 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Porsche / Porsche Cars / April 2005Why are Porsches expensive?
Why are Porsches, particularly the 911 variants, so expensive (at least in US anyway)? This is something I have been wondering about ever since I was a youth. I've asked many people this same question, and I always receive different answers. Some say the cost is mostly due to having it imported over to the United States, some say it's due to cost of labor, some told me it's the cost of the materials, etc. Which of those, if any, are the correct reasons why Porsches are so costly? In news:1113757545.855416.279110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, Craig J. <nightwatchman94@hotmail.com> decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows > Why are Porsches, particularly the 911 variants, so expensive (at > least in US anyway)? This is something I have been wondering about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > etc. Which of those, if any, are the correct reasons why Porsches are > so costly? Because once you've driven a 911, nothing else will do.  SignaturePete M Mercedes 260E, Porsche 911 Carrera 3.2 Ford Capri (ressurection started) "Never moon a werewolf" COSOC #5 Scouse Git extraordinaire. Liverpool, Great Britain > In news:1113757545.855416.279110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, > Craig J. <nightwatchman94@hotmail.com> decided to enlighten our sheltered [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Because once you've driven a 911, nothing else will do. Marketing aside :), Porsches are expensive because of several factors: a) The technology they use isn't cheap. b) They're built for the track (whether you take them there or not is entirely up to you). c) The handling of a Porsche is like nothing else. However, the total sum (even if you ignore all of the above) is that Porsche prices their car at a point that allows them to maximize their profits. ...because they can get away with it, Porsche is THE most profitable car company. BTW Porsches (and cars generally) are lot more expensive in UK , Europe and RoW. Regards, Martin May I also throw in...there ain't many of them. Which also factors into cost... Keep this in mind when talking about Porsches. There are more Corvettes alone than there have been Porsches built from day one. Combine every model, 356, 911, 924/944/968, 928, Boxster, Cayanne, and there still are more Corvettes. > May I also throw in...there ain't many of them. Which also factors into > cost... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one. Combine every model, 356, 911, 924/944/968, 928, Boxster, Cayanne, and > there still are more Corvettes. This is probably the main reason - economies of scale. Porsche makes about 50,000 911s and Boxsters annually now, and about another 50,000 Cayennes. BMW makes about 1,000,000 cars annually........ > Why are Porsches, particularly the 911 variants, so expensive (at least > in US anyway)? Here are the prices in Norway, in Norwegian Kroners. The exchange-rate is about 6.2 per 1 dollar, so the base 911 is about 193 000 US Dollars... You lucky ba******* http://www.porsche.no/index.php?page_id=23 > Why are Porsches, particularly the 911 variants, so expensive (at least > in US anyway)? This is something I have been wondering about ever since [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > some told me it's the cost of the materials, etc. Which of those, if > any, are the correct reasons why Porsches are so costly? Simple supply and demand. And, compared to other "exotics" they are a bargain. You can put a Turbo up against cars that cost twice as much. The only car that even comes close is the new Corvette, IMHO. It looks great, has lots of power, is fun to drive, but still ain't a Porsche. Many of us have Porsches that are getting up in years, but the cars are still tight, work very well, and hold their value. My 79 SC is tighter than many new cars I've driven, and is a blast to drive. They are truly race cars that can be driven on the street. Again, some of you guys are not going to like this,(and I am a Porsche owner and fan), but it costs a lot of engineering bucks to make as fine a car as Porsche does because they are constantly improving a well-engineered car that started with a not-so-good engineering idea.....rear engine. OK let's hear the rebuttals' Thanks, Joe In news:huC9e.85923$f%4.77698@bignews1.bellsouth.net, josephgliebe@bellsouth.net <josephgliebe@bellsouth.net> decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows > Again, some of you guys are not going to like this,(and I am a > Porsche owner and fan), but it costs a lot of engineering bucks to > make as fine a car as Porsche does because they are constantly > improving a well-engineered car that started with a not-so-good > engineering idea.....rear engine. Heh, I was happy with the early 80's 911. I think they stopped making them more fun with the death of the air cooled 911, and they're only just getting back to making them real again now. > OK let's hear the rebuttals' No arguments here. I enjoy the battle of driving a hammer flying backwards. SignaturePete M Mercedes 260E, Porsche 911 Carrera 3.2 Ford Capri (ressurection started) "Never moon a werewolf" COSOC #5 Scouse Git extraordinaire. Liverpool, Great Britain > Again, some of you guys are not going to like this,(and I am a Porsche owner > and fan), but it costs a lot of engineering bucks to make as fine a car as > Porsche does because they are constantly improving a well-engineered car > that started with a not-so-good engineering idea.....rear engine. > > OK let's hear the rebuttals' Don't most real sports/race cars have rear/mid engine designs? :) Most exotics are rear engine (Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche/Pagani etc). Actually, Porsche tried the front engine design, and it just didn't seem that the Porsche fans were too interested. > josephgliebe@bellsouth.net wrote: >> Again, some of you guys are not going to like this,(and I am a Porsche [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Most exotics are rear engine (Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche/Pagani etc). No. Ferrari has mid and front engines. Lambo and most others are mid. Porsche has rear (911 et. al.) and mid (Boxster). Other than the DeLoren, almost no other cars than 911 use rear. For that matter, most front-engine performance cars can be termed mid-engine, since the engine is (almost always) behind the front axle: Corvette, Ferrari, Jaguar. > Actually, Porsche tried the front engine design, and it just didn't seem > that the Porsche fans were too interested. IIRC, the 924/944 was the best seller for Porsche for many years. Floyd >>> Again, some of you guys are not going to like this,(and I am a >>> Porsche owner and fan), but it costs a lot of engineering bucks to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No. Ferrari has mid and front engines. Lambo and most others > are mid. Porsche has rear (911 et. al.) and mid (Boxster). Other Yup, you're right. My bad. I lumped in mid (in front of the rear wheels) and rear engine vehicles together. > than the DeLoren, almost no other cars than 911 use rear. For that > matter, most front-engine performance cars can be termed mid-engine, > since the engine is (almost always) behind the front axle: Corvette, > Ferrari, Jaguar. >> Actually, Porsche tried the front engine design, and it just didn't >> seem that the Porsche fans were too interested. > > IIRC, the 924/944 was the best seller for Porsche for many years. Sure but neither was designed to replace the 911 (that's what the 928 was for, and it did relatively poorly). > Floyd Although a fine Porsche, not considered THE Porsche....... Front engine, rear tranny, used by some great marques! >No. Ferrari has mid and front engines. Lambo and most others >are mid. Porsche has rear (911 et. al.) and mid (Boxster). You're forgetting the Cayenne, which is front engined. > Other >than the DeLoren, almost no other cars than 911 use rear. Tatra? Skoda? SignaturePhilip K Hertfordshire, England 1989 Porsche 911 Carrera 3.2 Sport Coupe 1995 BMW ///M5 "Philip K" <PhilipK@nospam.invalid> wrote >>No. Ferrari has mid and front engines. Lambo and most others >>are mid. Porsche has rear (911 et. al.) and mid (Boxster). > > You're forgetting the Cayenne, which is front engined. Well, yes, I did. But then a 5000lb SUV can't be a real Porsche, can it? ;-> BTW, one of my wife's most hated TV commercials (over here in the US) is of a Cayenne S sitting in a driveway, with a phone underneath near the exhaust pipes, with the motor revving (for about 10 seconds). Then the driver gets out, picks up the phone and says: "unbelievable, isn't it" or some such tripe (and continues to talk while a voiceover comes on.) Floyd Philip K: (Hertfordshire, England) >>than the DeLoren, almost no other cars than 911 use rear. >Tatra? Skoda? SignatureAh yes, Ferdinand Porsche worked for Tatra back before the second world war where he learned all about air cooled engines and V8 rear engined cars. Tatra doesn't make cars anymore. The old rear engined Skoda's were a 'rip of' a Renault Dauphine / Renault 8 (both rear engined). There were lots more rear engined cars, e.g. Hillman Imp, Renault Alpine etc. Regards, Martin Actually, all those you mentioned, except Porsche 911 are mid-engined........as are most formula cars, dragsters, etc >> Again, some of you guys are not going to like this,(and I am a Porsche >> owner and fan), but it costs a lot of engineering bucks to make as fine a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Don't most real sports/race cars have rear/mid engine designs? :) Yes, but not "behind" the rear axle. It's what makes a 911 a challenge to drive, but when driven well... > Again, some of you guys are not going to like this,(and I am a Porsche owner > and fan), but it costs a lot of engineering bucks to make as fine a car as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thanks, > Joe The Boxster is not rear engined, nor is the Cayenne, and they account for well over half of Porsche's total annual production. The soon-to-be introduced Cayman is a Boxster coupe. Porsche produces relatively few vehicles annually and the