911 Club Coupe

[Chris Huck]

I haven't found a similiar pic of the GT2 or GT3, just Cayman S. Take a look at the different metals used.

We get a lot more info from engineers at training than makes into the books. Most over my head ;^) but my understanding is the ultra-high strength steel is Boron Steel. Lightness is a big part of it. I also understand we have more aluminum components in use than even the NSX which has touted that since I sold them in 1991. Magnesium is used for parts of the cabriolet structures on 986, 996, 987 and 997. Shaped suspension components ensure strength and light weight. Most significant use of magnesium is the wheels on the CGT!

I'm NOT a technical guy, but they DO spend a lot of time telling us about this at training. I'll try to take better notes at C4S and Cayman training coming up in November LOL

[Bob Gagnon]

Chris-

That is exactly as I thought some high strength steel spread around and an aluminum hood- the alloy hood is "new" for the 997, was not on the 996.

My 964 is similar (High Tensile steel construction was introduced in 1989 on the C4- see Information Technik Carrera 4 '89 part number WKD 496 121 for pictures) and even has an aluminum hood since it is a Cup model. So nothing new there.

The NSX body was ALL aluminum (NSX engine had Titanium rods too as you know). I am not sure how Porsche did their parts count to say they had more aluminum. Maybe they used a 550 Spyder for the comparison or something since their past would substantiate it.

I know the CGT has forged Magnesium wheels, and as you know it has a carbon fiber body, Ti rods, a wonderful engine with a dry sump, carbon clutch, the engine in the right place and a cost of $440,000 and is no longer available for next year due to a mysterious inability to employ dual phase air-bags or something like that. Hmmm...

Anyway, forged magnesium is one thing I would love to see in a car for mortals, but the 1967 911S introduced forged aluminum wheels to street cars people could afford-I had the poster for them on my bedroom wall when I was a kid. Where are they now?

The top of the Boxster won an award for the use of magnesium when it was introduced, and given that, I ask which car do you think costs the most to produce a Boxster S with the complex top made of a bunch of magnesium and complex motor system or a 911 Coupe? The front suspension, brakes, fenders, doors, hood, transmission, engine, wheels, are essentially identical between the cars-the only real difference is the rear suspension, the parts for which could be bought outright at list price from the parts department for less than the differerece in price between the cars.

I bet the Boxster costs Porsche the same or more to produce and the multi thousand dollar difference in price is only substantiated by the market conditions that Porsche is exploiting well.

[David J Marguglio]

Now, if they ever put GT3 running gear in the Cayman, count me in!

Bob: M.O.M. plans to have that car at the autocross within weeks of its delivery. They began planning that very car when soon after the Cayman was announced. I, for one, can't wait to see it!

[kary]

Thanks Jad for pointing out that the price points have only crept up marginally over the past 15 years while so many expensive improvements have been made to the product. ABS, airbags, lightweight metal construction, crash survivability tilt wheel, cupholders, etc... ;^)

I'd like to point out that the cost of producing a GT3 / GT2 is actually quite a bit more than the standard contented cars. Mr Gagnon pointed out the more complicated/expensive transmission and engine. Anyone remember how much Steve D paid for his rear GT3 spoiler? OUCH! Handlaid fiberglass costs way more that stamped metal components. How about the added aerodynamic r&d for a much smaller production run??

Sometimes we just need to change our perspectives too - look at the cost of cars v/s realestate, fuel, milk, bread, corn, airfare etc... over the past ten years. Remember when Porsches were radically more expensive than all the competition? Now we have to explain WHY the Porsche product is better than the japanese/american alternatives for nearly the same price. The price used to be so much higher it was just assumed ;^)

Chris, thanks for jumping in here, though I appreciate your viewpoint I am not sure it is the point we are talking about here, or at least the one I am trying make anyway. The pre-996 and 986 cars cost more to build than the cars of today. The pre-996 cars also had a much lower volume of cars produced as compared to today. The engines and tranny's for the new street cars are simply throw away without any opportunity for rebuild or useful modification. That was Porsche's claim to fame in the past, drive it to track and drive it home and you could get the racing modifications from the factory for that same street car. Cannot do this any longer with street cars.

Ok, things have changed, no denying that, but to say that the cost of the cars has only marginally gone up while the quality of the parts that make up those cars are far inferior to their predecessors is simply deception to a public of buyers that does not know any better. That is not what Porsche was or is suppose to be, because if it remains that way the street cars anyway, will be no better than other brands of GT cars except that the Porsche's cost a lot more money.

[David J Marguglio]

...simply deception to a public of buyers that does not know any better.

You mean like "integrated dry sump"???

[Bob Gagnon]

Dave-

I bet guys like Roland Kussmaul at Weissach would salivate to put the GT3 running gear in the Cayman- if they havn't already.

Wait a minute they have already done it!!! It won Le Mans!!! It was called a GT1!!! The GT1 was mid-engined was it a 911 or a Cayman prototype?

I wonder how long the marketing department can continue to fight the laws of physics.

[MikeD]

I wonder how long the marketing department can continue to fight the laws of physics.

57 years and counting...

[Robert]

Actually, using my car as an example, prices in constant dollars have held relatively steady. The base price (MSRP) for my 1991 911 Turbo was $95,000 at the end of 1990. Using end of year year-over-year CPI as the gauge of inflation, $95,000 in 1990 equates to $135,250 at the end of 2004. MSRP of a 2005 911 Turbo is $133,495. I haven't done the math for NA 911s or any other cars because I don't have the old window sticker for anything but my own.

I'm not defending the dealer, just providing facts. OK Chris, I'll take that 997 GT3 for Invoice now.

[David J Marguglio]

I dont think anyone has questioned the relative flatness of Porsche's retail pricing. But unlike the ubiquitous $1k computer that continues to gain exponentially in power and technology, Porsche seems to be going the other way. True, the cars are a lot safer, and one should not discount the importance of that, however, as Bob and others have pointed out, the meaningful improvement to critical components seems flat or diminished.

[Bob Gagnon]

Being a pundit in this discussion that is probably making people mad at me, I want to make something clear. I don't blame Porsche for the dilution of the product, I mostly blame the market, although I wish the company had more respect for the brand and how it got where it is.

Porsche used to build cars with the vision of a few engineers tempered by Ferry Porsche (who as Mike D. pointed out decided that a mid engine car would not sell 57 years ago; Porsche #1 was mid engined) into a product that was only tested for its sales appeal when it was released to the market.

Now that salesmen and bean counters are running the company, the cars are tested in focus groups ad nauseum and the market gets a "Porsche" that meets the market's definition at the price point it will pay.

A friend went to a focus group for the Cayman and the most frequent question he was asked was "how much would you pay for this car", "how much would you pay if we included this", "would you pay more if we do this", "is this car worth more or less than a Boxster" etc.

The Cayman is what we got at the price point it is after all the focus group testing. If the focus groups told them so, the car would have been priced cheaper than the Boxster.

If more people wanted the simple lightweight technology cars Porsche would provide them.

[Kim Crosser]

David - that is so wrong in so many ways. The $1k computer is that cheap because they are low quality, cheaply made, made in extremely high volume, and essentially unregulated (as long as you don't electrocute your users and don't emit too much radio noise, anything else goes). (Oh - and when it fails, with depressing regularity, you throw it out and buy a new one.)

Automobiles are highly regulated and every slip in quality is broadcast by JD Power and similar ratings firms. For Porsche to have absorbed a ton of DOT, EPA, NHTSA, and similar agencies' regulations, added passive and active safety systems, tripled horsepower, and stayed even with the CPI is pretty impressive.

Looking at AX results from 9/10, in the "Stock" classes (xS and xSS), 9 of the fastest 10 are 1996 or later cars, and 24 of the fastest 30 are 1996 or later. In the Street Stock classes, 16 of the fastest 18 are since 1996.

If the newer cars aren't as good as the older ones, then why do the older cars have to be Modified or Improved in order to beat the stock new ones?

If your question is "Why isn't Porsche building street cars that can be used as race cars?", then I would say "How many PCASDR members actively race?". I think the answer is around 50-75 for real racers (POC/TT), maybe 125 if you include AX/DE. I believe our total membership is around 2000, which means that 4-6% of our club buys a Porsche to race it and the other 94-96% buy a Porsche for street driving. So do the math - how many times more Porsche racers would be needed for Porsche to move away from street cars to racers and get the same sales? Oh - and if they dropped to 4-6% of current production, then the prices could be similar to other "exotic" manufacturers like Lamborghini. $250K for a base model, anyone?

[MikeD]

Dave, Bob, Kary, and others (lurkers, I know you're out there!). You are banging your heads against the wall. This is what happens when money becomes more important than passion. Porsche has had a taste of the money, and like the sport that made the company, it is flavorful and adicting. The Porsche of old was run by those with a passion for racing and excellence for the brand. The "new" Porsche is not. You are arguing passion to business people and the two rarely see eye to eye.

[Bob Gagnon]

Mike D.-

You are Right On, the passion is gone

You are also right on about the head against the wall too. !!!

[Kim Crosser]

Horsefeathers...

I don't think any of us who drive the newer cars have any less passion than you guys - although maybe we have less discretionary income to spend on car mods and racing.

What I keep hearing in this forum is "why can't Porsche go back to making pre-5 mile bumper, pre-airbag, pre-emissions controls, pre-fleet mileage limits, pre-crash test, pre-... cars and sell them for 1989 prices?" and/or "why doesn't Porsche ignore 95% of its market and build cars for the remaining 5%?" (or less).

Kwitchurbellyachin' - cars made today are legally required to be a lot different than in 1989 (or earlier) and if Porsche built cars just for the "true enthusiast" it might be pretty lonely out there rubbing elbows with just the really rich folks...

My question still stands - if the new cars aren't as good as the old cars, how come the new cars are beating the old cars on the track? Why are Boxsters (or 996s, 993s, etc.) on street tires loaded with A/C and all options beating all the older cars unless the older cars are Modified or Improved and running on race tires? (And no, I don't think it is because the newer car drivers are better than the older car drivers.)
(Plop - sound of gauntlet being thrown down.)

[Jad]

Kim, quit using logic and reason and facts, throw terms like passion, quality and feel into the argument, you know the terms with no meaning that advertiser and politicians use to death, they are the only way to explain why the old cars are better

Any valid arguement will be ignored. Anyone want to take a stock 993 and race me in a stock 987S? Same class, same ~hp, the 993 with its superior quality and engineering should easily win

Bob, you have an AMAZING knowledge of cars, but can you explain the advantage of a dry sump over an integrated dry sump in a street car or even the advantage of a dry sump over the integrated dry sump IF the integrated dry sump is kept completely full in a track situation. The only arguements I have ever heard - and I admit I may have missed some I do not have much technical expertise compared to you - involve an integrated dry sump possibly starving the engine when the level falls too much and too much oil gets stuck in the engine during continuous high G cornering causing the oil starvation which doesn't happen when you have the extra 3-5 qtrs required in a true dry sump (ignore the engine height arguement for this quality discussion). This seems to be the core example used to show how the 964's and 993 are built better. You are the only one in this thread with the technical knowledge to possible convince me.