When Porsche introduced the world to its first production SUV in 2003, it set off an intense, polarized debate that continues to this day. For some, the Cayenne was a crossing of the Rubicon (no pun intended) leading to the dumbing-down of a proud marque… for others, it was a new, more accessible way to experience the brand. Sure enough, sales of the Cayenne have been good (significantly better than the Cayman and Boxster combined), but Porsche seems to have let passion for its brand run out of control.
Since the Cayenne controversy, every V6 Panamera and Cayman S has given the anti-Cayenne faction evidence of the slippery slope of brand destruction they saw coming with Porsche’s first SUV (and which Jack Baruth traces back as far as the 914). And now, as if to confirm the worst fears of even some of its own executives, Porsche is throwing rocket fuel on the fire in the form of a new, smaller SUV. The question this time: after the Cayenne, Pana V6, and various sins against the fanbase (some more deadly than others), are the purists still fired up enough to rage against the Cajun?
After all, there’s been plenty of time to get used to a Tiguan/Audi Q5-based Porsche SUV. As far back as 2007, spy photos of the “Roxster” were leaking, there was plenty of back-and-forth speculation about production. But then, all of a sudden, Porsche’s sales boss came out and said
We’d rather make money on every car we sell. The larger the segment, the harder it is to make money, so a small SUV is certainly not Porsche’s way forward
Of course the first sentence makes it clear that nobody’s running around Zuffenhausen screaming “won’t someone think of the purist fanbase?” but the message was sent. Porsche “gets it.” Of course that decree predated the VW-Porsche Anschluss, and now that the profit calculations have changed, a small SUV is now officially part of Porsche’s way forward (as we’ve reported for months now). Business, after all, is still business. And as Bertel’s peek at Piech’s Porsche plans proves, there are more brand-direction controversies to come. So the question, Porsche fans, is can you deal with a second SUV?
Can Corvette fans deal with the new Vega?
“Purists” need to get over themselves.
Porsche would have been belly-up years ago if they only made 911s. As long as they make good sports cars (debatable) I don’t care if they make mini-vans or re-badged Chevy Volts to pay the bills.
Agreed. It isn’t that long ago that water cooling was heresy to the purists.
I was once a Porsche fanatic, but I won’t rage against the Cajun. I can’t even pretend to care anymore. The Panamera is too big of a joke. It is like someone saw Robocop and decided that the 6000 SUX was too good not to see production. Personally, I think the admirable Porsche died with the 996. It was a car built of crass commercialism instead of any sort of engineering conviction. Is there any reason to build a watercooled, flat-6 powered rear engine car other than because they never came up with a logical successor to the 911 that their irrational customers would buy? The 928 and 924/44/68 were the way forward, with styling that owed nothing to the past and engineering solutions that have since been adopted by most competitors. Porsche meanwhile, has gone backwards. They recycle 911 styling cues and cater to people who think a sports car needs a list of convenince and trim options 15 pages long. Now they’re going to be an option package on a low quality RAV4 alternative. Yippee.
Unfortunately Porsche can’t live on you and the three others who share your views. The cars you call the way forward also marked the most difficult time in Porsche history, Porsche was facing extinction in the early 90s…
Face it, Porsche has always based its development on VW platforms, from the early years (356) including the 924/944 models you seem to like so much.
The 924 and 928 were products of the mid ’70s. That they weren’t still flying out of showrooms four times their original price 15 years later shouldn’t have been a surprise. There were currency issues involved in Porsches troubles at the time too, but basically the 944 doubled in price in 7 years and the 968 was swallowed by Japanese competition in its segment combined with a resurgent Corvette. If Porsche wanted to build the best cars, they would have stuck with the front engine/rear transaxle layout that has been adopted by most world class GTs today. The 928 is harder to get nostalgic about, but it may have been the most forward looking car of its era. Today an obese but powerful GT loaded with cutting edge luxury features could be a Ferrari, Aston Martin, Bugatti, or Mercedes Benz(or a Panamera if you buy it being a GT at all). At the time, nobody knew quite what to make of the 928.
CJinSD,
Do your history. The 928 was the first EVER “clean sheet” Porsche.
Porsche itself (and any competent historical tome) will tell you the same thing,
Believe whatever Beckian nonsense you wish, but the facts are the facts. Those who know the facts will always laugh at sheep that believe the Barnum-hustle.
porschespeed, I don’t see where in CJinSD’s comments that he said the 928 WASN’T a clean-sheet design.
“Purists” whined in the 60s that “true Porsche’s” had 4-cylinder engines.
In the 80s that the “gold chain and chest hair” set was ruining the brand.
