Yet another Porsche to peruse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Almost half of the Porsche Cayennes sold so far this year have been the new V-6 base version, reports Haney Louka. Though "underpowered" when compared to the Cayenne S V8, "..thankfully, the rest of the Cayenne driving experience remains intact."
I like it. And geeze...that charcoal colored one in the center pics... Looks very sharp!
Still not too shabby looking performance wise, I'd like to see another 30 - 40 lb-ft for that weight...but again, 0-60mph in around 9 seconds, hey when I was in high school that's what Camaro and Mustang 5.0's were running.
MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
Guinness for Strength!!!
I agree Brian. For the dollar the Base model is not too shabby at all. Too much is made about 0 to 60 in this type vehicle imho as well.
The handling and fitments are 100% and much better than most, if not all other vehicles in its price range. Porsche like Mercedes & BMW can nickel and dime you to the poor house with their Options List, but little is needed that isn't already their imho.
minir wrote:Too much is made about 0 to 60 in this type vehicle imho as well.
Very true. What counts for me is highway zip...the ability to do 40 - 60, or 60 - 80, stuff like that much more than off the line stoplight to stoplight performance.
Stay cool Minir....this heat wave is still floating around down here...supposed to tickle 100 today for us, and the haze, foggy air so thick you need a butter knife to slice your way through it. Need some serious rain to break it.
MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
Guinness for Strength!!!
I concur. Passing ability is most important to me as well. My o-60 days are over. I hate buying new tires at today's prices
Damn i don't envy you the heat their.
We are to go to the high 80's today which is a bit of a break and they say rain is possible as well. We sure could use some here as well.
Tomorrow back into the 90's though. This has been one of the hottest Summers here in my memory. Little respite, i do feel sorry for the Homeless and the Aged without benefit of A/C. Brutal.
I think I would opt away from the Porsche unless I could afford the turbo monster. I think I'd go for the MDX, 200 lbs lighter, 20 more HP, several grand cheaper and definately lower maintenance costs. The one thing I like about the 6 cyclinder Cayenne is that I know my car is faster than at least 1 Porsche
Personally DV I'm a fan of the VW Touareg. I think its better styled and the interior is terrific imho. It has pretty much the same essentials as the Porsche and is more than most would ever need.
The new Jeep Hemi is awesome too
The one thing I like about the 6 cylinder Cayenne is that I know my car is faster than at least 1 Porsche
Not the best looking of the group, but certainly not bad either. Porsche quality is legendary and that reassurance alone is something to consider in a Vehicle of this type.
Stonecat unless ur taking about v6 camaros and stangs i dunno where u saw 9s at for 0-60 times.
Nope, positively without question the 5.0 V-8's...as back in those years the V-6 option was a smaller 2.8 then the 2.5 Iron Duke 4 cyl. You were probably still in diapers. This is back when under 10 second 0-60 times was considered pretty good.
The V-8s were only mustering up around 145hp..quite strangled with emissions.
MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
Guinness for Strength!!!
YeOldeStonecat wrote:Nope, positively without question the 5.0 V-8's...as back in those years the V-6 option was a smaller 2.8 then the 2.5 Iron Duke 4 cyl. You were probably still in diapers. This is back when under 10 second 0-60 times was considered pretty good.
The V-8s were only mustering up around 145hp..quite strangled with emissions.
Strangled with emissions is a good way to put it. The late 70's was a bad time for cars. The Mustangs V-8's were down to 134 HP for a couple of years. I think you could get the 78 Vette with a 454 that put out 180. That was about the time the Rabbits and GTI's were quicker than the Mustangs and Camaros.
DV wrote:Strangled with emissions is a good way to put it. The late 70's was a bad time for cars. The Mustangs V-8's were down to 134 HP for a couple of years. I think you could get the 78 Vette with a 454 that put out 180. That was about the time the Rabbits and GTI's were quicker than the Mustangs and Camaros.
Yup...I think the 5.0 at its absolute poorest showing, I remember 112hp. 2 barrel carb I'm sure. Back then many US cars were trying to pass emissions with a device called an air pump, some technical name like "Termaculator". Basically pumped in some exhaust back into your air intake to burn again. Real effect....it simply killed nice cold fresh air intake.
MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
Guinness for Strength!!!
well i cant find mustang times but the v8 camaros were in teh 7 secs according to google searching. But if the stang had 134hp then i guess it is possible, sad.
YARDofSTUF wrote:well i cant find mustang times but the v8 camaros were in teh 7 secs according to google searching. But if the stang had 134hp then i guess it is possible, sad.
I just found similar info on the Camaro. Looks like Car and Driver got a 78 to do 60 in 7.3 and the 1/4 in 16 flat.
The 78 had a mighty 185 HP, but I think the 280 lbs of torque is what helped C&D get this 3600lb beast to do a 16 flat. Still seems like the ET is too quick for those specs. Now the 79 was down to 175 and 270 lbs of torque so it may have been a little closer to Cayenne speed of 16.8. One thing I believe we can all agree on is that the 78 camaro and mustang are not attractive vehicles.
Looks very sharp! 
