XC90 vs Porsche Cayenne

[Mr. P]

XC90 versus Porsche Cayenne

First of all, the V8 powered Cayennes are impressive machines built for speed and pretty serious off road use. In that regard they are somewhat different from the XC90, which does not necessarily share the same priority or philosophy.

We bought a beautiful 2.5T AWD XC90 and we’re thrilled with it. The power of the vehicle is “adequate” but not as comfortable as the 850 GLT we traded in. The engine, however, is a beautiful piece of equipment. I drove the T6 and even though I’m a dyed in the wool sports car nut with lots of experience, I could not tell “any” difference in performance, only a difference in the sound, which was smoother with the T6. The 4-speed keeps the T6 from feeling as peppy as it could, and the less powerful 2.5 utilizes the 5-speed to full advantage.

Here are some interesting comparison numbers.

The V6 Cayenne I just looked at during lunchtime today had a sticker price of $54,000. Base price was $45,000, but needed the extra $9000 worth of options to make it “desirable” I guess.

The Cayenne is smaller inside, and feels about the same on the outside. The Cayenne looks like a jelly bean that’s been sucked on. The Volvo has “lines”. I like the design of the Volvo better, even though I’m a Porsche guy.

The Cayenne would not be able to handle 5 people, let alone, 7. Luggage compartment is much smaller in the Cayenne. Instrumentation is no better at all in the Cayenne, as a matter of fact, the steering wheel conflicts with the instruments for my height, 6’-2”, light of build. The interior trim looked handsome, but the steering wheel had the most horrible bright aluminum triangles embossed into it, which makes me wonder if Porsche is trying to look like a Lexus. The Bauhaus design philosophy, “forget the unnecessary”, under which Porsche built its reputation, seems to be forgotten by Porsche and adapted by Volvo. The Volvo interior is certainly more stark, but in good taste. The Porsche seems to be “trying” to look luxurious.

The power to weight on the Cayenne V6 is 247 horsepower to 4800 pounds (19.4 pounds/horsepower).

The V8 Cayenne is 340-hp to 5000 pounds (14.7 pounds/horsepower) so you can see, it’s a pretty high performance vehicle, but a far cry from a Porsche 928 with the same power but weighing in at 3600 pounds (a little over 10 pounds/horsepower).

The XC90 2.5T AWD is 208-hp at 4400 pounds (21 pounds/horsepower).
The XC90 T6 AWD is 268-hp at 4600 pounds (17 pounds/horsepower)
The XC90 2.5T AWD, ACU-modified is 245-hp at 4400 pounds ( 18 pounds/horsepower), and it also has the benefit of the 5-speed transmission.

This makes a case for modifying the 2.5 Turbo motor, which I am seriously considering. I understand the turbo pressure is boosted from 8 to 14 psi in order to do this (max). I also understand you don’t get that boost unless you “put your foot in it”, such as a passing move, or perhaps an emergency acceleration out of danger. Therefore it seems feasible to have this power available on demand, if and when you may need it.

With a ECU-modified XC90 (remember, the T6 can also be modified for something like 310-hp, putting it in the 14.8 pounds/horsepower category, the Volvo remains very competitive with the Cayenne, at anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000 lower cost, depending upon whether you are comparing their VW V-6 or Porsche built V8. Their turbo V8 can top $100,000 so it’s obviously out of the evaluation.

I’m a big Porsche fan. I know the Cayenne has put Porsche at the bottom of the JD Power Quality survey this year, and I know Volvo is “above average”. Why would I want to spend $10,000 or $20,000 extra dollars for a small amount of extra speed, and also incur the wrath of poor quality and a dealership known far and wide for being smug and non responsive? My three Porsches have been pulled from dealer service for quite some time now, due to the fact that I use a Porsche factory certified mechanic who is an independent, who is friendly, and who charges fair prices for excellent work.

Today in viewing the Cayenne after I purchased my Volvo XC90 without ever even sitting in a Cayenne, I’m not disappointed. The Cayenne styling is a turn-off, the price is a turn-off, and the appointment and layout of each car is still comparable, within reason.

I know that, for the price of a modified ECU, I can get a more favorable power to weight factor than the V6 Cayenne. I can haul more people and luggage. The XC is lighter in weight, and looks better. I'm sure the quality of the Volvo is going to be better in the long run, and I'm also sure the dealer is going to be much easier to live with than the Porsche dealership. I’m not disappointed in the least with my XC90 purchase.

Sincerely,
M.r. P

[AWD*V70XC]

Mr P, you either want a Porsche sitting in your drive (to show off) or you want something that is an all rounder, I think you made the best choice.

