, but does not belong there let alone feel comfortable
The FX 45 is jacked-up station wagon that trembles when it touches dirt. It is like the Toyota RAV4, Honda CRV, Lexus RX300. A car that has no busness calling itself a truck. Nope it should not happend. I have found that buyers of such vehicles are all concerned about image since they could have purchase a vehicle that suits their needs much better by any of the avabile station wagons our there.
Why give-up handling for a jacked-up station wagon that never goes off-road. Heck lower the vehicle down to station wagon height and it would handle even better! Take some weight out and it will handle even better. ..
... Oh but we can't do that cause then it would not be a "Cool SUV" it would be just "Boring Station Wagon". Give me BMW540 Wagon vs the FX45 or any of these other jacked-up station wagons any day!
I have said it before and I will say it again
so here it goes
The SUV is mix between the Jeep CJ type vehicle with tons of off-road sporting nature and vehicle with utility that could carry resonable amounts of people and gear.
In the early days there were
Jeep, Pick-up truck, Cars
The SUV married all of these.
So
The "S" in SUV means off-road fun driving in so much as people go off-road just for the fun of it.
The "U" in SUV means it has some practicality in that it can carry more that two people with some gear or a nice large amount of gear with two.
(Jeeps like the CJ really lacked like this)
V = Obvious.
To me the Cayenne is a jacked up station wagon that can go off-road only to save its life, but does not belong there let alone feel comfortable
The FX 45 is jacked-up station wagon that trembles when it touches dirt. It is like the Toyota RAV4, Honda CRV, Lexus RX300. A car that has no busness calling itself a truck. Nope it should not happend. I have found that buyers of such vehicles are all concerned about image since they could have purchase a vehicle that suits their needs much better by any of the avabile station wagons our there.
Why give-up handling for a jacked-up station wagon that never goes off-road. Heck lower the vehicle down to station wagon height and it would handle even better! Take some weight out and it will handle even better. ..
... Oh but we can't do that cause then it would not be a "Cool SUV" it would be just "Boring Station Wagon". Give me BMW540 Wagon vs the FX45 or any of these other jacked-up station wagons any day!
02-10-2003, 08:35 PM
#62
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that's an interesting definition, not necessarily one I agree with, but interesting nonetheless.
I'll have to remember not to buy the AMC Pacer when I can buy the lowered version known as the 944.
(Yes, squish the glass in a Pacer down and you've got the big back glass of the 944)
I think the 911 also sits too high, that should get lowered too in which case they call it a bobsled I think.
I did find your statement about people who buy these vehicles as being concerned with "image" as being most amusing in that it comes from someone who owns a Porsche and most people would say people buy Porsches for the "image". I'm not necessarily saying that's true for all Porsche owners, but you must admit that it certainly is for some of them and the stereotype does exist.
BTW, the BMW540 wagon doesn't perform nearly as well on-road as the FX, but if you want a station wagon, then hey go ahead...
I don't think early SUV's married the car with the jeep and the pickup, I think they married the pickup truck with a camper shell and put another row of seats in....
I guess I'll just have to call the FX what Infiniti calls it, a Crossover vehicle. For those who want to break on through to the other side...
I'll have to remember not to buy the AMC Pacer when I can buy the lowered version known as the 944.
(Yes, squish the glass in a Pacer down and you've got the big back glass of the 944)I think the 911 also sits too high, that should get lowered too in which case they call it a bobsled I think.
I did find your statement about people who buy these vehicles as being concerned with "image" as being most amusing in that it comes from someone who owns a Porsche and most people would say people buy Porsches for the "image". I'm not necessarily saying that's true for all Porsche owners, but you must admit that it certainly is for some of them and the stereotype does exist.
BTW, the BMW540 wagon doesn't perform nearly as well on-road as the FX, but if you want a station wagon, then hey go ahead...
I don't think early SUV's married the car with the jeep and the pickup, I think they married the pickup truck with a camper shell and put another row of seats in....
