backtop


Print 119 comment(s) - last by SmokeRngs.. on Jul 27 at 3:36 PM


Porsche Cayenne Hybrid  (Source: AutoBild)
Porsche's SUV will get a hybrid powertrain to improve fuel economy, reduce emissions

When most people think about the high-performance Porsche Cayenne SUV, fuel economy isn't exactly the first thing to come to mind. The Cayenne S with its 4.8 liter normally-aspirated 385HP V8 engine achieves city/highway numbers of 13MPG/19MPG according to 2008 EPA estimates. Stepping up to the 500HP Cayenne Turbo drops fuel economy to 12MPG/19MPG.

Cayenne buyers who wimp out and go for the 290HP 3.6 liter V6 are greeted with EPA numbers of 14MPG/20MPG. Regardless of which engine you choose, the Cayenne does not impress when it comes to fuel economy -- and it was never really intended to do so until now.

The European Commission is clamping down on CO2 emissions and fuel economy requirements for new vehicles and companies like Porsche will be obliged to comply.

One way that Porsche is looking to avoid potential fines for producing vehicles that fail to comply with standard is by developing a hybrid-electric system for its gas-guzzling Cayenne. The hybrid system will debut next year in the Cayenne's platform-mate, the VW Touareg, and the following year will appear in the Cayenne. A 50HP electric motor will be used in conjunction with the existing 280HP 3.6 liter V6 on both vehicles.

According to Reuters, the Cayenne hybrid will consume 8.9 liter of gasoline for every 100 kilometers as opposed to 12.9 liters on the European cycle.

The hybrid system will also help to reduce C02 emissions. The Cayenne currently spews 320 to 378 grams of CO2 per kilometer. That number will have to be reduced to 130 grams per kilometer by 2012 according to new rules set to go into effect courtesy of the European Commission.

Reuters also notes that the upcoming Porsche Panamera four-door sedan will also receive a hybrid powertrain option. The 911, Boxster and Cayman, however, will survive the hybrid craze unfazed.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Humbug
By Griswold on 7/25/2007 2:18:23 PM , Rating: 5
Neither of the gasoline figures above are really realistic for this car in day to day use - they're often higher, but what do you expect. SUVs are a dumb invention to begin with, but companies like Porsche, BMW and Audi (and all the other sportive-250kph-SUV makers) are taking it to a whole new level of idiocy.

If you dont intend to go off-road, you dont need a jeep, truck or SUV - common sense will save you much more gasoline and money than a "hybrid" car like this.




RE: Humbug
By Spyvie on 7/25/2007 2:26:30 PM , Rating: 3
While I drive a 4cyl vehicle and despise SUVs as much as anyone, I’m not so sure your assertion that no one needs an SUV is accurate.

A high clearance 4X4 vehicle can come in pretty handy in areas with winter driving conditions. A number of my friends here in the Denver area live in the mountains with long, unpaved driveways that are all but impassable when covered with snow.

Having said that, and from my perspective, I see Porsche Caynne drivers as even bigger jackasses than Hummer drivers.


RE: Humbug
By miahallen on 7/25/2007 3:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
Why? I assume you say this because you assume the Cayenne is not a capable off-roader...but you're probably basing that on looks. But alas, you need to do more reading before posting. All real world R&D for the Cayenne was performed in a convoy containing and Hummer H1 and other highly respected off roaders. Most reviews found it extremely capable off road.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id...

quote:
...he notes that the 444-horsepower Cayenne Turbo has lapped the Nürburgring just as quickly as the Boxster S, yet had just followed an industrial-strength Hummer H1 up a section of steep rock in Utah, the going seemingly slowed only by its high-performance street tires. "The only limit," Wolpert says, "is ground clearance and ramp angles".......Wolpert says that while few Cayenne owners may venture off pavement very often, "It's important for customers to know this car is very good off-road."


Why it's a MUCH BETTER choice than Hummers is obvious...the Hummers are pathetic on road, and get much worse milage to boot. Considering most Hummer buyers rarely (if ever) drive them off road...your argument is ridiculous!


RE: Humbug
By miahallen on 7/25/2007 3:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
Personnaly, I don't like SUVs either, I drive a station wagon, I find it very practical, spacious, and it drives like a proper car (and it's sporty). It also has AWD and will handle the snow with ease. But, that doesn't mean I don't give the SUV's respect when it's due.


RE: Humbug
By Spyvie on 7/25/2007 3:14:01 PM , Rating: 3
No, it's probably just because I'm jealous.


RE: Humbug
By jacarte8 on 7/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: Humbug
By Spyvie on 7/25/2007 3:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you assume I'm poor?

Hold on a minute while I check the balance of my money market account... No, I'm still good!

It has more to do with some semblance of a social conscious and the extreme dislike of ostentatious lifestyles.

The jealousy line was a joke.


RE: Humbug
By jrb531 on 7/25/2007 3:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
Most people who have a few bucks somehow feel that they need to impress people by overspending.

Do people "need" a $50,000+ vehicle? Of course not! I bet that $25,000 vehicle does at least 99% of the same thing LOL but then again what would my neighbors think if they saw a vehicle in my drive that "only" cost $25,000

My $18,000 Honda CRV is confortable, fully loaded, never breaks down, always starts, gets 22mpg and does everything I need of it. Of course it does not talk to me, have television in it, heated seats or a moving map on the dash but it started when I turn the key, it's warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

What more do you need?

Now be honest here... how many of you would even "look" at a vehicle under $20k when buying? Some, perhaps as a second vehicle but most people are caught up in the entire "status symbol" thing. Got to love those commercials... an entire contry programed to think and act as they want you to.

Just because you have alot of money or are living confortable does not mean you "have" to flaunt it.

It sickens me every time I read people say "It's my money and I can do anything I want" - well true it is but in this case, while we can disagree about how severe the planet is being affected by polution, the fact is that our actions are impacting things negatively and those beasts of vehicles are causing "everyone" to suffer.

-JB


RE: Humbug
By TomZ on 7/25/2007 4:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It sickens me every time I read people say "It's my money and I can do anything I want" - well true it is but in this case, while we can disagree about how severe the planet is being affected by polution, the fact is that our actions are impacting things negatively and those beasts of vehicles are causing "everyone" to suffer.

No, my actions do not affect you, despite what you might think. And therefore, that doesn't give you any right to tell me how to live my life.

I realize that I made a strong statement, but that is the natural extrapolation of what you are suggesting.

If I want to buy a car that costs $10K or $100K, you have to live with it. If my buying a $100K car in some way injures you or impedes your freedom, then there would be laws against it. But rightly, there are not.


RE: Humbug
By Spuke on 7/25/2007 4:51:27 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with TomZ here. We all have the freedom to make our own choices, whether good or bad, or somewhere in between, the best we can do is put out the information and hope that the person next to us sees eye to eye, but if they don't that's their choice. And we do have to live with it whether we like it or not.

