| Author |
Message |
Dan Stephenson
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:49 am Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
In article <41e9cbf8$0$14623$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
Martin² <never@give.one> wrote:
| Quote: | Boxster has been 'designed' by Wiedekings bean counters to be cheap to
build.
It's only recently the engineers got a chance to improve the stupidly named
thing to deserve the P badge.
(But I still don't like it.)
|
Would you give an example of the 'cheap design' of the Boxster? I've
got one, and aside from lame "leatherette" and the false buttons in the
dashboard, which the 911 had too, I discern no "cheapness".
--
Dan Stephenson
Photos and movies from US Parks and all over Europe:
http://homepage.mac.com/stepheda
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
E Brown
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:53 am Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:46:09 GMT, Dan Stephenson
<stephedanospam@mac.com> wrote:
| Quote: | In article <c94ju0h3959duo3srja71j01hpqjsd6ae3@4ax.com>, E Brown
epbrown01@att.net> wrote:
That's my point - I think it was price more than anything that
killed both water-pumpers. The 944 started out as an entry-level
model, and yet the 968 cost more *10 years ago* than the Boxster S
does *now.* That's insane.
So were the cars expensive to make, or did Porsche's marketing totally
fail to read the market, year after year?
|
They were expensive to make. What saved Porsche's ass with the
Boxster is that the model shared a LOT of parts with the 996, which
meant less development, less tooling to make the two models, and an
easier-to-manage supply line. This way, bad sales of one doesn't leave
the company stuck with a bunch of parts - they can use most of them on
the other model. Both cars are watercooled flat-6s that share a front
clip and lots of the interior.
By contrast, there's very little that my 3 Porsches share in terms
of parts. Not just the body, but the interior switchgear, engine
systems, the whole enchilada. A bad year for 944 or 928 sales means a
lot of crap they're stuck with.
Porsche brought in Japanese industry consultants, Deming disciples,
and eliminated those kinds of inefficiencies from their manufacturing
process as a result.
Also, the market for sports cars and high-end classics took a hit
in the early 90s after Black Monday, and all the model lines took a
hit. The 911 survived because its the franchise at Porsche - sales
sucked just as bad for it. The Boxster came along as the market
recovery hit full steam, powered by the dot.com boom. When the dot.com
bust hit, eBay went from 20-25 boxster listings on average, to 50-100
consistently. Fortunately that market dip wasn't as global *and* the
Cayenne arrived to bolster sales by tapping into a new market.
Emanuel
--
1983 Porsche 911 Guards Red/Black
1983 Porsche 944 Guards Red/Black
1983 Porsche 928 Guards Red/Black |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
self
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:22 am Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
Dan Stephenson said the following on 1/17/2005 5:49 PM:
| Quote: | give an example of the 'cheap design' of the Boxster
|
Visor covers & retaining clips.
(Sorry, but I have to concede at leat that much. But there isn't too
much more.)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don.
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:50 am Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
E Brown wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:46:09 GMT, Dan Stephenson
stephedanospam@mac.com> wrote:
In article <c94ju0h3959duo3srja71j01hpqjsd6ae3@4ax.com>, E Brown
epbrown01@att.net> wrote:
That's my point - I think it was price more than anything that
killed both water-pumpers. The 944 started out as an entry-level
model, and yet the 968 cost more *10 years ago* than the Boxster S
does *now.* That's insane.
So were the cars expensive to make, or did Porsche's marketing totally
fail to read the market, year after year?
They were expensive to make. What saved Porsche's ass with the
Boxster is that the model shared a LOT of parts with the 996, which
meant less development, less tooling to make the two models, and an
easier-to-manage supply line. This way, bad sales of one doesn't leave
the company stuck with a bunch of parts - they can use most of them on
the other model. Both cars are watercooled flat-6s that share a front
clip and lots of the interior.
By contrast, there's very little that my 3 Porsches share in terms
of parts. Not just the body, but the interior switchgear, engine
systems, the whole enchilada. A bad year for 944 or 928 sales means a
lot of crap they're stuck with.
Porsche brought in Japanese industry consultants, Deming disciples,
and eliminated those kinds of inefficiencies from their manufacturing
process as a result.
Also, the market for sports cars and high-end classics took a hit
in the early 90s after Black Monday, and all the model lines took a
hit. The 911 survived because its the franchise at Porsche - sales
sucked just as bad for it. The Boxster came along as the market
recovery hit full steam, powered by the dot.com boom. When the dot.com
bust hit, eBay went from 20-25 boxster listings on average, to 50-100
consistently. Fortunately that market dip wasn't as global *and* the
Cayenne arrived to bolster sales by tapping into a new market.
Emanuel
|
Seems I remember that Ford(?) brought in some Japanese production line experts
back in the 70's to help improve Ford's efficiency. And what company first
developed the production line? Ford! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martin²
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:56 am Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
Don:
| Quote: | And what company first developed the production line? Ford!
|
Ehm, no. Ford copied the production techniques from other non-auto
manufacturer, but I forgot who...
Regards,
Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
erico!
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:26 pm Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
Because it's not a real Porsche!
Just like the 944 isn't nor the 924, or Boxster!
NOT REAL PORSCHES
"E Brown" <epbrown01@att.net> wrote in message
news:namiu0pa22gj3h6dl09c1ljaqmel5himbn@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:20:56 -0800, "Devils944S2"
devils944@nospam.net> wrote:
Anyhow...While a 968 would run circles around a first or second generation
Boxster, the perception about 4 cylinders (and the engine being in the
wrong
place) killed it from the get go. It has been said, but bears
repeating...the 924/944/968 line of Porsches are the biggest steal on the
sports car market.
I agree with a lot of what your wrote about US sports car
perceptions, but it doesn't explain the failure of the V8-engined 928
to gain good ground here, and the Mazda MX-5 became a sales phenomenon
while the 968 was in it's death throes. I think a large segment of
Americans don't mind 4-cylinder sports cars, but they *do* mind paying
Corvette money for a four-banger. I think it was more price than
engine.
The 968 is under-appreciated though. If I were going down to one
Porsche, it's likely the one I'd go with. Can't stand the cabs,
though.
Emanuel
--
1983 Porsche 911 Guards Red/Black
1983 Porsche 944 Guards Red/Black
1983 Porsche 928 Guards Red/Black |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:34 pm Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
Tosser.
Must kill you that Porsche makes exactly ZERO air cooled vehicles.
erico! wrote:
| Quote: | Because it's not a real Porsche!
Just like the 944 isn't nor the 924, or Boxster!
NOT REAL PORSCHES
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martin²
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 am Post subject:
Re: Erico |
|
|
Troll. Ignore him & his posts, he will get bored and find something else to
do by himself...
PS
| Quote: | Must kill you that Porsche makes exactly ZERO air cooled vehicles.
|
Me think the Porsche aero engines are still air cooled, but I could be
wrong.
Regards,
Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PHILLIP DOUGAN
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:41 pm Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
Great Coupe, but convertible suffered scuttle shake.Boxster is a true
convertible.
"E Brown" <epbrown01@att.net> wrote in message
news:namiu0pa22gj3h6dl09c1ljaqmel5himbn@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:20:56 -0800, "Devils944S2"
devils944@nospam.net> wrote:
Anyhow...While a 968 would run circles around a first or second
generation
Boxster, the perception about 4 cylinders (and the engine being in the
wrong
place) killed it from the get go. It has been said, but bears
repeating...the 924/944/968 line of Porsches are the biggest steal on the
sports car market.
I agree with a lot of what your wrote about US sports car
perceptions, but it doesn't explain the failure of the V8-engined 928
to gain good ground here, and the Mazda MX-5 became a sales phenomenon
while the 968 was in it's death throes. I think a large segment of
Americans don't mind 4-cylinder sports cars, but they *do* mind paying
Corvette money for a four-banger. I think it was more price than
engine.
The 968 is under-appreciated though. If I were going down to one
Porsche, it's likely the one I'd go with. Can't stand the cabs,
though.
Emanuel
--
1983 Porsche 911 Guards Red/Black
1983 Porsche 944 Guards Red/Black
1983 Porsche 928 Guards Red/Black |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in