Boxsterund914

Robin,

Thanks, I was tongue-in-cheek about the getting beat by cadillac quote. But, seriously I don't think a rear engine car should be the flagship of a forward thinking company.

Bob Rouleau

Boxterund - I'm not sure I agree with you. The rear engine layout has its weaknesses but it also has advantages. The 911 can outbrake anything else since it transfers less weight to the front wheels and is is less likely to overload the front tires. It can also accelereate sooner since the back end has more grip than a front or mid engined car. Porsche has raced 911's against all manner of cars for many years with a lot of success. The 935 comes to mind.

having said that, I believe the Cayman will be the platform gong forward if only because it is possible to fit a larger engine - a flat 8 would fit for example. That would be impossible in the 911 since the engine is already far back (behind the axle in fact). The BMW's (and others) are making life difficult for Porsche because they are now fitted with larger engines than the 911. Turbos carry a nasty penalty (no organizer wants to see yet another version of the 935 domination) so a larger displacement engine is the only hope. The current block can be pushed out to 3.9 liters as was done for the DP cars but that's it. The F430 enjoys a natural advantage already and the V8 M3 will also have more displacement than the 911. It will be interesting to watch.

Boxsterund914

Bob,

I'm not sure what parts of my post you do and do not agree with. I think that the braking on ANY car that does not bear the brunt of the weight over the front wheels is bound to be better. I also agree that having the weight more towards the rear is good for acceleration, look at the mid-engine designs for top-fuel dragsters, nice hole shots there! I also agree that the 935 was a great off-the shelf solution for the classes it found available back then.

Please do not get me wrong, I don't detest the 911 design, it was great. Heck, I will never forget a drive across Independence Pass to Aspen, Colorado in a 911S back in the 70's, what a gas! I just don't think it is the lofty "be-all-end-all, stop looking we got it all figured out, Holy Grail" that many P-car fans think it is.

It is, after all, the search for excellence that got us the cool Porsche choices that we have today. I just think that the 911 guys have "dissed" the other very valid and many times much more elegant Porsche design solutions for way too long! You can't argue the fact that many of the major drool cars that Porsche has raced in the past have been mid-engine when they are able to do a clean sheet design for an non-production based class...............Herein lies the rub, when Porsche is faced with having to use a production based car now, they risk offending the major bulk of their fan base if they do not use a car that has some serious design "issues". I think that this is what is holding them back and is the very thing I was trying to convey.

NC-P-Croc

For an interesting perspective on Porsche's racing engine future, see

http://www.motorsport.com/magazine/f...s&D=2005-04-27

Not only do I agree with the writer's suppositions (I don't WANT a Porsche engine in an IRL car, but it could be a feasible long term goal) I think the Cayenne was not only an avenue by which to bring money into the company and assure it's independence. I also think the Cayenne was an engineering exercise by which Porsche could tweak a VWAG (i.e. Audi) V8 and start down the road to newer Porsche V8-engined cars. Panamera will be one, could we see a V8 in a Cayman ? woah, look out....

My problem right now is that I'm torn between a 1974 911s with about 50k miles on it that is freaking immaculate inside and out (bang-for-the-buck-fun-2nd-car) and keeping my P1 on a Cayman waiting list and getting it for my 'one car'. Unlike many in here, I can't afford more than one car, let alone more than one Porsche !

BenPatient

The theme of this thread seems to be basically, "Porsche isn't going to have to figure out what number to use after 998 and 999...because there won't be anymore 911s after that."

That's how I feel after reading this thread and watching that video. I'm not sure if I'm sad or relieved.

I will say this, though...if they charge $70K for a car that's cheaper to build than a car that costs $50K, and everyone knows it, the only way they will hold any value is if Porsche doesn't actually build enough of them to meet demand. And I doubt that will be a situation they find themselves in anytime soon.

I can buy a Boxster for less than 20K right now...Try doing that with a 1997 911...

There is a lot less going on in a Boxster, and people aren't dumb enough to buy the idea that because it has a different name, it isn't the same exact vehicle. Cayman's will sell well, but the resale value isn't going to hold like a 911...If they artificially inflate the price up front, it's going to bite them later on. Think about it in terms of demand. If you're looking at a boxster-type vehicle, but you don't want a convertible (there are plenty of us non-convertible types out there), you will probably not buy a Porsche, even if you want it. You'll buy a BMW or something else. Possibly a CTS-V or a smaller AMG coupe.

Now, add the Cayman to the mix...a $15,000 premium for what everyone knows is a less expensive car to build, from the same comany? No thanks, If I were going to spend that much, I'd buy a base 911 that's got 10K miles on it or something...

But, if you price the Cayman where it should be...equal to the Boxster or slightly below it (with the same engine spec), you have just created an incredibly desirable car. There are a ton of people out there who have shied away from a new Porsche because of the cost of entry. This demand will continue for years, and Porsche will be hard-pressed to keep up with it...resale value will hold very, very well, and they can do what it seems like they want to do...marginalize the 911. Add value and speed and the usual bloat-ware over the years, slowly raising the price up to the point where the 911 once was.

Make a Porsche hard to get not because it's so bloody expensive, but because there aren't enough of them to fill the demand. Make a vehicle that's too good to be true. If the demand is as high as I think it will be, dealers will be able to mark the prices up at there descretion and still sell the things. But a market-driven price is better than one dictated from the front office. Selling a car that's "only" $50,000 dollars won't hurt the company's image.

wow. I needed that soapbox emoticon, huh?

Boxsterund914

OK, I am with a company that does fabrication and manufacturing with global distribution. How does a Boxster cost that much less to buid than a 911? Hint: it doesn't. The steel that goes into a Boxster fender doesn't know whether it is Boxster steel or 911 steel, How is a 911 piston that much different than a Boxster piston in terms of manufacturing cost? Does a nut or a bolt become more valuable when it is destined to be wrenched onto a 911? Methinks not. So how would a company be able to charge 70K for a car that costs the same or less than it's 50K brother? Maybe the way they're doing it now. All the company has to do do is convince the insecure that their particular ride is more desireable than it's "lesser brother"and those insecure will agree with and defend that company against all comers. It is, after all, in both of their interests to do so, one for profit the other for affirmation. After all, in traditional GM or Ford marketing a Mercury was a tarted-up Ford as a Cadillac was a tarted-up Chevy....So there must be more to it....

This seems to prove the point made above.

..a lot less going on in a Boxster? The pistons go up and down, the crank turns the valves open and close, the wheels go round and round, the shifter shifts the springs spring, need I go on? There is no more going on in a 911, that's absurd. ........the resale isn't going to hold like a 911.... You're probably right. There is probably no "economy exotic" of which both the 911 and Boxster are that can hold it's value the way a 911 does due the 911's iconic nature and the desire of some to be seen, at whatever cost, in that icon.

This entire thread is about marketing. It should be required reading in any marketing course. Look at how few, OK well no one, well... except me, has asked if the 911 should be priced as high as it is....they just ask if this silly little upstart of a Cayman should be presumptious enough to mix about in the rarefied circles that the heralded 911 has every right to dominate.

Paul Marangoni

With Porsche selling so many more cars than they used to, it would be nice if they started lowering their prices or even better, increase their quality. The 911 is a great car, but hardly worth its price tag. I mean, I like it a lot better than a new Vette or an RX8, but is it worth paying twice as much? Perhaps 50% more, but not 100%.

I think the Cayman will be priced slightly higher than the Boxster just so they can position it as more of a performance car - just marketing - not because it costs more to make or is worth any more.

It sure does look beautiful though.

M758

These days Porsche is all about marketing. Sadly it seems the product comes second. Marketing comes first.

I saw a Porsche Produce extened commercial (5-10 min) about the 997. They kept going on and on about how it its a 911, its 911, see it is a 911.

Really in my mind the last car that really deserved teh 911 name was the 993. It in my mind had 911 enough parts to be a real 911. If one were really strick the 911 ended when the 964 came out. The simple reason is that it was called 964 vs 911 by the factory. It did share enough 911 part to still be real 911.

So in my mind the 996 and 997 are not true 911's any more. They are ture Porsche's, but not really a 911. Seems to me that Porsche started in "Marketing game" back the 80's.

