Porsche rant in TTAC

93EXCivic wrote: I know modern Porsches are wonderful cars but I know if I was spending my money I would end up buying an air-cooled one.

If I had $30K to spend on a weekend toy I'd buy a G50 Carrera and watch it double or more in value over the next 10-15 years. If in a few years I can sort of justify a $20k Porsche as a 3 season DD then I'll be buying a late 986 or early 987 'S' or a late 996. Other than for the hard core the OIL-cooled cars just aren't good DD's. That 986/996 etc cars are not just better in every measurable way, they are far better in traffic too.

Maroon92 wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: I posted the following on Pelican Parts forum where I found the original link. Predictably many are calling for Jack Baruth's head on a platter for doubting Porsche in any way, although just as many are still the die hard 'Porsche died with the 993 brigade I think many people are missing the point of the article. I don’t see anything wrong with Porsche expanding their model lineup per-say. They still make sports cars, and much as people like to ***** and moan about water cooling, PDK, comfort and convenience I’d argue that the cars are selling to the same market place as they were 20-30-40 years ago. The price of entry (as in specification) is what had changed, meaning the car had to change too. I think the biggest issue is what he refers to in the second half of the article, that is quality and maintenance costs. If you want to be a full service auto manufacturer (again, nothing wrong with that in concept) then you have to do it too the same standard as the rest of the market. Massively high service and parts costs, with subpar reliability on major components just isn’t going to wash on a $30k SUV. As Boxsters and 911’s (996 up) age, people will be willing to spend $1,000-2,000 replacing the RMS and IMS as a preventative measure, especially as these items are becoming more easily DIY’able, but people are not going to accept a $1,000-2,000 safety measure or a $5-15k engine replacement on a ten year old SUV that’s only worth $8-10k. People don’t buy old SUV’s to keep in the garage for weekend drives, track days and date nights with their significant other, they do with sports cars. People will live with a 10 year old SUV where some of the switches don’t work, or the nav system has failed, the seat heater has stopped working or heck the ABS and stability control has quit and the light is permanently on because they car still drive it too and from work. But major mechanical issues and super expensive repair costs that leave a vehicle inoperable will not be welcomed and will kill the company fast.

I tend to disagree with you. Much like the Cayenne, Macan buyers will not keep these cars long enough to hit these problems. These issues will fall on the second and third owners of these vehicles. Honestly, Porsche builds some very reliable engines these days (not the garbage they were pumping out in the early 2000s), and the engine in the Macan should be quite a reliable one. The turbo V6 is based off of the V8 that has been powering Cayenne since 2003. If people can't accept a 1-2000 dollar repair on a 60-75K vehicle once in a while, then they have no business buying a 60-75K vehicle.

I appreciate what your saying, but look at the outcry by used buyers of 986/996 cars that is definitely affecting their value and image.

if I had the money, I would own a cayman in a heartbeat. I think it is an awesome looking and performing car.

if I wanted an SUV, I would stick with Rover

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Maroon92 wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote: I posted the following on Pelican Parts forum where I found the original link. Predictably many are calling for Jack Baruth's head on a platter for doubting Porsche in any way, although just as many are still the die hard 'Porsche died with the 993 brigade I think many people are missing the point of the article. I don’t see anything wrong with Porsche expanding their model lineup per-say. They still make sports cars, and much as people like to ***** and moan about water cooling, PDK, comfort and convenience I’d argue that the cars are selling to the same market place as they were 20-30-40 years ago. The price of entry (as in specification) is what had changed, meaning the car had to change too. I think the biggest issue is what he refers to in the second half of the article, that is quality and maintenance costs. If you want to be a full service auto manufacturer (again, nothing wrong with that in concept) then you have to do it too the same standard as the rest of the market. Massively high service and parts costs, with subpar reliability on major components just isn’t going to wash on a $30k SUV. As Boxsters and 911’s (996 up) age, people will be willing to spend $1,000-2,000 replacing the RMS and IMS as a preventative measure, especially as these items are becoming more easily DIY’able, but people are not going to accept a $1,000-2,000 safety measure or a $5-15k engine replacement on a ten year old SUV that’s only worth $8-10k. People don’t buy old SUV’s to keep in the garage for weekend drives, track days and date nights with their significant other, they do with sports cars. People will live with a 10 year old SUV where some of the switches don’t work, or the nav system has failed, the seat heater has stopped working or heck the ABS and stability control has quit and the light is permanently on because they car still drive it too and from work. But major mechanical issues and super expensive repair costs that leave a vehicle inoperable will not be welcomed and will kill the company fast.

