John H. in DC Area

Here's a report about something called a Kleeman ML55K, which broke the Cayenne Turbo's fastest SUV in the world title last weekend. I could care less about this "title," I'm just passing along some news. <a href="http://www.sportscartesting.com/news/mercedes/id582/pg3152" target="_blank">ML55K</a>

Brent 89-GT

I saw the same thing on a MB site I frequent. So somebody bolted a supercharger to an ML55 and drove it 176mph. Does it really matter? I don't know about anybody else but, I have NO desire to pilot a brick like that up to 176mph.

So you have a tuner vehicle beating a stock vehicles record, oooohhh, aaahhhh. Assuming the Cayenne TT isn't speed limited by gearing a simple computer reflash allowing more boost would likely fell that record.

I think people have these things all wrong. They are trucks, use them to haul and tow. The fact that they have some power and handling should be the bonus, NOT the motivation to buy them. If you want speed and handling, buy a car.

John H. in DC Area

I agree 100%, Brent. Thrill and novelty of owning a speed record (for however long) aside, does anybody out there have the courage of their conviction to explain in rational terms why this is a good thing in a broader sense for the SUV world? Not looking to start a flame war, just a sensible discussion.

Brent 89-GT

I do love the horsepower war that seems to be taking place though There are a bunch of cars out there exceeding 400hp now, and several closing in on 500hp from the factory <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> . I guess the spill over into a popular vehicle segment is inevitable.

ked

[QUOTE]Thrill and novelty of owning a speed record (for however long) aside, does anybody out there have the courage of their conviction to explain in rational terms why this is a good thing in a broader sense for the SUV world?/QUOTE]

It may be far-fetched to some, however...
One of the key issues relating to SUVs is fuel economy. Aerodynamics (shape, cross section, airflow around boundary layers, active aids,etc.) have a meaningful impact on fuel economy. Of course, CFD simulation & modeling will tell you "everything you need to know", but one should always collect field data in order to confirm the results and uncover obscure dynamic interactions. As to very high speed field experiments, one may argue that it can reveal what is unclear or nuanced at low speed. Experimenting outside the standard performance envelope is a typical research activity. "Thrill & novelty" is why there are so many volunteers to perform field research. I look forward to the results of C performance tuning. Just for the thrill of research.

Silverbullet951

Considering the fact that this truck has 600 hp, it doesn't impress me. I wanna see when ruf or gemballa or another company is going to modify the cayenne turbo. The there will be a new record in the books.

John H. in DC Area

Sounds pretty sensible to me, Kevin. Thanks.

I'm all for the horsepower wars, but I'd like to see the results placed in more capable and safe platforms than SUVs.

The engineering and design benefits you describe in connection with high speed testing are irrefutable, so we're in agreement on that. The act of taking an SUV to a high speed course to learn more about its characteristics and limits is therefore a good thing. But I don't get the sense that the good folks at Kleeman are doing this for mere study purposes, this is a vehicle that they are marketing and selling in this state of incredible tune with the badge of fastest SUV on earth. I think that's folly (not that there won't be buyers, but that it's shortsighted and irresponsible to create and market that kind of SUV). This isn't being marketed as a heavy duty towing machine, it's being marketed as a rocket sled, like Gemballa or Techart market their 996TT's.

Everytime I explore the approx. 440 bhp in my car, I invariably thank the Lord that I have massive brakes, responsive steering, and a nimble chassis under me, as there's just so much that happens in a split second even when the conditions are optimal that disaster is always a hair's breadth away. A 5000 lb., 600 bhp SUV has even less margin for error on the street.

Sure aerodynamics can have a meaningful impact on fuel economy, but the Cayenne TT's smoothed surfaces haven't prevented it from having undesirable fuel economy. How much more can the surfaces and shapes of SUVs be changed to effectuate a meaningful improvement in that kind of vehicle's fuel economy? They can't, short of creating a different shape, but then it wouldn't be an SUV would it?

M758

Seems to me alot like saying the 996 TT broke the record for a sports car towing the biggest boat.

..... Yeah SO WHAT

ked

<strong>explain in rational terms why this is a good thing</strong>

Is there a rational basis for ANY vehicle having a 0-60 time under 10 sec. or a top speed over 120mph? C'mon kids, beating up on perf. tuning because one "doesn't believe in the SUV religion" is a bit disingenuous isn't it? Don't we all get a kick out of watching the craziness at Bonneville? Tractor-Trailer racing? Maybe when it comes to religion, there are some ideas too awful to contemplate.