At the time Porsche had 3 lines of cars. 911, 924/944, 928. The 928 was flagship car developed in the 70's to carry Porsche. It was fine car in its day and still is. The 924/944 line was to be value line and the 911 at the start of the decade was to phased out. It's market share was to be replaced by the 928 at high end and 944 Turbo at the lower end.

Well market forces required it to remain in the inventory. By the late 80's it was clear that from purely market driven standpoint the 911 needed to remain. So the 964 was developed and the 944 Turbo dropped. The performance of the 951 encroached too much on the 911 of the time.

So the 964 came out as mechnical evolution of the car, but with a nearly unchagend body.

The 968 came out interstingly as an "all new car" yet was 944 S2 with varible bits in the intake, an extra gear, and some new sheet metal.

Welcome to marketing 101. By this time Porsche learned about marketing and what they through the public wanted. Clearly the 968 was stoop gap car as under pinnings were rather old. The 964 was new, but did not look it and that impacted sales. So the 993 came along as minor mechanically changed 964, but with the first significant visual departure in the 911 line (slant nose & 959 excluded).

So shortly after the 968 was dropped along with the 928 both being "poor sellers", but fine cars.
To replace them came the first all new cars design by Porsche since the 928. This was the 986/996 cars. While the boxster really share much with the 914 of years gone by in terms of overall dimensions, power/weight, and place in the line up... for marketing reasons the car was compared to the 550 spyder a car which it shares very little except for a mid engine and a few curves in the body. However it was better from marketing perspective to consider it modern 550 rather than modern 914. (really the modern 550 is a carrera GT).

The new 911 was forced to be linked to the 911 of years ago even though the only thing share was a flax six hung over the rear wheels. In realiy the car shared much more in spirit with 928. As time has gone on Porsche continues to market the boxster as 550 and 996/996 as the new 911. Really the spirtual sucessor to the 911 is the GT3.

So now that Porsche is responding to the market by heavily linking the 997 to its 911 roots to keep people buying the car as "911". Simply if not it won't sell the same way the 928 was a slow seller. It has little to do with the quality/performance factor, but alot to do with impressions.

So the cayman (what a good awful name) will fit between the boxster and 911. It does seem very strange that the coupe version of the car is cheaper than the convertable version. However lets Market out way into that. Firstly it has a different name so it is not really a boxster with roof. Simply if it were it could not be sold for more. Lets throw in a little bigger motor too. How much more does a 3.4 vs 3.2L cost? My guess is nothing, but we certainly can charge more for it!

So lets look at the landscape

1986
944 - Entry level
944 Turbo - Mid Level (below 911 however)
911 - Upper mid level raw sports car
930 - upper level raw car
928 - Top of the Line GT car


2006
boxster = 944 type - entry level
Boxster S = 944 Turbo - mid level but not to much power to challenge the rest
Caymen = upper mid level raw sports car = similar market to 911 of 20 years ago
997 = spirtual sucessor to the 928 = All the things a modern 928 would be except we put the engine in back and slapped 911 name on to get it to sell.
997 Turbo = A more powerfull GT car variant


Will the caymen be a racing car. Nope. The only "racing" car Porsche builds any more it the GT3 and that is assuming a 997 GT3 will come.

This is not to say the new Porsche's will be poor cars, but they are drive no longer be engineering excellence, but by marketing and profits.

We all know the book "Excellence was Expected"
Well the Porsche mottor for the 90's and beyond is "Profit is expect". Sadly excellence is only a option if it leads to the biggest profit.

Sean

I recently read Cayman S performance numbers that were supposedly gleaned from the dealer brochure. Anyone know if they are accurate?

0-100 km/h 5.4secs manual

If the above figures are valid, Cayman sprints to 62 MPH a mere 0.1 sec faster than a 987 S. And Porsche wants to charge $10k more for the coupe?

Either these numbers are wrong, or Wiedeking is smoking some Amsterdam cigarettes.

M758

Hey Sean...
My turbo S was rated as 0-60 in 5.5 seconds in 1988. It was only $47k back then. Hmm seems the 987 S is overpriced not to mention no progress.


Really I am just busting your ***** about how "important" 0-60 (0-100km/h) really is. The Cayman is faster overall just like a 987 S is faster overall than my 944 Turbo S.

MikeN

Ya, I hear ya......

But in most of the mag tests on the Boxster S everyone was pretty much getting a 0-60 at 5 seconds flat with a 13.4 quarter mile. Not bad at all.
Now the Cayman should be a tick or two faster easily......if it isn't I won't be
too happy.

Boxsterund914

All this talk about marketing and what works and what doesn't got me to thinking..............I know, uh oh!...........what would make me get up right now, go down to Champion Porsche (several miles away), and trade my federal reserve notes for a new Porsche?

OK, are you ready? Take a Boxster and make it LIGHTER with a bare bones interior, very limited options, plastic anything and everything to make it light light light and stuff a Cayenne based torquey V8 or a flat eight in the mid-engine layout. Porsche could affer a cage design that allows decent ingress/egress and really stiffens the thing, this could be covered with a GRP top shell that is easily removeable. The front and rear fenders would swell a little for fatter tires with wheels spaced out a little for wider track a la the early 911 performance variants.

Now,...... tell me, really, would this thing not be an overnight sensation!?! Price this thing at about what a Boxster goes for now and you would have a sales phenomenon on your hands. This would spawn new racing classes and......OH STOP ME!!!!!! I'm getting all worked up here!

Porsche, if they priced this thing right, but ONLY if they priced it right, would garner a whole new generation of followers that pushed to buy. This would substantially widen the customer base and further establish the credibility of the rest of the P-car line.

This would give us a performance car along the lines of what Porsches originally were and still give some of the current clientele the luxomobiles that they want. Heck, they could still argue over the best cupholder designs and whether all silver or painted Porsche crests look better on their Porsche Design toothpicks. We would be driving our asses off!

Doncha just love marketing?

orcfromthesouth

I think the whole pricing strategy in the motor business has become tougher. The 911 (997) pricing today is quite good value for money considering the performance and refinement. You got to give credit to PAG for listening to consumers. On the other hand, a $70M supercar when you have $40M trucks? Credit Wunderman Wiederkin for focusing on productivity and efficiency. Or else the 997 would cost $90M. Which is what bothers Ferrari. Even the new Boxster at $45M offers performance that not that many years ago carried a $60M sticker at least.

What's my point? I believe the Boxster S should come with the 3.4 engine and cost a few '000 bucks more. And the hardtop version (re Cayman) should cost the same. Or a bit less, if you follow the 911 logic that rag tops cost a bit more than a tin roof. Specially if they are made of titanium.
The entry level Boxster should remain with the same engine as current and cost less....with the Cayman variant the lowest priced P car of all.

At those prices and performance, there would be more of us on the road and less M3's, Ferrari's, etc...
And we would stop talking about the value of a Corvette. Which is what bothers everyone.

Maybe all of this is similar to what Nissan's did with the Z350. Talk about value! $26M for that!! Jeeezzz.......
And a final point. Makers of cars should look at Harley in terms of creative ways to make money with a single vehicle. Even if Harley's are expensive to start with. But: you can sell accesories and other things which can add a lot of profit. I know PAG does this, but it pales in comparison. Just think of a base Cayman for $39M. And you can add as you grow diff performance accesories along the way.....including cams, big bores, etc...

Sorry about the length.

Cupcar

The interesting thing is that the production cost has little to do with the pricing strategy at Porsche. The price point is in the buyers mind.

I am sure the Boxster S costs more to build with its complicated roof than a base 997, yet there is a huge increase in price for the 997.

I am sure the Cayman will cost less to build than Boxster S as well.

A friend of mine was invited to a focus group for the Cayman here in SoCal and the most common question asked of him was "what would you pay for this?". "If we changed this styling would you pay more?". All the questions seemed to relate to the price point in the mind of the buyer, not performance or driver related issues. In fact, at the focus group my friend was told that the Boxter Coupe, if produced would be a lower cost car than the normal Boxster.


Porsche builds the cheapest thing they can and charges as much for it as the market will bare as in any other well run business.

Porsche makes more profit on capital than any other auto manufacturer, a 6.2% gross average margin according to Forbes magazine. Compare this to 2.9% for BMW or 1.9% for the industry average. Per unit profit runs from 23% to over 100%.

It is up to the consumer to demand more for their money!!!!

Boxsterund914

CupCAr,

I wholeheartedly agree!