Hey catchy titles cause 7 pages of responses...

Besides alternative titles that were considered and rejected include:

FX45 - "Carries almost as much as the Cayenne"
FX45 - "Off-Road - who needs it?"
FX45 - "Pepper is in the gas tank!"
FX45 - "FiXation on Cayenne?"
FX45 - "1999 996 Carrera in SUV form"
FX45 - "Special FX!"

None of them were quite as catchy...

Besides if you need to tow something, get a GMC pickup, if I see that commercial with the horse sticking its head outside the trailer into the wind I'm gonna puke!!!

Speaking of bad commercials, anyone see that Dodge Hemi pickup truck commercial where the guy is choking and the sudden stop makes him spit up on the windshield? What ad agency thought up that one??? Hmmm Dodge=Ride makes me sick...
Yeah clever...

 

Oops I should have said 8 pages of responses...

 

Lets see...... I like "off road who needs it" and "1999 996 in SUV form" best. You are right though "Cayenne Crusher" seems more worthy of the 8 pages <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

No GMC for me! I already have a Chev with the durapooch diesel engine. Nice 3/4 ton car, not much of a truck.

I haven't seen the "Dodge sickness" commercial yet, sounds about right though <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

 

Brent,

I wanted to commend you on your post. You articulated your points very clearly and actually had me re-thinking the issue. Don't get me wrong, I won't be trading my FX for a Cayenne anytime soon but it's interesting just the same.

I know from personal experience that late model Corvettes offer a much better value (performance per dollar) than ANY current Porsche offering. Yet, people buy, drive and defend their Porsche's passionately.

Sportscars are about much more than value. They represent power, performance, style and sophistication. In the final analysis, the speak volumes about their owners and people often feel justified in paying a premium to drive the sportscar that best represents their personality and self-image. Nobody can rationalize the purchase of a 996 or Z-06 for their utility.

The SUV segment was never about style and performance until recently. We've begun to see a fundamental shift from UTILITY to SPORT/STYLE. As SUV's become more popular, people are beginning to equate their personal image with the SUV they drive. This is further evidenced by the booming SUV aftermarket part industry.

I don't ever remember my friends arguing so passionately about Ford Bronco vs. Chevy Suburban vs. Toyota Landcruiser, etc. I believe that is because they owned/drove those vehicles primarily for their utility and to a MUCH lesser degree, as a style statement. When they wanted some image impact, they would drive their "fun car".

My wife and I drove dozens of SUV's over the last 6 months. We sampled the Lincoln Aviator/Navigator, Ford Exploder/Epedition, Toyota V8 4Runner/Sequoia, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Nissan Murano and Infiniti FX. (There were no Cayenne's available for us to drive) The Murano was a real eye opener for us. It was among the last SUV's we drove but was the first that offered brisk acceleration, tight handling, Sport shifting, and great brakes. It was actually FUN to drive and offered something other than the traditional shipping box on wheels look of most SUV's. Our first drive of the Infiniti was exhilarating by comparison. Love or hate it, the FX oozes style, performance and sophistication in a very UN-SUV-like way.

I guess I'm learning that as SUV's become more stylish, fun, and less like trucks, people are going to defend their choices more passionately because the car they choose makes a strong statement about their personality. It can no longer be assumed that a person is driving an SUV because they have some heavy hauling to do. It's more likely they are driving it because it is their vehicle of choice for daily driving.

In that context, many will feel justified paying a premium for the SUV that best represents their self-image. Porsche's have always delivered nearly unsurpassed image impact. That certainly cannot be said for Ford, Chevy, Jeep, Toyota, Nissan, and to a lesser degree, Lexus and Infiniti. Crossover SUV's finally give us choices with style, performance and sophistication and will be defended much more vigorously than traditional SUV's.

One other thing... The appropriate title of this thread should have been "Cayenne Crusher?" as it is a question that remains unanswered.

MC

 

Well, I am either ahead of the curve or some kind of primma donna. For the last 5-6 years I have been driving around in the MB Gwagen. I bought the first one because I hated the way my Suburban drove and I enjoy off-roading.

At the time, the G was a legitimate fashion statement. It has a unique look, tremendous presence and great utility. If all that I wanted was the Utility, obviously I could have looked elsewhere. I am definately embroiled in the passion of that vehicle, maybe even more so than my Porsche. So I can identify with your post, and with the tone of the thread in general.

I think you are right on with why people choose certain vehicles. Why does my wife insist on her V12 BMW over the very similar V8 model? To those who know the difference, she knows it makes an impression. We had bought a V12 MB sedan last year to replace the BMW. To me the car(MB) itself was undeniably better. It has since been sold as she "likes" her BMW better. I think a big part of that has to do with the age demographic, it is a "younger persons" car. It is also more sporting.

