Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: 2005 Porsche Cayenne and Cayenne S

  1. #1
    R.I.P. 2015-05-13 minir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    27,942
    Blog Entries
    1

    2005 Porsche Cayenne and Cayenne S

    Hi to All

    Hope your off to a wonderful day today

    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."

    http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/hl/05cayenne.htm

    --

    regards

    minir

  2. #2
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,900
    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!!!

  3. #3
    R.I.P. 2015-05-13 minir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    27,942
    Blog Entries
    1
    Good morning YeOldeStonecat

    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.

    Wouldn't turn one down.

    Thanks and have a good one my Friend

    --

    regards

    Larry

  4. #4
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,900
    Quote Originally Posted by minir
    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!!!

  5. #5
    R.I.P. 2015-05-13 minir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    27,942
    Blog Entries
    1
    Hi YeOldeStonecat

    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.

    You stay cool and enjoy the odd libation

    --

    regards

    minir

  6. #6
    Regular Member DV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    449
    Hi Larry

    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

  7. #7
    R.I.P. 2015-05-13 minir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    27,942
    Blog Entries
    1
    Hi DV


    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


    Good line DV

    --

    Thanks and have a great day

    --

    regards

    Larry

  8. #8
    SG Enthusiast SRF01's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Ottawa Ont.
    Posts
    1,348
    My neighbour has one of those but it's atleast a year old now. It looked pretty nice until my uncle pulled up with his infiniti FX45.

    315hp 329ft-lbs
    It's more like a sports car with a huge trunk and seating for more.

    But I wouldn't turn down either one.

  9. #9
    R.I.P. 2015-05-13 minir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    27,942
    Blog Entries
    1
    Hi ya SRF01


    As you say, " Wouldn't turn one down either"

    If Bucks are not an issue, Why Not Eh!

    --

    Thanks SRF01 and do enjoy your day

    --

    regards

    minir

  10. #10
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,988
    Well it doesnt look anyworse than the other SUVs around, liek the V8 option there. Man that thign can get pricey quick!


    Stonecat unless ur taking about v6 camaros and stangs i dunno where u saw 9s at for 0-60 times.

  11. #11
    R.I.P. 2015-05-13 minir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    27,942
    Blog Entries
    1
    Good Morning YARDofSTUF

    The Turbo is Bitchin

    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.

    Lotto Night tonight here

    --

    Thanks YARDofSTUF & do have a fun day

    --

    regards

    minir

  12. #12
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,900
    Quote Originally Posted by YARDofSTUF


    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!!!

  13. #13
    Regular Member DV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by YeOldeStonecat
    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.

  14. #14
    Moderator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Posts
    50,900
    Quote Originally Posted by DV
    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!!!

  15. #15
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,988
    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.

  16. #16
    Regular Member DV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by YARDofSTUF
    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.

    78 Camaro

    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.

Similar Threads

  1. 2004 Porsche Cayenne S and Cayenne Turbo
    By minir in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-15-04, 09:11 AM
  2. Pikes Peak in a Porsche Cayenne
    By minir in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-24-04, 08:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •