If they can deliver a lightweight sedan, then it will be a real Porsche. But if it is 3600+ lbs, then I disagree with the editorial, it will be just another flavor of German automobile.

And in this modern day with all the safety and emissions equipment, not to mention luxury doodads, a 3000 lb sedan is tough to accomplish…

Wait, did I just compare Porsche to Chevy? Uh-oh, maybe it’s not looking so good for them after all…

They will sell all they can make for $70 k plus.

There was Captain Sargent, Sergeant Major, Major Gauntlet, and several more. I had a commander who could not pronounce the polish name of the task force commander we supported. I could say it, so he would just cue me when needed (I can’t spell it though).

At least you can look forward to many years between Capt. Solo and Gen. Solo when the references just won’t work. And besides the other flag officers, you won’t hear any of the Gen. Solo jokes being told.

We will have to see how the used prices are going on the nice SUV’s. The Cayenne, GL, and X5 all make my wife’s approved list. Hate to sell the crusher though.

Have an Airborne day.

I have come to the conclusion that there are people who will drive a Porsche, and understand. And then there are those that like others, such as the 350Z, and the S2000, and thats fine…. just not for me!

I race my Boxster S, so I know its true potential (on a twisty turny track, not an oval). I looked at the Honda S2000, and I really liked it, however, once off the track, it gave me the impression of being a cheerleader who just had a large amount of caffine, it is either on, or off, no degrees of seperation between Whooo-Hooooo! and idling. Still a great car, and when I was settled on a roadster, it was that, the 350Z, or the Boxster, and ultimately, the Boxster S won out, because it is good in all situations (to me….).

So hate Porsches if you want, I’ve already had beer cans thrown at me and called a homosexual in SouthEast Oklahoma by rednecks in a Mustang GT that could out run me (on a straight).

LandCrusher, I could go on, and on with insults on the “Porsche” Cayenne. I could call it an enema of the automotive world…. but if you like the car, you like the car, and that is all that really matters in the end, isn’t it?

P.S. I’m a Captain now, and yes, my real last name is Solo. No Star Wars jokes please. I have already had therapy for losing my wookie.

i agree with you 100% – i have driven a 350Z and own a boxster 2.7…

the 350Z is a great car – but it doesnt feel or drive anything like the boxster…

it will also lose value quicker…here in aussie the boxster has one of the strongest residuals (if not the strongest) going…

What was the old taunt, “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich”?

Thank goodness I have a crappy old 911 in the driveway.

Actually, one thing that sets Porsche’s apart is how well they serve as daily drivers. I’ve driven one on a 45 mi. daily round trip for years, and my parking garage is full of 911 commuters. Which leads to…

“many 911 owners consider the Carrera’s ability to stash small children and/or a weekend’s worth of luggage the most important factor that sets its apart from sports cars offering similar levels of performance”

Thanks for making this oft ignored point, which is almost correct. The paramount factor setting the 911 apart is the irrational engineering, which makes every turn an adventure. Driving a backass pendulum just feels different, and to many of us, intoxicatingly better.

As to those who have complained of lack of torque in the early 996’s, poor interior quality, etc, the car is guilty on all counts. If only these things mattered to me I would happily consider something else. And I have…

The Cayman S is the first Porsche, or for that matter the first anything within a reasonable price range, that has tempted me away from a 911. Dunno why it feels so much better than a Boxster S (OK I do, it’s the greater rigidity), but the combination of light weight and semi-backward weight distribution in some ways makes it feel more like my ‘82 911 than my ‘03 does. Unfortunately, there’s that small luggage and children stashing thing again, so no Cayman for now at least.

Finally, on branding, I think it’s the general view of Carrera drivers that the 911 is a brand unto itself, with everything else in the Porsche showroom largely irrelevant. After all, other than the 356 (and to some extent Boxster/Cayman), all other Porsches have been a bit of a botch up. I mean 914,924,944,928,Cayenne? Re-sale prices on EBay tell you exactly what the market thinks of the sports cars, and the Cayenne is, well, you know what it is.

