For all intents and purposes, a Porsche sports car is the very definition of luxury; an indication that there's another car in the garage for the daily to and fro. By default, this significantly limits the brand’s potential audience. And no matter how lucrative it may be, no matter how pure the brand’s following, watching competitors reaping the benefit of additional markets is no easy job for an auto exec. In fact, it was only a matter of time before the German automaker bucked against its self-imposed limitations and tried something different.
Of course, the real problem was Porsche’s chosen direction. No one expected the Sultans of Stuttgart to offer the world an SUV. Unleashed in 2003, the Cayenne released an enormous and entirely justified torrent of outrage. That the German automaker, formerly one of the auto industry's most focused players, would break away from its core competency was bad enough. But an SUV? The gap between an SUV and a sports car is a chasm that should not be crossed in one bound, if at all.
Even worse, the Cayenne sold at a dizzying pace. It soon became– and currently remains– the brand’s best-selling model in North America. Sales have flooded the company with new revenue. Rather than follow through on their promise to apply the additional funds to sports car development, Porsche used the cash to take control of Volkswagen, Audi and their portfolios. And instead of using any leftover cash to create a new entry-level sports car, or engineer a two-door 928 successor, Porsche crafted another alleged monstrosity: a four-door sedan.
And yet the Panamera doesn’t deserve the criticism; it shouldn't to be lumped-in with the Cayenne. The German sedan is a natural progression for Porsche. It represents a sense of continuity with the brand’s central promise (that's wholly absent from the Cayenne): practical performance.
Now don’t ask me “what could be more practical than an SUV?” and quote slalom and zero to sixty times for the hyperformance Cayenne Turbo S. It’s true: just as Porsche’s engineers managed to do the impossible with the 911’s rear-engined layout (ei.e. keep it from constantly flying backwards into a hedge), they somehow built a truck that can corner. But it does not handle like a Porsche. It handles like a truck modified by Porsche. In terms of brand-faithful performance, the Cayenne ain’t it.
As a car, the Panamera is sure to have it: that unique combination of engine character, suspension sophistication, steering communication, braking ability and sublime chassis control that endears Porwche's mean machines to their rabid fan base. The Panamera will accelerate, corner and brake like no other sedan built. The Nürburgring-fettled passenger car will be a "real" Porsche.
At the same time, the new Porsche Panamera will be a superb everyday family sedan. It’s literally made for toting children, suitcases, groceries and stuff. That may not seem to be a concept inherent to a car company that built its name on speed and performance, but 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.
Of course, all of this assumes the production Panamera will live up to this ideal. It certainly seems to be the case, given the brand’s history and the information gathered since the car's initial announcement in 2005. The exterior resembles an oversized and stretched 911, right down to the hatchback (which has become the main point of discussion surrounding the car). Even better, there's every possibility that the finalized design will lessen the frumpy rear.
For the Porsche purist, there is a potential downside to the Panamera: marginalizing the 911. While the Carrera will always have its true believers, the Panamera will offer most (if not all) of the 911’s performance with a great deal more practicality. Now that the Boxster/Cayman are finally getting the power and respect they deserve, now that there will be a Porsche whose get-up-and-go rivals the Carrera, the 911 will fall in an uncomfortable niche between a pure, affordable sports car and a day-to-day road rocket/GT.
In any case, for a car company striving to expand its reach, the Panamera is a logical new direction. The real issue is what comes next. The sure-fire success of Porsche's sedan will undoubtedly trigger another, significantly more worrisome test of the automaker's character. After all, the distance between a full-size luxury car and a compact executive car is only a hop, skip and a jump away.
[Kevin RE Watts writes about Lexus at passionatepursuit.com.]
One thing that gets lost in these conversations is the fact that great cars will sell. The problem of a car not fitting it’s brand only appears when the car is slightly above average or worse. When a car is really good, someone will always make a good case that the car DID fit the brand. At the least, an argument will be made that the car redefined the brand in a good way.
At any rate, I would appreciate all of you making lots of Cayenne slurs, jabs, and jokes. In spite of all its shortcomings, it’s on my shortlist of next cars, and I would appreciate you all beating down the price for me.
Talking about practicality is hilarious. Do you really think ANYONE buys the Cayenne or Panamera for anything other than brand snobbishness?
Well, to be fair, it’s more a case of practical performance than just practicality.