Example: some of us didn't vote for Bush, yet we have to live with others that did vote for him and he's the President whether we like it or not.

BTW, to the poster that said that a $22,000 car does all that he needs. That car works for you. But my mother thinks that $20,000 for a car is WAY too much and wonders why anyone would need to spend that kind of money on a car. Her $10,000 car does everything she needs it to do. And I'm willing to bet that I could find someone that thinks $10,000 is too much. I know someone that thinks buying ANY car new is stupid and he refuses to buy a new one. I can see his point of view for why even though I will continue to buy new cars.

My point? What works for you doesn't necessarily work for someone else.


RE: Humbug
By dluther on 7/25/2007 4:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
When you pull up to the valet for Spago's in your 1993 Ford Fiesta, you may be surprised to find out that the level of service you receive is significantly less than those who do so in a BMW 700 series.

Like it or not, certain status symbols indicate a status level, either real or perceived. Rolex trumps Timex, Gaultier trumps Faded Glory, and Porche trumps Ford.

I didn't make the rules, and they're not even written down anywhere. But that's the way it is.


RE: Humbug
By mxzrider2 on 7/26/2007 12:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
"Like it or not, certain status symbols indicate a status level, either real or perceived. Rolex trumps Timex, Gaultier trumps Faded Glory, and Porche trumps Ford."

Remind me not to laugh when i drive my 02 svt focus. i chose it over a cayman. cuz it handles better and it just as fast. Who gives a crap about status symbols when the people creating them are stupid as dirt!


RE: Humbug
By Clenathan on 7/26/2007 12:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
LOL - a Ford handling better than a Cayman - ROFL.


RE: Humbug
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/26/2007 3:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
x2

That's one of the most outrageous things I've heard in the past month... well that and Gonzales' testimony yesterday :)


RE: Humbug
By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/2007 5:04:38 PM , Rating: 3
> "Do people "need" a $50,000+ vehicle? Of course not! "

Do people "need" a $20K vehicle? What about a $10K one? What if we all drive mopeds or, better yet, walk or bicycle everywhere? And why stop there?

Do we "need" private homes? It'd certainly save energy if we all used apartments, 2 people per bedroom, with a shared kitchen and bath for everyone on the same floor. If you can do it in college, why not your entire life?

Do we "need" to go to sporting events, movies, concerts? What about weekend getaways and annual vacations? Do we "need" to eat meat? Cutting back on your meat intake will do much more to reduce pollution that reducing your gas usage. What about multiple sets of clothes? Fancy electronics? Do you really *need* to browse the Internet? Why not turn off your computer and save energy?

The fact is, we really don't need anything beyond a cave and a club. Everything else is just a luxury. And, in typical human hypocrisy, the definition of "ostentatious" is "anyone who spends more than I do".


RE: Humbug
By Spyvie on 7/25/2007 5:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
No the definition of ostentatious is deliberately flaunting wealth or beauty or anything else with a "look at me" attitude.

Like it or not, behavior like this is generally considered evidence of a character flaw by most reasonable people.


RE: Humbug
By Spuke on 7/25/2007 5:58:56 PM , Rating: 3
What determines wealth? When I was a kid, I was so poor that I thought middle class people were rich. From my point of view, the middle class could buy anything they wanted. My mother had to correct me but I didn't believe her because I couldn't see it. I got older, realized that they indeed weren't rich but I was just poor. So I sought to change that but that's another story.

When I was in the military, I had a long discussion with a Jamaican about the "wealth" of Americans. He insisted that we were ALL rich. Any military person can tell you that we are FAR from that. But considering their typical income and our typical income I can see why they would think we were ALL rich. Rich and wealth are relative. Most Americans can afford to buy a car and a house because most of us are middle class. Something that doesn't exist in other countries. Yes there are those that flaunt but some consider flaunting merely owning an expensive item. That's not flaunting. But even if someone is flaunting, they have the right to do so in the U.S. anyways. It's not my style and it sounds like there are those that share that with me but the flaunters can do it all day long if they choose.


RE: Humbug
By Serenade on 7/25/2007 5:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
I have one friend who can theoretically afford a luxury car but bought a cheaper one because she cared more about function over brand.

Our other friend told her, on numerous occasions, that he can't believe that someone of her income level would buy such a vehicle when she could buy a BMW or Lexus.

I'd say one person's attitude is more ostentatious than the other, no?


RE: Humbug
By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/2007 6:01:50 PM , Rating: 3
> "I'd say one person's attitude is more ostentatious than the other, no? "

The initial poster used the word ostentatious as an absolute, not a relative. No one considers themselves ostentatious...its only the people who spend more than they which are.

When you get down to it, anyone who doesn't perpetually dress in Mao-style gray overalls is being at least somewhat ostentatious. It's all a matter of degree, isn't it?


RE: Humbug
By Spyvie on 7/25/2007 6:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's all a matter of degree, isn't it?

Of course it is.

quote:
When you get down to it, anyone who doesn't perpetually dress in Mao-style gray overalls is being at least somewhat ostentatious. It's all a matter of degree, isn't it?

We shouldn’t deny anyone a little individuality, and pride certainly has a place in our social system. But it is possible to carry pride a little too far, resulting in the scorn of others, …like you said, it’s all a matter of degrees.


RE: Humbug
By Spuke on 7/25/2007 6:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But it is possible to carry pride a little too far, resulting in the scorn of others, …like you said, it’s all a matter of degrees.
I agree 100% here!!!!! And those people have to live their choice (the scorn of others).


RE: Humbug
By Spuke on 7/25/2007 6:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you get down to it, anyone who doesn't perpetually dress in Mao-style gray overalls is being at least somewhat ostentatious. It's all a matter of degree, isn't it?
You could say the same about Mao-wear. :)Someone that wears that is making a statement and COULD be considered ostentatious also. ;)


RE: Humbug
By Serenade on 7/25/2007 6:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't all adjectives relative?


RE: Humbug
By Spuke on 7/25/2007 6:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd say one person's attitude is more ostentatious than the other, no?
Maybe so but it's her choice to buy whatever car she wants to. I personally don't buy cars based on just price. I buy features. I own a sports car along with my truck. It's the most expensive car we've owned ($30K). I've always preferred 4 cylinders because of their gas mileage but at the time was considering a 350Z (which has a V6). I ended up getting a 4 cylinder but it was turbocharged. So I got the power of the V6 with the fuel economy of a 4 cyl (thank you direct injection!). I get 28 mpg on my commutes with 30 mpg on long trips (best of 33 mpg).

Do I NEED a sports car? Nope. I wanted one so I bought it. My choice. Could I have gotten a cheaper even more fuel efficient car? Yep. But I've owned nothing but those types of cars and I wanted a change. My choice.