I for one have no expectation of finding myself considering a Panamerica, and doubt that other 911 drivers will either. But if adding models allows Porsche to keep developing the 911, it’s all good.

When Lexus introduced the LS in 1990, it’s almost as comfortable as a MB S-class and more reliable. It undercut the base price of an S-class by 20%.

You see, you got to have a price advantage as a new and unestablished player.

When Phaeton was introduced, it’s priced very wrong even though it’s a decent car. The one to beat (i.e. the existing value player) was the Lexus LS. The Phaeton should undercut the LS by 20% to have any chance to survive. Priced at $80 instead of $50k, the Phaeton was doomed. If VW cannot price it at $50k and still make even, then don’t produce it.

The 350Z is a very good car, actually, its the best car…. for the price. But the best period? Nope, that goes to Porsche, and hence the price increase. If you want a better car than a 350Z, the engineering must be better, and that takes money, hence the extra $15000 or so grand. (A sparsely optioned Boxster will set you back $50K, Cayman $55K, the Cayman S, $65K)

If we take away the “for the price” part, I can claim that the Boxster is a mediocre car at most. You see, it’s so slow and bland as compared to Ferrari Enzo or Bugatti Veyron. Why would anyone buy a Boxster instead of an Enzo is beyond me. I would choose the latter in a heartbeat.

The sad part is that both the 350Z and the Enzo are the best for their own price ranges. The Boxster isn’t.

* The torque was so weak it was very noticable when a passenger rode with me. Not only did straightline performance suffer it actually developed a little squeek beacuse of body twist.

* The interior materials were marginal at best

* The NVH was awful….I could not drive that car more than an hour. That frickin drone from that engine was maddening.

*But the brakes were great

I sold the car in 04′ and bought an S2000. The S2000 straighline performance was 90% of the 911 with the handling and braking equal. The body rigidity was far superior even though it was a converable. The S2000 also lacked torque but I paid $27000 so at least it made some sense. The shifter was far superior so you wanted to work the gears to keep the engine in the powerband.

I remember after a year or so in the 911, I felt it was really seemed to be a $40k car at best.

Don’t bother to ask how I would eat Boxter’s for lunch in the S2000

Concerning Mazda, I agree with you. Mazda did need to improve their brand image. At the same time though, the Miata didn’t fit the one they had, but was still a big success because it was a great car.

I would say that VW’s US image is bargain euro. The GTI is a bargain euro performance car. The Jetta a bargain euro sedan. Etc. I drove a Passat years ago, a GTI and a Jetta a few years ago, and a Jetta recently. Except for the latest Jetta ride which was unimpressive, the brand ran true. It had the German car feel. The Phaeton was never a great car. It wasn’t all that outside the brand either. The problem is that no one spending 60k on a car is looking to save money on a car that isn’t exactly what they want. Sure, you can argue that buyers in that bracket don’t shop at VW, but I say they would have if the Phaeton had been better that the BMW, Lexus, Audi, etc. It wasn’t. It wasn’t a great car, it was an also ran in it’s category.

For the rest of the pack, we are looking for GREAT cars that stepped outside the brand, and failed SOLELY because they were outside the brand expectations. None of your examples fit.

The Merkur is interesting, but IIRC one of the reasons it failed is that it really wasn’t a euro ford. At any rate, euro or no, 5 doors never do well in the US. I like them, but I am in the minority.

I also like the Ridgeline, but my wife is repelled by it’s looks. Also, I would be better served by a Pilot. When I consider going without a frame, I start thinking about the BMW’s and Porsche’s rather than the Honda’s though. I know the frame protects me against depreciation better than just about anything else.

On the 911 thang, I have to say that the water cooled Porsches do not live up to the older cars’ rep. Unless you buy one of the hotted up performance models, you get a luxurious cruiser. If you want a base 911, or even the next step up, to really go, you need to buy more bits. I believe it was a smart way to go for Porsche.

I spent some time in a 2000 911 and I do agree with some of your points. Yes, the interiors were cheap. Yes, NVH, suspension harshness and interior room were less than perfect. However, it sounds like you drove these cars in a non-track environment, which is like judging a jeep by how it handles in the city. To many enthusiasts, these imperfections become meaningless the moment they hit the track in their 911s. And that’s where these cars shine.

One last point. While the Corvette, 350Z, etc. are fine cars, there’s more to a sports car than just power. It’s how all the parts work together, which is why relatively underpowered cars like the Miata or Boxster are considered to be benchmarks by many.

I don’t think you design a platform from scratch to sell 70K copies total over its lifetime at $30K each.

Ridgeline: I understood that Honda expected to sell 50-60K Ridgelines annually, and they have failed to hit their mark, despite rather hefty (for Honda) incentives.

I would not say that either model damaged Honda, although selling below expectation isn’t helpful. But I would say that these vehicles are out of the ordinary for Honda, and that the lack of sales is due to lack of consistency with the brand, rather than because the products are lousy.

I owned a 99′ 911 (996) and was never really impressed. Early on I realized it needed much more torque.

Here’s an owner who didn’t think his Porsche was gods own chariot.

I’m sure he’ll be dismissed as ignorant or insane by the truly educated among you, and that’s very sad.

I mention this because I’m glad to see that at least one former owner shares my opinion, at least partially.

Before I graduated tech school I had never driven a Porsche.

I had heard so much about them, and I was really looking forward to getting my hands on one. All magazines talk about is how fast they are and how great they handle. In my mind Porsches were something special, and the money spent on them was well worth it.

After graduation I took a position at a high-end European dealership as a technician, and that guaranteed me seat time in great cars. I was thrilled. I was going to get paid to drive and repair some phenomenal vehicles. It was what I imagined an automotive journalists life to be like, except dirtier and better paying.

Then, the golden day came. I was handed the keys to a 3 year old Carrera trade-in(this is ~2002) and told to give it the full used car work over. I know that since I never actually owned a Porsche that my opinion will also be ignored, but I was crushed after driving that first 911 and horrified after my first Boxster.

That ~1999 911 I drove was not my last Porsche, my last 911, or the newest model I ever drove. I’m sure the 911 is a great track car, but the models I drove were uniformly underpowered and cheap feeling with a crappy ride, too much NVH, and limited interior room.

I’m sure that a Turbo or GT2 would change my view on power delivery, but for the sticker price on the 911’s I did get to spend time in the interior, fitment, and overall experience should have been much better.

All I will say about the Boxster is that the examples I drove were execrable and that I fail to see how anyone could justify paying what Porsche asks for one.

I’ve dropped the hammer on M5’s, E55’s, Supra Turbos, M3’s, Porsche’s, Z8’s, AMG C classes, S600’s, and a whole variety of domestic muscle, and I don’t understand what makes a Porsche so special.

Maybe it’s something wrong with me, but I expect vehicles that sticker for what Porsche asks to be much better cars than their lower priced competitors.

In any quantifiable category an $80,000 Porsche is not twice the car it’s $40,000 competitors are, and in many subjective categories it’s worse.

I’m left feeling that what really separates most Porsches from their competitors is the fact that it’s a Porsche.

When a BMW owner leases a 328Xi and then feels superior to the owner of a Subaru that performs comparably for less money we (justifiably) feel that the BMW owner, and not the Subaru owner, is in error.

But here at TTAC, a base 911 owner is secure knowing that he is far more discriminating than the man driving a Corvette, even though the cheaper car will routinely show the 911 it’s tailights.

Sad.