Landcrusher :
As I tried to assert in Justin’s CTS review, brand faithfulness is all about long-term thinking.
Short term, a Porsche-tuned minivan would sell. Long term, it would damage the brand.
I agree with Mr. Watts: the Panamera passes the sniff test. Personally, as a Porsche-owning pistonhead, I am not offended.
There’s a legitimate niche for a four-door performance vehicle designed to appeal to the hedge fund managers. Think Maserati Quattroporte, Bentley Arnage, Jaguar XF (maybe), Mercedes S65. There’s no reason Porsche can’t play in this league without damaging its brand.
On the other hand, whether the marque survives the Cayenne in the long run remains to be seen. Selling a tarted-up Touareg for a quick buck (okay, lots of quick bucks) seems almost GM-esque in terms of a strategic coherency.
By the way, if Porsche is serious about selling Panameras, they better pull that ugly blue comb out of its ass.
I’m sure it will be a great car, but here in non autobahn land I would be much more excited if it was rear engine, with correspondingly light steering and quick turn in. Yet another M5 just isn’t all that exciting.
For the Panamera to pass the sniff test, it better go like stink. The car will doubtless damage the brand (anything that forces consumers to think or change carefully cultivated perceptions about your brand is damaging) but Porsche has shown it is less interested in preserving their beautiful brand than they are in raking in profits.
We’ll see what people say about it in, oh, 20 years. That’s the only way to tell, really, whether a business or branding decision was a wise one.
Reasons not to make this car: It’s big, it’s plain, and it’s ugly. Porsche has never been known for lookers, but this Panamera is even worse than Maserati’s attempt at a 4-seat sports car. It would be interesting to know how well the latter sells, if at all.
Let’s say I’m unlikely to sneer at the Panamera the way I do at soccer-mom-driven Cayennes, or Cayennes driven 10pmh under the speed limit.
This said, the prototypes are ugly. Let’s hope the final version looks better.
KnightRT: I disagree about Maserati: although the Quattroporte does not look as good as its 2-seaters, I find it by far the best-looking S-class competitor on the market, even above the A8.
One thing that gets lost in these conversations is the fact that great cars will sell. The problem of a car not fitting its brand only appears when the car is slightly above average or worse. When a car is really good, someone will always make a good case that the car DID fit the brand. At the least, an argument will be made that the car redefined the brand in a good way.
I agree completely. Just as long as it looks like a Porsche and behaves like a Porsche, it will help the brand. I suspect that the Cayenne may be treading on thin ice, but luxury sports car makers have employed multiple configurations without any harm being done. Brand extension can work, just as long as the brand integrity remains intact and unambiguous.
And since Landcrusher and I agree just about as often as Halley’s Comet graces our skies, dammit, we must be right!
That being said, it looks a bit fugly. I don’t have a problem with the concept, I’m just not sure if that’s the design that I’d be going with.
I remember a time, in the mid 1980s when Prosche offered up a full scale line-up of strictly sports cars. You could shop a Porsche dealer for a $20,000 924s up to a $80,000 928s4 with several 911 and 944 models in between. Back then a Porsche was a bit more than a glorified over-priced rich boy toy. A Porsche meant you gave a damn about cars and driving. A prosche was the type of car that even regular guys and gals could aspire to own if they managed their money well.
Porsche used to be the technology leader along with MB. IIRC they were the first to install passanger side airbags in their 944s. They also lead with MB in ABS on the 928 a few years earlier. Porsche used to always have a HP advantage over the majority of automakers displacement for displacement. The 944 turbo was making an unheard of 217hp in 1985! The 911 was making over 200hp from a NA 3.3l 6 when most other makers could barely make 180hp with the same displacement.
Today Porsche is a shadow of it former self. Yes the cars are still fast and they are considered tops by many but they are NOT really special anymore. With the new Nissan GT-R about to hit the market and the current ZO6 and Viper it seems like we are back in the early 1990s again with the Japanese and Domestics ready to slap Porsche around in a big way for far less $$$.
When your $125,000 911 Turbo can be matched by a $70,000 Nissan it is time to step up the game!
Today I mostly see old ladies on Hilton Head Island driving automatic Boxsters. The men appear to actually prefer Corvettes today.