Feck-em. If you like it, buy it. If you don’t like it, get over it.
Personally, I’m partial to the 914 2.0 and the 924S. And in an unlimited funds world, a 928.
And in an insanely unlimited funds world…:
http://www.vw-one.co.uk/volkswagen_golf_928.htm
928s are cheaper to run than a 15 year younger GMC van with 60K on the clock.
“928s are cheaper to run than a 15 year younger GMC van with 60K on the clock.”
Pull the other one! There’s not a chance in the world that this is true. You can buy a GMC van for what a water pump job costs on the 928.
I charge 1K for a t-belt water-pump. And I’ll put $600 US in my pocket (gross) for doing it. Please link me to the POS Chevy van you’d get for that…
This includes a brand-new t-belt, all new bearings, and a rebuilt w-pump (better than OEM). Oh yeah, I give you a 36K warranty….
If you can’t do the procedure on your own (for under $400) when short of funds, you have no business owning a car. Let alone a Pooch.
It matters not, now that anybody with a few grand in their pocket can go down to their nearest Les Schwabthecustomer and put a set of rubber band tires on their SUV, instantly transforming it into a world-class sports car . . .
If ONLY I could stuff a set of 33s on my Miata and make it into a rock crawling beast . . .
Sorry, what were we talking about? Oh yeah! All I can say, is I laugh to myself every time I see somebody in a Porsche SUV.
Yep, they’re losing their way- the 911, Boxster and Cayman are pretty poor, there’s lots of other manufacturers out their handing Porsche their behind in the sports car class… what’s that, there aren’t? The Cayenne, Cajun and Panamera are keeping the lights on at Porsche. And they all drive well for what they are, from what I understand.
I have a gut feeling the people railing against the Panamera are the ones who never accepted the Boxster/Cayman. It may not be pretty, and I was personally a bit miffed that Porsche didn’t find a way to build their 4 door with the engine somewhere in the rear; but damn, what a great GT that thing is. And as for the V6; the way GTs are driven in practice, even more so with more than two people on board, is all about momentum conservation. Not fast in, late braking, flooring it post apex shenanigans. Even in sports cars, most people tire of that kind of driving pretty fast, or at least leave it for tack days. And the other place where more power is neat, stoplight to stoplight and hacking ones way through city traffic, the PDK trannied Panamera isn’t all that, either. At least not compared to a CTS-V, or an S-class. But for LA-Vegas along backroads, and other routes to keep life interesting while avoiding the TSA pervs, the Panamera is absolutely a car in the spirit of Porsche. With or without the V6.
As for the SUVs; I can’t really think of anything the Tuareg does particularly well, except perhaps being somewhat more off pavement worthy than a Camry, while retaining better than Land Cruiser road manners. And the Cayenne simply removes the off pavement part, by fitting even lower profile tires than the already undertired Tuareg. Handling wise I’m sure it is an engineering achievement to get it to handle as well as it does, in much the same way a Porsche UPS Van hustling around a race track could be considered a neat trick. But what a waste. Truth to be told, the whole “high performance SUV” category is pretty sad, considering how, in the only environment where any of them make more sense than a Camry wagon, they are all thoroughly and completely beaten like a redheaded stepchild by a $40,000 Ford pickup truck.
But the Panamera is still a great driving, high performance car for it’s intended use. As is the Raptor.
I am kind of looking forward to this.
Not sure what to think about ourist, other than they don’t buy enough cars to cause company decisions.
Survive…that’s the business plan that needs to be followed and this is yet another good move at getting people to buy your product.
Past a certain point, it no longer matters. Porsche has sailed past that point a while ago.
The majority of current Porsche owners would be hard pressed to tell you who Jackie Ickx or Hans Stuck were. Nor would they be see why that may be a telling remark about a supposedly “enthusiast” brand. When the primary demographic hardly cares about these things, there is no point even worrying about such stuff. Like they said, “make a profit on every car”. Good plan, guys.
Heck, a small SUV makes more sense than the Cayenne does. At least it’ll have less “road hugging weight” and be “sporty”. It’ll probably outsell the Tiguan.
I’m not necessarily against Porsches that aren’t sports cars, but it does bother me that their volume sellers won’t be sports cars.
Porsche isn’t some incredibly special company that makes incredibly specially engineered cars. Porsche’s purpose isn’t to make Porsches. It’s to make money. They trade on the brand they’ve created, rather than being in public service to those who worship the brand. And if they really were dedicated to engineering excellence, their cars wouldn’t look like basically every other car.
Yay!
Pretty much everyone “gets it”!
The 911 derivatives are non-profitable fantasy-legacy wagens for the ‘true believer’ subset.