RE: Humbug
By Spyvie on 7/25/2007 6:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
But your sports car probably won't hurt anyone, and is probably more efficient than a Cayenne.

Driving an oversized vehicle is a risk and an inconvenience to other motorists.

I’m generally a western libertarian type with a keen sense of individuality. But with regards to this issue I’m a bit of a socialist, because transportation and communication require standards or nothing will work right.


RE: Humbug
By Spuke on 7/25/2007 6:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But your sports car probably won't hurt anyone, and is probably more efficient than a Cayenne.
Maybe so but just like an SUV driver, I can drive irresponsibly and hurt others too. I can get up to speed quite a bit faster than most other vehicles.


RE: Humbug
By Serenade on 7/25/2007 6:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, let me fix my post so that it's more legible:

I have one friend who can theoretically afford a luxury car but didn't and bought a cheaper one instead because she cared more about function over brand.

If you aren't responding to my post, disregard this, but if you are, I didn't comment on my friend's choice. I was commenting on the different attitudes of my friends and the definition of ostentatious. Not quite sure why you sound so defensive.


RE: Humbug
By Spuke on 7/25/2007 6:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
Was this directed at me?
quote:
If you aren't responding to my post, disregard this, but if you are, I didn't comment on my friend's choice.


RE: Humbug
By bigpow on 7/26/2007 12:52:04 AM , Rating: 2
Now this is a true story, of two engineers working for a fortune 500 company - Dude A and Dude B.

They both make petty salary ($100K+/year), both are married with no kids. Their spouses are working and making around $75K/year. Although this may seem well for some, it's only slightly above average where they live - hence why I said petty.

Both are in their mid 30s, been working for the same company for the last 7 years, and both are paying 30yrs mortgage for their $750K homes.

4 years ago, Dude B bought a $30K car with cash. He felt pretty stupid afterwards, because he realized later on that he could live with a $20K car and invest the rest of the money on property/funds/stocks/self-improvements.

Dude A on the other hand, is planning to buy either a Corvette Z06 or a Dodge Viper - with the usual down payment and 5 years auto loan. He believes that since he's working hard, he deserves something nice. He also believes that life is short and he should enjoy life because he doesn't know what will happen tomorrow

They live their lives in such opposite ways. The difference continues on the clothing brands, places to eat, etc.

Two men with similar life circumstances, yet have two different ways of living their lives.

Which type are you? A or B?


RE: Humbug
By theapparition on 7/26/2007 8:55:04 AM , Rating: 2
Definately Dude B. I love driving my vettes, including a new Z06. And I'm and engineer.

Recently, an ex-coworker of mine, had a massive stroke and is now paralyzed on one side. He can't talk, and is really messed up. Only in his 40's, and was a health nut and volunteer EMT at nights. So if anyone could recognize the signs, it was him.

When I think of that, it's just another reminder that you can't take it with you. Anything can happen, so live your life to the fullest that you can responsibly. So, definately plan for the future, but its up to you whether you want to sacrifice the now for a future that may never come.


RE: Humbug
By theapparition on 7/26/2007 8:55:50 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I meant Dude A


RE: Humbug
By SmokeRngs on 7/27/2007 2:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now be honest here... how many of you would even "look" at a vehicle under $20k when buying? Some, perhaps as a second vehicle but most people are caught up in the entire "status symbol" thing. Got to love those commercials... an entire contry programed to think and act as they want you to.


Actually, I've never owned a vehicle which cost more than $20k. I've only purchased one vehicle new. The used vehicles were nowhere near $20k even if purchased brand new.

My current car retailed for just under $15 in 2003 and I paid $11k for it.

My next car will be a different story. I should be able to afford a higher priced car and I plan on buying one. After options it will probably come in around $22k or so. It will have more room, 4 doors instead of 2, more power and probably get better mileage. It may not handle as well being a larger non-performance oriented car but I'm betting it will be close.

Personally, I don't care what people think about what I drive as long as I'm content with it. I also don't care what anyone else drives as long as it's not a steaming pile of crap which is mechanically dangerous. I do believe people should drive a vehicle which they can handle properly and stay away from ones they can't.

It's not my decision on what anyone else purchases so I generally won't get bent out of shape over it. I'll complain about a 50mpg car with a fart can on the back long before I'll complain about someone driving an SUV.


RE: Humbug
By Spuke on 7/25/2007 2:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
There are other uses for trucks besides going off-road. Many in the US use trucks for utility and recreation. I have two horses and a trailer. The horses weigh 1200-1400 lbs each and the trailer weighs 8500 lbs empty (3 horse, gooseneck with living quarters). That kind of weight CANNOT be pulled with a car or even most SUV's.

We don't like SUV's anyways but the interior would always be a mess with hay and other stuff and the interiors of most SUV's (except possibly the Excursion) don't have enough room in the back to store hay bales we need. Also, most horse owners like to have extra capacity to haul or tow just in case another horse owner breaks down on the freeway or you need to tow others horses during fires and other natural disasters.


RE: Humbug
By FITCamaro on 7/25/2007 2:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
OK. See you're someone who needs a truck then. Someone who just drives to work and back, never doing anything more than grocery shopping or driving friends around doesn't.

And not like this Porsche can tow worth a shit.


RE: Humbug
By jak3676 on 7/25/2007 2:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it tows better than a lot of similarly sized SUV's. But I can't say I've ever actually seen someone pulling a trailer with a Porsche. I do see lots of people towing with the VW version however.


RE: Humbug
By Spuke on 7/25/2007 3:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't really trying to justify my own use but Griswold made a blanket statement
quote:
If you dont intend to go off-road, you dont need a jeep, truck or SUV - common sense will save you much more gasoline and money than a "hybrid" car like this.

and I was trying to show that there are uses for trucks.


RE: Humbug
By TomZ on 7/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Humbug
By MADAOO7 on 7/25/2007 5:06:07 PM , Rating: 3
You are twisting his words. He never said you don't have the right, he was saying you don't have the need. If 95% of the time you are the only person in your SUV and you don't own a boat, trailer, or need to tow something, you don't need a SUV, but have purchased one anyways. A lot of people buy SUV's thinking they are safer, which can sometimes be the case. Unfortunately, many of these drivers do not know how to appropriately handle these large vehicles. Personally, I feel as though if you have to pay the "gas guzzler" tax (meaning you have either a oversize SUV or a sports car) you should also have to pass a special drivers class just like motorcyclist have to in many states.


RE: Humbug
By TomZ on 7/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: Humbug
By Serenade on 7/25/2007 5:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
Strictly speaking, your comments aren't statement of facts either.