I guess I'll just have to call the FX what Infiniti calls it, a Crossover vehicle. For those who want to break on through to the other side...
02-10-2003, 10:28 PM
#63
Pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Milton, MA
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</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 Flying Finn:
<strong>Have you seen the new GT3?
380hp, 'stripped', is coming to US (same ride heigh in US as in Europe) and even the tail (lower part) kinda reminds a ducktail!
I'd say they are listening us...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Yeah, no kidding! What's next a surprise prototype entry at Le Mans <img border="0" alt="[jumper]" title="" src="graemlins/jumper.gif" />
<strong>Have you seen the new GT3?
380hp, 'stripped', is coming to US (same ride heigh in US as in Europe) and even the tail (lower part) kinda reminds a ducktail!
I'd say they are listening us...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Yeah, no kidding! What's next a surprise prototype entry at Le Mans <img border="0" alt="[jumper]" title="" src="graemlins/jumper.gif" />
02-11-2003, 02:44 AM
#66
Track Day
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Naples, FL
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Ken2KS,
Thank's for a fun thread.
Over 30 years ago I purchased my first car. It came down to a choice between two vehicles; a brand new VW beetle for $1,800 or a 10 year old Porsche 356 at $2,500. I bought the VW, just couldn?t afford the 30% difference in price.
hmmm, the difference between the Touareg and Cayenne is about 30%...
Best regards,
elvis
Thank's for a fun thread.
Over 30 years ago I purchased my first car. It came down to a choice between two vehicles; a brand new VW beetle for $1,800 or a 10 year old Porsche 356 at $2,500. I bought the VW, just couldn?t afford the 30% difference in price.
hmmm, the difference between the Touareg and Cayenne is about 30%...
Best regards,
elvis
02-11-2003, 07:22 AM
#67
</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 elviss:
<strong>Hello Ken2KS,
Thank's for a fun thread.
Over 30 years ago I purchased my first car. It came down to a choice between two vehicles; a brand new VW beetle for $1,800 or a 10 year old Porsche 356 at $2,500. I bought the VW, just couldn?t afford the 30% difference in price.
hmmm, the difference between the Touareg and Cayenne is about 30%...
Best regards,
elvis</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Touché....
I guess there is 30% difference between the FX and Cayenne as well...?
<strong>Hello Ken2KS,
Thank's for a fun thread.
Over 30 years ago I purchased my first car. It came down to a choice between two vehicles; a brand new VW beetle for $1,800 or a 10 year old Porsche 356 at $2,500. I bought the VW, just couldn?t afford the 30% difference in price.
hmmm, the difference between the Touareg and Cayenne is about 30%...
Best regards,
elvis</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Touché....
I guess there is 30% difference between the FX and Cayenne as well...?
02-11-2003, 08:43 AM
#68
Track Day
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Naples, FL
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, the difference between the Cayenne (as ordered) and the FX (sticker) is only 16%
The FX and Touareg as well as others were in contention and of course we have not as yet sat in a Cayenne so it'll have to pass muster. The Styling of the Cayenne is what cemented the choice for us, that and excellent performance specs. I guess the Duck won't be the only ride for an exhilarating drive anymore ... and now I can stop and pick up groceries on the way home to boot!
The FX and Touareg as well as others were in contention and of course we have not as yet sat in a Cayenne so it'll have to pass muster. The Styling of the Cayenne is what cemented the choice for us, that and excellent performance specs. I guess the Duck won't be the only ride for an exhilarating drive anymore ... and now I can stop and pick up groceries on the way home to boot!
02-11-2003, 09:05 AM
#69
King of Cool
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
</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>Yeah, no kidding! What's next a surprise prototype entry at Le Mans <img border="0" alt="[jumper]" title="" src="graemlins/jumper.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Who knows!?
Porsche, are you listening?!
<strong>Yeah, no kidding! What's next a surprise prototype entry at Le Mans <img border="0" alt="[jumper]" title="" src="graemlins/jumper.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Who knows!?