So I am certainly guilty. I find what works but I am definately swayed by what I want. I can appreciate the look, feel and sound of a finely crafted machine and that is what I like to surround myself with.

 

</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 Brent 89-GT:
<strong>So I am certainly guilty. I find what works but I am definately swayed by what I want. I can appreciate the look, feel and sound of a finely crafted machine and that is what I like to surround myself with.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">My compliments on your articulate posts. Desire and appreciation of "finely crafted machines" is ultimately why we bought Porsches and found Rennlist. It's also why I like Lucchese boots, mechanical watches, McIntosh and B&W stereo equipment, etc. Arguably, there are always less expensive alternatives that will give you 80% of the performance, but you buy what makes you happy.

IMO, folks (me included) spend too much time trying to rationalize their decisions. Following your heart is not such a bad thing, and there is no need to apologize for it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

However, to the detractors who say that we buy this expensive stuff just to impress the neighbors, I can promise you that I am personally much more impressed with real estate holdings and large stock portfolios than with ownership of depreciating assets. So, I respect Ken and others who have found a way to save some money while meeting their transportation and performance needs.

 

Brent,

I think my father was waaaaay ahead of the curve when he converted a 1941 WC51 (military spec "weapons carrier") Dodge Powerwagon to small block Chevy power and started cruising it around N. Virgina and Washington D.C. This was back in '76. Talk about the ultimate urban assault vehicle! You G-wagon guys always were a bit different but I appreciate the superior capabilities of a military spec. vehicle!

Nice post Anir. You and I share many interests. I'm an avid hi-fi audio enthusiast, automatic/manual watch nut, AND former owner of a '95 Ducati 900 SS/SP ("pasta rocket").

MC

P.S. My wife wouldn't let me near the Land Rover dealership. I think she spotted the drool forming in the corner of my mouth when I saw the new Range Rover.

 

THIS isthe REAL CAYENNE CRUSHER!
BEHOLD! the MAXIMOG! In all its GLORY!
For a "Not so small pittance" you get a BMW trail bike, a small UAV and a RV Trailer. Eveything connected by GPS Sat communication gear! <a href="http://www.maximog.com" target="_blank">MAXIMOG HOMEPAGE</a> <img src="http://www.maximog.com/images/sublevel/veh_side.jpg" alt=" - " />

 

Not bad for nearly $500,000. Mine isn't quite that fancy, just an old (1971) two seater dump truck. That bugger will go about anywhere. When you are driving a Unimog, stuck is a temporary condition <img src="http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/sml2gmog.jpg" alt=" - " />

 

Hey Brent maybe you can answer a 928 question for me, what's the difference between the S4, the S4 GT and the GTS? Is one model preferred over the others?

 

GTS had the 32 valve engine correct?

 

Bob,
The S4, GT & GTS all had the 32 valve engines.
H2NOO,
Magnificent C2!
All,
I'm not being defensive about the Cayenne as much as wondering thru Post titles and intent why other than cost are fellow Porschephiles constantly -some more than others- hammering the product line...
Folks are pointing out early news/industry articles that were negative on looks, cost and weight. Some of the posts have been over-ridden as the original magazine or industry articles have started doing an about face after ACTUALLY testing the vehicle -read: more than 10 minutes on an oval test track-. I agree there is better value, percieved or real out there and will not bother debating that fact.
It is a good point, period.
We all know it's not a sports car, yet Porsche took it upon it's corporate shoulders to to run it with a sports car from it's OWN LINE.
I don't believe the intent was to to demonstrate the Cayenne as a potentional road racer.
It did highlight Porsche's corporate intent, production commitment, enginnering capeability, technology advancements and the ABILITY of an, admittedly, very heavy, high dollar, niche SUV to perform excedeingly well at and under very different driving spectrums.
Again I won't argue the point that some don't like the LOOK, the cost, or the weight.
But, why argue on one hand that it's not a 911, and and it's not a full blown mud slogger and anyone driving it like one will die in a fiery calamity because of braking, handling, or SERIOUS off-road shortcomings when, on the other hand some or none of those arguements are not applied to a Jeep, Hummer or what-have-you... ?
Back in the late 60's and early 70's my brothers and I were driving 6 cylinder and small V8 CJ 5's. While we were selling riser kits, big wheels and tires, brush guards, skid plates,, engine, transmission, and exhaust upgrades. We were unpleasantly suprised when we discovered that even close friends and fellow CJ 5 owners were incapeable of using the Jeep to anywhere near it's performance capeability.
In the woods, trails. and streams of Northwest Pennsylvania we consistently flogged high HP, jacked-up, big wheeled, long travel suspension hybrid's. Cobbled togther by proportedly knowledgeable folks at big name 4 wheeler shops with display cases full of trophy's.
We did this with only exhaust mods and skid plate improvements -o.k. maybe a re jet-. skinny stock tires and no fiberglass body kits. That was just Jack pining', woe unto them who wanted to get serious... for we also did the early version of Jeep Trials courses. We also abused Bultaco, Husky riders IN THE DIRT with streetable 350cc Hondas.
So in a sense you guy's are right; without the background, training, and a sense of enjoyment for a particular driving endeavour few will ever utilize the standard package let alone the optioned -yep, does have a locker option- super dollar version of the Cayenne. That's a given. A long with your point that few will ever use the Cayenne on a road course to anywhere near it's envelope. Same apply's to the BMW, Rover's, Infinity's, ....
But, if you look at the flip side of that coin,
there is, bar none, no other factory optioned, line-produced SUV on this planet that can do what the Cayenne is capeable of. None!
It's a well made, well developed, high performance, niche SUV, that is at home on the road or in the dirt and can allude to the word SPORT or UTILITY with a tight little grin.
I'd be the first one to call someone boon-docking a $90,000 Porsche an idiot, and I'd be wrong!
Their money, their car, their choice!
My arguement as always is that some of the post's are trying to say they are just representing a fair point of view when a lot of what's presented is about as fair and balanced as Fox News. And when someone returns in kind it is portrayed as being defensive.
I can compare apples, or oranges, just as well as the next guy, under the same rules.
Opinions are subjective by nature, I have no problem with that. Buy what you want, or, in my case can afford. I just want to give the
Cayenne a even chance of success based on more than selective facts. The Cayenne production is the culmination of a Corporate business decision, like it or not, we are all going to have to live with that decision.
Argue all you want about that decision, and your displeasure over the percieved direction -lack of racing effort- of the company. But try to be a little more objective about the product.
John S.
P.S. I haul groceries in my 928 at least once a week, with no significant loss of performance or handling.

 

Ken,

The S4 was built from '87-'91. From '87-'89 there were S4 autos and S4 five speeds. In 1990-91, all S4's were automatics and all GT's five speeds. In 1989 there was an S4 auto, S4 five speed and GT. GT's are never autos.

The 1989 GT differs from the rest in a few areas. First, all GT's have 10 more hp than S4's. The power is moved up the rpm band with a higher torque peak due to different cams. The piston clearences are reportedly tighter. The computer is re-mapped, the fender lips are crimped for tire clearance, and the differential has straight cut gears for durability. The shift lever is shortened and, the exhaust is lighter and free flowing with a different tip arrangement. GT's also have the deepest rear gears of any 928. Engines and transmissions have unique numeric codes. The '90-91 GT's lose the crimped fender lips and straight cut diff gears. They also get airbags and an electronically controlled diff (PSD) in place of the '89's 40% mechanical LSD.

There are no '92's, not in the US anyway. From 1993-95 the final version was the GTS in auto or five speed. It had larger brakes, the same as the 993TT, 17" wheels, wider rear fenders, and a 5.4L engine w 345hp, 369 lb/ft. (up from 326hp, 317 lb/ft in the GT)

1989 GT's are pretty rare, only about 50 imported. The GTS is exceptionally rare in a five speed too. To get a nice one I would have had to spend at least double what I did. So the GTS is probably the ultimate but the '89 GT is probably the most sporting factory version of the 928 and a relitive bargain. Of course I show no bias

The 32V engines were introduced in the US 928 in 1985. So the last two years of the old style 928 had the 32V V8 though it had "only" 288hp vs the upcoming S4 at 316hp. 86.5 models had the updated brakes and susp from the S4 as well.

So there is more history than you probably wanted to know. I get a little misty when asked about my chosen steed. <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

 

Sounds like the '93 GTS automatic might not be too hard to find and perhaps at not too high of a price. I'll have to look around and see what ones are on the market. Now where did I leave that last issue of Pano..... ? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

BTW, do you have performance numbers for the different models, you know 0-60,1/4 mile, top speed, .X G's of cornering ability, stopping distance, etc?

 

I would guess a '93 GTS auto at about $35k depending of course upon miles and condition. Don't let higher asking prices fool you, nobody gets $40k plus for these anymore.

C&D did a comparison test back in '93 on a GTS auto and BMW 840Ci. I think the 0-60 was in the low 5 second range, like 5.4?? and the QM was in the mid 13's. Top speed on a GTS is about 175mph. Braking wouldn't be fair on decade old tire technology. Suffice to say that with the big reds up front, the car stops in typical Porsche fashion. I wouldn't quote skidpads values either but back then it was near .90g.

The overall performance is probably quite similar to a stock Boxster S. Granted the car is larger and heavier. It also has copious low end torque and probably a little better pull above 120 or so. They are great road cars and with the auto a nice point and shoot city runner.