Landcrusher,
Hmmm, other examples of good cars that were sales failures because they were inconsistent with their brand,…
- S2000
- Ridgeline

Honda sold nearly 2000 more S2000’s in 2006 than there were Boxter sales, 6271 vs 4503. Roadsters have a limited audience, and the S2000 is an aging design. Honda has still sold 60,000 of ‘em since ‘99, which is not too bad, and is competitive with other roadster sales in its class. How is this a sales failure?

They’re selling 40k per year of the Ridgeline. These aren’t F-150 numbers, but the Ridgeline is a pickup for people who want a pickup look, a car ride (and, er, functionality), and a Honda badge. It doesn’t really compete against “real” trucks. How again has the Ridgeline damaged Honda or been a sales failure?

I like your point that a great car that is out of character with its brand can kickstart the brand into a new direction. And the Miata is the perfect example.

Before the Miata, Mazda was an also-ran failing to keep up with Toyota/Honda/Nissan. Even when it had decent product (like the RX-7), the poor dealer network, lack of scale and wankel reliability held it back.

After the Miata, Mazda could repaint itself as the sporty Japanese carmaker quite credibly. Which it has.

I think the important points are that Mazda had a poor brand that needed change, and that a great new model that nailed the brand’s new direction could launch it there.

VW is in another place, because its brand in the US is so convoluted. Is it the inexpensive Mercedes (Passat)? Is it the sophisticated boy-racer (GTI)? Is it the feminine symbol (bug)? Is it the econohatch (Rabbit)?

My guess is that VW is none of these today. The Jetta is at the heart of the lineup: an urban, upscale Corolla. From what I’ve read, VW plans a huge expansion in the US market — I’m not sure how they get there, but if they can build the UP for $12K, they may have a shot.

The Phaeton failed for VW, because it was so out of sorts with the brand and the dealership capabilities. But it was a great car, especially for $60K. (Side note: an even better car now at 3-4 years old and sells for under $30K).

Getting back to that idea, I’ll run through the models I suggested, and the reasoning behind them:

- Pontiac GTO (the recent resurrection). The point here is that GM fans for nearly a decade were begging for a RWD pony car, and GM finally delivered, and nobody showed up. The GTO wasn’t perfect, but it beat the hell out of an eight year old Firebird.

- Merkur: Today, Ford fans in the US continually whine that they can’t get the Euro Fords, and have to make due with the warmed over American Focus. Why not sell the Mondeo, S-Max, EuroFocus, Ka,…. at Mercury? All I’m saying is that it was tried before, and failed. Completely. The EuroFords are vehicles that appeal to men under 50, people who have never been to a Mercury dealership in their lives.

- S2000: At least we agree that it is a great car. And given Honda’s racing heritage and interest in light-weight fun cars, I can see the fit. But this car looks seriously weird next to all those Civics, Accords and Odysseys, don’t you think? I didn’t buy my Accord because it was engineered by the same guys who engineered the s2000 (or NSX), I bought it because it fit my needs best.

- Supra: A fine car, that died mysteriously one day, along with its friends the 300ZX, 30000GT and RX-7. For me, the idea of a sports/GT car made by the same guys who build such snoozy Camrys, Corollas, Yarises, etc. seems like a stretch.

Likewise, I see that Lexus is bringing out a hot IS, but amount of talk about “passionate pursuit” would get me to take it over a 335.

- Aurora: My point here was that it was supposed to save Oldsmobile, with all its European character, and didn’t. Not by a long shot. Was it a great car? The reviewers at the time said so, but in retrospect, probably not. In fairness, nothing could have saved Oldsmobile.

- Ridgeline: We disagree on whether this is a great vehicle. It certainly has been well reviewed, but it certainly is ugly. Look, if you need a serious work truck, you want an F150/Silverado. If you are doing true off-road work, look for a TRD. But everyone else, (which is the largest part of the market) would probably do well by this vehicle. Ugly, yes, but also comfortable, dependable, and innovative.