I tend to disagree with you. Much like the Cayenne, Macan buyers will not keep these cars long enough to hit these problems. These issues will fall on the second and third owners of these vehicles. Honestly, Porsche builds some very reliable engines these days (not the garbage they were pumping out in the early 2000s), and the engine in the Macan should be quite a reliable one. The turbo V6 is based off of the V8 that has been powering Cayenne since 2003. If people can't accept a 1-2000 dollar repair on a 60-75K vehicle once in a while, then they have no business buying a 60-75K vehicle.

I appreciate what your saying, but look at the outcry by used buyers of 986/996 cars that is definitely affecting their value and image.

996/986 cars aren't Porsche's problem anymore. They're off warranty, and is outside the bounds of their give-a-crap. Expensive cars are expensive to maintain, (even if they aren't expensive anymore) I don't see the problem.

Maroon92 wrote: Also, I've heard Jack Baruth is a great guy in person (never met him), but I cannot stand the "Sky is falling" variety of writing he does at TTAC. The stuff he writes for Road and Track tends to be phenomenal... Perhaps they keep him on a shorter chain.

Article was entertaining as can be expected with a Baruth byline. And spot-on.

The thing with "Sky is falling" is that "everything is roses" does not make good copy. It's not good reading and it's dull to write, too. Notice that R&T tends to be about as interesting as a mayo and lettuce sandwich. If R&T were a car, it'd be a Camry.

(heh... one of my friends just bought one of his Porsches, too. The kind that eat door handles, not the kind that back into ditches)

In reply to Maroon92:

I agree

Maroon92 wrote: 996/986 cars aren't Porsche's problem anymore. They're off warranty, and is outside the bounds of their give-a-crap.

I disagree. They ARE Porsche's problem, albeit indirectly. If a car is a dog on the used car market, people won't buy them, driving values down. Thus 90% depreciation after less than a decade.

SOME people won't care. That'd be the people who want the cachet of the name. (See commentary on what is expected of a 911)

The problem is, Porsche has mostly saturated the market of people who won't care. And increasing one's resale value takes a lot longer than it does to lose it. Witness the resale value of Vibes vs. Matrixes, vast disparity despite being quite literally the same car.

Knurled wrote:

Maroon92 wrote: 996/986 cars aren't Porsche's problem anymore. They're off warranty, and is outside the bounds of their give-a-crap.

I disagree. They ARE Porsche's problem, albeit indirectly. If a car is a dog on the used car market, people won't buy them, driving values down. Thus 90% depreciation after less than a decade. SOME people won't care. That'd be the people who want the cachet of the name. (See commentary on what is expected of a 911)

I agree with your sentiment, but disagree with your comment on people only buying it for the cachet. There are many new and used Porsche owners who do care deeply about the sports cars, the racing and the driving experience over and above the badge. That E36 M3ty name also helps the GRMers in that 996 engined cars are an absolute bargain on the used market due to the E36 M3ty resale.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: I agree with your sentiment, but disagree with your comment on people only buying it for the cachet. There are many new and used Porsche owners who do care deeply about the sports cars, the racing and the driving experience over and above the badge.

I'd qualify that as part of the cachet. The guy who just wants something blingy would get pissed off at the funds dumpster and replace it with a Lexus.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

oldeskewltoy wrote: .... anybody want a PCA approved 1984 911???

Pics please.

It's.....beautiful......

On the subject of Baruth, I've only met him once (his rallycross article was about one of our events) and he is a nice guy in person. He really likes to talk cars. He seemed to really enjoy sitting in the gutted pinto wagon and was genuinely bummed that he wasn't tall enough to drive it.

I'm not at all the target audience Porsche is looking to attract because in most cases I don't give a crap what badge is on my car, I care about how expensive they are, how they drive and how easily I can work on them. I've owned a lot of Mazdas, but that is mainly because they drive well and I can afford them.