[Mr. P]

I obviously agree! The Cayenne is a great piece of work, however, they missed me in their marketing strategy. The XC is the "best of all worlds".

I'm not interested in showing off for the neighbors, I'm interested in something that's comfortable to live with.

Their 450-hp twin turbo V8 weighs in at 5300 pounds, and to put things into perspective, that's eleven 80-pound bags of cement I'd have to be hauling around in my XC in order to match that weight factor. Must be tough on tires and gas milage.

Regards, Mr. P

[Big]

XC90 versus Porsche Cayenne...
You make good points. When I was shopping, I found the Touareg (aka Son of Cayenne) to be a better comparison with the XC90. In fact, I'm seeing many of them on the road now, almost as many as XC90s. The Touareg's styling is more pleasing to my eye than the Cayenne and the price is much better. There have been many write-ups on the XC90 vs. the Touareg that I won't go into but, needless to say, we made the best choice. http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/cool/1/cool20.gif

[Mr. P]

http://trucks.about.com/cs/suvreviews/fr/2004_volvoxc90.htm?iam=metaresults&terms=kenya+road+test%3A+2004+bmw+x5

here's a great comparison article

Mr. P

[Botanique]

Dear Mr. P.

I really don't see the point of this thread - the XC90 and the Cayenne have totally different missions and target customers. I ordered my XC90 D5 because of a concern for safety, some modest off road capability and decent cargo space - I'm into offroad cycling and need to haul my bikes and stuff.

My neighbour - who drives a 2003 Ferrari Maranello 575 (his wife drives a Jaguar XK8) has just ordered a Cayenne.

We often sit and talk about cars. Notwithstanding that I cannot afford a Cayenne (I have my kids' education to pay for), I have no real need to go seriously off road nor do I need to drive much faster than 160 kph. My neighbour on the other hand is a serious hunter and wants a car he can take deep into the Polish forest. But he also wants something that will run comfortably at over 200 kph all day long on the autobahn on his way to Poland. Two different missions, two different customers, two different cars.

This said, I would seriously hesitate to "re-mission" an XC90. You may be able to chip tune the XC90 T6 to over 300bhp but you'll have work to do on the suspension and tyres - the result will no doubt be a further lowering of the vehicle further reducing clearance (have a look at the toys at Heicosportiv.com). You will not even be close to the road handling of a Cayenne but will have further handicapped the already limited off road capabilities of the XC90. What's the point?

If you want a Cayenne, buy it - I see no point in trying to turn an XC90 into a poor copy of a Cayenne.

[johnnh01v70xc]

Botanique,

I think the point of this thread was for those people who maybe/have been considering either vehicle.

Mr. P.'s thoughtful analysis might be appreciated by some. I found his views (especially as a multiple-Porsche owner) interesting, and thank him for taking the time to organize and share them.

We all make our own decisions based on our own needs, that is why so many different car company's can stay in business.

I think he was just trying to share an interesting perspective.

[Mr. P]

Greetings. Please let me explain the reasons for my comparison post.

I'm fully aware of the different missions of the two cars. The reason for the comparison was to compare the XC with the best, in order to show the value of the XC.

The Porsche is not my favorite SUV, however, as I wish it had never been produced due to the fact that it "dillutes the heritage of the brand", looks positively homely at best, styled after a carp, weighs 5300 pounds in the max trim, and is an exercise of wretched excess. Perhaps thats why they sell so well(?) in the US? Havind said that, I acknowledge the Porsche is a great "machine", even though it comes with a transmission made by Aissan, in Japan, and Porsche can't service it, they only pack em up and exchange them. I think Porsche took a horrible risk with their tradition and good name, going into a market dominated by the Japanese, with serious competition from BMW, Rover, and now Volvo, who incidentely builds more turbocharged heavy trucks and engines of all kinds than many people realize. I think the Cayenne puts Porsche at risk, due to heavy development cost, distraction from what made them famous, racing, and quality road cars, and the Cayenne is the "prime" reason why Porsche is now 4th from the very bottom of the list on the JD Power Quality survey this year. If Porsche doesn't fix their relationship with owners after the sale, and fix the quality of the vehicle, along with some absolutely ostentatious styling ques, they are just setting themselves up for Ford ownership.

Had Porsche produced a SUV of "value", I would have hotly pursued one, as I would love to have a 4th Porsche in the driveway. However, I'm mighty proud of the Volvo, and know there are a few inexpensive things that can be done to enhance the driving experience. The programmed ECU and heavier sway bars are two inexpensive things that can really make a difference.

