Way to go, Ed. Glad to see you on board here. BTW: what's wrong with Armani suits? ;)

Ferrari was taken over by Fiat a long time ago....mid 70s as I recall, but I'll need to check.

Lots of capital, lots of resources. Still they won the Drivers' World Championship in 1979.....and again in 2000, so a gap of 21 years with a Constructors Championship with Alain Prost in between.

I would argue that this does not represent a level of success comensurate with the Ferrari 'brand'.

They also made the 348 and Mondial in the meantime. Cars which, while worthy, were not genuine rivals to 911s/928 etc in any way, except a percieved 'cachet'.

They have recently returned to top form in F1 with Jean Todt, Ross Brawn, Rory Burn and a certain M. Schumacher and returned to very top rate 'sports cars with the 360/550/575 cars.

But they went thro' a long period of darkness and lack of success with FIAT's millions' and their mis management.

The main differnece between Ferrari and Porsche was Enzo and Ferry. Enzo wanted to race. He sold road cars to go racing, in F1 mainly.

Nothing else mattered. The sale to FIAT was conditional on his power over the racing program being sacrosanct. But the 'brand' was left untended and seemingly unloved until recently. Some 15-20 years or so of neglect needed resolving.

Ferry made road cars. Ones which were raced successfully initially and then as they were obsolete, purpose built racing cars....

The reason to go racing was to sell Porsche as a maker of high performance cars, road cars.

A different view I feel.

Its not to say that a good 'take-over' by VAG would not have worked and that rather than Audi R8s winning Le Mans three times in a row they would have been Porsche R8s instead.
But with Ferdinand Peich in charge of VAG, the man credited with the 917 program and one of the Porsche family members unceremoniously removed from the board in 1972 one wonders if recreating the past would have been more attractive than giving Audi (VAG) a new present....

The end result is that Porsche saw a way of 'making money' which was relatively low risk. The SUV market is a new one for Porsche, one in which it felt it could compete succesfully.
There are only so many 911s it can sell.
It can sell other types of car, such as the Boxster which have a different appeal.
Could it sell a less expensive car than the Boxster?

Could it sell high performance saloons?
Possibly but remember the 996 was a replacement for a cancelled 4 door car which looked very similar. In truth who here reckons Porsche would have been able to compete with BMW with the M5 and Mercedes with the E500 and E55 cars...to say nothing of the RS6 from Audi. These companies have years of high perfomace saloons knowledge and devleopment, not to mention a quality system delivering better than Porsche quality to these cars.

The SUV segment was the most realistic one to attack. With their 4x4 knowledge from the 959, the Carrera 4 systems in mind and the Paris Dakar off road experience they felt they had what it takes to do so.

If it sells as predicted then it does its stated job.
If Porsche still refuse to take to the track formally and at top level then accuse them of selling out, but my feeling is that the Carrera GT will appear on the track, will be raced and Porsche, whilst saying they do not want to will be forced to support the car. Does this sound a little like Mclaren and the F1....

Blind faith on my part perhaps that Porsche know what they are doing and have 'plan'. I can't wait to find out.

The Cayenne is a good SUV, a good car as well, but a pretty poor Porsche, but it will only be a mistake if the reasons they stated for doing it are not backed up by their next actions with regard to racing.

A return to the days of a petrol headed top man perhaps...

Oh and with regard to the top end watch companies....their solution was to pool financial resources to back a project by 5 young trendy designers, its was called Swatch.
It saved the Swiss watch industry from a total take over of the mass market segment by the Far Eastern companies who were beginning to make moves upmarket. It gave then a rude awakening and they had to compete very hard in the mass market and this allowed the more traditional makers to retain their position. For the moment.

I think my 2 cents has run out now.


Cheers and as always its great to hear so many views.SmileWavy

IMO Porsche and Ferrari are different beasts in the sports car market. Porsche is, after all, a mass produced automobile/SUV. Invariably you could go to a Porsche dealership and buy one in 30 seconds. A Ferrari is different...

I've never attempted to purchase a Ferrari, so I don't know if this is fact - nonetheless, I've heard some people can't purchase a Ferrari unless they already have a Ferrari. It's similar to the art world and/or publishing works: it is very hard to get representation for your work unless you've been previously published and/or sold.