In a free market, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, "everything must get tuned..."

John H. in DC Area

I like M758's analogy.

Kevin, do tuning companies market Bonneville racers for the road or race-prepped tractor-trailers for the road? No. I love any kind of RACING as much as the next guy/gal, and watch with interest when someone voluntarily elects to strap themselves onto a rocket sled of one kind or another and test the laws of physics in environments where the participants knowingly take on the risks. I'm not beating up on performance tuning, in fact I've never owned a sports car that remained stock, they've all been modified by some performance tuning company.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"><strong>Quote by Kevin E Davis
Is there a rational basis for ANY vehicle having a 0-60 time under 10 sec. or a top speed over 120mph?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">The basis gets more rational as the vehicle bears characteristics that make it reasonably safe to operate on public roads within its performance parameters: exciting and safe transportation. The lower, wider, sleeker, more dynamically stable the vehicle, the more responsible it becomes to create and market that high performance vehicle to the public. The more the vehicle resembles a flying house, the less responsible it is to market it to the general public. Those are exaggerations to prove the point, I'm not (yet) declaring that the Cayenne TT or the tuned Merc ML are flying houses.

Given the likely price and profile of the buyer of this car, I can probably be convinced that most of these vehicles are going to end up only in the most responsible hands and will be used on public roads only in the most responsible ways (yeah right).

Folks continue to disagree vehemently about what the primary purpose of an SUV is or should be, but irrespective of the order of priority, there seems to be a consensus that SUVs are for 1) hauling more than two people; 2) hauling stuff; 3) towing stuff; and 4) navigating inclement weather and offroad obstacles to get to some destination. Research projects and one-off thrill rides aside, my question is which of those priorities is well-served, or the experience improved upon, by the vehicle being the fastest SUV in the world? Who's got the cajones (or loose screws) to step up and say they want to achieve any or all of the 4 priorities above at breakneck speed in the world's fastest SUV?

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 John H. in DC Area:
<strong>Research projects and one-off thrill rides aside, my question is which of those priorities is well-served, or the experience improved upon, by the vehicle being the fastest SUV in the world? Who's got the cajones (or loose screws) to step up and say they want to achieve any or all of the 4 priorities above at breakneck speed in the world's fastest SUV?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I agree. Honestly, there is nothing inherently wrong in Porsche's (or other tuners') efforts to create a super-fast SUV. They have every right to do so in my mind.

The real question is who the target audience is for such a machine. It strikes me as an answer to the question that nobody asked.

As you said, folks buy SUV's for a host of reasons, but other than gangsta rappers (or maybe politicians in the Middle East) that need to flee a scene in a hurry, I can't think of anyone who buys an SUV for speed or racing abilities.

I think Porsche is going to have a hard time moving these machines. Hope I'm wrong.

Christian S.

This makes me think of the new Rolls Royce Phantom, just released to the world and an incredible vehicle. Arguably a bit of a pointless creation, but hopefully for the marque and workforce they'll recieve lots of orders.

But interestingly they have not designed the monster with a standard rev counter. Instead they have created a Power Percentage gauge which in effect tells you how much you have in reserve in terms of engine performance.

So from this apparentley original approach, I have a question for all of you. In percentage terms, on the road - not track - how much engine performance do you use? How much do you need? If you feel you occasionally do use a high percentage, how often do you use it in relation to overall driving time?

This is why I have no problem the Cayenne TT having enormous power and quick acceleration. It will probably only ever be used for less than 5% of the time - but when it is used it will be needed and appreciated.

Put it this way, If I was winding my way back home in the evening in my Audi, not wanting to press on, mind on other things, and an enthusiastically driven SUV loomed large in my mirrors - I'd rather it was a Cayenne TT - it won't hang about passing me, won't create a nightmare by needing me to bail it out if the driver picks a stupid place to pass and encounters oncoming traffic.

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 Christian Stewart:
<strong>In percentage terms, on the road - not track - how much engine performance do you use? How much do you need? If you feel you occasionally do use a high percentage, how often do you use it in relation to overall driving time?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Two things in life you just can't seem to get enough of...one of which is horse power

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 mpm '95 C4:
<strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Two things in life you just can't seem to get enough of...one of which is horse power </strong>

What's the other one? Torque? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

mpm '95 C4

Umm torque...yeah, I'd guess you could call it that <img border="0" alt="[ouch]" title="" src="graemlins/c.gif" />