The Cayman is one of the best looking cars out there (IMO) and is really the only one I would consider owning. It would have to have a PDK as well. I also know I'd take a huge dent to the pocketbook keeping it working, which is why I have a Subaru, a Miata and an RX-8 instead right now.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: I know modern Porsches are wonderful cars but I know if I was spending my money I would end up buying an air-cooled one.

If I had $30K to spend on a weekend toy I'd buy a G50 Carrera and watch it double or more in value over the next 10-15 years. If in a few years I can sort of justify a $20k Porsche as a 3 season DD then I'll be buying a late 986 or early 987 'S' or a late 996. Other than for the hard core the OIL-cooled cars just aren't good DD's. That 986/996 etc cars are not just better in every measurable way, they are far better in traffic too.

I DD a lowered Civic with no A/C in Alabama. I doubt it would be much of a downgrade to an '80s Porsche. Unfortunately I can't afford one anyway... I am thinking about getting a classic to DD maybe next year.

I think they are diluting their brand, but in a calculated business sort of way. Piech (VW) and Porsche families are directly related to each other - always seemed a little odd to me with the stock takeovers/manipulation, but have no doubt it served a strategic purpose. Porsche made the strategic decision to go for higher volume so they will need to complete in already occupied market space and if they want to be more than a niche player, yes, they will need to make vehicles that won't have catastrophic failures within the first 150k miles regardless of it being the first, second, or fifth owner.

Thanks for reading that, GRMers. The positive comments I'll print out and send to my mom, the negative comments I'll address by losing control in Turn Nine at Laguna Seca immediately after dive-bombing you.

Re: the 991 and 981. I now have a fair amount of wheel time in three different specs of the new platform --- 911C4S PDK, Boxster non-S, and Cayman S manual. They feel awfully wide and sleepy compared to my 993 and 986S Anniversary. And before you chop my head clean off with a single "BUT THOSE CARS ARE 9 AND 19 YEARS OLD", think about how a 2004 Z06 driver would feel getting into a Z51 C7 (which, btw, is a brilliant car.) Would he feel like he'd been sentenced to drive a bigger, more sluggish, less interesting vehicle? What about a Ferrari 430 driver who upgraded to a 458?

When the 997.2 came out I thought that the company was finally heeding some of the criticism it had received. The new engine is, according to Mike Levitas, the finest Porsche engine since the "Metzger" flat-six, and if it doesn't take boost quite as well as the aforementioned mill, who but the standing-mile guys really care?

Then the 991 and 981 appeared. I can't bring myself to enjoy them. They're Corvette wide and Corvette unwiedly without having Corvette power or Corvette balance (in the case of the 991).

Obviously, I get a little agitated in the article. There's a reason for that. I was a Porsche fan since the age of four. By the time I was thirty I had three Porsches. There are maybe three more holes in my driveway that SHOULD be filled with great new Porsches but aren't. It makes me sad. I'll probably wind up buying a 997 GT3, at which point the Rennlist/Pelican guys will say LOLZ HE WAS A USED CAR BUYER ANYWAY F HIM

In reply to 187Neon:

JB, I presume?

May I ask, the lady in the article was fiction, yes?

I don't love everything you write, but this was very nicely done. I read the RX350 part aloud to my in-laws but I doubt they got the nuance of Porsche becoming a mass-market player, or rather, trying to. Nice work.

On a side note, since I don't comment at TTAC, more of this and less of that new weirdo girl who gets everyone all pissed off.

In reply to tuna55:

The lady in the article was someone I dated for quite some time, actually, and someone whom I still consider to be a very close friend. The story of her life has enough twists and turns that if you wrote it as a fiction novel people would accuse you of being overly imaginative.

Re: Caroline, sometimes it's hard to give people what they want. We had some legitimate criticism from the readers that TTAC was a boys' club, so I brought on two women and one transgendered individual to write for us. Now I hear that Caroline is too stereotypical and Amanda is boring and Cameron's too businesslike. :) Could be worse, at least we're not doing rope bondage and sex toys any more.

No problem if you don't love everything I write. I don't love everything I write, either, and when I look back at it years later some of the stuff I thought was good seems less than good and vice versa.

Knurled wrote: The thing with "Sky is falling" is that "everything is roses" does not make good copy. It's not good reading and it's dull to write, too. Notice that R&T tends to be about as interesting as a mayo and lettuce sandwich. If R&T were a car, it'd be a Camry.

