Of the vehicles listed above, which do you think was the "worst idea" in regards to the autmaker that released it. Some were successful, some were not. However, all have been very controversial from one standpoint or another.

My vote goes to the Cayenne even though it is a sales success. If you were only asking wether or not the vehicle itself was a disaster the GTO and SSR both have been sales bombs thus far and far outstrip the big Porsche in this respect.

However, I still picked the German because I think the mind-set that brought us the Cayenne will only continue to lead Porsche astray in other areas. .

There were many better options for a larger volume car, or money-maker than the Cayenne that fit better into Porsche's line-up. A car magazine suggested Porsche come out with a 35k-40k car using the turbocharged Subaru flat four they helped design with proper Porsche style. A kind of much better executed, modern day 914 that would actually be fast this go-round. IMHO they couldn't build enough of them.

Or, imagine a 4-ddor about the size of the Ferrari's new Scag with a Flat 8 based on the 911's mill. A 4-door 928 ig you will. Porsche has been said to have considered this very thing off and on for years, but never does it. If Porsche wanted to break the mould then they should have done it with a vehicle such as this one, and not a truck.

If a mod can think of any other moderately high end vehicles that might qualify as a bad idea and wants to add them go with it.

I'll go with the Cayenne. The fact that Porsche is producing an SUV shows that their personality has been diluted beyond all repair.

Thunderbird, redoing it was stupid for teh money it cost and how fast it went...

I'd say the Thunderbird, Ford has taken what was a nice car from it's inception and slowly ruined it through it's history to the point where they needed to cancel it due to bad sales. They already ruined it once why make a new one just to have another bomb. I think they shoulda just left it dead cause they obviously don't know what it takes to make the car succesful.

Cayenne, Oprsche should not be producing SUVs because they are famous for their sports cars, especially the 911 turbo.

The SSR was never intended to be a big seller, it was always a limited production vehicle. Also, the GTO has had a few changed this year, its typical for GM cars to take awhile for sales to pick up from when they're released, for example Cadillac sold the most CTS's last year, its 3rd year of production.

.....i think the cayenne was a rather smart thing to do;
it shows that they have a perfect understanding of what sells.
i think of it like this, the cayenne is what makes the money for them to develop cars like the GT3 and in my books, thats a very good idea.

i think that of the ones listed, the thunderbird ranks up there as being a bad idea and in this instance, shows just how of touch ford are with the car consumers and in a way highlights a certain arrongance
(or perhaps reallly stupid bosses who can't think for themselvs and rely too much on marketing men...).

The SSR was never intended to be a big seller, it was always a limited production vehicle. Also, the GTO has had a few changed this year, its typical for GM cars to take awhile for sales to pick up from when they're released, for example Cadillac sold the most CTS's last year, its 3rd year of production.

There is a 300+ day supply of 04 SSR's on car lots if the vehicle started selling as well as GM had intially hoped today. GM indeed intended the vehilce to be low production. However, the public has seen fit to demand far less than even the limited production run GM had initially hoped to sell. Demand for this vehicle is virtually non-existent.

That said, the SSR was my second place pick, and might well have been in first except that it apparently in no way shows a design direction or product placement for any other vehicle but itself. This car was a one shot deal from the outset. And unfortunately for the General, the gun firing that shot was apparently loaded with blanks.

.....i think the cayenne was a rather smart thing to do;
it shows that they have a perfect understanding of what sells.
i think of it like this, the cayenne is what makes the money for them to develop cars like the GT3 and in my books, thats a very good idea.

i think that of the ones listed, the thunderbird ranks up there as being a bad idea and in this instance, shows just how of touch ford are with the car consumers and in a way highlights a certain arrongance
(or perhaps reallly stupid bosses who can't think for themselvs and rely too much on marketing men...).


If it were that simple I would agree, as the Cayenne was destined to sell well upon it's release IMO. However, the suv market is failing, and I think that the big Porsche is likely to slow down at least as much, if not more, than the other high-line suv's do. If Porsche was going to get into the suv market at all, they would have been far better off to do it a decade before they did.

Also, I agree with kman as I think the Cayenne only dilutes the Porsche image. It may make money now, but I think there will be a price to be paid as exclusivity and image counts to those who want sports cars like the 911. I think porsche would have to be very careful even trying to do something like the mid 30k sports car I mentioned above. The suv angle is just too far off base.

Ferrari learned a rough lesson about straying too far off course in the 80's, and they weren't nearly as far out there as Porsche is going with the Cayenne. Just my .02.

ford Thunderbird bad idea

I'm going to say the SSR it's not fast enough to be a street truck you can't go off road with it and it doesn't even look that good.

The Thunderbird I think isn't that bad of a idea. It didn't sell well but they are a luxury 2 person coupe and there isn't that big of a market for them in the first place.

The Cayenne isn't that bad either it doesn't look that good but it's pretty capable and fast for a SUV. The down side to that is it's pricy.

The GTO is a step in the right direction for GM if it lost so weight and got better handling it would be quite a car, but it is also priced to high.

The GTO was a good idea, executed poorly. The Thunderbird is a good vehicle built on a bad idea.

......well i would go along with saying the cayenne is not quite fitting with the porsche image.....

but then again, we're talking about an suv that can outhandle most cars on a track.
everyones favourite evo (or was it car) raced an evo in one and yes the eno won but not by much......
the point is, yes it's an suv and not fitting with their brand image BUT they did put everything that is fitting for their philosophy into it.

it is possibly the only suv out there that has any real ability.

as for the suv market failing, that is only happening in the US that is saturated with poor examples of them and even then it is only the low end models that are getting over-looked.
top end proper drive-able/useable ones such as the cayenne and especially the land rovers still sell like the proverbial hotcakes all over the world.

According to Porsche the Cayenne was designed primarily for the American market. Success here would therefore seem to be necessary in order for the Cayenne to accomplish what Porsche wants it to

American luxury suv sales fell 6% last years, and every lxury suv is feeling the pinch.

The SSR got a new motor this year and is a lot faster now...

The GTO was a good idea, executed poorly. The Thunderbird is a good vehicle built on a bad idea.
How is it executed poorly?

While it was a stupid mistake to bring the VY Monaro into the States (A platform which dates back to the 1992 Vauxhall/Opel Omega), instead of waiting for the new VE Platform, you can hardly criticise the car.

It was never intended to replace the F Body, it was always intended to be a luxury coupe from the word go. It seats four normal people comfortably (True to it's large sedan roots), it has a massive boot, a well-crafted interior with everything you could possibly need in a package that is ergonomically fantastic, it has an LS1 which we all know is a brilliant engine and is so easy to drive fast (If cursed with a little too much body roll), oh and did I mention that Holden car developed the car on a budget that Chevrolet would spend on pencils? Try and tell me with a straight face that this is not an impressive car for what it is.

The only weaknesses of the GTO are the transmission (Tremec T56 as you would probably all know is about the worst 6 speed manual there is) and the fact that the car is so aged alongside cars such as the Cadillac CTS-v and C6 Corvette.


Though no denying that the car has been a sales flop, which is sad.

The worst mistake of that bunch has to be the Chevrolet SSR. Words cannot describe how pointless the thing is, it's ugly, it's useless as a truck, useless as a sports car and useless as anything other than a Concept car.

The Cayenne is another car that I see selling pretty well with women, kinda like the Hummer. If people buy it, it can't be that big of a flop. I could see myself driving a turbo if I had the money.

The GTO was a decent idea, but looks too much like any other Pontiac. The styling looks as if they stole it from a previous generation Grand Prix. Great engine, terrible transmission, and I can only see its sales dropping now with the 05' Mustang that will sell incredibly well and basically conquer the American made sports car market for all cars under the Corvette.

Thunderbird- Theres a reason they stopped making them

SSR- IMO, this is the pinnacle of retro styling gone bad. I can't find a single reason someone would buy it. Seriously, $43,000 for that piece of crap. If someone wanted to look cool, they'd buy a Corvette, if someone wanted a hardtop roadster, they'd get an SLK, if they wanted a truck, well then they would probably buy a truck. This is the worst idea on this list. PS. The LS2 advertised for the SSR only has 390hp, where did the other 10 go?

The GTO was a decent idea, but looks too much like any other Pontiac. The styling looks as if they stole it from a previous generation Grand Prix. Great engine, terrible transmission, and I can only see its sales dropping now with the 05' Mustang that will sell incredibly well and basically conquer the American made sports car market for all cars under the Corvette.



In all fairness the only reason the Mustang will dominate the American made sports cars under the Corvette is because it is the only American made sports car in that catagorey.

The Chrysler Crossfire is made in Germany, the Pontiac GTO in Australia and Chevrolet has no answer to the Mustang.

GTO

People were expecting an awesome car that would bring back the "old glory" of the GTO.

They instead got a Sunfire/Grand Am with a LS-1 wrapped in a nice little package.

In all fairness the only reason the Mustang will dominate the American made sports cars under the Corvette is because it is the only American made sports car in that catagorey.

The Chrysler Crossfire is made in Germany, the Pontiac GTO in Australia and Chevrolet has no answer to the Mustang.


When I said "American Made" I really meant "sold by an American Company," but yes, the Crossfire (another bad car imo) and the GTO arn't technically American.

How is it executed poorly?

While it was a stupid mistake to bring the VY Monaro into the States (A platform which dates back to the 1992 Vauxhall/Opel Omega), instead of waiting for the new VE Platform, you can hardly criticise the car.

It was never intended to replace the F Body, it was always intended to be a luxury coupe from the word go. It seats four normal people comfortably (True to it's large sedan roots), it has a massive boot, a well-crafted interior with everything you could possibly need in a package that is ergonomically fantastic, it has an LS1 which we all know is a brilliant engine and is so easy to drive fast (If cursed with a little too much body roll), oh and did I mention that Holden car developed the car on a budget that Chevrolet would spend on pencils? Try and tell me with a straight face that this is not an impressive car for what it is.

The only weaknesses of the GTO are the transmission (Tremec T56 as you would probably all know is about the worst 6 speed manual there is) and the fact that the car is so aged alongside cars such as the Cadillac CTS-v and C6 Corvette.


The GTO is executed poorly because it wears the Badge "GTO". If Chevy had marketed the car with some new name or some name not steeped in as much history as "GTO" they would have been much better off.

The GTO is trying to be sold to the american market, well the american market does not want a repackage Holden that looks like a smoothed out grand am wearing a "GTO" label. I'm not saying the new GTO is a bad car at all. But if GM wants to slap the "GTO" tag on it the thing better have the over the top fear me looks and power to match the infamy(sp?) of the original. They didn't so there sales suck....


Also I and many others love the Tremec T-56 so I don't know why you hate it?

Why I hate the T56? Well firstly I hate the way it shifts, has a very "clunky" feeling about it, secondly I've found it shockingly easy to miss the gates, they are that badly laid out and they really do feel extremely sloppy compared to that of cars such as the Honda S2000 or Alfa Romeo 156. It's not exactly the number one choice if Road-courses are your thing, really.

My only experience with a T56 is in a Holden Commodore SS and a few HSV's, I concluded after that if I was going to have a Commodore, I was going to have it in an Auto.

The GTO name was a proud one back in the early-mid 60's, but towards the late 60's and early 70's, the GTO became like every other American car of the time- Ugly, slow and Unreliable, so the GTO name was so badly dragged through the mud towards the end, that I (Nor GM, obviously) never would have guessed that many Americans would have cared that the GTO wasn't going to be a retro throwback to the GTO's of old.

As for the looks, maybe Pontiac should have just bought the HSV Coupe GTO/GTS over? http://202.21.128.4/photoserver/52/6604452_full.jpg
http://202.21.128.4/photoserver/54/6604454_full.jpg

Looks tacky enough to appeal to the muscle car market if I say so myself (The bougan-crowd in Australia/New Zealand certainly worships them)

Why I hate the T56? Well firstly I hate the way it shifts, has a very "clunky" feeling about it, secondly I've found it shockingly easy to miss the gates, they are that badly laid out and they really do feel extremely sloppy compared to that of cars such as the Honda S2000 or Alfa Romeo 156. It's not exactly the number one choice if Road-courses are your thing, really.

My only experience with a T56 is in a Holden Commodore SS and a few HSV's, I concluded after that if I was going to have a Commodore, I was going to have it in an Auto.

The GTO name was a proud one back in the early-mid 60's, but towards the late 60's and early 70's, the GTO became like every other American car of the time- Ugly, slow and Unreliable, so the GTO name was so badly dragged through the mud towards the end, that I (Nor GM, obviously) never would have guessed that many Americans would have cared that the GTO wasn't going to be a retro throwback to the GTO's of old.

Well the only T-56's I have driven are short shifted equipped one's in 4th Gen F-bodies, 03-04 Cobras, and one time for a quick jaunt a stock Viper. I did not find the trannies clunky or slopping at all and have no problem finding the gates. I admit cluelessness to the feel of the S2000's but if it's anything like other Honda/Acura manual set-ups I would say I find it light and airy and rather uncomfortable to me. So maybe it's just a what your use to/ what feel you like type thing?

I will totally have to disagree with you on GM and American's views on the GTO. If the GTO was dragged through the mud so bad as you claim than why would GM name a new model after a car that is viewed so badly. It's like Ford coming out wit a new car and naming it Pinto!!!!

No it is quite the opposite GM tried cashing in on a name that was still seen in a super positive light. Which I do not blame GM for or any company. But GM forgot to do it and be sucessful you have to stay true to the roots of what the name your using, is remember for. And in america unlike you'd like to think it's not the gas crunch POS's GTO's we remember.

Honestly see-ing the pic you posted and thinking that is what the musclecar market here craves. Explians a lot to me.

Well the only T-56's I have driven are short shifted equipped one's in 4th Gen F-bodies, 03-04 Cobras, and one time for a quick jaunt a stock Viper. I did not find the trannies clunky or slopping at all and have no problem finding the gates. I admit cluelessness to the feel of the S2000's but if it's anything like other Honda/Acura manual set-ups I would say I find it light and airy and rather uncomfortable to me. So maybe it's just a what your use to/ what feel you like type thing?

I will totally have to disagree with you on GM and American's views on the GTO. If the GTO was dragged through the mud so bad as you claim than why would GM name a new model after a car that is viewed so badly. It's like Ford coming out wit a new car and naming it Pinto!!!!

No it is quite the opposite GM tried cashing in on a name that was still seen in a super positive light. Which I do not blame GM for or any company. But GM forgot to do it and be sucessful you have to stay true to the roots of what the name your using, is remember for. And in america unlike you'd like to think it's not the gas crunch POS's GTO's we remember.

Honestly see-ing the pic you posted and thinking that is what the musclecar market here craves. Explians a lot to me.
I'm still not seeing why the American market does not accept the GTO, it IS true to the roots, it's a V8 RWD Coupe with plenty of space, that's what the GTO was, if they'd got an FWD 2.2 ECOTEC Sunfire, put a wing and some 16 Inch wheels on it and called it a GTO, then there'd be some reason to complain.

Australians certainly aren't compaining about the Monaro, which back in the late 60's/Early 70's, the HK Monaro GTS was the ultimate "cunt-catching" muscle car, which came of course with a 307 Cubic Inch V8, basically it was more or less Australia's Pontiac GTO Judge, the 2002 Monaro was a runaway success in the Australian market despite being a world away from the Monaro's of old, why? Because the market had changed that much, Holdens once were basically Australian Chevy's, but by 2002, they were basically all Opel's, which meant softly styled lines, well appointed interiors and civillised road manners. So the Aussies accepted the Monaro simply because it was an HK GTS, just adapted to the changed market.

It's no different to the GTO, it's also a 1964 GTO adjusted for a different market. A car built around the philosphy of the 1964 GTO simply wouldn't work in todays market (Take an economy car, stuff in a V8 and chuck in some chome, who gives an arse if everything else is sub-par), however a luxury coupe that goes fast and handles well does, so they imported the Monaro, because, historically the Monaro always was Australia's GTO, simple as that.

http://www.fastlane.com.au/Features/Oldie_-_HK_Monaro.gif
HK Holden Monaro GTS

I'm still not seeing why the American market does not accept the GTO, it IS true to the roots, it's a V8 RWD Coupe with plenty of space, that's what the GTO was, if they'd got an FWD 2.2 ECOTEC Sunfire, put a wing and some 16 Inch wheels on it and called it a GTO, then there'd be some reason to complain.

Australians certainly aren't compaining about the Monaro, which back in the late 60's/Early 70's, the HK Monaro GTS was the ultimate "cunt-catching" muscle car, which came of course with a 307 Cubic Inch V8, basically it was more or less Australia's Pontiac GTO Judge, the 2002 Monaro was a runaway success in the Australian market despite being a world away from the Monaro's of old, why? Because the market had changed that much, Holdens once were basically Australian Chevy's, but by 2002, they were basically all Opel's, which meant softly styled lines, well appointed interiors and civillised road manners. So the Aussies accepted the Monaro simply because it was an HK GTS, just adapted to the changed market.

It's no different to the GTO, it's also a 1964 GTO adjusted for a different market. A car built around the philosphy of the 1964 GTO simply wouldn't work in todays market (Take an economy car, stuff in a V8 and chuck in some chome, who gives an arse if everything else is sub-par), however a luxury coupe that goes fast and handles well does, so they imported the Monaro, because, historically the Monaro always was Australia's GTO, simple as that.

http://www.fastlane.com.au/Features/Oldie_-_HK_Monaro.gif
HK Holden Monaro GTS

That's great that it was a runaway success in Australia but Australia is not the US and vica versa. Also just cause the Monaro was Australia's GTO doesn't mean it's the US's GTO. There just different markets with different cars in those markets and different people. It goes back to the 60's, while you say the 307 equipped Monaro was the pussy puller the 307 in America was and still is consider a boat anchor of a motor.

How many people from the U.S. have said it looks like a ______(fill in the blank) grand am.

You want the GTO to sell well in the U.S. and keep it's roots it's simple. You need 3 things.

1. Look unique/powerful/fierce- Anything but the boring subdued look it has now
2. Run fierce- I think it does ok the way it is now.
3. Priced lower- it's is priced pretty much out of the only market it has.

If Chevy had made a 4-passenger RWD sedan with mean agressive styling, kept the same drivetrain they had now, price it more in the range of the GT Mustang $30,000 or less(even if it means at the cost of some handling and luxury). GM would be selling a lot more of these.

How is it executed poorly?

While it was a stupid mistake to bring the VY Monaro into the States (A platform which dates back to the 1992 Vauxhall/Opel Omega), instead of waiting for the new VE Platform, you can hardly criticise the car.

It was never intended to replace the F Body, it was always intended to be a luxury coupe from the word go. It seats four normal people comfortably (True to it's large sedan roots), it has a massive boot, a well-crafted interior with everything you could possibly need in a package that is ergonomically fantastic, it has an LS1 which we all know is a brilliant engine and is so easy to drive fast (If cursed with a little too much body roll), oh and did I mention that Holden car developed the car on a budget that Chevrolet would spend on pencils? Try and tell me with a straight face that this is not an impressive car for what it is.

The only weaknesses of the GTO are the transmission (Tremec T56 as you would probably all know is about the worst 6 speed manual there is) and the fact that the car is so aged alongside cars such as the Cadillac CTS-v and C6 Corvette.


Though no denying that the car has been a sales flop, which is sad.

The worst mistake of that bunch has to be the Chevrolet SSR. Words cannot describe how pointless the thing is, it's ugly, it's useless as a truck, useless as a sports car and useless as anything other than a Concept car.



Holden did an impressive job developing the chassis that underpins the GTO and of course the Monaro, Commodore, Calibra. However, the car has some issues which are definately hindering it here in the states.

First of all, the LS1 is a very good motor, but is simply not as astounding in this car as people think it should be. I have mentioned in other threads that the 04 model generally runs the 1/4 mile in about 13.5-14.0 seconds ....and a 13.5 time is pretty rare.

The car simply weighs more than other cars we have gotten the LS1 in, and I think people were expecting a revived GTO to be at least as fast as the last F-bodies were. It is not. This car should have had 400hp from the outset, even if it meant waiting a year to release the model.

Secondly, the GTO has anything but a large boot. For duty stateside GM had to relocate the fuel tank, and the GTO ended up with a ridiculously small trunk because of it. An 05 Mustang's trunk may as well be out of a Town Car compared to the GTO. Many people have downplayed this, but I believe people who would truly be interested in this car because of it's spacious (for a coupe) rear seat would also likely be turned off by the small trunk.

Lastly, the style is just bland. I agree with GT, were it badged as anything but a GTO all would be forgiven. But, the GTO is pure legend and this car is not a GTO. The engineering is there, but not the character. IMHO GM would have been better off to bring over the four door with the LS1 and market it as a Buick that harkens back to the old days of power and comfort. Every time GM brings this chassis stateside they seem to screw it up somehow.

How many people from the U.S. have said it looks like a ______(fill in the blank) grand am.

I agree with that one GT. I see grand am in the gto but I also see some sunfire in it as well.

I don't reay think the GTO looks that bad it's pretty rounded but it's what the original GTO was a basic looking pontiac two door sedan with a big engine. It is a little bland on the side but I think the front and back look good. If they did a little more on the sides I think it would look pretty good.

I pass a chevy dealer everyday..they have about 8 SSRs sitting on the lot and they've been there for god knows how long. They brought that thing out in 03 didn't they? I'm pretty sure these are all 03 models that no one in their right mind will buy. And wow...somebody thinks the T-56 is the worst 6 speed ever? I guess that's why 3 different car manufacturers put them in their top of the line sports cars. Since they suck and all.

Yeah, the T-56 is fine; it's not as smooth as the top-of-the-line import transmissions, but it's reliable, tough, and cheap. The SSR came out in '04, not '03; for '05, it gets the LS2.

Yeah, the T-56 is fine; it's not as smooth as the top-of-the-line import transmissions, but it's reliable, tough, and cheap. The SSR came out in '04, not '03; for '05, it gets the LS2.
Yes, but it's all very well that it's reliable, but to make the most of it's strength and reliability you actually have to use it, which sort of cancels out that advantage. Though, as I recall the T56 in Fords is supposed to have been modified somewhat to the point that it's not almost terrible as it is in Holdens and Chevy's.



Syr- Ah, I completely forgot about the fuel tank having to be moved forwards for US safety regulations, touche on the boot thing, then.

I'm not sure about the T-56 being modified but I'm pretty sure they try modifying the TR-3650 every year to make it seem like it's not the piece of shit it actually is.

Well, the GTO is building momentum for '05, that's for damn sure. A mild face lift, a bigger engine, and some very high profile motorsports ventures (all road racing) coupled with dealer incentives have been bolstering initially underwhelming (but by no means unrewarding) GTO sales.

I've always viewed the new GTO as descended from the stylish and understated 1964-1967 models which were marketed as a mixture of raucous performance and upscale style and comfort. In fact, by 1966 the GTO had become Pontiac's little Catalina/Grand Prix and the styling reflected this attitude.

http://www.iwantthatmusclecar.com/images/66gto2.jpg
GTO
http://www.classicpontiacs.com/sixties/b-bodies/1966/photos/missouri.jpg
Grand Prix

GTO is a part of the Pontiac line and SHOULD look like a Pontiac. Hell, there's some damn good cars in the Pontiac line like the Bonneville, Grand Prix, and G6.

Now the Blunderbird, there was a mistake. It drove heavy, it looked ungainly, and it was priced about $20,000 too high. With that car Ford proved just how wrong the retro trend could be and forced other manufacturers to reconsider dipping too far into the retro pool. Remember how after the Thunderbird tanked that retro concepts were quickly swept under the rug and more modernly styled cars made their debut.

However, if you really want to talk about modern failures in the high-priced car market then let's talk about the unfortunate case of the Infiniti M45. While a very good idea (midsize RWD sedan with a classy body, sport tuned suspension, and whomping big V8) the M45 failed to make an impression at all on the US market and became little more than a place holder until a new car could be developed. The M45's sale numbers, quite frankly, made Infiniti dealerships wish they were carrying GTO's.

Yeah, the GTO seems to have improved quite a bit for 2005, especially in the styling department. The GTO has been showing up and doing well in everything from autocross to drifting, and you can get them for as low as $25,000 now, so I bet the sales will pick up this year.

but sales will pick up if your throw enough incentives to make it a can't miss deal...I think in terms of effort and design its a tough choice between the gto and the t-bird. I think I have to take the t-bird in this because it just smacks of effort and looks hideous, especially compared to the old tbirds...the gto smacks of effort but I think it looks decent

well the cayenne sells better than any other porsche model - and it helped porsche out of it's economic depression -

tell me why it was supposed to be a bad idea? it was one of the best porsche had, economically-wise.

The 944 made a lot of money for Porsche too, and was a fine car wihout doubt. It was likely the best car for the money Porsche had built up that time. But, as people so often like to say it never made a very good Porsche. There is a reason the 944 faded into obscurity as the 968 eventually leaving Porsche's lineup. Although, it would appear that even Porsche seems to have forgotten the reason why now.

Heck, I could probably make a lot of money quickly for my business by opening up an "ahem" massage parlor on the side. It does not make it a good idea, and certainly does not mean it will help me in the long term.

This is why not everybody makes a good CEO. You have to be able to see the bottom line and beyond....there is more to it than just immediate profit. Unfortunately in our day-trader world people see next months earnings, bottom line-profit, and nothing else.

That said, Ferrari could no doubt roll in the dough by building a 75k sports car as an affordable Porsche. When you can tell me why they don't (I know already), then you will know why the Cayenne was not a good idea.

Ferrari already rolls in the dough with their $150,000+ sports cars. If Ferrari made like..an entry level sportscar...that would take away some of the prestige of a ferarri. More people would have them, making them less unique and less desireable by people searching for an elite car.

slightly off topic but someone mentioned something about ferrari's profits....

so what does ferrari actually make more money from;
sales of new cars,
sales/cost of servicing/parts,
sales of SPECIALIST OLD car parts,
sponsership - F1 (it all goes to ferrari right?),
licencing,
something else?

why do all these cars fail to deliver the goods? because they tried to live up to their legendary predecessors. here's how t all ended up

SSR: tried to be a camaro truck, but forgot something: power to weight ratio

GTO: old Gto= Vin Deasil. new GTO= Richard Simmons, enough said

thunder bird: the only thing thundering about this coupe was its portly stature (means it's too heavy)

cayenne: What would Proff. Porsche say about a car bearing his name that weighs more than a circus elephant on 'roids?

ok i'm done ranting.

i'm a chevy fan, and i really, really hate the ssr. they should just bring back the camaro. that would of been a GOOD idea.

They need a redesigned f-body platform. With that 405hp LS6. Mm.

GTO: old Gto= Vin Deasil. new GTO= Richard Simmons, enough said
ok i'm done ranting.


Vin desil is gayer then richard simmons. So take that back! Old and new gtos are cool by me. Never refer to anything the slightest bit cool as vin desil. Got it? :eek7:

SSR. Come on my trucks faster(then the 04 SSR).