What does this have to do with the Panamera? IMO the family that owns Porsche is out of touch with the core values that made Porsche what it is. I believe they see it as just a very profitable venture. That is why they are looking for any opportunity to increase sales and revenue. I don’t think they consider a car like the GT-R as a major threat to the brand, in the same why the leadership at MB seriously under-estimated Lexus in 1990. I also see a company that has been dragging its feet getting a decent DSG transmission to market. This is ironic considering they pioneered this technology in their racecars, PPK (correct me if I am wrong). I also see a company that only see themself as competition by limiting the Boxster and Cayman potential to falsely elevate the 911. Oh, there is also that new Audi that serves as a glaring example of what Porsche is NOT doing right today.
IMO Porsche is making a mistake trying branching out into sectors that other companies can easily outmatch them while ignoring their own segment of the market. Where is the new GT car? Why a sedan before a coupe? If I already own a 911, M5, and a G Wagon do I really need another Prosche sedan or SUV? Porsche makes the best sports cars, BMW, and MB make the best sedans, the Domestics and Toyota make the best off-road SUVs. While this is not everyone way of thinking this is the way most folk with discriminating taste do think. Sticking a brand name known for excellence in one type of product of an entirely different products is always a quick recipe for brand dilution.
A $120,000 Panamera Turbo would be “practical performance” if there wasn’t a similarly-powerful CTS-V in the works that will probably be a good $40,000 cheaper. Brand snobs.
Of course there’s a market for a good-looking stylish Porsche 4-door sport sedan.
I can’t wait to see the new Porsche sedan when they finally take the camouflage off of it!
Porsche still creates magic, from the Boxster to the Cayman, to the ubiquitous 911. You drive one and you understand. They feel… well… right in a way most cars never can aspire to. A 350Z will run neck and neck with a Boxster S, but it won’t put the same smile on your face after owning it for 3 years.
Anybody can drive a Subaru STI fast, or a CTS-V, or a Z06. Not everybody can get the full potential out of a Porsche, thats where the brilliance resides. You may have owned a 911 all your life, but you will always say to yourself, “if I can only get a bit better at shifting, heel and toeing, finding the right line on the turns, the car will go even faster“. After a quick run in an Evo, you will say, “Yep, thats as fast as that thing will go… time for a turbo upgrade”.
A Porsche impresses the beginner, flatters the amateur, and challenges the professional. You always find something new and joyous about them when you discover a new twisty road together (and they are comfortable enough to go cross country to find them).
No, Porsche owners aren’t Brand Snobs. We have just been bitten by the Porsche magic. Drive one, without going in and telling yourself that you will already hate it, and you will see.
I feel the Panamera, using Cayenne profits, will live fully up to this potential.
Hey, love Porsche all you want. So do I.
But using the word “practical” to describe the Panamera in any fashion is completely missing the point as to what the Panamera is.
Yeesh. I see “Porsche magic” and I can barely keep the bile down. Just hiding in the abstract, is all it is.
The Cayenne was a profit whore for Porsche, and it allowed the automaker to unleash a completely new Boxster and 911 and add another nameplate, the Cayman, to the public all within 2 years.
With that kinda of finacial focus on their core vehicles, I more than welcome a new branch to the Porsche family tree.
A Porsche sedan will only generate enough cashola to make the next generation of True Porsche sports cars that much better.
And, about the Panamera stealing sales from the 911; not gonna happen. Someone buying a 911 is buying 50+ years of sports car history, if anything it may cannibalize the Cayenne.
Panamera is the second try at this, here are references of Ulrich Bez’s stillborn 989:
http://old.autokereso.vezess.hu/content/cm/Porsche/989/989_orr34_big.jpg
http://old.autokereso.vezess.hu/content/cm/Porsche/989/989_felulrol_hata34_big.jpg
http://old.autokereso.vezess.hu/content/cm/Porsche/989/989_oldal_big.jpg
http://old.autokereso.vezess.hu/content/cm/Porsche/989/989_ules_big.jpg
Bez, of course eventually ended up at Aston Martin (after a pit stop at Daewoo) where the similar Rapide is under development.
There are plenty of high-dollar Euro-cool uber-sedans on the market. Okay, so it is a big deal for one company, Porsche. But does it change the market at all? Will it really do anything that BMW or MB or Maserati can’t do already? I’m skeptical.
CarShark…. I take it you have never driven one. There is nothing abstract about a Porsche (well… maybe the Cayenne… its not a Porsche, just a VW with a Gucci handbag).
They communicate the road better than a BMW. They ride better than a Corvette, while still out handling them. They have better throttle response than an Infiniti G37 (but not as great an engine note). They are as reliable as at least a Hyundai. Their plastics are shinier than Sony, and they are all, in my opinion, beautiful.
Nothing abstract about that, unless you are toting around a Monet in the trunk.
A 350Z will run neck and neck with a Boxster S, but it won’t put the same smile on your face after owning it for 3 years.
Says Who???
More to the point the 350z is a -$30,000 car and the Boxster S is a $60,000 car yet they perform just about the same. Trust me for 30grand a 300hp 350z will put a very big smile on any drivers face. Ok, the porsche will give better bragging rights. Even better yet for about the price of a sparsely optioned Cayman I can have a Nissan GT-R, A car I would take in a heart beat over any Porsche. See, I will feel much better beating the shit out of $70,000 worth of car than the $120,000+ I would need to spend at the Porsche Boutique. Hell for that matter I can have a GT-R and a Nismo 350z and still come out ahead.
Another point, where would the 350z be if Nissan did the extra engineering and raised the base price to $40,000?
The Cayenne was a profit whore for Porsche, and it allowed the automaker to unleash a completely new Boxster and 911 and add another nameplate, the Cayman, to the public all within 2 years.
Correct me if I am worng but the Boxster has been on the market since 1997 and the Cayenne arrived in 2002. There is NOTHING completely new about the Boxster refresh. The Cayman is nothing more than a Boxster with a fixed roof!
Both of these car basically share the same platform with the 911. Simply turn the engine around and you go from rear-engine to mid-engine.
The front-end fenders, head-lights, bumpers are interchangable. The engines are all basically the same with different displacements.
The Cayenne is nothing more than a VW Toureg. The Cayenne engine is basically the same as the engine in every v8 powered audi as well as the Toureg.
In many ways Porsche can be accussed of doing a minimum of engineering and a shitload platform sharing and re-packaging.
It is ironic that Prosche was in big trouble back in the 1990s when we had cars like the 300zxTT, RX7TT, Supra TT, NSX, MR2 turbo, and the then new Miata on the market. While none of these cars lasted on the market for more than 7 years with the exception of the NSX they all showed the world that other manufacturers could give Porsche a run for the money or even outdo them in the sports car game.
Come on, the Boxster is a Porsche (and expensive), yet it is out-gunned by just about every other car in its class. Ok, it has come excellent brakes, but you cant get it to go fast enough for them to really matter.
Where is that Magic?
I seem to remember the whole brand snob thing being a big thing in the early eighties as well. There have always been contenders for less money, and they have always fallen short of the mark.
You can call some people brand snobs, but you likely don’t share the same tastes and utility for a dollar with them. People who buy things like porsches generally understand that there are better “values”, but they are willing to pay a high marginal cost in capital to get what others may perceive as a lesser marginal increase in value.
RF,
Sure, pull out the minivan argument! The minivan is just loaded with baggage (sorry about the pun). Instead, let’s talk wagons. While wagons have a similiar rep to minivans here in the US, in the EU they have a sports reputation. To them, a sporty sedan is less desirable than it’s wagon counterpart. Would you say the Porsche brand would take a hit in the US that it wouldn’t take in the EU if it sold an autobahn ruling sportwagon? Even if it was the best sportwagon ever made, and otherwise lived up to the Porsche reputation?
I think the pictures of the Panamera haven’t helped. The Cayenne is not a real looker, but if the Panamera is as ugly as it appears it might be, then it doesn’t disprove my argument. If you step out of your brand AND make a mistake, it will hit harder than if you had stayed in your brand rep and made one. OTOH, like I said, if you hit a homer, it won’t matter what your brand image was before you got to the plate.
PS, if you are going to disagree with PCH101 and I at the same time, do you want to reconsider?
Landcrusher : RF if you are going to disagree with PCH101 and I at the same time, do you want to reconsider? Sure. OK…. Done. We've had this argument before. I believe the brand isn't the only thing. It's everything. Line extensions are a fundamentally bad thing. Period. Better to be a master at one thing than… anything else.
Landcrusher,
If I read you correctly, one of your points was that if a car is great, it doesn’t matter whether or not it fits the brand.
I think that Saturn’s current troubles say otherwise. The product (Sky, Outlook, Aura, Vue) is quite good, but the sales aren’t there. Why?
My guess is that the typical Saturn buyer wants a mediocre economy sedan with a great dealer experience. They walk into the Saturn showroom today, and have trouble finding anything for less than $25K.
Poor fit with the brand results in poor sales.
WhatdoIknow,
I think we all agree that for those concerned with “beating the shit” out of other cars on the road, the Nissan will be the better buy for the buck.
What I want to know is what does that matter? It is only one aspect of the overall purchase decision. Point Nissan, now what about everything else? Also, if you are really in it for performance for the dollar, isn’t there better bang for the buck in modifying a car rather than buying a factory version of a performance car? From that perspective, is either of these cars worth the dollar?
Lastly, there is not nearly enough Cayenne bashing going on, I want the price of a 3 year old, 36k Cayenne to be down around 15k before the end of the month folks, let’s get to work! I want the dealer to personally beg me to take one off his used lot. Let’s get to work, people!
RF,
LOL. I agree with you the brand is not everything,in fact, it’s core to my point.
Sherborn,
You read correctly, but I have to disagree with your argument. None of those cars has any appeal to me except maybe the roadster. The problem there is that Solstice came out first, and everyone who was willing to buy a GM made roadster like that apparently did. The “never again club” makes using GM for an example quite problematic. Do you have any other examples?
Honestly, I didn’t think the Panamera needed defending. It’s a grand tourer in the same vein as the old 928’s. It just has four doors to seat four comfortably. It doesn’t even come close to approaching the blasphemy that that was the Cayenne.
Is that an RX-8?
Landcrusher,
Hmmm, other examples of good cars that were sales failures because they were inconsistent with their brand,…
– Phaeton
– 308GT4 (a non-Pininfarina Ferrari? blasphemy!)
– Pontiac GTO (the recent resurrection)
– Merkur
– S2000
– Supra
– Aurora
– Ridgeline
– R-class
I fear the Malibu, CTS, Enclave and upcoming RWD Hyundais may join the list.
Someone must own a Nissan…..
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!
Landcruiser:
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 think the pictures of the Panamera haven’t helped.” The thing is Coyote ugly. And not only is it butt-ugly, but here is the most damning part:
“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 owned a 99′ 911 (996) and was never really impressed. Early on I realized it needed much more torque.
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)
Sherborn,
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?
LtSolo,
Well said, and thanks for the bashes.
PS. How far, LT?
“The Jeep Cherokee. The Jeep fans hated it.”
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?
LandCrusher,
This is an interesting conversation — thanks for keeping it respectful. And apologies for being off topic from the great editorial above.
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.
SherbornSean :
November 28th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
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?
s mike :
November 28th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
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.
bfg9k,
S2000: I believe that Miata, Solstice/Sky, and 300Z sales have each averaged in the 20-40K range annually. They are probably more comparable than $50-60K Boxsters, and by that comparison, S2000 sales are weak.
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.
MjOlnir,
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.
SherbornSean,
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 could go on and on about that 1999 911.
* 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
Replying to LtSolo:
November 28th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
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.
My thought on the Phaeton:
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.
“For all intents and purposes, a Porsche sports car is the very definition of luxury; an indication that there’s another car in the garage for the daily to and fro”
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.
Porsche: whatta bunch of dummies, I guess, judging from what I’ve been reading. Obscene profits per unit, and now they’ve essentially taken over one of the world’s largest carmakers (VWAG). What a pitiful company. Can’t do anything right.
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.
@ LtSolo :
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…
Hooray! Somebody agrees with me! I will remove my suicide note from MySpace.
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 met all sorts of folks in the Army with great names.
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.
This Porsche is monstrously ugly and painfully slow, powered by VW. It will have its doors savagely blown off by a Mazda 3 or a WRX which will cost about 1/3 of the price of this abortion (and they also have 4 doors). But pay no mind…..
They will sell all they can make for $70 k plus.
I think Unbalanced nailed it – Porsche is kind of like GM, and each model is sort of a brand of 1. “911” is its own entity, and as long as it kicks ass it will be a profit center. Kind of like Chevy and the Corvette.
Wait, did I just compare Porsche to Chevy? Uh-oh, maybe it’s not looking so good for them after all…
Many of those of us privileged to own a Porsche 928, one of the best cars ever built, look forward happily to the arrival of the Panamera, and particularly to the probable coupe version. Four cam V8s are good for the soul.
Weight. That’s the issue.
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…