Their very existence has been subsidized since the 914 by superior firepower – whether the 914-6, the 924T, the 951, the 928, the 968, the Boxter/Cayman, or the Cayenne – the 911 is a buggy whip that only remains in production because it is funded by selling EFI.
(Much like FOX NEWS only exists by virtue of the profits generated by ‘The Simpsons’ and ‘FamilyGuy/AmericanDad…)
(Which is why Uncle Rupert allows both of the aforecaptioned FOX franchises to constantly rip on FOX NEWS. The money from the intelligentsia funds the mass-retardia, Brilliant, in a way…)
Many years ago I was tasked by RF to write “The 911 Must Die” article that he wanted to print on TTAC.
Though I was too busy at the time, I do rather regret not re-ordering the life priorities to produce said piece back in the day. Oh well….
The 911 is the single most profitable car in the whole car industry. It starts out at roughly 80 grand and can move towards 200k easily without really adding any substantial production cost, thanks to shared technology with the Boxster/Cayman. I don’t know where you get your misguided ideas. Porsche never made real money on all the other cars you mentioned.
Vega,
Congrats on the ‘denial of reality’ mantra.
Porsche wouldn’t exist at all were it not for the 914/924/944 (for starters). Public knowledge that Porsche itself wouldn’t dispute in any way, shape, or form.
911s are a loss-leader in the scheme of Porsche sales. Regardless of how heavily you option a 911,it will still ultimately cost Porsche money to sell it to you.
Obviously, you know nothing about reading a P&L and no-one inside Porsche.
I’m a financial analyst working at one of the biggest German banks, I know how to read a P&L. Porsche doesn’t disclose earnings by product line, however maybe you should read the annual report: In the 2009/2010 business year 911 sales made up 24% of total cars sold. given the high average price point, the sales share was probably higher.
If you believe Porsche could survive with more than a quarter of their sales used on a loss-leader, you’re delusional. Your characterisation of the 911 as a loss leader ended when the 996 was introduced, which was far less complex to produce and is sharing a lot of hardware with the Boxster platform. There is a reason why 993 engines are more than double the price of 996 engines.
Take the year 1997/98 as an example (as it was before the whole Cayenne/Panamera age). Porsche sold 18,817 Boxsters and 17,869 911s. Nothing else, no Cayenne, nothing. The company had an after tax profit of €141.6m. Given the large overlap in technology between the 986 and 996 (e.g. the whole front), do you still believe Porsche sold the $80k car at a loss and the $50k car at a huge profit?. Please inform yourself before attacking other posters.
Don’t know much about Porsche P&Ls, but I do know enough about FOX financials to recognize anyone who claims Fox News is losing money and is being subsidized by Family Guy, is highly unlikely to know much about anything at all.
Besides, exactly which individual product line is “profitable” is awfully subjective, when each enjoy as much R&D, marketing, manufacturing and distribution sharing as Porsches cars do. But it would still take one heck of an accountant to show a loss on $85,000 911s, and profit on $50,000 Boxsters, when the 911s sales volumes are higher, while the production complexity is hardly any different at all. If P ever gets to the point where all their sports cars are simply loss leaders to make fatsos feel “sporty” for driving that particular brand of overpriced bling barge, that would of course be different.
Vega,
Selling price is meaningless – all that matters on a P&L is cost of production.
Spare us the Palin-esque arguments, Porsche has admitted by fact and default that 911 derivatives have been a money-loser since the early 70s.
Perhaps you are not old enough to remember all the cars have outsold the 911 and have allowed the money to have Porsche engineers keep this ananchronism saleable.
Do the homework kid.
Personally i am not ready to see a second Porsche SUV. especially one named the Cajun… what happened to meaningful names (I like the Rockster actually, or Porkster)
As commercially successful as it is, every time I sit and drive a Cayenne, I wonder where the Porsche comes in… I adore the Touareg, and to me, the Cayenne is a rip off… the Touareg has always looked better, let me put it this way, the Touareg is more a VW than the Cayenne will ever be a Porsche, perhaps similar to the 914/vopo disaster Heir Jack Baruth speaks of..
Back to the Cajun, first the name makes me sick, what makes me more sick is that people will buy these things like hotcakes and we will have Cajun Fest every-time we go down to the local Starbucks in any metropolitan area…. its buyers will take it over the Q5 simply because its a Porsche… the Q5 is overrated as an Audi anyway, so i can only imagine how much it’s going to be Hyped up as a Porsche if indeed Porsche uses a tarted up Q5 for the mischief…
How-Ever…i would be willing to consider the following, if Porsche decide to build a tarmac mostly riding CUV that has its roots firmly planted in Porsche History. get a 911 architecture or a Cayman, and build a 911 or Cayman on Stilts..not too high, perhaps as high as an Audi A4 all-road…better yet bring back the 959 silhouette on Panamera shrinked platform and jack it up Dakar Style…I’m sure that will win over the Purists…I’m dreaming of the color as i type…Rothmans livery it is…
Ronman,
I’m going to operate under the presumption that you realize where the engine is located in each of the the referenced vehicles…
As the Boxster/Cayman has the engine located properly in the RME position and the 911 has the engine located in the ridiculous RE position, please explain the benefits of RE. We all know there aren’t any (just like Porsche engineers) but please, I wanna read your apologist excuses.
Spill it O’Reilly….
Well, one very well known benefit of the RE configuration is rear wheel traction… RME is better in every way though, except for rear passenger space.
I will explain the benefits of rear engine mounting.
1) Superior poor-weather traction in a RWD car.
2) 2+2 seating in an envelope that would be a two-seat mid-engined car.
3) Ease of service compared to mid-engined cars.
You can make a 911 that will just about keep up with a similarly powered Cayman, but you’ll never put a child, a friend, or a suitcase in the rear seat of a Boxster, because there isn’t any.
As for the handling argument, every modern Porsche has handling limits far beyond any sensible notion of public road usage. Including, unfortunately, the Cayenne and Panamera.
As Baruth says, any criticism of where Porsche decides to locate an engine in any model is pretty much a mute point. It all comes back to this basic premise about modern, sophisticated machinery…
99% of all drivers will never live up — skill wise — to any Porsche’s handling capabilities, whether it’s an ass-engined Nazi slotcar 911 or mid-engined Cayman or even a front-engined pepper-box SUV.
Just like 99% of all shooters can’t shoot up to their rifle. And 99% of musicians can’t live up to their axe.
Unless your name is something like, um, Martin Rohrl. When people like that offer criticism or opinion about a car or chassis, that’s when my ears perk up.
1) Superior poor-weather traction in a RWD car.
Only when traveling in a straight line. You could have also mentioned that it helps keep weight on the rear wheels when braking. But again, only useful in straight line situations.
2) 2+2 seating in an envelope that would be a two-seat mid-engined car.
A bit of a stretch since those seats are really, really small. Some 911 versions don’t even have back seats and only have a package shelf there.
3) Ease of service compared to mid-engined cars.
Debatable since there is so much crammed into a small space in either case. Mid-engined cars with longitudinal mounting (De Tomaso Pantera, Lotus Europa) have gobs of free space in the engine bay, so mid-engined is not synonymous with hard to work on.
Porsche took a fundamentally poor design (i.e. placing the engine fully outside the wheel base) and make it work (wider rear track, wider rear tires, more negative camber in the rear). Kudos to them. (Lancia also did it with the Fulvia but with a V4 engine fully ahead of the front axle.)
Remember the first Porsche prototypes had the engine mid-mounted. Originally, a rear engine (and torsion bar front suspension) were only added for more cabin room.
Ferdinand had it right from the get go!
Jewelry is what we’re talking about here, folks. Expensive “off-road” vehicles whose drivers would never dream of taking them off-road. Expensive sports cars with a performance envelope far in excess of what any sane person would use on a public road (as “mad-man” (;-0) Baruth says). We have totally left the zone of practicality here and entered the world of fashion statement.
For another visit to that world, peruse the pages of any Wall Street Journal and have a look at the ads for the expensive — and relatively unreliable and inaccurate — mechanical watches whose prices begin well in the 4 figures and easily reach 5 (in US$).
Whatever Porsche was in the 1950s or 1960s, it is no longer. Ditto for BMW. No use crying about it. The economics of today’s car production require volume. If you want something quirky and “purist,” get a Caterham 7.
At least one can admire the performance of the Cayenne, or the higher-end X5 and ML cars, as something of an engineering feat — the automotive equivalent of the bumblebee (“the amazing thing is that it can fly at all”). I know what you’re thinking: “Don’t these guys have something better to do with their time?” The answer is: “yes, but no one will pay them for it.”
Most of the porsche “purists” have never purchased a car from Porsche in their entire lives. They are not supporting the company short of random parts purchases. So who cares what they think?
Say Porsche…if you don’t mind me asking, when’s the launch date for the rear-engined, Volkswagen Crafter-based Porsche Gumbo panel van?
Is it based on the Q5 or the Tiguan? They’re very different vehicles. The Q5 uses Audi’s MLP like the Audi A4, whereas I believe the Tiguan is on the transverse Golf platform (like the Q3 that doesn’t yet exist).