Porsche's price points, in my view, are very good. A new Porsche is still somewhat of a bargain because it offers better than exotic car performance once maintenance and longevity are factored in. A Ferrari is a beast to maintain - a tuneup alone runs into the thousands of dollars.

Plus when considering the Ferrari is hand made vs. the assembly line-made Porsche, and therein you have the Ferrari's expense, exclusivity and (as of yet), lack of an SUV in their lineup.

Ferrari's customer base does not require it - it is a small brand that has over half-a-century's history of performance. Porsche is much larger, and is in direct competition with some very fine machinery from Japan and the United States. Porsche also does not want to lose market share by ignoring the SUV boom. Its decision to build the Cayenne is very well founded. The Cayenne is a test base for the new 911 motor, and it as well suffices the Porsche lover with a family. The Cayenne also ensures Porsche's survival.

Yes, an engineer being in charge of Porsche is a good and hopeful thought. But that engineer's stewardship would amount to nothing when facing disastisfied stockholders.

The Cayenne itself is a very nice SUV. I wouldn't own one - I think it's too much money. I'd get a VW wagon/SUV or a Volvo. But being a traditionalist is suicide to a multi-national corporation. And repeat customers have smaller and smaller voices in this world of big companies and their advancement in any given sector.

If we worked for Porsche, and our opinions haranguing the Cayenne as not being a real Porsche were heard, we'd be laughed out of the board room - everyone at Porsche knows it's not a "real" Porsche. But if we said "Don't build it!" I'm certain we'd lose our jobs fairly quickly.

all the "unlove" that older more traditional pcar owners have toward the 993-996 crowd amazes me sometimes.

I own a car that's 8 years older than I am, and all my friends whom I've met through this board...well, only 2 have newer cars.

now...someone tell me why I should join PCA...it's like a fraternity..do I really need to pay to have these goofs as my friends???

maybe we should have a spin off like Joanie and Chachi did with Happy Days...

maybe VPCA....for anyone who owns a 1989 and before...

VPCA...lol...and not a bad idea. :D

The people in my PCA chapter are nice people...just a little more refined than me. I prefer GruppeB!

Good lord, the level of soapboxing and pontification in this thread is staggering. Not to mention the manifestos. It's amusing how passionate some of you people are about the Cayenne.

I think I'm getting an attitude about 911 owners. :|

People REALLY should STOP saying that as an unqualified fact.

Because it isn't.

At most, you can say Porsche THOUGHT it needed to do that. Although I find that hard to believe, given that Porsche is the most profitable car company in the world. It's hard to understand why a car company that has been around for 50 years and is the most profitable in the world suddenly needs to totally change direction and focus by building something 100% outside of what it had previously done.

The other thing is, I think there is just as good an argument that building the Cayenne will CAUSE Porsche to no longer be an independent company. They wasted a lot of money on it, buried their racing program, and hurt their image.

The Cayenne is already proving to be a flop, which is scary, because the SUV trend ain't gonna get any hotter, and the Cayenne's biggest plus (the fact that is is "new") isn't going to last another year.

From the very pro-Cayenne Panorama this month:

"Sales of the Cayenne are falling short of expectations in key markets, the USA, Germany and Britain"

And

"Cayenne sales may not be enough to maintain the warm glow in the management offices - the racing program might remain on the chopping block."

It was a very, very bad decision, and also very poorly executed. It is the most homely porsche produced since the 924.

It will prove to have been a HUGE mistake for Porsche. It is already proving to be, and nothing can turn that around, because it is fundamentally flawed.

Too bad.

It seems like every article written has a totally different take on Cayenne sales?????? This quote is from last week:

" ..... But the early returns indicate that Cayenne is performing better than expected as of September, with sales of 20,603 exceeding forecasts and boosting overall Porsche sales by 22 percent for 2003 year to date. Offsetting the good news is the fact that sales of the 911 and Boxter are down. "

Also, it's interesting that BMW and Range Rover are scrambling to catch up with the upcoming X5 4.8 and Range Sport.

I think by this time next year, they will all be in agreement.

If the number of unsold units at Baudrey's here in Tucson is any example, there may be some truth to that!!!!!

Curt,
When did you find out what the internal designation for the Cayenne was? That is interesting.