| Author |
Message |
Sm704
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:08 am Post subject:
Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
I cannot understand why the 968 did not have the same production period
like the 944 had. Did Porsche stop production to make way for the
Boxster? I'm probably going to regret saying this, but I feel Porsche
should have continued producing the 968 instead of the Boxster...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
E Brown
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:52 pm Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2005 19:46:57 -0800, "Sm704" <sm7040@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I cannot understand why the 968 did not have the same production period
like the 944 had. Did Porsche stop production to make way for the
Boxster? I'm probably going to regret saying this, but I feel Porsche
should have continued producing the 968 instead of the Boxster...
|
Porsche dropped the 968 and 928 due to poor sales, a problem they
had from the late 80s to the early 90s, even for the 911.
Also, making the 3 different models was expensive because they
shared few parts in common, especially on the chassis. The Boxster
saved the company because it's immensely popular and shares lots of
components with the 996 - too many in the opinion of some 996 owners,
but this makes use of their building facilities much more efficient.
Thing is, Porsche is heading down the same road again. The 997 and
new Boxster share fewer components, you've got the Cayenne which
doesn't share any, and rumor has it there's a sports sedan or luxury
GT in the works.
Emanuel
--
1983 Porsche 911 Guards Red/Black
1983 Porsche 944 Guards Red/Black
1983 Porsche 928 Guards Red/Black |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Devils944S2
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:20 pm Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
To tack onto what Emmanuel was saying...he is correct about the poor sales
of all models from the late 80's to early 90's, but by '94 or '95 you would
have thought the 968 would have made a nice alternative to the 911 or 928,
but here are two other reasons the 968 failed...perception and price.
Americans, and to some degree Canadians, have issues with symbolism. Only in
North America does "Acura" exist. The reason... a North American, looking
for status would not buy a Honda, so Honda came up with a fancy sounding
name to impress the shallow North American car buyer (Don't believe me,
Google Honda NSX, you will see that beautiful sportscar with an H on the
nose) Well, the 968 had the same issues, you can still see it when the
occasional Vette owner stops over here yammering on about his V-8. North
Americans have a perception that 4 cylinder means economy, not sporty and at
close to 50 Grand a 968 was seen as "not a sports car because of it's
engine" (but a much, much lesser car such as a BMW 325 was acceptable
because it had 6 cylinders) without even looking at its HP and Torque
numbers. Also, in poor economic times, 50 Grand for an "entry level" model
was a bit steep. I personally do not like the "borrowed" looks of the 968,
but would own one in a second. It is really a shame because the Europeans
had a turbo charged model called the 968TS and it had over 300HP and had
0-62 times around 4.3 seconds...so much for crappy 4 cylinder performance,
eh? Since Porsche is dependant on North American car buyers, the 968 was
discontinued.
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.
"Sm704" <sm7040@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105760817.639247.100310@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | I cannot understand why the 968 did not have the same production period
like the 944 had. Did Porsche stop production to make way for the
Boxster? I'm probably going to regret saying this, but I feel Porsche
should have continued producing the 968 instead of the Boxster...
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
E Brown
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:13 pm Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:20:56 -0800, "Devils944S2"
<devils944@nospam.net> wrote:
| Quote: | 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 |
|
|
Sm704
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:20 am Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
E Brown wrote:
| Quote: | Porsche dropped the 968 and 928 due to poor sales, a problem they
had from the late 80s to the early 90s, even for the 911.
Also, making the 3 different models was expensive because they
shared few parts in common, especially on the chassis.
|
When Porsche decided to discontinue the 944, they should have
discontinued the 928 along with it, and focused on the 968 and 911
variants. The 968 is basically the result of the 944 and 928 having a
child together. The 968 offers the best of both worlds. There really
was no need to sell the 968 alongside the 928. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Devils944S2
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:15 am Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
<but it doesn't explain the failure of the V8-engined 928
to gain good ground here>
To be fair, the 928 (like the 944) was a strong seller from 1977 thru the
mid 80's, but the latter versions...the most spectacular of all of the 928's
were carrying price tags of over $100,000.00
I was fortunate enough to know someone with a 1994 GTS and what I wouldn't
give to own that beauty. 355HP, Black w/tan interior, handled like a dream.
I think price killed the 928 more than anything.