RE: Humbug
By TomZ on 7/25/2007 5:57:47 PM , Rating: 1
Correct, and I did not intend to state any facts, either. What I'm saying is that it is wrong to judge others who buy certain vehicles, just because you have different views of what a person "needs." How about if everybody takes care of themselves in that regard? Is that such a controversial position? I thought that was the basis of freedom?


RE: Humbug
By Serenade on 7/25/2007 6:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with the ideal that judging someone on their purchasing selection is wrong, just to play devil's advocate, you are stating your opinion on freedom as if it is a fact. And, doesn't pushing your ideal on someone else constitute as a breach of freedom of opinion?


RE: Humbug
By Spuke on 7/25/2007 6:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And, doesn't pushing your ideal on someone else constitute as a breach of freedom of opinion?
Yes Satan it would but TomZ can state his opinion if he wants. And with the OP's post, it doesn't read like an opinion but a judgment.


RE: Humbug
By Duraz0rz on 7/25/2007 2:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need to go offroad to require a truck. If you do a lot of moving or your job (construction, for one) requires a lot of heavy equipment, an ordinary car doesn't cut it.

People buy them for a) safety, and b) convenience. You can do anything in them...grocery shopping, moving around the kids and their friends, help your kids move into a dorm, etc etc. You can't do this as well in an ordinary car.

The tradeoff is the gas guzzling, though, but most families have been able to cope with it, it seems. My mom and dad basically share one truck; my dad drops off my mom at work because she is on the way. As long as you're smart about your driving habits (common sense), you can easily manage how much you spend on gas.


RE: Humbug
By FITCamaro on 7/25/2007 2:49:19 PM , Rating: 1
Ah yes. A 4500lb truck that can't stop for shit is much safer than a car that can.

The only reason cars are less safe is because everyone likes to drive giant trucks and SUVs they don't need, they don't pay attention while driving because "I'm safe regardless of what I hit", and they then plow into our cars.


RE: Humbug
By michal1980 on 7/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Humbug
By SirLucius on 7/25/2007 3:29:52 PM , Rating: 3
Whether the trucks have bad breaks or not is irrelevant. It's how people handle the vehilces. In the D.C. area, most people drive SUV's like they're small sports cars, which I'm sure you can admit, is not how trucks were designed to be handled.


RE: Humbug
By FITCamaro on 7/25/2007 3:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
True. But that doesn't help the person they plow into at 50 mph.


RE: Humbug
By Spuke on 7/25/2007 3:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
It's not that the brakes are bad or don't work. It's just that it takes longer for heavier vehicles to stop. I think that's what he's trying to say. Stickier tires could help but most truck braking systems are not up to stopping their extra weight as quickly as a car.


RE: Humbug
By FITCamaro on 7/25/2007 3:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
Thats what I meant. Trucks and SUVs are heavier thus take longer to stop. So where you might have avoided an accident in a car by being able to brake faster, in a truck you won't be able to. And considering how close people drive today (often only a few feet off the person in front of them's bumper), this is especially true.


RE: Humbug
By theapparition on 7/26/2007 9:02:20 AM , Rating: 1
Every see the brembo's on the Porshe Cayenne. Bet it can stop better than 90% of the cars out there.


RE: Humbug
By omnicronx on 7/25/2007 3:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
Bad brakes have nothing to do with it, your stopping distance is calculated purely on weight of the vehicle, the heavier it is, the longer distance it will take to stop, plain and simple. just look at a rig or a train for perfect examples.

On a side not FT is perfectly correct, drivers of svus are more safe because they are elevated off the ground not because the svu itself is structurally sound, so unlike a car which is closer to the ground, when it is hit by a car, it only hits the side or even sometimes rides under the svu..
a car on the otherhand gets totalled by an svu on contact, usually by skipping the front part/engine right over the windshield of the car, forcing it right into the front seats of the car. This problem would no occur with cars if there were no SVU's or trucks.

I would also like to point out, in the states and canada svus comply to the safety ratings of trucks not cars, (to nobodies surprise it takes a lot less for a truck to pass the safety test than a car) so when being tested, they are not being tested vs other cars.. but other svus and trucks.
SVUS also flip more than any other vehicle, thanks to the poor center of gravity.

so safe for the person in the car.. yes.. for others i think not, they infact make the road unsafe for everyone else.


RE: Humbug
By FITCamaro on 7/25/2007 4:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying there should be no trucks or SUVs. I just wish people would buy what they have use for. You want a luxury vehicle, don't own a boat, never go off road, and will never tow anything? You don't need an Escalade. Buy a BMW, Mercedes, or Lexus car. Trucks and SUVs are needed by some. My sister has two large dualie trucks because her and her husband run an animal show that travels across country and they have to tow about 30,000 pounds of animals and equipment.

My parents have an 03 Hemi Dodge Durango. They bought it when we were still living at home and they were towing things or carrying large loads quite regularly. Now they don't really need it but can't afford to get a new car at the moment. If they could get rid of it, they'd go get a Saturn Vue hybrid. Nice car based "SUV" that gets good mileage and can still fit a decent amount of stuff.

And the only large SUV I know of that was designed somewhat with the other driver in an accident in mind is the newer Dodge Durango. It has metal studs designed to crumple placed behind the front bumper that are set to a level of most cars bumpers so that it helps not only absorb the impact on the Durango, but also to distribute the force of the impact across the cars designed crash areas so that the other car can better absorb the impact as well. Rather than just plow through it severely injuring those inside.


RE: Humbug
By TomZ on 7/25/2007 4:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just wish people would buy what they have use for.

Wrong principle, people are free to buy and drive whatever they choose. We call that freedom; what part isn't crystal clear?

What you're getting at, is that people shouldn't be allowed to drive recklessly. And they can't - it's against the law, and there are criminal and civil remedies against those who break those laws. So the problem you're whining about is already solved.


RE: Humbug
By Keeir on 7/25/2007 6:36:34 PM , Rating: 3
I would agree with you,

If a buyer paid the full cost of all externalities created by thier choice of car

However, the driver -does not- pay the full cost of externalities

1. Society in general pays for the pollution (particle, CO2, fumes, scrap metal, the list goes on)
2. Other drivers pay for generally less safe automobiles in safety reductions and higher insurance rates
3. Increased safety measures on roadways and cars to account for heavier collisions, etc


RE: Humbug
By Spuke on 7/25/2007 6:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the driver DOES pay because he is part of society. Like you said, he does not pay ALL of the costs but shouldn't anyways because there are other drivers on the road to share those costs with. We all contribute to those costs, maybe not as much as others do but how much would it cost? Would the difference be $30? 3000?


RE: Humbug
By Keeir on 7/25/2007 7:02:29 PM , Rating: 5
Don't know the exact cost and I don't care.

I was mearly pointing out that the assertion that a member of a free society should not care about his neighbor's choice of automoble (expecially in aggregate) is naive unless perfect information and cost is availible to all decision makers.

