"sm70- why not Duesenberg?" (sm70-whynotduesenberg)
08/29/2015 at 21:38 • Filed to: None
1
26|
"sm70- why not Duesenberg?" (sm70-whynotduesenberg)
08/29/2015 at 21:38 • Filed to: None | 1
| 26 |
Or to be more correct, a $90,000 Macan S “Exclusive”, identical to this. Other than regarding the absurd price, anybody have any questions?
Also, let me just reiterate how batshit insane I think that price is for a non- “Turbo” Macan.
Big Bubba Ray
> sm70- why not Duesenberg?
08/29/2015 at 21:40 |
|
How awesome was it? I’m a massive fan of the Macan.
E92M3
> sm70- why not Duesenberg?
08/29/2015 at 21:41 |
|
These things can’t depreciate fast enough... I’m patiently waiting for $30k used examples.
Steve in Manhattan
> sm70- why not Duesenberg?
08/29/2015 at 21:43 |
|
Why does it exist?
|
sm70- why not Duesenberg?
> Big Bubba Ray
08/29/2015 at 21:44 |
|
It was quite nice. Plenty brick, and a very smooth power band due to being n/a. Ride was on the firm side of comfortable as long as you left it in normal mode, but in sport plus the exhaust made some lovely burbles and crackles. Handling seemed excellent.
|
sm70- why not Duesenberg?
> E92M3
08/29/2015 at 21:44 |
|
Ditto.
|
sm70- why not Duesenberg?
> Steve in Manhattan
08/29/2015 at 21:44 |
|
Not entirely sure, but I’m glad it does.
fhrblig
> Steve in Manhattan
08/29/2015 at 21:46 |
|
I’m less irritated by the Macan as I am the Cayenne.
(My phone autocorrected ‘Macan’ to Macanudo, and now I’m jonesing for a good cigar.)
BReLp7dzHM3ytYsE
> fhrblig
08/29/2015 at 21:51 |
|
But the Cayenne is so cool! Who doesn't love an AWD V8 blob that goes like stink???
PS9
> Steve in Manhattan
08/29/2015 at 21:52 |
|
Short answer: $$$
Long answer: Lotus makes sports cars exclusively, and we see how well that’s working for them. Porsche doesn’t want to be Lotus, so in addition to the sports cars, they make other stuff the non-enthusiast mass market might be interested in buying from them (at overinflated prices) as well. More $$$ = A healthy brand.
PatBateman
> sm70- why not Duesenberg?
08/29/2015 at 21:52 |
|
If you think that $90k is too high, what would you consider a FAIR price for one?
FlimFlamMan
> sm70- why not Duesenberg?
08/29/2015 at 21:52 |
|
I saw a brown Macan S at work a couple of weeks ago. I thought it was much more attractive than the Cayenne.
90K though? Jesus H and Mary J. Blige, that is ridiculous.
On paper the S does look like it has some good amount of giddy-up.
|
Steve in Manhattan
> fhrblig
08/29/2015 at 21:53 |
|
Saw one in traffic, it reminds me of one of the fourteen models of BMW SUV, but better looking. And the reason Porsche green-lit it is clear - they make a shit ton of money from every one sold, and they can spend that trying to make a 2WD 911 handle properly. And Porsche is the most profitable carmaker.
And some autocorrects will change “Stellan Skarsgard” to “Stellar Skateboard.” Or so I’ve been told.
|
Steve in Manhattan
> PS9
08/29/2015 at 22:01 |
|
I have said that in this space before. Cayennes are ashtonishingly profitable. I suppose the same is true for an Escalade - can you imagine how much more GM makes for a Suburban/Yukon with some bling badges and a bit more wood and leather?
Ej8gUy
> sm70- why not Duesenberg?
08/29/2015 at 22:41 |
|
Pretty sure they are all turbocharged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_M…
BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
> sm70- why not Duesenberg?
08/29/2015 at 23:16 |
|
They are all Turbo Macans... just some aren’t CALLED turbos... and are a bit less powerful.
Although that blue is gorgeous.
Is the car as good as a Porsche should be, even in the context of it being a CUV?
A lighter, more lithe vehicle than Cayenne, but still with longitudinal 3-diff rear-biased AWD, (with torque distribution and optional torque vectoring) and a PDK gearbox, behind either of a pair of twin turbo V6s...
The only thing that would have been better, is if Porsche had actually given it the 3-door mix between a shooting brake and fastback, and made it an all-road grand touring coupe, in addition to a 5-door CUV. Like an Allroad AWD successor to 928 for the 21st century’s decaying roads, and maybe even a little bit off off the beaten path.
A 5-door fastback CUV seems weird, yet several exist. A fastback 3-door coupe crossover sounds like a fantastic mode of transportation for 2 people for any road in any weather.
|
sm70- why not Duesenberg?
> PatBateman
08/29/2015 at 23:29 |
|
For a Macan S? Depending how optioned, $50-70k or so.
|
sm70- why not Duesenberg?
> Ej8gUy
08/29/2015 at 23:31 |
|
Arrrgh, the salesman told us it was n/a. Fixed.
|
sm70- why not Duesenberg?
> BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
08/29/2015 at 23:35 |
|
1. Yup, you’re right.
2. If by that you mean is it quick, agile, well-crafted, and generally a fun and engaging driving experience, then yes.
3. We have two. They’re the Evoque 2-door and the Paceman. Neither are doing the idea any good.
|
sm70- why not Duesenberg?
> FlimFlamMan
08/29/2015 at 23:39 |
|
It does on the road, too.
|
BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
> sm70- why not Duesenberg?
08/29/2015 at 23:50 |
|
I like the Evoque, but the visibility is a killer. The Range Stormer concept that preceded the Range Rover Sport’s introduction was fantastic, and I was really sorry that Range Rover Sport wasn’t offered with a 3-door body style option.
The Paceman concept was an interesting design... but the execution is pathetic for an otherwise expensive Mini with AWD that barely counts as such.
At least the Evoque Coupe is halfway capable with a versatile, well optioned haldex system. Still not a 3-diff longitudinal system, though.
X4 and X6, as well as a new Merc competitor to them, are odd with four side doors, but with the fastback roofline. If either X6 or X4, or both, had been 3-door fastback coupe crossovers, they might be interesting, and leave the 5-door duties to X3 and X5 respectively.
I wish Porsche would have done the rumored 3-door Macan before the production model was shown, but it hasn’t materialized.
On the more affordable side, I wish there were a 3-door XV Crosstrek shooting brake with WRX power, and WRX STI drivetrain. A low-riding boy-racer sedan without a lift back has been done, and no rally car rides low enough to scrape over speed bumps. The Cross Sport Design Concept is based on the wrong platform, but the premise isn’t bad.
Battery Tender Unnecessary
> sm70- why not Duesenberg?
08/30/2015 at 01:16 |
|
A lot of money for a Tiguan
Van Man, rocks the Man Van
> sm70- why not Duesenberg?
08/30/2015 at 10:08 |
|
Macan S or SQ5? Is it worth the extra dough over its “regular” competitors?Should Porsche make a “normal” one to better compete with Q5/X3 with ~300 hp? How does it compare to your X3?
|
sm70- why not Duesenberg?
> Battery Tender Unnecessary
08/30/2015 at 10:38 |
|
In much the same way that a 911 is a lot of money for a Beetle.
|
sm70- why not Duesenberg?
> Van Man, rocks the Man Van
08/30/2015 at 10:39 |
|
It’s a good bit quicker and more agile than the X3. Interior is also a bit cooler, since it feels like the inside of a 911. As for how it compares to an SQ5, I will let you know once I’ve driven an SQ5/
|
Van Man, rocks the Man Van
> sm70- why not Duesenberg?
08/30/2015 at 10:52 |
|
It's obviously a much better vehicle than a comparable X3 or Q5, but is it worth an extra $10-15k?
|
sm70- why not Duesenberg?
> Van Man, rocks the Man Van
08/30/2015 at 12:36 |
|
That, my good man, is 100% subjective.