"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 |
|
|
E Brown
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:20 am Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
| Quote: | sm704> wrote:
When Porsche decided to discontinue the 944, they should have
discontinued the 928 along with it, and focused on the 968 and 911
variants. The 968 is basically the result of the 944 and 928 having a
child together. The 968 offers the best of both worlds. There really
was no need to sell the 968 alongside the 928.
|
I agree with the child together comment. I think the 968 is an
integration of the two water-pumpers, and a beautiful one.
<devils944@nospam.net> wrote:
| Quote: | but it doesn't explain the failure of the V8-engined 928
to gain good ground here
To be fair, the 928 (like the 944) was a strong seller from 1977 thru the
mid 80's, but the latter versions...the most spectacular of all of the 928's
were carrying price tags of over $100,000.00
I was fortunate enough to know someone with a 1994 GTS and what I wouldn't
give to own that beauty. 355HP, Black w/tan interior, handled like a dream.
I think price killed the 928 more than anything.
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. The GTS I can be more forgiving of since
it was the equivalent of the current Carrera GT - it's supposed to
have super-car pricing.
I'm working on a spreadsheet comparing the 1987 928S4 to the 1999
996, and it's wild how close that 17 year-old car is in performance to
the outgoing 911. The 928 has a 1 mph slower top speed, is only 4"
longer, 3" wider, 1" lower in height, has 20 more hp and 16 cf (!)
more cargo space.
Disadvantages are the S4 is 400 lbs heavier, braking distance from
60 mph is 15 feet longer, and 0 - 60 mph is .5 to .7 seconds more
(depending on your source). The S4 can be found for $10k-$15k all day
long, less than half the cheapest 996s.
The GT and GTS would likely top it, but those seem closer in price
to used 996s.
Emanuel
--
1983 Porsche 911 Guards Red/Black
1983 Porsche 944 Guards Red/Black
1983 Porsche 928 Guards Red/Black |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martin²
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:05 am Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
The 968 was designed by engineers to be proper sports car, and it is,
but unfortunately it was too expensive to make, hence Porsche didn't make
money on them,
the economy in the early nineties didn't help.
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.)
Sm704:
| Quote: | I feel Porsche should have continued producing the 968 instead of the
Boxster...
|
Yes, even today there isn't another proper sports but practical 2+2 coupe or
cab.
They had the chance to have that niche to themselves but they just abandoned
it.
Which is why I still have 968 Cab 11 years on..
Find out all about 968's on the discussion forum of www.968.net
Regards,
Martin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
self
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:59 am Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
Martin,
Your fit of Intra-Porsche snobbery has given me a fine way to post what
will probably be my last post to AAP, since I am getting out of the
Porsche stable shortly.
You said: "Boxster has been 'designed' by Wiedekings bean counters to be
cheap to build."
I paid almost 50 grand seven years ago for a chance to play in that
'cheap' environment. Maybe that's chump change for you, I dunno. But
comparitively, the cost of entry for the venerable 914 (what, don't like
that 'cause it wasn't a real Porsche, either?)was less than Boxster.
Likewise the 924, certainly (most Intra-snobs hate that one too, so go
ahead and malign it)was also relatively inexpensive. A base 944 (hate
that one, too, even though it is a cousin of 968? or only hate the four
cyl?)was not too pricey. And 356's weren't outrageous to build or buy,
or at least they didn't compare to the out of pocket bite of a 'Whale
Tail 911" back in it's glory. I'll bet you think that is among the
'true' breed, yes?
You go on: "It's only recently the engineers got a chance to improve the
stupidly named thing to deserve the P badge."
So, when it was released as a perfectly balanced, mid-engine,
long-lasting, new design, with features some would think of as
sport-car-like, i.e. excellent brakes, nimble handling, responsive but
not overpowering free revving motor, tightly built, snugly fitted,
reasonable on fuel, FUN to drive, ...etc, etc, you find all of that to
not measure up somehow...? What exactly are the faults that kept the
Boxster from meeting muster, in your amazingly jaudiced eyes? I guess
all those buyers and almost everyone in the automotive press who heaped
(and continue to heap) praise on it must be stupid, to you?
You even malign the very *name*? Even though a bit unweildy and quite
likely to be shortened to "Boxer" by the auto press and even potential
buyers when it first arived, I don't recall that it met with any
resistance or untoward comment until you say it now.
Huh.
Did it have some glitches? Sure, any ambitious and complex undetaking is
hard to do perfectly on the first pass. Cheesy windshield wash aiming.
Quaint spelling on the climate control. Optimistic speedos. Are those
really the hallmarks of a dismal design concept failure?