- R-class. Hearse is right! But I think there is a market for an upscale people-mover. In my neck of the woods at least, there are lots of families with 3+ kids who have money. The R-class isn’t a great vehicle, but I would have thought that anyone filling this niche would do well, and M-B clearly has not.

Um, the Jeep fans that I hang out with fanatically revere the Cherokee, especially after it was replaced by the IFS Liberty.

Are we talking about the same Cherokee?

Well said, and thanks for the bashes.

PS. How far, LT?

I gotta give you credit, you are sticking to it.

- Phaeton – Never drove one, but this may be a good case for your argument. Still, is it really a great car? Did it beat the luxury competition in any way? I would have to say that it likely could have sold more with a luxury badge name, but I would not say it breaks my argument that great cars sell anyway. It wasn’t great.

- 308GT4 (a non-Pininfarina Ferrari? blasphemy!) I know nothing about these.

- Pontiac GTO (the recent resurrection) Didn’t live up to it’s own hype. Not great, didn’t even get that good of reviews once the production versions actually hit the market.

- Merkur – Missed the market. Wasn’t it a 5 door? Was it great? No. It makes my case that if you leave your brand poorly it hurts more, but doesn’t disprove me.

- S2000 The S2000 is exactly what you would expect Honda to present as a roadster. What makes you think Honda should not make a roadster?

- Supra Which one? I think they sold a lot of them. What badge would it work better under? It didn’t die until all of it’s competition died as well.

- Aurora Was this car a poor seller? I think it did well at first, but didn’t last. Also, it wasn’t really all that great, just better than the usual GM crud of the time. I don’t remember what was it’s downfall.

- Ridgeline – Not a great car. Not even above average. How does it hurt Honda though? What badge would make it sell better?

- R-class – A hearse has a very limited market. This wasn’t a brand mistake, it was just a mistake.

I fear the Malibu, CTS, Enclave and upcoming RWD Hyundais may join the list.

Malibu is back to the GM problem, but what badge would be better? Is it really a great car being held back because it’s a chevy? No. Will it hurt Chevy? No.

I will give you the CTS. GM maybe should have made this as a flagship Pontiac instead. Different sheet metal of course. Still, one of the best sellers of all times was a small, badge engineered Cadillac. The Seville would likely make a good case for the argument that a out of place product kills the brand, but it’s back to the old GM thing. A good argument could be made that the Seville actually put off the doom of GM. GM is just problematic when it comes to branding. How do you look at bad stew and blame marketing for not selling any of the ingredients?

I think if Hyundai makes good looking RWD cars, they will sell. If they are great, they will sell. I can’t think of anything that they could make that I would say didn’t fit their brand so long as it had a good value proposition. Is there an example of a Hyndai that didn’t sell because it cost more than it’s competition? That would make your argument a lot stronger.

Overall, I can see what you are thinking, but I am not changing my mind. If it’s a great car, no one will care what brand it is. Only if it’s not a top level machine or value will the fact that it doesn’t fit the brand really hold it back.

To be fair, I should come up with some cars that didn’t fit the brand that turned out well.

The Miata comes to mind. The Miata MADE Mazda what is today. Zoom, Zoom.

The Jeep Cherokee. The Jeep fans hated it. Saved the brand and gave it a much wider following after a long period of only the wrangler/cj working.

The Corvette. The Ford Mustang. The 240Z. The Scirocco. Weren’t all of these departures for their brands?

‘89 Nissan Maxima. A sports sedan? From Japan?

What do you think of my examples?

The Boxer remains nothing more than a refreash for the last 10 years. It is a girl’s car from the get-go. Stirckly for re-engineered “blondes” in Plam Beach or the OC. Remember the 2.5 Men episope when Sheen’s brother bought a Boxer? Charlie called him out appropriatley -”you bought a chic car, dude”

The SUV? A 5000 pound VW. What kind of engineering gets this POS to 5000 pounds? I think it needs tobe tested for lead.

Now these over-priced, stuff-shirt Germans are going to make a 4 door? It’s going to be fugly (Fat and ugly)

“The entry-level powerplant will be Volkswagen’s 3.5-liter six-cylinder engine with 300 bhp, while Porsche’s own drivetrain will be a direct-injection eight-cylinder gas engine, available in naturally-aspirated guise (350 bhp).”

Somebody please tell me this VW-powered squashed-flat-Pontiac-Aztec …. thing isn’t going to cost more than, say $35K? I mean, we are talking 300 horses, right?

I think the pictures of the Panamera haven’t helped.

I agree, but I have a hard time believing that the test mules are any real indication of the final look, at least in terms of exterior design.

Assembling a sedan using various Porsche characteristics should be a no-brainer, I mean, the Cayenne almost looks good, and if they can pull that off, anything’s possible.

I say the Boxster puts a better smile on my face than the 350Z Roadster, because it does. (I have driven both)

The 350Z is a very good car, actually, its the best car…. for the price. But the best period? Nope, that goes to Porsche, and hence the price increase. If you want a better car than a 350Z, the engineering must be better, and that takes money, hence the extra $15000 or so grand. (A sparsely optioned Boxster will set you back $50K, Cayman $55K, the Cayman S, $65K)

Read the very reviews on this site. Our very own Robert Farago said the Boxster (non-S) “produces more cargasms per mile than any other whip in existence”. And my favorite,I will be testing a lot of extreme metal on your behalf, dear reader, but I have a hard time convincing myself that I will ever get over the new Porsche Boxster.”.

And moving to the $120K Porsche 911 Turbo, Matthew Neundorf told us “Stuttgart created the latest Turbo, a car so capable that driving it is a biblical revelation.”

The reviews on the 350Z were none the less glowing, but it still posts slower numbers than a Boxster (look it up!), it is a very heavy car, hence why they race in completely different classes in SCCA. One simply will be faster, and SCCA knows which.

The new Nissan GT-R will no doubt be a revelation, just like the original Datsun 240Z. We will have to see. However, if I wanted to trounce a GT-R, couldn’t I buy a Z06, a few bolt on mods, and smile?

But getting back to the point of this article, the Panamera, it will have the engineering, the reliability, the PERFORMANCE, to truly put it among the great Porsches (Cayenne not withstanding…. or the 914….. 924, the Porsche with the Van engine…). It will dominate its class, unless they shoot themselves in the foot and give us a rebadged Phaeton…. a’la Cayenne.

Landcrusher, here are your Cayenne diatribes, en-masse:

-ITS UGLY! It looks like that old chick at the oscars after too much face lifting. They took the old model, grabbed the sheet metal, stretched it till it was tight, stapled it with Mexican VW sourced staples, rolled out the red carpet, and said, “Jawhol! New Porsche, buy it you American Pig!”

-ITS AN SUV! If you buy an SUV, buy one that GOES OFF ROAD. Buying a Cayenne makes a pschizophrenic statement. It says yes, I am manly and want to go off-road, but maybe I want to be manly, and have a sports car….. Oh LOOK!!!!, a compromise, something that can do either very well, but is favored by all politicians.

-BUY AN AUDI S4 AVANT! If you want speed AND luggage space. That thing is incredible. Fast, great V-8, all-wheel drive, etc… or better yet, get an M5 wagon, or an E65 Mercedes wagon. Don’t get a shotput thrower with heels and lipstick on.

-ITS A RECYCLED VW! Just like the Audi Q7. Great cars, yes, but why pay more when the engineering underneath is the exact same, and the Tourag’s build quality is starting to worry even the Ahmoud Amahdeinejad.

-Here is my recommendation. Buy a Nissan XTerra Off-Road, for $25K, to go camping, look cool and outdoorsy (and run over Subarus), and then get a Audi S4/BMW 335I/Infinit G37/Merc E-something/ and call it a day. Two cars, for the price of a pig!