European makers are not immune to the same mentality - I don't know what
they have done to the Boxster since 2005, but previous to that Porsche made
sure the Boxster was fitted with a much lower hp engine than its chassis
could handle, and lumbered with an open diff. Reason? With the power of a
911 and with a limited slip diff, the Boxster was faster and better handling
than the 911 (Ruff proved it!) I think Porsche made also sure the Cayman (a
Boxster with a roof) could not challenge the 911 - both instances of a car,
as Bill said, NOT made the best possible from the beginning.
That being said, I am sure the quality of the Boxster is way higher than
that of a Fiero!
Bill L. wrote:
The design and concept of the Fiero was top rate. The problem came in
execution. GM would not allow a car that cost half as much as a 'Vette
the performance of one. The test mules went like raped apes, and
if on rails. Corporate mandated no new castings for the suspension and
them use CHEVETTE front ends and drive trains. They weren't allowed to
use the 3600 V6 that
the engine bay was designed to handle, but were stuck with the ECOTECH
banger. (Has GM ever made a decent inline 4?) The frame of the Fiero
rock solid. After it was annouced that the car would be discontinued
the engineers were finally allowed to install the turbo charged V-6
engines, and the cars finally started living up to their potential.
The whole story illustrates what went wrong in GM corporate culture.
than trying to make the best possible car from the beginning, all to
they figure that they'll make more money if they leave room to make it
better over the next few years. We all remember planned obsolescence.
European and Japanese manufactures figure to make a car that is as good
they know how. And still improve it during the model run, without
intentionally holding back.
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html