Of course, you go on with: "(But I still don't like it.)", so maybe you
should just not answer anything I ask here, because after all, it's more
fun and easier to nurture our ignorance and stupid
preconceptions/superstitions than it is to go through the *effort* to
actually examine them and confront them head on, and consider whether
they are even worthy of holding...
Hey, don't think I am a wild eyed "Boxster's-rule" nut -- I did enjoy
my car immensely, but right now it is on the auction block as I pursue a
totally different automotive adventure. You know, Variety. You ought to
think about it sometime.
Farewell AAP!
GS
Arctic Silver 1998 Boxster w/ sport package |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Devils944S2
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:59 am Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
Hey GS...
What direction are you going? There was a question in Excellence a few years
back that went "For what a new Boxster costs, why can't I save half of my
money and buy a low mileage 968? After all the 968 has more horses." The
answer was... " While the 968 is a fine car, just drive a Boxster and you
will know why it is superior. Then it basically went into everything you
said.
I have only one issue with the Boxster...there are too many out there. It is
like the early 80's and the 944 all over again.
I definitely prefer the Boxsters look to the 968, besides modernizing the
944's rear end, the 968 is hard to get used to looking at. Kind of mish mosh
of the 944, 911 and 928.
"self" <self1@metacrawler.com> wrote in message
news:7tlGd.12646$BP1.3018@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: | Martin,
Your fit of Intra-Porsche snobbery has given me a fine way to post what
will probably be my last post to AAP, since I am getting out of the
Porsche stable shortly.
You said: "Boxster has been 'designed' by Wiedekings bean counters to be
cheap to build."
I paid almost 50 grand seven years ago for a chance to play in that
'cheap' environment. Maybe that's chump change for you, I dunno. But
comparitively, the cost of entry for the venerable 914 (what, don't like
that 'cause it wasn't a real Porsche, either?)was less than Boxster.
Likewise the 924, certainly (most Intra-snobs hate that one too, so go
ahead and malign it)was also relatively inexpensive. A base 944 (hate that
one, too, even though it is a cousin of 968? or only hate the four
cyl?)was not too pricey. And 356's weren't outrageous to build or buy, or
at least they didn't compare to the out of pocket bite of a 'Whale Tail
911" back in it's glory. I'll bet you think that is among the 'true'
breed, yes?
You go on: "It's only recently the engineers got a chance to improve the
stupidly named thing to deserve the P badge."
So, when it was released as a perfectly balanced, mid-engine,
long-lasting, new design, with features some would think of as
sport-car-like, i.e. excellent brakes, nimble handling, responsive but not
overpowering free revving motor, tightly built, snugly fitted, reasonable
on fuel, FUN to drive, ...etc, etc, you find all of that to not measure up
somehow...? What exactly are the faults that kept the Boxster from meeting
muster, in your amazingly jaudiced eyes? I guess all those buyers and
almost everyone in the automotive press who heaped (and continue to heap)
praise on it must be stupid, to you?
You even malign the very *name*? Even though a bit unweildy and quite
likely to be shortened to "Boxer" by the auto press and even potential
buyers when it first arived, I don't recall that it met with any
resistance or untoward comment until you say it now.
Huh.
Did it have some glitches? Sure, any ambitious and complex undetaking is
hard to do perfectly on the first pass. Cheesy windshield wash aiming.
Quaint spelling on the climate control. Optimistic speedos. Are those
really the hallmarks of a dismal design concept failure?
Of course, you go on with: "(But I still don't like it.)", so maybe you
should just not answer anything I ask here, because after all, it's more
fun and easier to nurture our ignorance and stupid
preconceptions/superstitions than it is to go through the *effort* to
actually examine them and confront them head on, and consider whether they
are even worthy of holding...
Hey, don't think I am a wild eyed "Boxster's-rule" nut -- I did enjoy my
car immensely, but right now it is on the auction block as I pursue a
totally different automotive adventure. You know, Variety. You ought to
think about it sometime.
Farewell AAP!
GS
Arctic Silver 1998 Boxster w/ sport package |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Keenan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
Devils944S2 wrote:
| Quote: |
but here are two other reasons the 968 failed...perception and price.
Americans, and to some degree Canadians, have issues with symbolism. Only in
North America does "Acura" exist. The reason... a North American, looking
for status would not buy a Honda, so Honda came up with a fancy sounding
name to impress the shallow North American car buyer (Don't believe me,
Google Honda NSX, you will see that beautiful sportscar with an H on the
nose) Well, the 968 had the same issues, you can still see it when the
occasional Vette owner stops over here yammering on about his V-8. North
Americans have a perception that 4 cylinder means economy, not sporty and at
close to 50 Grand a 968 was seen as "not a sports car because of it's
engine" (but a much, much lesser car such as a BMW 325 was acceptable
because it had 6 cylinders) without even looking at its HP and Torque
numbers. Also, in poor economic times, 50 Grand for an "entry level" model
was a bit steep.
|
Porsche tried a similar tack with the 968. As an improved 944S2 it was
to originally be called the 944S3, but Porsche felt that promoting the
car as a "new" model would stimulate sales. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
self
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:24 pm Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
Devils944S2 said the following on 1/15/2005 11:38 PM:
| Quote: | Hey GS...
What direction are you going? There was a question in Excellence a few years
back that went "For what a new Boxster costs, why can't I save half of my
money and buy a low mileage 968? After all the 968 has more horses."
|
I hadn't seen that. Good points, though: If I couldn't have worked the
scratch for the new Boxster, and was willing to bet on a used car, that
would have been reasonable alternative. Heck, I would not put down 968
even one little bit -- the ones I have seen look great, and the
cool-factor is there, too, due to rarity....
| Quote: | I have only one issue with the Boxster...there are too many out there. It is
like the early 80's and the 944 all over again.
|
Amen! I only happened to take mine to SoBe area once,(I am not the SoBe
type!) and Holy Cow, it was like flies at an picnic! It was raining
Boxsters, in all colors of the jelly-bean jar (The kids just love those
bright colors!)
| Quote: | I definitely prefer the Boxsters look to the 968, besides modernizing the
944's rear end, the 968 is hard to get used to looking at. Kind of mish mosh
of the 944, 911 and 928.
|
I happen to like Boxster over 968, but I don't demand everyone agree --
that is what makes the world go 'round!
As to the direction I am going personally, there is no doubt what I am
doing, the only doubt left is how to execute it:
I am absolutely committed to scratching a many-years-old, very specific
itch I've had, by acquiring a 1940 Ford Coupe, with a V-8.
I have been eye-balling the few specimens that seem to be on the market
right now, and have narrowed search to a couple of good candidates.
I expect to close a deal in a week or so, and I could pop in one more
time to let the group know how I made out.
My Best to everyone on AAP!
GS
1998 Arctic Silver w/sport package...for now!
Ebay item # 4520248658 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
E Brown
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:53 am Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:24:18 -0500, self <self1@metacrawler.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | As to the direction I am going personally, there is no doubt what I am
doing, the only doubt left is how to execute it:
I am absolutely committed to scratching a many-years-old, very specific
itch I've had, by acquiring a 1940 Ford Coupe, with a V-8.
|
Ha! I've been looking at old cars as well, but my candidates are
the late 30s Packards or 1950 Fords - the slab-bodied models like the
Custom and Deluxe. Good luck with your search,
Emanuel
--
1983 Porsche 911 Guards Red/Black
1983 Porsche 944 Guards Red/Black
1983 Porsche 928 Guards Red/Black |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Fisher
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:22 am Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
| Quote: | As to the direction I am going personally, there is no doubt what I am
doing, the only doubt left is how to execute it:
I am absolutely committed to scratching a many-years-old, very specific
itch I've had, by acquiring a 1940 Ford Coupe, with a V-8.
Ha! I've been looking at old cars as well, but my candidates are
the late 30s Packards or 1950 Fords - the slab-bodied models like the
Custom and Deluxe. Good luck with your search,
Emanuel
|
How could a Porsche driver go from a 968 or "Boxer" to an old Ford? That's
got to be a painful change w/r/t performance, comfort, handling, etc.
Going from a Boxster to a '40 Ford must be like going from Ruth's Chris
steak to McDonalds!
I drive either a '98 VW Jetta TDI or a "rolling restoration" 1960 MGA 1600
roadster. One is novel and simple while the other reliable and efficient...
and they are both cheap enough for a schlub like me.
Mike
1998 VW TDI
1960 MGA 1600 Roadster
2001 Volvo V70/XC
1973 Porsche 914... in my near future |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan Stephenson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:46 am Post subject:
Re: Why was the 968 short lived? |
|
|
In article <c94ju0h3959duo3srja71j01hpqjsd6ae3@4ax.com>, E Brown
<epbrown01@att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | 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?
--
Dan Stephenson
Photos and movies from US Parks and all over Europe:
http://homepage.mac.com/stepheda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in