R&D, labor, materials and other costs of production, plus a profit, have to be realized from this small pool of products. That's what makes them expensive, not the design of the company's flagship. A design, by the way, that has proven itself in competition and in the marketplace for decades. What Porsche do you own? I have a 2002 996 and my experience has been that most folks who knock the 911 haven't lived with one. My guess is that a Porsche is designed by engineers, not accountants like some other automobile manufacturers. Phil: >My guess is that a Porsche is designed by engineers, not accountants >like some other automobile manufacturers It was true until Wiedeking, an accountant, took over, the Boxster was designed and build to a price point, similarly the 996 was cheaper to build then the 993. It's only recently that the engineers have been able to improve the Boxster and the 911 / 997, but the quality and customer service is still far from the first class we would expect. Regards, Martin > Phil: > >My guess is that a Porsche is designed by engineers, not accountants [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Regards, > Martin Well I'm glad the Boxster hit a price point, because it meant I could get one. And boy is it fun to drive. Serious question - do Carreras turn harder than the Boxster? C4 vs. C2? I know they have bigger tires but I wondered if the rear vs. mid engine made some difference. SignatureDan Stephenson Photos and movies from US Parks and all over Europe: http://homepage.mac.com/stepheda > Well I'm glad the Boxster hit a price point, because it meant I could > get one. And boy is it fun to drive. > > Serious question - do Carreras turn harder than the Boxster? C4 vs. > C2? I know they have bigger tires but I wondered if the rear vs. mid > engine made some difference. I had a Boxster loaner once when the 996 (C2) was in for service. Nice car - felt lighter than the 996 and seemed to turn in a little easier, a little more agile, but not much. Didn't like the huge blind spot (for me) at the C pillar and the car was not as comfortable due to limited seatback reclining (I'm 6'2"). It also could have used more power. > Didn't like the huge blind spot (for me) at the C pillar and the car was > not as comfortable due to limited seatback reclining (I'm 6'2"). It also > could have used more power. What is a C pillar? Yeah, at the time I bought it, it seemed like a dangerous amount of power considering I was coming from a Toyota Corrolla. But now I wish I could have that 'hand of God pushing on your back' kind of feeling. Thanks for the feedback, know that my Boxster is pretty much the tops of most anything when it comes to hard turning gives me a perspective I did not have before. SignatureDan Stephenson Photos and movies from US Parks and all over Europe: http://homepage.mac.com/stepheda >>Didn't like the huge blind spot (for me) at the C pillar and the car was >>not as comfortable due to limited seatback reclining (I'm 6'2"). It also >>could have used more power. > > What is a C pillar? The C pillar is where the rear roof line runs down to the rear deck. In the Boxster the soft top is so wide it created a huge blind spot for me, even when I turned my head before changing lanes. By contrast, the A pillar is where the frame of the windshield runs down to the cowl..... >>>Didn't like the huge blind spot (for me) at the C pillar and the car was >>>not as comfortable due to limited seatback reclining (I'm 6'2"). It also [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >By contrast, the A pillar is where the frame of the windshield runs down >to the cowl..... There is a big button above the windscreen in the centre of the car. Press that. Then pull back the handle and press one more button. You will find that visibility increases immensely :-) All two-seaters I have driven have pretty bad blind spots when trying to look over your shoulder with the roof up. OTOH, the Boxster has excellent mirrors. At least, the UK ones have. I don't know if they are the same elsewhere. SignatureP Have owned a '63 356B S90, T6, '87 928S4, '91 964 coupe, '98 Boxster, and 2000 996 Joe <What Porsche do you own? I have a 2002 996 and my experience has been that most folks who knock the 911 haven't lived with one.> Jim, I got to put the "tamer" 996 to the test and actually prefer it over the air cooled models. Put me firmly in the "like" column for the 996. When I was in the market to upgrade my original 1984 944 back in 1999, I drove several of the 911 variants (a few SC's, Carrera's and a 964 or two) and found the 944S2 to be the best of the lot. Not the best economic choice because of the resale values of the 911 series, but I wasn't as interested in having the "right" Porsche as much as I was interested in having the best performing Porsche for the money. >> Again, some of you guys are not going to like this,(and I am a Porsche >> owner and fan), but it costs a lot of engineering bucks to make as fine a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > What Porsche do you own? I have a 2002 996 and my experience has been that > most folks who knock the 911 haven't lived with one. > <What Porsche do you own? I have a 2002 996 and my experience has been that > most folks who knock the 911 haven't lived with one.> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in having the "right" Porsche as much as I was interested in having the best > performing Porsche for the money. Devs: I've always liked the 911, but if disposable income had caught up with MSRP, I'd have gladly jumped into a 944 or 928 in their heyday. Drove a friend's 944 once - marvelously balanced car. Had to make due with a 240Z then a 280ZX Turbo until 2001, when we ordered the 996 with a load of options. I've driven 964s and 993s, and the 996 does feel different. It's not as "edgy" as the earlier cars and to me at least, the 996 is more comfortable, so "tamer" is duly noted. I think the 996 moved more toward the GT side of the ledger as opposed to "sports car" than earlier 911s, and the 997 has apparently moved back. The 996 isn't a slouch, though, particularly the 2002 and later cars with the 3.6 engine. 4.6/4.8 seconds to 60, quarter mile in low-to-mid 13 seconds, .90+ G on the skidpad with standard suspension and right at 1.0 with sport suspension, and top speed of 177. It's enough car for me, at least until I drive the 997 Carrera S that I can't afford. However, if a really clean, late model year 928GTS with low miles popped up at a good price, we'd be tempted to become a two-Porsche family..... >I've driven 964s and 993s, and the 996 does feel different. It's not as >"edgy" as the earlier cars and to me at least, the 996 is more >comfortable, so "tamer" is duly noted. I think the 996 moved more toward >the GT side of the ledger as opposed to "sports car" than earlier 911s, >and the 997 has apparently moved back. I think definitely the 996 is similar to the last of the 928s - a GT. I'm not so sure the 997 has moved back, though. I'm curious about how the Cayman drives - I think it might be a *serious* sports car. Emanuel Signature1983 Porsche 944 Guards Red/Black 2003 BMW 325i Black/Black > I think definitely the 996 is similar to the last of the 928s - a > GT. I'm not so sure the 997 has moved back, though. I'm curious about > how the Cayman drives - I think it might be a *serious* sports car. > Emanuel In a couple of years, I'd be mighty tempted if that engine found its way into a Boxster... a 300 hp Boxster... wow. SignatureDan Stephenson Photos and movies from US Parks and all over Europe: http://homepage.mac.com/stepheda >> I think definitely the 996 is similar to the last of the 928s - a >>GT. I'm not so sure the 997 has moved back, though. I'm curious about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In a couple of years, I'd be mighty tempted if that engine found its > way into a Boxster... a 300 hp Boxster... wow. Well, depending on how 'handy' you are, and if you're a fiddler, you can get almost there now. http://www.turboperformance.com/Porsche/SCKits/BSC/Boxster.htm Personally, I like my Boxster as is. The Cayman looks like it will be a sweet car, so I can't wait for my invite to test drive it. > I think definitely the 996 is similar to the last of the 928s - a > GT. I'm not so sure the 997 has moved back, though. I'm curious about > how the Cayman drives - I think it might be a *serious* sports car. > Emanuel I haven't driven a 997 yet, but the various magazine test drive articles seem to share a common thread - that the 997 has returned to more sporting roots. The Carrera S has the Porsche Active Suspension Management as standard and the car reportedly is good for 1+ G on the skidpad. I think it was Car and Driver that speculated the Cayman will come in with about 290 HP and could be be faster than the base (320 HP) 997 Carrera. That does seem pretty serious to me, too. >> I think definitely the 996 is similar to the last of the 928s - a >> GT. I'm not so sure the 997 has moved back, though. I'm curious about [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > with about 290 HP and could be be faster than the base (320 HP) 997 > Carrera. That does seem pretty serious to me, too. According to the latest Panorama magazine, it should have 295hp and be faster than the 1997 993. There was no mention of the 997. >>> I think definitely the 996 is similar to the last of the 928s - a >>> GT. I'm not so sure the 997 has moved back, though. I'm curious about [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > According to the latest Panorama magazine, it should have 295hp and be > faster than the 1997 993. There was no mention of the 997. Are you sure they're comparing the Cayman with a 1997 993? Why would they? May Car and Driver, page 38 on the Cayman S: "The newest Porsche....will enter the lineup as a 2006 model above the base 911 Carrera and below the 911 Carrera S. Power comes from a 3.4 liter.....that will put out 291 horsepower and may make the lighter-than-a-droptop-Boxster Cayman faster than a base 321-hp 911 Carrera". April Panorama, page 94: "The Cayman S....has a 3.4 305 hp mill....There will apparently be two additional versions, a mid-level with a 295 hp 3.4 liter engine, and an entry-level Cayman with the Boxster 3.2 liter engine. Reportedly the new Cayman S can lap Nurburgring faster than the Carrera". >>>> I think definitely the 996 is similar to the last of the 928s - a >>>> GT. I'm not so sure the 997 has moved back, though. I'm curious about [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Are you sure they're comparing the Cayman with a 1997 993? Why would they? No.....I made an oopsie. They're comparing it to the 1997 996. See page 10 of the April Panorama Issue. > May Car and Driver, page 38 on the Cayman S: "The newest Porsche....will > enter the lineup as a 2006 model above the base 911 Carrera and below [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > engine. Reportedly the new Cayman S can lap Nurburgring faster than the > Carrera". Seems like there's conflicting reports in the same issue of the mag. Looks like we'll have to wait and see. Honestly, though, I don't see how Porsche would allow the Cayman to outperform the 911. That is their flagship car right? (other than the Carrera GT which is a limited production). >> Are you sure they're comparing the Cayman with a 1997 993? Why would >> they? > > No.....I made an oopsie. They're comparing it to the 1997 996. See page > 10 of the April Panorama Issue. > Seems like there's conflicting reports in the same issue of the mag. > Looks like we'll have to wait and see. Absolutely. You'd think the Porsche writers would have the same story..... > Honestly, though, I don't see how Porsche would allow the Cayman to > outperform the 911. That is their flagship car right? (other than the > Carrera GT which is a limited production). With both the Carrera and the Cayman available in "S" versions, the Cayman S may outperform the base Carrera, but certainly not the Carrera S. Car and Driver is reporting the Cayman S will sticker at about $75K; if so, that would price it above the base Carrera but below the Carrera S. Porsche may be positioning the cars in the marketplace so the performance variant of the Cayman line costs more than the base Carrera (and justifies the cost by its performance), while for about $5K more (base) you can have the better performing Carrera S. > Emanuel Did you sell the 928 and the 911? your sig line got shorter. Bernard '84 928 (pulled out the rear suspention today!) >> Emanuel > >Did you sell the 928 and the 911? > >your sig line got shorter. The 911 is gone, the 928 is pending (I hope), and someone's already called dibs on the 944. I'm having the opposite of a mid-life crisis - as I get older, I want something a bit more practical! :) Seriously, I lost my garage space and parking 3 classic Porsches on the streets of Chicago wasn't working. I'm hoping to get down to just the Bimmer by the end of May, and return to the Porsche fold when I've got the space to shelter one properly and work on it. Emanuel Signature1983 Porsche 944 Guards Red/Black 2003 BMW 325i Black/Black > The 911 is gone, the 928 is pending (I hope), and someone's already > called dibs on the 944. I'm having the opposite of a mid-life crisis - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > got the space to shelter one properly and work on it. > Emanuel Well, I hope that works out for you. Good luck on your new garage hunting. Bernard >I'm hoping to get down to just >the Bimmer by the end of May, and return to the Porsche fold when I've >got the space to shelter one properly and work on it. You have experience of more Porsche models than most here. Which will you go for if it is to be just one? SignatureP >>I'm hoping to get down to just >>the Bimmer by the end of May, and return to the Porsche fold when I've >>got the space to shelter one properly and work on it. > >You have experience of more Porsche models than most here. Which will >you go for if it is to be just one? Ideally, I'd have a blood orange/black 1972 911T sunroof coupe with 3.0 engine swapped in. However, if circumstances warranted a more modern, galvanized car, it'd be a 5-speed 928S4. Emanuel Signature1983 Porsche 944 Guards Red/Black 2003 BMW 325i Black/Black > I've driven 964s and 993s, and the 996 does feel different. It's not as > "edgy" as the earlier cars and to me at least, the 996 is more > comfortable, so "tamer" is duly noted. I think the 996 moved more toward > the GT side of the ledger as opposed to "sports car" than earlier 911s, > and the 997 has apparently moved back. What do you mean by "GT side" as opposed to "sports car"? SignatureDan Stephenson Photos and movies from US Parks and all over Europe: http://homepage.mac.com/stepheda >>I've driven 964s and 993s, and the 996 does feel different. It's not as >>"edgy" as the earlier cars and to me at least, the 996 is more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What do you mean by "GT side" as opposed to "sports car"? A comfortable, fast conveyance for 2 passengers and luggage that may sacrifice some outright performance to provide the comfort. The sports car tends to maximize performance and driving characteristics generally at the expense of higher comfort levels. My definitions - your mileage may vary........ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.