I disagree. MT is the Camry. R&T is much better since the revamp.

Also, I like to have a more positive outlook on life, so I try not to write negative pieces. Writing negative just makes me angrier, and I don't like to be angry. Trust me, I can rant with the best of them, but I don't want to be seen as a guy who rants all the time.

In reply to oldeskewltoy:

DO WANT.

That is very sexy.

187Neon wrote: The lady in the article was someone I dated for quite some time, actually, and someone whom I still consider to be a very close friend. The story of her life has enough twists and turns that if you wrote it as a fiction novel people would accuse you of being overly imaginative.

Thanks for joining in. Now with the way you wrote the article, please write her bio and call it fiction. That would be a fun read

In reply to 187Neon:

Jack, I appreciate greatly that you've entered the discussion, that tells me that you must be an alright dude. The fact that you can take criticism well is also a plus (but you won't catch me on track with you at Laguna anytime soon).

As I said before, we've never met, but your name is held in high esteem by some friends whose opinions I value. I've mostly been steering clear of TTAC for a while, simply because it doesn't pique my interest, but hey, opinions are like a-holes, right?

187Neon wrote: In reply to tuna55: The lady in the article was someone I dated for quite some time, actually, and someone whom I still consider to be a very close friend. The story of her life has enough twists and turns that if you wrote it as a fiction novel people would accuse you of being overly imaginative. Re: Caroline, sometimes it's hard to give people what they want. We had some legitimate criticism from the readers that TTAC was a boys' club, so I brought on two women and one transgendered individual to write for us. Now I hear that Caroline is too stereotypical and Amanda is boring and Cameron's too businesslike. :) Could be worse, at least we're not doing rope bondage and sex toys any more. No problem if you don't love everything I write. I don't love everything I write, either, and when I look back at it years later some of the stuff I thought was good seems less than good and vice versa.

Aww crud, I meant Caroline, I don't read often enough to recognize the other two unfortunately. Boo. I am glad that you have that sexy minx Murilee around.

93EXCivic wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: I know modern Porsches are wonderful cars but I know if I was spending my money I would end up buying an air-cooled one.

If I had $30K to spend on a weekend toy I'd buy a G50 Carrera and watch it double or more in value over the next 10-15 years. If in a few years I can sort of justify a $20k Porsche as a 3 season DD then I'll be buying a late 986 or early 987 'S' or a late 996. Other than for the hard core the OIL-cooled cars just aren't good DD's. That 986/996 etc cars are not just better in every measurable way, they are far better in traffic too.

I DD a lowered Civic with no A/C in Alabama. I doubt it would be much of a downgrade to an '80s Porsche. Unfortunately I can't afford one anyway... I am thinking about getting a classic to DD maybe next year.

A long time ago I used to dd a lowered 944 turbo with no AC and no power steering....and it was black. Rush hour in Nashville during summer was horrible.

Cotton wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: I know modern Porsches are wonderful cars but I know if I was spending my money I would end up buying an air-cooled one.

If I had $30K to spend on a weekend toy I'd buy a G50 Carrera and watch it double or more in value over the next 10-15 years. If in a few years I can sort of justify a $20k Porsche as a 3 season DD then I'll be buying a late 986 or early 987 'S' or a late 996. Other than for the hard core the OIL-cooled cars just aren't good DD's. That 986/996 etc cars are not just better in every measurable way, they are far better in traffic too.

I DD a lowered Civic with no A/C in Alabama. I doubt it would be much of a downgrade to an '80s Porsche. Unfortunately I can't afford one anyway... I am thinking about getting a classic to DD maybe next year.

A long time ago I used to dd a lowered 944 turbo with no AC and no power steering....and it was black. Rush hour in Nashville during summer was horrible.

My Civic is black but it does have power steering.

Maroon92 wrote: In reply to 187Neon: I've mostly been steering clear of TTAC for a while, simply because it doesn't pique my interest, but hey, opinions are like a-holes, right?

We don't need everybody to read TTAC in order to pay the bills.

We just need ALMOST EVERYBODY to read it.

Come on, people, I'm in the middle of trying to buy a Grand Caravan master cylinder for my race car here!