Porsche, are you listening?!
02-11-2003, 12:46 PM
#70
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Styling of the Cayenne, Should have bought the 356. Ok, the 356 I can understand, but I am hesitant to think that the Cayenne will ever be as collectible or desirable as the 356 and it certainly will be produced in larger numbers (assuming people do buy them of course )
Styling is subjective, so while I might think the Cayenne is fugly, I can respect that you are attracted to it. I haven't sat down and calculated the price difference between the FX and the Cayenne S, but it all depends on what options you get on each car. AFAIK the FX ranges from 44-52K and the Cayenne ranges from 55-70 and since you can't equip the Cayenne identical to the FX it is a bit of comparing apples to oranges. The t-reg and the cayenne are probably a closer comparison.
Hmm maybe the comparison should be more of something like back in 1963
)Styling is subjective, so while I might think the Cayenne is fugly, I can respect that you are attracted to it. I haven't sat down and calculated the price difference between the FX and the Cayenne S, but it all depends on what options you get on each car. AFAIK the FX ranges from 44-52K and the Cayenne ranges from 55-70 and since you can't equip the Cayenne identical to the FX it is a bit of comparing apples to oranges. The t-reg and the cayenne are probably a closer comparison.
Hmm maybe the comparison should be more of something like back in 1963
02-11-2003, 12:49 PM
#71
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To continue that thought...
Back in 1963 you could have purchased the Porsche 356 or the split-window Corvette, I think I would take a '63 Vette over a '63 356...
40 years later I'll take the FX over the Cayenne, same difference...
Back in 1963 you could have purchased the Porsche 356 or the split-window Corvette, I think I would take a '63 Vette over a '63 356...
40 years later I'll take the FX over the Cayenne, same difference...
02-11-2003, 01:10 PM
#72
Race Director
</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 Ken2KS:
<strong>Well that's an interesting definition, not necessarily one I agree with, but interesting nonetheless.
I did find your statement about people who buy these vehicles as being concerned with "image" as being most amusing in that it comes from someone who owns a Porsche and most people would say people buy Porsches for the "image". I'm not necessarily saying that's true for all Porsche owners, but you must admit that it certainly is for some of them and the stereotype does exist.
BTW, the BMW540 wagon doesn't perform nearly as well on-road as the FX, but if you want a station wagon, then hey go ahead...
I don't think early SUV's married the car with the jeep and the pickup, I think they married the pickup truck with a camper shell and put another row of seats in....
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Well People do buy Porsche's for image and as you stated many other do so just for the pure fun of the cars.
Why do people buy SUV Crossovers like the RX300 and FX? I don't see it? They can't go off-road. They can tow more than a car or haul more than a wagon and they can't handle as well on road as a car or wagon. Can't fight Physics? Seems to me no other reason than image to get one. At least Porsche can do something very well. GO FAST. Sure nobody needs it, but if you want good handleing, speed and fun you can't go wrong in a Porsche. If you want 5 passenger comfort space and on road fun it seems to me that there much better choices than lifted station wagon. Get a real wagon and don't fight physics.
As for the SUV origins. Before SUV's Trucks did not have more than a single bench seat or at most a tight mini cab behind the bench. There were the rare 4 door full 2 bench models, but these were strickly work trucks due to their large size. The SUV married Off-road nimbleness and prowess of the Jeep CJ with car carring capacity and comfort of a car with some of hauling abilities of truck to form a new type of vehicle. They did not even know what to call them until the mid-eighties when Sport Utility Vechicle was created. Of note the Suburban and large Blazers and Broncos were not traditional SUV. As these were really trucks with an extra seat. The true SUV's were the Mid size vehicles like Chevy S10 Blazer, Ford Bronco II, and Jeep Cherokee. These were followed by the Toyota 4runner and Nissan Pathfinder. Each of these I consider true SUV's. Things really began to change when people bought Jeep Cherokee's for the "Out door Lifestyle Image" and started turning the 4 doors into GBC's (Glorified Baby Carrier's) Then the worst thing to hit SUV's came and that was the Ford Explorer. It was really the first SUV where off-road performance was really down played and but on the back bruner specfically to replace off-road perfromance. Before the exploerer how you vehicle did off-road was a badge of honor to be proudly displayed. After the Exploerer it be came OK for an SUV to have limited off-road capabilities. This lead us down the path that has presented the SUV in forms that it is in now!
... Sorry for making this seam like a history lesson.. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />
<strong>Well that's an interesting definition, not necessarily one I agree with, but interesting nonetheless.
I did find your statement about people who buy these vehicles as being concerned with "image" as being most amusing in that it comes from someone who owns a Porsche and most people would say people buy Porsches for the "image". I'm not necessarily saying that's true for all Porsche owners, but you must admit that it certainly is for some of them and the stereotype does exist.
BTW, the BMW540 wagon doesn't perform nearly as well on-road as the FX, but if you want a station wagon, then hey go ahead...
I don't think early SUV's married the car with the jeep and the pickup, I think they married the pickup truck with a camper shell and put another row of seats in....
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Well People do buy Porsche's for image and as you stated many other do so just for the pure fun of the cars.
Why do people buy SUV Crossovers like the RX300 and FX? I don't see it? They can't go off-road. They can tow more than a car or haul more than a wagon and they can't handle as well on road as a car or wagon. Can't fight Physics? Seems to me no other reason than image to get one. At least Porsche can do something very well. GO FAST. Sure nobody needs it, but if you want good handleing, speed and fun you can't go wrong in a Porsche. If you want 5 passenger comfort space and on road fun it seems to me that there much better choices than lifted station wagon. Get a real wagon and don't fight physics.
As for the SUV origins. Before SUV's Trucks did not have more than a single bench seat or at most a tight mini cab behind the bench. There were the rare 4 door full 2 bench models, but these were strickly work trucks due to their large size. The SUV married Off-road nimbleness and prowess of the Jeep CJ with car carring capacity and comfort of a car with some of hauling abilities of truck to form a new type of vehicle. They did not even know what to call them until the mid-eighties when Sport Utility Vechicle was created. Of note the Suburban and large Blazers and Broncos were not traditional SUV. As these were really trucks with an extra seat. The true SUV's were the Mid size vehicles like Chevy S10 Blazer, Ford Bronco II, and Jeep Cherokee. These were followed by the Toyota 4runner and Nissan Pathfinder. Each of these I consider true SUV's. Things really began to change when people bought Jeep Cherokee's for the "Out door Lifestyle Image" and started turning the 4 doors into GBC's (Glorified Baby Carrier's) Then the worst thing to hit SUV's came and that was the Ford Explorer. It was really the first SUV where off-road performance was really down played and but on the back bruner specfically to replace off-road perfromance. Before the exploerer how you vehicle did off-road was a badge of honor to be proudly displayed. After the Exploerer it be came OK for an SUV to have limited off-road capabilities. This lead us down the path that has presented the SUV in forms that it is in now!
... Sorry for making this seam like a history lesson.. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />
02-11-2003, 01:42 PM
#73
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M758,
Your stated reason for Porsche:
"At least Porsche can do something very well. GO FAST. Sure nobody needs it, but if you want good handleing, speed and fun you can't go wrong in a Porsche."
Is EXACTLY why we bought the FX45. GO FAST - Other than the Cayenne Turbo, it is the fastest SUV / Cross-over vehicle available for sale. Good Handling - .87g's in the skid-pad, there are sports CARS that don't pull .87g's in the skid pad. A cursory check of 911's shows the 1999 911 pulls a .89g and brakes from 70mph in 168 feet. The FX brakes from 70mph in 160 feet. The center of gravity of the FX is only 55mm higher than the G35 Coupe / 350 Z. So in other words we bought a 911 with some additional storage room and a useable back seat!
I'd say the FX does "GO FAST" very well indeed...
