Preferences...

I'd rather not get into image/heritage... (nor the Cayman/911, or RWD/AWD, or Turbo vs NA, or R8 inferior storage vs 911 C2's inferior performance by comparison, F-Type 550HP/502TQ vs Cayman 325HP etc...). Everything is a compromise of preference.

Bringing this back to the original topic - let's look at all of these cars that were just recently brought up - is there ANYONE that offers 16+ trim levels of the same car?

Is there anyone that markets even half of that?

 

Yeah #5.. More than one person (even people who are into cars but not necessarily Porsche aficionados) I've been with and ogled over a Turbo S.. and they had no clue of the difference as well as the cost.

 

Is there anyone that makes as much money per car as Porsche ?

You're right on the preferences / compromises. Then again, adding everything up, don't you agree on average the 991 is hard to beat ? Exactly because of the ability to config to ones own taste with 16 trim levels and stuff like that ! It's a car adaptable to many tastes, many preferences...

 

Sounds like you think that AWD is just for people who live in snowy climates.

You're aware of the superior handling and performance driving characteristics of the 991 Turbo and all C4S cars due to their AWD systems, right?

 

I believe (based on my limited knowledge) that Porsche does have a huge profit margin on their 911's (and even more so on their options).

And I CANNOT disagree that the entire package is hard to beat (as a Turbo(S)). As a package, I also prefer them to Ferrari, McLaren, Jag, Aston, etc... I am just suggesting that there are many alternatives (depending on preferences).

And it is also one of the most configurable cars I've ever seen (if not at the top of that list). It did make for some frustrating buying experiences, though.

 

It is interesting to me how so many experts on this and other Porsche forums seem to delight in commenting on how Porsche makes so many mistakes when assessing their market and suitabilities of the their variants.

 

I wouldn't suggest we are saying it is a 'mistake', just a complaint (perhaps based in frustration of too many choices).

Where there is frustration on one side of the coin, many prefer the choices to nail down exactly the experience they want from a car, at the price point that doesn't offer more than desired.

Let me offer an example of marketing gone right - back in 2009, Nissan offered 2 versions of the GT-R, everything was standard. There was a base model, which had different seats, stereo, and a couple things, and a Premium model (everything standard, no additional cost options except for iPod mount). You could still configure the car with a few options, type of tire, wheel, color of the wheel, interior color, exterior color (except the additional Super Silver), etc...

But then - nobody bought the Base model, so it went away (almost mid-year). Next year, only Premium model, still everything standard. Made the purchase, and especially secondary market EXTREMELY easy. Want to buy a 2010 GT-R? Look for the color you want - buy. They are all made the same - AWD, V6TT, DCT, leather heated seats, dimming mirrors, bluetooth, GPS, etc...

My issue with the 911 is the COST of the configurations, not the ability to configure. I love that you can customize everything. But why does my deviated stitching cost so much more? Does somebody make a seat belt or seat cover, remove the stitching, put that stitching into a dye made from gold flakes, reuse the same stitches, and then reinstall on the car? Probably not. There is a seat belt going on there, why not have a few made with certain threads, run the machine again with different threads, call it a day? Like changing the paint on a car, the car doesn't get painted, paint removed, etc... (although I am familiar with paint cost options, as the materials do cost a little more, or application methods are slightly different, and may not fit into the typical assembly line)

Like the wheels/tires... Tires are going on the car, regardless. Why charge me more than the difference between one tire and the other?

I'll admit that when I ordered my first car (using the configuration tool that was mentioned here), it gave me endless headaches, and frustrating discussions with the wife. When I saw the end product delivered, it was like instant relief. Sure it was fun, but I have not wanted to go through that again, and it HAS deterred me from buying future 911's. Now my family wants a Panamera. I think I'm just going to look at whatever is on the lot, complain to the dealer about the options (hoping for a discount), buy it, and drive away.

I've also went through this before the R8V10+, wife and I were looking to buy another car, put up a few mid-engined cars (Cayman, R8), and started equipping with things we believed should be standard... Started adding the $40k in options (the price of a Lexus ES). We quit, and started looking at the (then) future F-Type, C7, Alfa 4C, etc... My ultimate concern is not the entire price of the whole package, but rather the total value when the options are included.

 

Actually I'm very aware of the superior qualities (because I owned one) and I don't think that they're exclusive to snowy climates.

What I find odd is that a C4 with the added weight (AWD and the convertible mechanism) is offered as a variant.

Folks have opined that the C4 can feel a little underpowered. Now add the weight of a convertible and you're exacerbating the issue. You have to concede that 0-60 in 5 seconds is pedestrian by today's automotive standards - especially for a 2014 911.

Do I think it's a mistake? No.
Do I think it's odd that at decently optioned C4 Cab is bumping into a C2S territory? Perhaps...

PS. I should have prefaced that my comments are based on the North American market / pricing.

 

No "expert" here - just a customer (whatever that counts towards nowadays.)

No mention of "mistake" or "delight" either - just an observation that their 911 selection is immense when compared to similar categories / class of car.

I wouldn't dream of questioning the intelligence or rationale of The Almighty Porsche.

 

It's interesting. Suzy991 recently had a discussion where she thought the 991's days were numbered because the flat six can't deliver the hp that "power junkies" can get from current mid engined v8's.

I disagreed. I thought the main problem was the carrera 4s and turbo body shells being wider on the "outside" and not on the "inside"

You CAN drop a 4.2 or 4.5 liter flat six engine into a 911.

You just have to widen and lengthen the chassis between the rear wheels not put ridiculous flared fenders like they did on the 4s and turbo. (Draped on top of the same narrow chassis.)

The carrera chassis should be narrow. The carrera s chassis should be wide enough to accommodate a 4.2 or 4.5 engine.

Excerpt below:

I disagree. I think the 911 has more room for evolution.

Main problem is that the high end sports car market is divided into two camps.

The "power junkies" guys who like to mod their cars and go tracking regularly. Gtr mclaren 911 turbo s guys. I have a neighbor 55 year old "empty nester" who recently bought a 480 hp used 2008 turbo. His first porsche too. He is addicted to tracking now and takes his car to Laguna seca and Sears point regularly. Started taking classes with instructor in front seat. He even bought racing slicks. Those people were deeply disappointed with the "low" hp levels and "high" price of new porsche turbo. They want their turbos to keep up with ferrari Lamborghini gtr mclaren etc.

Now you can fit a 4.2 or 4.5 flat six engine in a 911. You just need a bigger engine block and a bigger engine bay.

Now the new turbo s is wide enough in the rear to accommodate a 4.2 or 4.5 flat six.

However that "width" is in the body shell and rear fenders which are draped over the "base" 911 carrera s platform and chassis for economies of scale. To fit a bigger engine the "base" 911 carrera s platform has to be wider and or longer.

So the 960 would solve that problem. But if the 960 costs $230000 like a mclaren you are effectively creating a low volume "niche" car. Much harder to scale up or scale down production if upturn or downturn in economy. Volkswagen much into high volume. I suspect 960 will use same platform as Lamborghini r8 and maybe Bentley. However, it will take away "unique" character of 911 turbo. If 960 too expensive, speed junkies will go for mclaren gtr corvette instead.

The other part of "high end" is "gt" market. The current 911 carrera s or 4s is a "great" gt but the pricing is pushing them very close to Aston Lamborghini and ferrari.

If the hp levels don't keep up you risk not only alienating the "speed junkies" but all the rich "GT" guys.

I think porsche has always made a big mistake by marketing the "wider" carrera platform as a carrera 4s with a front transaxle which is a smaller market.

The "wider" bodies should be reserved for the "bigger" engines not four wheel drive.

Porsche should have made the carrera s platform "wider" and "longer" on the inside than the carrera and saved room for a 4.2 or 4.5 flat six engine block.

Now if the Macan sells as well as the Lexus rx (best selling luxury SUV in us ever) then porsche is golden and they don't have to worry about mistakes. They can afford to develop a low volume 960 and 930 simultaneously.

I think the Macan will save them here in the us. All the us Lexus rx x5 and q5 buyers will switch over to the macan

 

So then the Macan will allow porsche to essentially not care about any of your complaints or anyone else's .

 

That is what happened when the Cayenne was released...