As long as my added share of the externality burden in relation to externality created is 1 unit more than anothers, that person has forced me to pay for his choice. In such a case, I should be able to express my desire for others to make more appropriate choices to reduce my externality burden to externality created. TomZ's statement that freedom implies other should'nt care about personal car choices is therefore, not valid unless the full cost of all externalities has been included. Note: I am not saying that choices should be forced upon people or choices "limited" artifically, but simply that all externalities should be considered when purchasing your auto.


RE: Humbug
By Spuke on 7/25/2007 8:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't know the exact cost and I don't care.
I'm not saying its ok not to care but without knowing the actual costs how can you determine that you are paying more than the other person? Or if the difference is even measurable? You say you don't care. What's the difference between your lack of care and the other persons lack of care?


RE: Humbug
By Keeir on 7/25/2007 9:10:17 PM , Rating: 4
I think you missed what I was trying to say

TomZ

quote:
Wrong principle, people are free to buy and drive whatever they choose. We call that freedom; what part isn't crystal clear?


another of his earlier posts

quote:
If I want to buy a car that costs $10K or $100K, you have to live with it. If my buying a $100K car in some way injures you or impedes your freedom, then there would be laws against it. But rightly, there are not.


What I am trying to point out to TomZ and others is externalities DO injure, impede and cost those who do not produce them. And when that occurs, those people DO have the right to attempt to point out these externalities and the costs associated with the choices while hoping/wishing that other people make choices that cost them less. It doesn't make a difference is the additional cost is 1 cent or 100,000 dollars.

We all end up paying for a part of externalities, but if we tied the cost of the externalities more directly onto the products and uses that create them, then at least a more fair distribution of cost arises. Otherwise we have a system of poll taxes, and those are never popular taxes.

Until we have a complete understanding of the all the externalities associated with driving a heavier/larger auto that needed and asses the costs of the externalities effectively, then someone should be able to complain about others inefficient choices that are creating additional costs


RE: Humbug
By TomZ on 7/25/2007 10:26:12 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, personal freedom and personal choice (informed or otherwise), easily trumps your claim of control over my life (or the lives of others), based on the 0.0000000000000000000001 injury I might potentially do to you by driving a larger vehicle than you think I need.

Your argument is smoke and mirrors - you are arguing about some hypothetical infintesimally small injury that I might possibly cause you by my choices. An injury you can't even define, let alone measure.

The real issue is about influence and control - why can't you see that? You are upset because someone else is making a choice that contradicts your value system. That choice they make is threatening to your sense of identity, to your value system.

I say, everyone should ideally be informed and educated, and then be allowed to live their lives as they see fit (so long as they don't materially infringe the rights of others), without being told by others they are "wrong" or having to face criticism because their choices are different. You live your life, and let me live mine. It's real simple.


RE: Humbug
By Keeir on 7/25/2007 11:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry, personal freedom and personal choice (informed or otherwise), easily trumps your claim of control over my life (or the lives of others), based on the 0.0000000000000000000001 injury I might potentially do to you by driving a larger vehicle than you think I need.


Then you won't mind sending me a penny in the mail, because thats my choice that everyone should send me a penny in the mail?

quote:
You live your life, and let me live mine. It's real simple.


You can make all your own choices where your life does not affect others. Since that case can never exist, you need to respect the views of others and take their views and needs into consideration when making choices that will affect them.
NOTE: I don't want to control your actions, I want you to be better informed

As for defining and measuring the injury, those are easy to do for any one particular case. In the case of automobiles, the excess consumption of gasolines/auto creates numerous problems that are not directly tied to the consumption of gasoline/autos. Until you convince me/others that these extra problems are all accounted for in the price of consumption, then I think you have to deal with people who can question your choice of consumption level without complaint over their right to question.


RE: Humbug
By TomZ on 7/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Humbug
By Keeir on 7/26/2007 6:39:07 PM , Rating: 3
And your the only one who can decide what's "Materially affected" eh?


RE: Humbug
By TomZ on 7/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Humbug
By Spuke on 7/26/2007 12:18:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think you missed what I was trying to say
I did not miss your point. That's why I addressed it as such.


RE: Humbug
By doctor sam adams on 7/26/2007 2:41:26 AM , Rating: 3
Wow, you are one hardheaded mofo.


RE: Humbug
By theapparition on 7/26/2007 9:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bad brakes have nothing to do with it, your stopping distance is calculated purely on weight of the vehicle

Are you being serious?????

Engineering analysis:
Braking is caused by energy dissipation crreated by the friction between the brake pad and rotor. Increasing this friction will increase the energy dissipated, and hence the stopping distance.

Garage mechanic analysis:
Add a Wilwood 6piston brake package to your car, see if it doesn't stop it in half the distance.

Let's face it, most small cars don't have the best brakes either.


RE: Humbug
By jrb531 on 7/25/2007 2:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
My 2001 Honda CRV SUV with a 2,0 liter gets 22mpg city and while this is not the best it's pretty good for a SUV.

The shape of the vehicle (aside from aerodynamics) has less to do than the HP and weight. My 160hp SUV does just fine and I get the extra headroom I need - I'm tall.

So please do not label "all" SUV's as being evil. The style of the vehicle does not automatically mean it's poor in MPG.

-JB


RE: Humbug
By FITCamaro on 7/25/2007 2:55:52 PM , Rating: 3
The Honda CR-V isn't a SUV. It's built on the same frame as the Civic. A real SUV is built on a truck frame. Anything built on a car frame is just that. A car.


RE: Humbug
By jak3676 on 7/25/2007 3:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
While you have a good point, there are a lot more cross-over style "SUVs" now than the traditional truck frame models. Even some of the new Japanese "truck" models like the Honda Ridgeline have as much of a uni-body construction as a traditional truck frame. All of the European SUVs that I know of come from a car frame.


RE: Humbug
By Spyvie on 7/25/2007 3:27:07 PM , Rating: 3
A Honda Ridgeline is an abomination.

If the Ridgeline is a truck, I'm an American soccer fan.


RE: Humbug
By jrb531 on 7/25/2007 3:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
I agree but as long as they are called SUV's people need to make sure that they do not label an entire line of vehicles the same.

Most small SUV's are based on cars and when coupled with "normal" engines are not too bad MPG wise.

The class of vehicle should not be used in this discussion. The weight and size of the engine is what counts.

I still find it funny that 20 years ago we were all driving cars the same size and weight but with smaller engines. All of a sudden we "need" 200+ HP engines.

Why?

While I agree that putting an underpowered engine in a car does not do much if anything for MPG, IMHO if you need an engine that big then your car is too damn big!

-JB


RE: Humbug
By FITCamaro on 7/25/2007 3:57:11 PM , Rating: 1
I prefer 350+ horsepower.