Your stated reason for Porsche:
"At least Porsche can do something very well. GO FAST. Sure nobody needs it, but if you want good handleing, speed and fun you can't go wrong in a Porsche."
Is EXACTLY why we bought the FX45. GO FAST - Other than the Cayenne Turbo, it is the fastest SUV / Cross-over vehicle available for sale. Good Handling - .87g's in the skid-pad, there are sports CARS that don't pull .87g's in the skid pad. A cursory check of 911's shows the 1999 911 pulls a .89g and brakes from 70mph in 168 feet. The FX brakes from 70mph in 160 feet. The center of gravity of the FX is only 55mm higher than the G35 Coupe / 350 Z. So in other words we bought a 911 with some additional storage room and a useable back seat!
I'd say the FX does "GO FAST" very well indeed...
02-11-2003, 01:48 PM
#74
Burning Brakes
If I am going to buy an SUV, it must, at the very least, be able to do my towing. Since the demise of cars suitable for towing, the SUV has taken that role for many. My boat is 4000lbs, my car and trailer more yet. The crossovers do not do this. The Cayenne will.
I have to agree that I do not see the purpose of the crossover SUV's. My mother in law recently traded her Lexus SC400 for an RX300. Makes no sense to me. She could have done all of the same stuff with a GS300-400. That leads me to wonder why Ken bought the FX, I mean, not that I care what you buy, I buy what I want regardless of other opinions, I am just curious? Certainly you could have bought better road manners for that kind of money. If I needed awd, I would look at Audi. If I needed awd and cargo space, Audi makes a couple of wagon models. They even make fast ones with V8's
I don't buy the awd argument though. I used to commute 20 miles each way, often on poorly plowed (if at all) roads in a rwd BMW. I did it for years without incident. Do I need awd? I don't think so, and I live in a place notorious for bad weather.
I am tempted to agree with the "image" argument. There really isn't much logic to the whole species.
I have to agree that I do not see the purpose of the crossover SUV's. My mother in law recently traded her Lexus SC400 for an RX300. Makes no sense to me. She could have done all of the same stuff with a GS300-400. That leads me to wonder why Ken bought the FX, I mean, not that I care what you buy, I buy what I want regardless of other opinions, I am just curious? Certainly you could have bought better road manners for that kind of money. If I needed awd, I would look at Audi. If I needed awd and cargo space, Audi makes a couple of wagon models. They even make fast ones with V8's
I don't buy the awd argument though. I used to commute 20 miles each way, often on poorly plowed (if at all) roads in a rwd BMW. I did it for years without incident. Do I need awd? I don't think so, and I live in a place notorious for bad weather.
I am tempted to agree with the "image" argument. There really isn't much logic to the whole species.
02-11-2003, 02:04 PM
#75
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps this will help...
<a href="http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_infiniti_shoots_big/index.htm" target="_blank">http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_infiniti_shoots_big/index.htm</a>
As I said, I wanted performance, acceleration, handling and braking, along with a place to put stuff and room to haul passengers around in something stylish for my wife. If I was worried about "image" I don't think I would have purchased an Infiniti as I understand that until the G35 came out their image wasn't very good.
BTW, I saw where Infiniti advertises the FX as S2UV (S-squared UV) the marriage of a sports car to a SUV.
Then again, we could all argue that no one really needs sports cars either... we should all be driving econo-box "K" cars running on hydrogen or something...
<a href="http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_infiniti_shoots_big/index.htm" target="_blank">http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_infiniti_shoots_big/index.htm</a>
As I said, I wanted performance, acceleration, handling and braking, along with a place to put stuff and room to haul passengers around in something stylish for my wife. If I was worried about "image" I don't think I would have purchased an Infiniti as I understand that until the G35 came out their image wasn't very good.
BTW, I saw where Infiniti advertises the FX as S2UV (S-squared UV) the marriage of a sports car to a SUV.
Then again, we could all argue that no one really needs sports cars either... we should all be driving econo-box "K" cars running on hydrogen or something...