Am I trying to turn one into a Porsche, heck no! I'm just looking for an informed evaluation, and some resonable upgrades.

After looking at the Cayenne yesterday, very closely, I left the Porsche dealership with a smirk on my face, very happy, indeed, with my choice. Even if I had money to burn, I'm not sure I'd really want to be seen in one.

Sincerely,

Mr. P

[budrichard]

I order to assure Cayenne sales in the US, Porsche stopped importing the C4 Coupe. Yes you can get a C4S but becuase of the lower suspension, it is not for snow and ice and the C4 convertable is not for cold weather. I wanted a C4 to drive all year round but cannot get one in the US. My wife and I now have two Volvo XC wagons along with our 87 740 GLE sedan. The Cayenne is the most ridiculous Vehicle next to the Hummer H2 ever fostered on the American Public.
BTW, the roof height of the XC versas the XC90 is a big advantage when loading boats and things otherwise I might look at the XC90 but since the underpinning are basically the same, I don't think it matters.. -Dick

[AWD*V70XC]

Is it true that if a problem developes with the engine, it is replaced with a new one as the Porsche mechanics/engineers cannot open it, as it is a sealed unit. I was told whose engine it was but I have forgotten it now but 'they' recommened a straight swap :eek:

[Mr. P]

I’ve looked at the V6 Cayenne prior to deciding to buy the XC90 2.5T and the Cayenne had a sticker price at $54,000. Porsche claims their VW Cayenne does the 0-60 in “a remarkable 9.7 seconds” (see link). Motor Trend tested the 2.5T and reports 9.9 seconds. I don’t know how many of you can tell the difference in 1/5th of a second, but I can’t.
The VW Porsche has 3.2 liters and a V6 configuration. The XC90 has 2.5 liters but uses an equalizer called a turbo.

The VW Porsche produces 247 hp at 6000 rpm, advantage VW, but you must get to 6000 RPM in order to realize that number., while torque is only 229 footpounds at 2500 RPM. In contrast the 2.5T “only” produces 208 hp but it produces an outstanding 236-footpounds of torque way down at 1500 RPM. This means in normal driving, the smaller Volvo motor actually has more usable torque down low where it’s needed, and it comes on at an outstanding low 1500 RPM.

The VW is rated at 5300 pounds of towing, while the Volvo at 5000 pounds.

After driving both the 2.5T and the T6, and then further driving the 2.5T we opted to buy, I find the engine to be quite adequate. Yes, everyone would prefer to have more power, but the article below recommends the 2.5T over the T6, and gives great reasons why.

As for the “remarkable” acceleration of the VW Cayenne in 9.7 seconds to 60-mph, I’d suggest that with manual shifting the Volvo could equal that number. Quite remarkable eh?

The Cayenne is roughly 5200 pounds which is 21 pounds per horsepower.
The Volvo is roughly 4400 pounds, which is 21 pounds per hoursepower.
Add the advantage of better torque for the Volvo, I’m surprised the Volvo didn’t actually beat the Cayenne performance numbers, but they are from Porsche, and the Volvo numbers are from an independent source. http://www2.us.porsche.com/eng...e.htm
For all practical purposes, the 2.5T is the equal of the VW Cayenne when it comes to power to weight and acceleration. VW, er Porsche, quotes their top speed as 133, while I see independent tests in UK showing the 2.5T at 130, with factory numbers saying 128. In any case, fast enough to do serious jail time!! I like the fact that the Volvo motor was built by Volvo, tee hee, and Porsche had to buy theirs.

Later on when we have a Japanese Yamaha Volvo to talk about, perhaps the numbers will be even more encouraging.

http://www.automotive.com/volv....html

2004 Volvo XC90 Driving Impressions
The standard Volvo XC90 and the T6 model have surprisingly different character. Our highest praise is reserved for the model with the base five-cylinder engine.

Volvo's 2.5-liter five-cylinder engine produces 208 horsepower and 236 foot-pounds of torque at 4500 rpm. We found the five-cylinder's 208 horsepower to be plenty for the real world, and the 24 mpg EPA Highway rating is excellent for that much power in a vehicle as heavy as the XC90.

But engines only produce power. Transmissions transmit the power to drive wheels, and the transmission in the five-cylinder XC90 is very sweet. It's a Geartronic five-speed automatic with a manual mode. We used manual shifting to test the engine's torque, which seems a little lacking at low rpm. However, it generates good acceleration when you floor it in automatic mode. We floored the gas at 1500 rpm in fifth gear and, in manual mode the XC90 accelerated ever so slowly. Then we tried automatic mode, and when we floored it at 1500 rpm the transmission downshifted all the way to third, the tach jumped and XC90 eagerly zoomed away. Obviously, the electronic transmission sensor didn't believe there was enough torque at 1500 rpm. Moral to the story: avoid manual mode for full acceleration, and trust the transmission to shift itself. And if you just want pulling power without full throttle, you can use the manual mode to downshift, if you need to.

The T6 model also uses a Geartronic transmission, but it's only a four-speed. The T6 transmission must handle a lot more torque, and beefing up the five-speed to that level would leave no room in the engine compartment to fit it. As it is, the heavier four-speed transmission shifts more slowly and less smoothly than the 2.5's five-speed.

Nor is the six-cylinder engine is as smooth or quiet as the five-cylinder. There was a distinct engine vibration between 45 and 50 mph in third gear, at about 2000 rpm. And although 268 horsepower and twin turbos sounds hot, we weren't impressed. With the four-speed, the engine sometimes feels like it's working hard, and the T6's lower mileage rating means about 60 fewer miles per tank.

Regardless, we were impressed with how silky smooth the XC90 felt at 80 mph. Its chassis closely follows the design of the V70 wagon, but it's wider and the components are beefier. Our route included one long and remote leg of rough, narrow and twisty pavement, and, with two passengers, we fairly thrashed the five-cylinder XC90, and it eagerly ate up the road.

Here, we used the big ventilated disc brakes hard, and manual mode in the transmission a lot, upshifting and downshifting as if it were a regular five-speed. A few times we flew into gullies that might have bottomed the nose of other SUVs, but the XC90 took that too. The XC90 didn't quite handle at the near sports-car level of a BMW X5 or Infiniti FX35. Its power rack-and-pinion steering is on the heavy side, and not as quick in the really tight stuff, but it feels reasonably tight in general, with decent feedback to let you know how the front tires are gripping. There's minimal body sway under hard cornering. We activated the DSTC electronic stability control a few times, and the system applied the brakes at one wheel without cutting the throttle, although we aren't sure if it was the gyroscopic roll sensor or traction sensors that triggered its operation.

The XC90's ride is very good, maybe even unique: stiff at the wheels, but not in the cabin. It didn't exactly absorb the ridges and bumps, because you could feel the suspension working over them; but it didn't transfer any harshness to the arms or seat of the pants at all. Speed bumps in particular were interesting; it was as if the suspension challenged them and hammered back, protecting us from jouncing even when we hit them at 15 mph.

The XC90's all-wheel-drive system is effective, too. It operates seamlessly, and the driver will almost never know when it's working. In normal, good-traction conditions, 95 percent of the engine's power goes to the front wheels. If the front wheels lose traction, a multi-plate clutch begins routing power to the rear, to a maximum split of 65 percent to the back tires. This frontward bias leaves the XC90 with a default understeer condition, or a sliding at the front tires near the limits of handling. This push is much easier to handle than a skittish rear end, because a driver's natural instinct is to slow down, and that basically solves the problem.

The T6 has stiffer front springs than the five-cylinder XC90, and speed-sensitive steering. These are supposed to give it more of a true high-performance feel. To some extent they do, but mostly they detract from the XC90's overall balance and introduce some mildly annoying handling characteristics. Unless you need bragging rights about ultimate horsepower, we highly recommend the XC90 with the standard five-cylinder engine.


submitted for your reading enjoyment.


Mr. P

[Gundo]

If not, you've certainly put a ton of time into justifying your purchase.

Pretty simple to me, the XC90 is designed for soccer moms and dads with no real need for a vehicle that approaches the limit of the SUV envelope where handling and technology are concerned. The saftey issue is what sells these Ford products more than anything else. And those who feel that image and prestige are not involved in a XC90 purchase are out of touch.

The Cayenne was designed to be a platform for the world's most superior crossover SUV. It happens to come in a V6 version which draws comparisons with low-end product like the XC90. But the platform, suspension, transmissions and engine are far superior to anything in the Volvo lineup.

As for someone's comment about not being able to open a Porsche engine, that's pretty much urban legend. Its well known that Porsche does NOT allow techs to rebuild engines - they require them to be shipped to Stuttgart for analysis and potential remanufacture.

[Gundo]

Funny, but I don't see Ford , Volvo or Volkswagen anywhere in the JD Power List. So much for Porsche being at the "bottom of the list"

Top Ten Nameplates (PP100 = Problems per 100 cars)

Lexus 162 PP100
Buick 187 PP100
Infiniti 189 PP100
Lincoln 194 PP100
Cadillac 196 PP100
Honda 209 PP100
Acura 212 PP100
Toyota 216 PP100
Mercury 224 PP100
Porsche 240 PP100

Top Ten Corporations

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. 207 PP100
American Honda Motor Co. 210 PP100
Porsche Cars North America, Inc. 240 PP100
General Motors Corporation 262 PP100
BMW of North America 264 PP100
Industry Average 269 PP100
Nissan North America 271 PP100
Ford Motor Company 275 PP100
Subaru of America, Inc. 288 PP100
DaimlerChrysler 302 PP100
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. 327 PP100

You can find the link at autos.MSN dot com

[Big]

Pretty simple to me, the XC90 is designed for soccer moms and dads with no real need for a vehicle that approaches the limit of the SUV envelope where handling and technology are concerned.
Mr. P makes a few good points, as do you although the above quote is not one of them. The XC90 holds its own on the handling and technology fronts.

[Mr. P]

Funny, but I don't see Ford , Volvo or Volkswagen anywhere in the JD Power List. So much for Porsche being at the "bottom of the list"


Dude, that's because you're looking at the WRONG LIST. I'm talking about the 2004 IQS (Initial Quality Survey), a copy of which is attached for your reading enjoyment. Notice what they have to say about Porsche being dragged down by the Cayenne. And yes, Volvo and Ford appear on this list.

regards, Mr. P



http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=7086

Power: Initial Quality All-Time High
2004 J.D. Power survey: pleasant surprises — and unexpected disappointments.
by Paul A. Eisenstein (2004-05-03)





New car quality has hit an all-time high, with all but a handful of manufacturers making significant gains in the 2004 J.D. Power Initial Quality Survey.

The oft-quoted annual report, released today, delivers some unexpected surprises, showing how difficult it's become for any carmaker to dominate the quality charts anymore. Undoubtedly the biggest shocker comes from Korea. Long the industry laggard, Hyundai has soared past the traditional quality leader, Toyota. And even the Japanese automaker's premium brand is now getting some stiff competition - from Buick.

For 2004, Power's IQS reveals an 11-percent reduction in the number of problems the typical U.S. new car owner reported when compared to the 2003 survey. That is a positive development, especially as the quality numbers showed no gains in the previous two years.

"This is one of the more significant improvements we've seen," noted Power senior analyst Brian Walters.

What went wrong, Japan?

The IQS is a measure of what can be called "things gone wrong." That can include major problems, such as a blown engine, as well as more minor matters, including poorly placed cupholders. The survey counts up the number of problems participating owners experienced during the first 90 days of ownership, grouping them into nine separate categories. The final figure is calculated in terms of problems per 100 vehicles, or PP100s. Like golf, this contest goes to the lowest score.

And over the decades, the Japanese have consistently delivered industry-leading quality. This year, their products had a score of 111 PP100s, compared with 119 for the industry as a whole. Among individual manufacturers, Lexus was the brand to beat, with a score of 87, meaning less than one problem per vehicle.

Yet the Japanese do not dominate like they have in the past. Some key manufacturers tumbled. Nissan slipped 11 percent, driving it down to the lower tier of the 36 manufacturers Power ranked. Then there's Toyota, the company that first taught the industry the concept of initial quality. In the 2003 survey, the flagship Toyota brand actually suffered a seven-percent decline. It recovers in 2004, its initial quality gaining 14 percent, to 104 problems per 100 vehicles.

Hyundai stuns, Europe falls

But Toyota's gains weren't enough to overcome the most stunning come-from-behind performance of the year. With what Walters called a "surprising" 29-percent improvement, Hyundai sees its problem count drop to 102.

Until recently, Korean makers have anchored the IQS and other quality surveys. In 1998, when Power redesigned the Initial Quality Survey, they had a score of 272, nearly double the problems of the Japanese, at 156. This year, they surge to second place, with a group score of 117 PP100s, comfortably ahead of both Europeans and American automakers.

That underscores just how rapidly things are changing. In 1998, the Europeans, as a group, edged out the Japanese, led by luxury industry stalwarts Mercedes-Benz and BMW. Mercedes has had a number of serious quality problems in recent years, though it does show signs of a turnaround in the 2004 IQS, its score improving 20 percent.

Luxury makers regularly outscore mainstream brands, as one might expect. With a score of 87 this year, Lexus has again proven the brand to beat on the IQS, but several of its competitors are edging closer. Cadillac delivers a count of 93 problems per 100. And with several specific products, another General Motors division nudges even closer to Lexus territory. The Buick Century, which Walters described as "one of the best models in the industry," comes in with 63 PP100.

Individual products can make - or break - a manufacturer's overall score, as Porsche painfully discovered. Its 911 is the top-quality nameplate in the Premium Sports Car category, but overall, Porsche experiences a 36-percent decline, to 159 PP100s, due to the troubled debut of its Cayenne SUV.

"In the past, it was always a risk to buy a new vehicle," said Walters, yet despite the Cayenne's problems, "Our data now show there's less of risk in buying a vehicle its first year out on the market."

F-150 gets better

Among the new or significantly updated products covered in the 2004 IQS, the decline in quality is a modest 3 problems per 100. And several new vehicles actually improve, underscoring the basic tenet of the IQS, said Walters, that quality needs to be designed into a vehicle, not fixed at the end of the assembly line.

Perhaps the most striking example of that is the all-new Ford F-Series pickup. The 2004 F-150 comes a close second to Toyota Tundra, tying Cadillac's Escalade EXT for second in the Light-Duty Full-Size Pickup category. Ford's new truck edged out the "classic" F-150, which remains in production, by 1 PP100.

While Detroit automakers may be stuck in last place on a regional basis, domestic automakers have plenty to crow about with products like the new F-Series, the Buick Century and Chevrolet's Monte Carlo - second among premium mid-size sedans, and ahead of both the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.

American makers, unfortunately, also have some of the worst products on the new IQS, however. HUMMER anchors the list, at 173 problems, though that is still up 23 percent from the 2003 survey.

There was a time when the typical American motorist could expect to endure a whole series of problems with a brand-new automobile. These days, even the worst models on the IQS list are relatively problem-free. Some defects, such as blown engines and transmissions, have virtually vanished from the survey forms owners fill out for Power.

In a way, that's making the IQS almost irrelevant. "It's so darned close, it doesn't have the same impact it did ten or twenty years ago," suggested Louise Goeser, the executive in charge of Ford Motor Co.'s quality campaign.

Power analyst Walters does not disagree. As cars get better and better "out of the box," the focus is shifting towards long-term reliability - which Power measures in another survey. After three years in service, there are still some distinct differences between the best and the worst manufacturers, though even there, quality continues to show significant gains.

And that's good news for American motorists.



2004 IQS Results:

Lexus 87

Cadillac 93

Jaguar 98

Honda 99

Buick 100

Mercury 100

Hyundai 102

Infiniti 104

Toyota 104

Mercedes-Benz 106

Audi 109

BMW 109

Oldsmobile 110

Volvo 113

Acura 117

Chevrolet 119

IND. AVERAGE 119

Chrysler 120

Dodge 121

Lincoln 121

Pontiac 122

Subaru 123

GMC 127

Ford 130

Mitsubishi 130

Saab 133

Jeep 136

MINI 142

Land Rover 148

Saturn 149

Suzuki 149

Kia 153

Nissan 154

Mazda 157

Scion 158

Porsche 159

Volkswagen 164

Hummer 173

[Mr. P]

And to add insult to injury, it appears that if you have the VW version of the Cayenne, then you have the worst of both worlds. Look where VW is on the IQS. It's even further down the line that Porsche.

There are a LOT of people using the name "Porsche" with the Cayenne, however, being an owner of multiple Porsches with reputations beyond reproach, I don't think the Porsche crest belongs on the Cayenne. It's a vehicle their accountants and board of director's built out of greed, it puts them in a very unfamiliar market where service is mandatory, and it is a major departure from the "forget the unnecessary" Bauhaus philosophy that built the Porsche reputation. The Volvo philosophy, on the other hand, has been very consistant, and I for one really appreciate this.

As forum members know, I'm not too wild about the Yamaha V8 they're planning to use, because that will make the entire drivetrain from Japan and I dont' think thats the best position for Volvo to be in. I'm sure they will make it work well though.

The fact remains, the XC09 is a very competitive package when compared to the overweight pig with the V6 VW motor sporting the Porsche crest on the front.

regards,

Mr. P

[Botanique]

Dear P.

Hate to intrude on your forum topic, but I believe your Bauhaus reference is to Ludwig Mies van der Rohe statement that "less is more" - the same man who reminded us that "God is in the details". Both thoughts could certainly be ascribed to the philosophy that largely guided Doctor Ferdinand Porsche but also true to the spirit of most contemporary scandinavian designers (e.g. Arne Jacobsen or Bruno Mathsson) of which Volvo is part of the automotive expression.

While I agree that Volkswagen, Porsche, Audi group built the Cayenne/Touareg to profit from a growing niche market - the same is true of Volvo. Being employed in a company's which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Swedish one, I have no doubt that, without the influence if not to say insistence, of Ford's voice on the Volvo board, there would probably not be an XC90 today. The whole purpose of the XC90 was to grow sales in the U.S..

[Mr. P]

You're on the right trail, but missed some of the detail.

I have a dual degree in Art and Architecture, and am a former corporate president of a large design firm, and I'm nationally certified, and I fully understand the impact of the Bauhaus design movement on German society and how it evolved into affecting their automobile industry. That’s why I refer to it in some of my comments.

The Bauhaus design philosophy which Porsche referenced repeatedly in it’s history, was founded by Walter Gropius. It was later run by Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe. Therefore Mies’s comment, “less is more” is a reflection of the Bauhaus design philosophy. Porsche adapted this whole heartedly, as their own corporate design philosophy formerly was “forget the unnecessary”, as German designer after designer had roots in the Werkbund / Bauhaus educational background. Porsche, by the way, used the minimalist design to craft his first “356” sports car, which was basically a simple inverted “bath tub”, but it had a simple understated elegance, great proportion, fine German Bauhaus craftsmanship, and artistic expression that still to this day makes those cars sought after by enthusiasts and collectors.

While many of the Porsche cars that followed the 356 still retained the austere functionality and high level of craftsmanship, while other manufacturers dipped heavily into sexy non functional bodies and wood trimmed interiors, etc., the Cayenne is clearly an exercise in the “wretched excess”, rather than the “less is more” Bauhaus philosophy Mies referred to. By contrast, the Cayenne is a pig, and it is so in more ways than one, because some of those models weigh in at 5300 pounds, and that is a very serious departure from Porsche engineering and design philosophy.




Here is a brief history that follows.

On



The Bauhaus was founded in 1919 by an architect named Walter Gropius. Gropius came from the Werkbund movement which sought to integrate art and economics, and to add an element of engineering to art. The Bauhaus was founded by the combining of the Weimar Art Academy, and the Weimar Arts and Crafts School. Students at this new school were trained by both an artist and a master craftsman, realizing the desires of Gropius to make "modern artists familiar with science and economics, [that] began to unite creative imagination with a practical knowledge of craftsmanship, and thus to develop a new sense of functional design," (Bauhaus 1919-1928 p. 13).

In general, industrial designers outside the automobile industry have rarely impacted car design. Walter Gropius, founder of the Bauhaus, was asked to develop automobile bodies for the Adler Automobilwerk in Germany from 1930 to 1933. The automobile he designed has since become known not for any particular styling element, but for its designer.

The Deutscher Werkbund began the unification of the contrasting American and English philosophies. In an effort to promote the possibilities of design, John Cotton Dana, director of the Newark Museum of Art, brought in an exhibition of the Werkbund members' art in 1912. However, synthesis of American industrial developments and European aesthetical developments received their greatest impetus with the creation of the Bauhaus by Walter Gropius in 1919. The Bauhaus was created from two schools of arts and crafts in Weimar, Germany and was devoted to the cause of integrating the arts and modern technology, transcending the boundaries among craft, design, and art. Gropius held the belief that every architect, painter, and sculptor should first be a craftsman. The prestige and philosophies of the Bauhaus initiated a b push for American design education in the 1920s. Frank Purdy, president of the Art Alliance, said in 1921 that "design is now studied in relation to its purpose. . . . Art as now taught is not an end but a means. . . . [W]e are at last beginning to teach art as an economic as well as an aesthetic factor." When the Bauhaus was abandoned to the Socialists in 1928, many of the students and faculty came to the United States though not to work in industry. These designers taught at American schools, bringing a fresh approach to design foundation courses.

Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe was born in Aachen, Germany in 1886. He worked in the family stone-carving business before he joined the office of Bruno Paul in Berlin. He entered the studio of Peter Behrens in 1908 and remained until 1912.
Under Behrens' influence, Mies developed a design approach based on advanced structural techniques and Prussian Classicism. He also developed a sympathy for the aesthetic credos of both Russian Constructivism and the Dutch De Stijl group. He borrowed from the post and lintel construction of Karl Friedrich Schinkel for his designs in steel and glass.
Mies worked with the magazine G which started in July 1923. He made major contributions to the architectural philosophies of the late 1920s and 1930s as artistic director of the Werkbund-sponsored Weissenhof project and as Director of the Bauhaus.
Famous for his dictum 'Less is More', Mies attempted to create contemplative, neutral spaces through an architecture based on material honesty and structural integrity.

[996redhead]

I would not judge any of the Cayennes by their 0-60 times. It's an easy metric but it's far from a comprehensive metric, unless you live at a drag strip.

Of course I am biased (more on that below), but I do find it telling that the Cayenne Turbo had lap times identical to a BMW M3 when tested by evo magazine. That's pretty interesting and speaks volumes in itself.


Joel
Porsche Carrera owner

[Mr. P]

Hi Joel,

I see you’re a Porsche owner, as am I, but in my case I’m really not to pleased to see Porsche jumping into the overweight SUV category (the Cayenne weighs 900 pounds more than the XC90, and that’s quite ridiculous coming from a company who built their reputation on lightweight giant killers).

Fist of all, we're talking about the $54,000 V6 Cayenne, and I don't imagine they put the same suspension under that rig as they do the 450-hp version. As a matter of fact, I suspect the suspensions are quite different, as the additional $35,000 surely isn't all for the motor.

The XC90 is no slouch in the handling department. It runs through the 600-foot slalom (where they put pylons a 600-foot intervals, and then see how fast the car can snake through the course) very respectfully. AS a matter of fact, the XC90 is almost as fast as a lightweight Ford Focus (only 4/10th of a second slower). The XC runs the pylons at 60.3 MPH. The Focus at 60.7.

The $118,000 Mercedes AMG CL55 runs the same course at 62.6 MPH.

The BMW X3 runs the course at 61.7 MPH, which must be an embarassment for BMW. The Cayenne S (V8 model, V8 suspension) runs the course in 63.2-mph, so the (V8) Cayenne has enough rubber on the road and a good enough suspension to be quite impressive, indeed.

I contend anyone who wants the XC90 and simply MUST have that extra 3-MPH to match the V8 Cayenne, go to IPD and get the heavier sway bars, perhaps the variable rate spring kit to lower the car about 2", and sport the same rubber on the road as the Cayenne, and you’ll see the superior light weight of the Volvo and it’s superior weight bias will easily outrun any Cayenne in the 600-foot slalom. However, the car handles well enough now, in stock form on stock rubber, to really not need an upgrade except for the die hard sporting few (perhaps like you and me).

My experience behind the wheel of the XC90 is pretty positive, and it's quite laughable that a $118,000 Mercedes AMG supercar can only run the pylons 2.3 MPH faster than the smallest engine XC90. Anyone who says the XC90 doesn't handle well simply doesn't know what they're talking about, because the 600-foot slalom “IS” an accurate measure of the handling. It's no Porsche Carerra, and neither is the Cayenne, as the top of the line Porsche road cars these days will do the course at 70-MPH.

The small motor has tremendous torque at low rpm where you need it, and of course you're not going to win any drag races but it's a fine unit. People just need to realize the low end torque only takes a tiny stab of the gas pedal to get the vehicle moving, and if you really must go fast, you have to hold that foot to the floor and listen to the engine work.

I find the handling to be quite good, and it must be so much better on tires to not be lugging that nearly NINE HUNDRED EXTRA POUNDS around that the Cayenne has to haul everywhere it goes.

This comparison is to put the XC90 2.5 into perspective with the V6 Porsche, and I think it compares very well. It looks better, it has more room, it's much more functional and easier to live with, and it has one world of a better record with problems (JD Power being an objective referee on this one). I just want people to appreciate the package and understand what a gem they really got from Volvo.

If anyone really has to have the additional power, there's been plenty of comment here about the additional power of an upgraded ECU, but quite frankly, I'm beginning to like the way the car drives just like it is. Like you, I have a high powered Porsche automobile if I really want to wear out some tire rubber.

regards,

Mr. P

[Gundo]

The XC90's best features include its flexibility and comfortable interior, seven-passenger seating capacity and impressive safety features. However, heavy weight and powertrains that aren't overly powerful detract from the driving experience. Its also not very fuel efficient. The ride is fairly comfortable, with responsive and secure handling....First year reliability has been poor.
CR April 2004

[weroll]

Why is so much effort put into proving (justifying) the 'choice of weapon'

Mr P likes his XC. Gundo prefers the Cayenne. They are both excellent cars depending on personal preferences. This is why we have so many car manufacturers. Otherwise we would all be driving Lada's en Volga's as they did in the former Soviet union.

Enjoy your rides!!

[Mr. P]

The "point" is as old as cars. The first time two cars appeared, they compared the first one with the second one, in order to understand the features of each one. Later, they raced them in order to find out which one was the fastest.

Personally, I like the fact that the XC does so well against something with a Porsche crest on the hood, in performance areas where Porsche would normally dominate. In addition, it costs $10,000 less but with major safety benefits.

Mr. P