RE: Humbug
By jrb531 on 7/25/2007 4:15:24 PM , Rating: 1
And this is the problem.

I prefer 4000hp but not at the cost it would incur.

Want to solve this issue?

Easy

Base gas on the size of your engine. Not that this would ever happen but I wonder how many people would insist on 350HP engines if they have to pay for this at the pump.

Under 100HP = $2.00 per gallon
101-150HP = $2.50 per gallon
151-200HP = $3.00 per gallon
201-250HP = $3.50 per gallon
251+ HP = $4.00 per gallon

Now go ahead and buy that hummer :)
It's not enough that these huge beasts have less MPG. People seem to not care. Since the price of gas is based on demand and wastefull people driving these un-needed huge cars are what is driving up demand (or a part of the cause) then why punish those who act responsibly?

-JB


RE: Humbug
By Hare on 7/25/2007 4:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's funny.

I just filled my 160hp car and it cost me 1.35€ per litre.
1 litre = 0.26 US gallons
1€ = 1.38$

(Living in Scandinavia)


RE: Humbug
By TomZ on 7/25/2007 4:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
You won't get any sympathy from me - that cost is the result of the taxes you impose upon yourselves. Europe's high fuel prices are entirely a self-inflicted wound.


RE: Humbug
By 91TTZ on 7/25/2007 5:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
That makes no sense. You can get a 300 hp SUV with horrible gas mileage, or you can get a 500 hp Corvette with decent gas mileage. The weight of the car and its aerodynamics makes a huge difference.


RE: Humbug
By TomZ on 7/25/2007 4:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I prefer 350+ horsepower.

You have got to be kidding me! After all your complaining that people who don't truly "need" to drive trucks/SUVs shouldn't be allowed to have them, don't you think it is massively hypocritical to then pronounce your love for 350+ HP engines in your cars? I mean, after all, why do you "need" that? LMAO


RE: Humbug
By FITCamaro on 7/25/2007 10:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
I don't care about how much horsepower you have. I care about how big your car is when it slams into me. And when you're driving a 6000lb SUV when you don't need it, I get upset since it does a lot more damage to my car than a Corvette or a Camry would have (assuming I even survive).

I don't know about you but I also don't like it when an asshole in an Escalade or an Excursion is riding my bumper while I'm doing 75 mph down the freeway. If they didn't need that big a car, I'd rather they be in a car that has a snowballs chance in hell of stopping and not plow into me if the need arises for me to slam on my brakes.

Horsepower has nothing to do with any of that. To me people are free to get as much horsepower out of their car as they want to. Just get a car thats sized according to your needs, not whats considered cool. The only reason a lot of young people today like big SUVs is because they want to stick giant ugly ass rims on it and a monster sound system in it that the rest of us on the road hate since we have to hear it from 6 blocks away.


RE: Humbug
By TomZ on 7/25/2007 10:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you just need to use your hoursepower more skillfully and stay the hell out of my way!

(In real life, I don't drive an SUV. But I do enjoy playing devil's advocate.)

Seriously, though, I understand your concerns, but risks while driving are all around. It may be that some yahoo driving their SUV does increase your risk of injury, but that's all a part of being out on public roads. It's also just as possible that some yahoo driving their hot rod too fast might cause an accident. Remember this: everybody believes they drive "better than average."


RE: Humbug
By SmokeRngs on 7/27/2007 3:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I care about how big your car is when it slams into me.


If my memory serves me correctly, you have a late model Cavalier or Cobalt. I can total your car and kill you with a Ford Festiva easily enough. I do not need a truck or an SUV to do so.

Oh, I don't need a monster vehicle to put rims on. The wheels my car came with are good enough. Plus, if I decide to turn my stereo up, you'll hear me from six blocks away easily. I do not need a large vehicle to do that. I didn't even need much money in the stereo to do it either.

I really don't care what your preferences in vehicles are as they don't matter to me. You're not going to tell me what vehicles I can and cannot own. If I have the money and decide to purchase something, your opinion will be the last of my concerns.


RE: Humbug
By Lazarus Dark on 7/25/2007 6:39:54 PM , Rating: 1
I prefer 600+ horsepower rat motors in 69 camaro bodies. I don't give a rats ass about economy. It's my money so back off. Europeans are stupid.


RE: Humbug
By FITCamaro on 7/25/2007 10:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
I live in the US....

And while I love 67-69 Camaros, I don't quite have a need for 600+ horsepower. That's a bit overkill for a street car. 400 rwhp is more than enough to make me happy and still maintain good fuel economy on the street.

I've owned 4 Camaro's in my short life so far (only 24). An 85 Berlinetta with a carbed 350, another 85 Sport Coupe that got the Berlinetta's powertrain, an 87 IROC-Z 305 TPI (85 had the tranny blow up due to a corrupt mechanic), and an 89 RS with a carbed 355 putting out about 430 hp through a 6 speed and a 12 bolt with 4.11s where the only stock pieces on the car were most of the body and the carpet.


RE: Humbug
By Hoser McMoose on 7/25/2007 6:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
The 4-wheel drive or AWD system also has an impact on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle (though a lot of that is simply due to the extra weight). For the Honda CRV the difference is only 1 mpg for both city and highway(19/26 vs. 20/27 for the 2007 models using the new EPA numbers), but it's often more for other vehicles.

The Ford Five Hundred, as an example, get 19/26mpg for the 2-wheel drive version but only 17/23mpg for the all-wheel-drive version. The difference in weight is only about 170lbs, so that alone isn't going to result in such a large hit to fuel efficiency.


RE: Humbug
By dajeepster on 7/25/2007 3:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
My Jeep wrangler comes in very handy in all types of severe driving conditions. I live in maryland and when it snows, I volunteer at the hospital to bring people to and from the hospital that wouldn't otherwise be able to get there... and thats not considered off-roading. and when streets are underwater because it rained hard and the drainage system is backed up, I drive through it.... but i never really considered my wrangler as an SUV... its a jeep (and that moniker carries all the iterations back to WWII... the other jeep brands don't count.. like the cherokee and such.. they're jeep brands... but they aren't a "jeep")

but I do have a 4cyl that I daily drive also... when the weather is nice ;)


RE: Humbug
By PaxtonFettel on 7/26/2007 8:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
Wish I could rate this higher. The majority of people have no need for an SUV and this attempted justification of the vehicle by Porsche is just pointless showboating. totally ridiculous.


RE: Humbug
By TomZ on 7/26/2007 8:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The majority of people have no need for an SUV and this attempted justification of the vehicle by Porsche is just pointless showboating. totally ridiculous.

Why can't you just make your own decisions for yourself, and recognize that other people want to make their own decisions for themselves. Just because you see no "need" for someone else to have an SUV, doesn't mean that the people buying them don't "need" or "want" them.


The Cayenne isn't an SUV
By FITCamaro on 7/25/2007 2:40:56 PM , Rating: 1
SUV stands for sport utility vehicle. Sure its sporty but it has no utility over a car. It can't tow for shit, and its not like anyone would ever take it offroading (hell even on a dirt road) regardless of what their commercials show.

This is why I think Porsche's suck. Over priced and under delivering. A Tahoe SS with a 400 hp 6.0L V8 gets better mileage than this jacked up car and can actually go off the road if needed.

This thing is nothing but a toy for rich soccer moms that want something even more expensive than a Lexus, Mercedes, or BMW.




RE: The Cayenne isn't an SUV
By A5 on 7/25/2007 3:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
Tools buying the Cayenne gives Porsche enough money to make better Boxters and 911s (or new models like the Cayman), so I'm all for it.


RE: The Cayenne isn't an SUV
By miahallen on 7/25/2007 3:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
Why? I assume you say this because you assume the Cayenne is not a capable off-roader...but you're probably basing that on looks. But alas, you need to do more reading before posting. All real world R&D for the Cayenne was performed in a convoy containing and Hummer H1 and other highly respected off roaders. Most reviews found it extremely capable off road.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id...

quote:
...he notes that the 444-horsepower Cayenne Turbo has lapped the Nürburgring just as quickly as the Boxster S, yet had just followed an industrial-strength Hummer H1 up a section of steep rock in Utah, the going seemingly slowed only by its high-performance street tires. "The only limit," Wolpert says, "is ground clearance and ramp angles".......Wolpert says that while few Cayenne owners may venture off pavement very often, "It's important for customers to know this car is very good off-road."


RE: The Cayenne isn't an SUV
By mWMA on 7/25/2007 3:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you need to look at Range Rover. Would you also consider it to meant for soccer moms. It is the only thing I can think of that delivers true luxury SUV. It can climb mountains, go Off road and yet delivery the comfort better than any SUV thanks to Air suspension.
It can tow 7700P which is very close to most other V8 trucks which are usually between 8500-9500
The only thing it can't delivery high fuel mileage and lower emission but then again you do sacrifice something if you want comfort and real outdoor capability.


RE: The Cayenne isn't an SUV
By MightyAA on 7/25/2007 4:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
fyi:
The Cayenne Turbo is rated 7716 towing capacity..


RE: The Cayenne isn't an SUV
By MightyAA on 7/25/2007 4:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
oh, and lol.. the Tahoe SS off-road. Have you looked under there? See those tubes running under the axle at the lowest point in the undercarriage? Them's your brake lines which will get yanked off on any real off-roading.

For off road, get a Wrangler, H1 Hummer or new FJ since they are the only vehicles out there right now designed with off-road in mind that tuck stuff out of harms way. Land Rover used to, but somewhere they decided marketing the heritage was just as good as continuing it by providing rugged capable vehicles ala D90 & D110.


RE: The Cayenne isn't an SUV
By Spyvie on 7/25/2007 4:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
Or do like I did and inherit an 88 Suzuki Samurai, works pretty well for me during blizzards and on fishing trips.


RE: The Cayenne isn't an SUV
By Capt Caveman on 7/25/2007 5:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
The Cayenne is actually more off-road worthy than a Tahoe SS.


RE: The Cayenne isn't an SUV
By otispunkmeyer on 7/26/2007 4:04:36 AM , Rating: 2
i think jeremy clarkson proved that the cayenne is actually very capable off road. in one of his videos i think.

since its sister cars are the VW toureg and the Q7, id say its got some decent towing ability. though maybe not as much as the V10 diesel in the VW


RE: The Cayenne isn't an SUV
By otispunkmeyer on 7/26/2007 4:06:51 AM , Rating: 2
they bashed the cayenne around all day and all that broke was a wheel weight. its a pretty tough car.

but yeah, the most off road action these cars will see is the gravel driveway to the country mansion


RE: The Cayenne isn't an SUV
By otispunkmeyer on 7/26/2007 4:06:55 AM , Rating: 2
they bashed the cayenne around all day and all that broke was a wheel weight. its a pretty tough car.

but yeah, the most off road action these cars will see is the gravel driveway to the country mansion


I'd still rather have the V10 TDI (diesel)
By jak3676 on 7/25/2007 2:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
Now if they can combine the hybrid tech to fit along side their diesel V10, I'll be real happy. Of couse its already a $50,000+ SUV (upper end VW models). V10 TDI + Hybrid with the Porche badge will probably be out of my price range.




RE: I'd still rather have the V10 TDI (diesel)
By omnicronx on 7/25/2007 2:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel only releases 70% of the emissions gasoline releases in the first place, so they will have no real need lower the emissions on their diesel models because they are already about on par with the new laws anyways.

Of course sulfur is much worse than c02 emissions, but thats another story ;)


By jak3676 on 7/25/2007 2:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
With the new ULSD (ultra low sulfer diesel) sulfer emisions aren't that bad anymore. The US still allows 15 ppm of sulfer with should be lowered further, but I'm not going to hold my breath. The only real problem that diesels have anymore is NOX. This is just a byproduct of burning the fuel in the presence of nitrogen (~70% of our atmosphere). They have some new filters and means of dealing with that, but its not going away. I'm sure a hybrid would further help the emisions, but I'm actually more interested in improving performace and gas milege. 50 more HP can only help (it's not like the diesels need more torque).


By Hoser McMoose on 7/25/2007 6:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel releases 15% more CO2 per volume then gasoline does. So while typically diesel's get 30-35% better fuel efficiency, the reduction in CO2 emitted is only 15-20%.

Also sulfur is no longer the problem it was until quite recently thanks to the new diesel fuel regulations. Now that both North America and Europe have low sulfur fuel the emissions of this are nearly the same as for gasoline vehicles. However emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter are still a problem with diesels (for this year at least), which is why all diesels except the Mercedes E320 Blutec fail North American emission standards.

New revisions of diesel vehicles will contain particulate filters and ammonia or urea SCR converters to reduce particulate matter and NOx emissions respectively. These are required to meet the 2007 North America (Tier 2) emission standards as well as the 2009 European (Euro 5) emission standards.


By TomZ on 7/25/2007 7:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
^- great post!


I'd like to see...
By Souka on 7/25/2007 2:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see performance numbers with a hybrid setup, compared to a non-hybrid.

V6 vs V6-hybrid
V8 vs V8-hybrid
V10 vs V10-hybrid

Specifically the 0-60mph times.... I seem to recall the hybrid Lexus SUV did better with the acceleration.

My $.02




RE: I'd like to see...
By omnicronx on 7/25/2007 2:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Specifically the 0-60mph times.... I seem to recall the hybrid Lexus SUV did better with the acceleration.


Was it really? i heard the v10 went 0-60 faster than a boxter S.. i didnt think the lexus was as fast.. although i don't think it really 0.2 seconds makes a difference, unless of course you race roadsters :)


RE: I'd like to see...
By Souka on 7/25/2007 3:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
No, I mean the hybrid Lexus SUV was faster than the non-hybrid Lexus SUV.


Did I read that right?
By SirLucius on 7/25/2007 3:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
Who could possibly need 500HP in this kind of SUV? It's not like this thing can go off road, and I don't see you hauling around construction equiptment in a Porsche. Besides, it seems like torque would be more important than sheer horsepower for that.




RE: Did I read that right?
By Spuke on 7/25/2007 3:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
The Cayenne has up to 11 inches of ground clearance. There are some other features like hill descent, their stability management control, and the active sway bars. It could be used for off-roading but like most SUV's it's a commuter or a cruiser. About the 500 hp rating, it's still a Porsche and Porsche owners expect power from their vehicles.

Not to mention, it weighs over 5000 lbs so it needs more power to get it to move quickly. C&D recorded a 1/4 mile of 13.5 seconds. A lighter sports car (say 3000 lbs) would need around 300 hp to achieve the same acceleration. Weight does make a huge difference in acceleration. A 1500 lb Ariel Atom with 300 hp does the 1/4 in the 11 second range.


RE: Did I read that right?
By jrb531 on 7/25/2007 3:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
I agree!

This is insane!

200hp is all that is needed by 95% of those who buy SUV's.

The problem is that the soccer moms who do not need these huge ass engines end up buying them because we are programed via ads that "bigger is better"

and we all buy this.

Hey... I do not begrudge people who do spend a good part of their life off-road in one of these monsters but if you off-road 5% of the time and are bumper to bumper with the rest of us 95% of the time does this make sense?

If you drive your boat to the lake twice a year yet still use that 11mpg monster for your daily travels then shame on you!

I'd love to buy a Jeep Wrangler. I think they look cool and are fun to drive but when I saw the mpg I took a pass. This was when gas was $2.25 a gallon. Boy I'm sure glad I passed now :)

-JB


I'll wait...
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/25/2007 3:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
For the lamborghini murcielago hybrid. I've heard it will do 10mpg instead of 6 at full throttle, and that's the way I intend to use it when I need to take children to the kinder.




RE: I'll wait...
By HammerZ on 7/25/2007 4:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I intend to use it when I need to take children to the kinder.


How do you intend to fit the "children" in the Lambo? There are only 2 seats in the ride. :)


RE: I'll wait...
By Serenade on 7/25/2007 5:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
Trunk...


NEEEEEED
By dcollins on 7/25/2007 6:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, why does everyone keep asking, "Who needs an SUV," or "who needs 500hp," etc. The answer is obvious: no one but professional drivers.

But the point you make is irrelevant. I personally like quick acceleration, tight suspension and nice handling. My dad likes towing and hauling capacity. My mom and my brother, economy and A/C (it's 107 today). My girlfriend likes the space of her SUV. Everyone has their own desires and that's why auto manufacturers make so many different styles and models.

So, we all make trade-offs. I sacrificed a back seat and smooth ride. My dad, fuel economy. My mom, performance. And so on. Whatever your values may be, get off your soapbox.

And concerning the porsche, anyone who's looked its track times or read honest review would be ashamed to compare it to a Chevy. I've driven one actually and I just might be willing to spend the 15K if I had the money. But I'm a car guy - If you're not, you'll never understand.




RE: NEEEEEED
By dcollins on 7/25/2007 6:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
anyone who's looked *at* its track times or read *an* honest review


grr


this is a joke
By otispunkmeyer on 7/26/2007 3:59:28 AM , Rating: 3
a hybrid cayenne... lol

is this so footballers dont have to feel guilty blasting their cayenne turbos around? what a con, its like those lexus hybrids, a performance enhancement dressed up as being environmentally friendly

the worst part is, this car will be exempt from the London conjestion charge on the grounds that it is a hybrid.

however, betty, in her 1.4 TDi VW Polo will have to pay the £5 odd every day when she enters london. the daft thing is... the polo > hybrid cayenne when it comes to CO2 and other pollutants.

talk about clueless fvcks running the place.




Porsche of SUVs
By ChipDude on 7/25/2007 3:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
Count on Porsche to offer the coolest hybrid SUV to date.

And please get over the debate about SUVs. 90% of the buying public don't take that SUV somewhere a normal sedan can't go.

They bought and continue to buy SUV because of it is a UV. Nothing beats the upright high vision driving and ability to get things in / out and haul of a SUV.

I'll wager 95% of them Porsche buyers just want that "Porsche" of SUV image. Do they need that 300+ HP probably not, but hey they don't care they can afford it damm the ecology of it they do because the can.

Why are Audi, BMW, Toyota and others jumping in. There is money to be made and damm if they are going to let Ford, GM continue to have that profitable corner selling their crap.




By jrb531 on 7/26/2007 10:43:07 AM , Rating: 2
Please correct me here...

If the average vehicle was even 5mpg better what would happen to the price of gas/oil? IE demand?

If demand drives up the cost yet we keep buying vehicles with more HP instead of less (IE stressing bigger, faster vehicles instead of more effiecent cars) then does not your choice of buying that Hummer affect me?

Go ahead and smoke like a chimney in your own home and away from me. You get cancer - YOU pay for the medical costs and not me. You see I do not care about what you do if it does not affect me.

So when people say "I can afford that Hummer and I'll buy whatever I want because it's MY choice" - well this upsets me because not only does this affect what "I" pay for gas but also the air I breathe and the future of the planet.

Sure "you" may not care but I do.

-JB




Porsche did not attempt to buy VW
By Beenthere on 7/25/2007 3:18:53 PM , Rating: 1
Lotsa errors in this story but for sake of brevity, Porsche did NOT try to buy VW. Porsche was required by German law to tender an "offer" because their percentage of stock ownership surpassed a trip point.

As far as SUVs go, yeah there are way too many of them and they consume too much fuel. Nothing new here other than Porsche is offering brainless Americans what they want... as do Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc. Americans have an obsession with excess be it SUVs, home sizes, burgers or the number of vehicles in their driveway.

For those who don't know Porsche sells a fair number of the Cayenne to Porsche owners who tow their Porsche cars to motorsports activities. Having the HP -- which is just torque at a rated speed, to haul a trailer is important for safety reasons and traffic management. If you've ever seen the near-misses that occur on the interstate when traffic comes up on an under-powered vehicle towing a trailer up an incline at 40 mph, then it should be obvious that being able to maintain speed is important.

I suspect Porsche and every other car mfg. will eventually use Diesels instead of hybrids to meet CAFE and emissions requirements as hybrids at this point are still quite impractical. Fuel cell tech may be a practical alternative but it's years off for volume use.




"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki