2007 350z
09-22-2006, 02:16 PM
#61
Registered User
Originally Posted by SilverKnight,Sep 22 2006, 01:13 AM
Was a male user (YELLAFEVA) posing as a female user (CUTIEBONNY) in the PacNW forum. Also known as BONNY, this user would login with multiple accounts from Lake Washington Technical College and AOL dial-up in violation of the S2ki.com usage agreement. Was BANned by JerryPeterson after a brief investigation. New users with posting characteristics similar to this user are referred to as BONNIEs. SILVERKNIGHT and SPA4EVA are often confused with CUTIEBONNY dispite having no relationship with the latter. VTECMOM still insists that she met BONNY but doesn't realize the user was probably in drag.
09-22-2006, 02:46 PM
#62
Originally Posted by Lice Locket,Sep 22 2006, 10:55 AM
Its funny you used the Porsche 911 as an example, because its actually an example of
1) how putting too much money into halo cars will cost you.
VW bought out Porsche, and in order to turn a profit, they had to start making SUVs by reusing the Toureg platform (just like the earlier example I used on how Nissan makes money on the 350z).
2) Many "variants" for the 911 is the same as reusing the platform. If the 911 sold as one car, I think we can agree that it wouldn't sell well, since the 911s only earn a profit when you add the total of all the cars (mostly the lower models)
Other examples: Ferrari hasnt turned a profit yet with their cars, Lotus is owned by a Malaysian company, and Nissan is owned by the French. Honda is the fastest growing auto company right now, and Toyota is nearing up #1 in the world, with absolutely no sports cars in its lineup (and, the upcoming sports cars are reused withing the Toyota/Lexus brands).
And the NSX? The first car to be made all aluminum? Yea... Now that everyone's doing it, its something to forget. I mean, who cares about Christopher Columbus anymore?
As for the hp/liter comparo being old... didn't the new Porsche recently pride itself by being the highest hp/liter at 115hp/liter for an n/a engine?
Porsche's lucky that the F20C wasn't made in anymore, otherwise they couldn't make the statement.
1) how putting too much money into halo cars will cost you.
VW bought out Porsche, and in order to turn a profit, they had to start making SUVs by reusing the Toureg platform (just like the earlier example I used on how Nissan makes money on the 350z).
2) Many "variants" for the 911 is the same as reusing the platform. If the 911 sold as one car, I think we can agree that it wouldn't sell well, since the 911s only earn a profit when you add the total of all the cars (mostly the lower models)
Other examples: Ferrari hasnt turned a profit yet with their cars, Lotus is owned by a Malaysian company, and Nissan is owned by the French. Honda is the fastest growing auto company right now, and Toyota is nearing up #1 in the world, with absolutely no sports cars in its lineup (and, the upcoming sports cars are reused withing the Toyota/Lexus brands).
And the NSX? The first car to be made all aluminum? Yea... Now that everyone's doing it, its something to forget. I mean, who cares about Christopher Columbus anymore?
As for the hp/liter comparo being old... didn't the new Porsche recently pride itself by being the highest hp/liter at 115hp/liter for an n/a engine?
Porsche's lucky that the F20C wasn't made in anymore, otherwise they couldn't make the statement.
1) VW did not buy out Porsche, which remains the last major independent sports car company. Porsche has also been very profitable, IIRC they have the highest profit margin % of any volume automaker. Porsche and VW collaborated on the Toureg/Cayenne - it's not "reused". A friend has a Cayenne Turbo, and it feels like a Porsche through and through.
2) Wrong again! There's a big difference between chaging engines, adding AWD, and making a convertible variant vs. making a sports car, sedan, and SUV on a shared platform.
Where do you get your "data" regarding Porsche and Ferrari (lack of) profitabilty? I'm not buying it...
And who is "everyone" building aluminum cars these days? I know we have Ferrari, Audi, and Jaguar w/ a handful of models, but those comprise a tiny sliver of the market.
09-22-2006, 03:41 PM
#63
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I recall correctly, the base 350z ways closer to 3200 punds than it does 3400 pounds. The question is how many people really buy the base model? I would like to see some sales statistics, but my hunch is that more people are buying the other variants which have more features and bigger tires -- and a weight somewhere between 3300 and 3400 pounds. Weight does make a difference not just in acceleration but overall driving feel. That's not debate-able. Just like we can't argue that gravity doesn't exist.
I think the previous generation 300zx still holds better track numbers over the 350z, despite being heavier, but I like 350z's styling and it represents a good performance value if you dont overdo it with options. I think the 350z and s2000 are both great cars, they just offer different things.
I think the previous generation 300zx still holds better track numbers over the 350z, despite being heavier, but I like 350z's styling and it represents a good performance value if you dont overdo it with options. I think the 350z and s2000 are both great cars, they just offer different things.
09-22-2006, 04:18 PM
#64
Originally Posted by Chris S,Sep 22 2006, 03:46 PM
Dude, it'll help your arguments if you know WTF you're talking about:
1) VW did not buy out Porsche, which remains the last major independent sports car company. Porsche has also been very profitable, IIRC they have the highest profit margin % of any volume automaker. Porsche and VW collaborated on the Toureg/Cayenne - it's not "reused". A friend has a Cayenne Turbo, and it feels like a Porsche through and through.
2) Wrong again! There's a big difference between chaging engines, adding AWD, and making a convertible variant vs. making a sports car, sedan, and SUV on a shared platform.
Where do you get your "data" regarding Porsche and Ferrari (lack of) profitabilty? I'm not buying it...
And who is "everyone" building aluminum cars these days? I know we have Ferrari, Audi, and Jaguar w/ a handful of models, but those comprise a tiny sliver of the market.
1) VW did not buy out Porsche, which remains the last major independent sports car company. Porsche has also been very profitable, IIRC they have the highest profit margin % of any volume automaker. Porsche and VW collaborated on the Toureg/Cayenne - it's not "reused". A friend has a Cayenne Turbo, and it feels like a Porsche through and through.
2) Wrong again! There's a big difference between chaging engines, adding AWD, and making a convertible variant vs. making a sports car, sedan, and SUV on a shared platform.
Where do you get your "data" regarding Porsche and Ferrari (lack of) profitabilty? I'm not buying it...
And who is "everyone" building aluminum cars these days? I know we have Ferrari, Audi, and Jaguar w/ a handful of models, but those comprise a tiny sliver of the market.
Fanboism at it's best.
09-22-2006, 05:49 PM
#66
Originally Posted by Chris S,Sep 22 2006, 02:46 PM
Dude, it'll help your arguments if you know WTF you're talking about:
1) VW did not buy out Porsche, which remains the last major independent sports car company. Porsche has also been very profitable, IIRC they have the highest profit margin % of any volume automaker. Porsche and VW collaborated on the Toureg/Cayenne - it's not "reused". A friend has a Cayenne Turbo, and it feels like a Porsche through and through.
2) Wrong again! There's a big difference between chaging engines, adding AWD, and making a convertible variant vs. making a sports car, sedan, and SUV on a shared platform.
Where do you get your "data" regarding Porsche and Ferrari (lack of) profitabilty? I'm not buying it...
And who is "everyone" building aluminum cars these days? I know we have Ferrari, Audi, and Jaguar w/ a handful of models, but those comprise a tiny sliver of the market.
1) VW did not buy out Porsche, which remains the last major independent sports car company. Porsche has also been very profitable, IIRC they have the highest profit margin % of any volume automaker. Porsche and VW collaborated on the Toureg/Cayenne - it's not "reused". A friend has a Cayenne Turbo, and it feels like a Porsche through and through.
2) Wrong again! There's a big difference between chaging engines, adding AWD, and making a convertible variant vs. making a sports car, sedan, and SUV on a shared platform.
Where do you get your "data" regarding Porsche and Ferrari (lack of) profitabilty? I'm not buying it...
And who is "everyone" building aluminum cars these days? I know we have Ferrari, Audi, and Jaguar w/ a handful of models, but those comprise a tiny sliver of the market.
2) What're you talking about? I didn't say that there's no difference in variants of a platform. The fact is, Nissan CAN reuse them, unlike the s2000, which CANNOT (hence, is not worth updating). If the 350Z's platform cannot be reused, will NOT be profitable. Are you disagreeing with me that cars sold as 350z and 911 can make profit without reusing the platform? The reason 350z can be reused for AWD and convertible forms is because Nissan believes it will generate profit.
You're taking single sentences out as what I'm arguing about and are not understanding my argument. The original post I was arguing against was that Honda has "pathetic" efforst in updating their sports cars because they don't upgrade their sports cars like Nissan and Porsche. MY argument is that Honda doesn't update their sports cars because they can't reuse the NSX nor S2000, and therefore CANNOT generate a risk using money to make changes. The arguments used against me dont' work because they were just more cars that only make profits by having a reusable platform. You'd be surpised by how much more money a car can make just by having an automatic transmission option.
If you don't understand my argument, then why bother nitpicking individual quotes? Do you disagree with me that its not worth Honda's effort to make more changes to two of their least profitable cars?
09-22-2006, 05:50 PM
#67
Originally Posted by LUV2REV,Sep 22 2006, 04:18 PM
Thanks Chris, I could not have said it better myself. Funny, Porsche actually purchased a 20% stake in VW AG last year and we are being told VW bought Porsche out. Fanboism at it's best.
Fanboism at it's best.
09-22-2006, 07:41 PM
#68
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 's' is fun, but dated already.
I am selling mine in probably 12 months max. The lack of torque, with the fact that these other cars are considerably easier to get power out of (i.e. not redlining every gear) just seems too appealing. I am sure they are in no way as fun however, as i do LOVE redlining my car up to third and appreciate it for what it is, i am just underwhelmed by the lack of power in general.
It's a shame honda haven't kept up, as the car can handle more power, i am just not prepared to get it out of the engine by myself and voiding the warranty!
I am selling mine in probably 12 months max. The lack of torque, with the fact that these other cars are considerably easier to get power out of (i.e. not redlining every gear) just seems too appealing. I am sure they are in no way as fun however, as i do LOVE redlining my car up to third and appreciate it for what it is, i am just underwhelmed by the lack of power in general.
It's a shame honda haven't kept up, as the car can handle more power, i am just not prepared to get it out of the engine by myself and voiding the warranty!
09-22-2006, 07:47 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jacques79,Sep 20 2006, 09:01 PM
I agree 100%.
It's really pathetic.
Same thing happened with the NSX. Honda knows not a lot of cars have the same feel as the S2K so they just sit there....
I mean would it really kill them financially to add about 20HP to the S2K?
I know it's just a 2 or 2.2l engine, but come on......
In 7 years they couldn't find a way to add 20 friggin HP? How about 10HP?
I love the car but it is starting to get slow for a 2007 sports car.
It's really pathetic.
Same thing happened with the NSX. Honda knows not a lot of cars have the same feel as the S2K so they just sit there....
I mean would it really kill them financially to add about 20HP to the S2K?
I know it's just a 2 or 2.2l engine, but come on......
In 7 years they couldn't find a way to add 20 friggin HP? How about 10HP?
I love the car but it is starting to get slow for a 2007 sports car.
09-22-2006, 08:37 PM
#70
Originally Posted by Lice Locket,Sep 22 2006, 06:49 PM
1) I was referring to a long time ago until recently. Maybe their ownership is shared, but THAT'S NOT THE POINT. I used those two companies because Porsche cannot make a profit without reusing their platforms for other cars (either variants of the 911 or the Toureg platform).
2) What're you talking about? I didn't say that there's no difference in variants of a platform. The fact is, Nissan CAN reuse them, unlike the s2000, which CANNOT (hence, is not worth updating). If the 350Z's platform cannot be reused, will NOT be profitable. Are you disagreeing with me that cars sold as 350z and 911 can make profit without reusing the platform? The reason 350z can be reused for AWD and convertible forms is because Nissan believes it will generate profit.
You're taking single sentences out as what I'm arguing about and are not understanding my argument. The original post I was arguing against was that Honda has "pathetic" efforst in updating their sports cars because they don't upgrade their sports cars like Nissan and Porsche. MY argument is that Honda doesn't update their sports cars because they can't reuse the NSX nor S2000, and therefore CANNOT generate a risk using money to make changes. The arguments used against me dont' work because they were just more cars that only make profits by having a reusable platform. You'd be surpised by how much more money a car can make just by having an automatic transmission option.
If you don't understand my argument, then why bother nitpicking individual quotes? Do you disagree with me that its not worth Honda's effort to make more changes to two of their least profitable cars?
2) What're you talking about? I didn't say that there's no difference in variants of a platform. The fact is, Nissan CAN reuse them, unlike the s2000, which CANNOT (hence, is not worth updating). If the 350Z's platform cannot be reused, will NOT be profitable. Are you disagreeing with me that cars sold as 350z and 911 can make profit without reusing the platform? The reason 350z can be reused for AWD and convertible forms is because Nissan believes it will generate profit.
You're taking single sentences out as what I'm arguing about and are not understanding my argument. The original post I was arguing against was that Honda has "pathetic" efforst in updating their sports cars because they don't upgrade their sports cars like Nissan and Porsche. MY argument is that Honda doesn't update their sports cars because they can't reuse the NSX nor S2000, and therefore CANNOT generate a risk using money to make changes. The arguments used against me dont' work because they were just more cars that only make profits by having a reusable platform. You'd be surpised by how much more money a car can make just by having an automatic transmission option.
If you don't understand my argument, then why bother nitpicking individual quotes? Do you disagree with me that its not worth Honda's effort to make more changes to two of their least profitable cars?
