I was sitting around in Calculus this morning, listening to drabble about math, and came up with a new theory. The TT is a Porsche product, reviving the Porsche 912.<p>The Porsche 912 was a four-cylinder 911 missing some of the more sporty styling cues and made to appeal to the less wealthy person who knew the value of Porsche engineering. The difference, in linear measurement, between the TT and the new 996/911 is within 2% of the difference between the<br>Porsche 912 and the Porsche 911 of the same era. Though built on different chassis (PS9 vs. VW3/4), the cars share many of the same styling cues before unique to Porsche not seen on mass-produced Audis (recessed sport sills, etc.). The goal is to give the person who cannot justify spending $65,000 on a car he will drive to and from work five days a week a choice: buy something the same size as the 911, equally sporty, equally fast in the ranges you use on the commute into the city and on your way back out, and it'll only cost you $40,000 -- that's less than you've spent on your modified A4!<p>That's the plan. And I think it's a working plan... And I think the Audi TT is the new Porsche 912.<p>Opinions?<p>Cameron

 

Cameron,<p>I certainly agree that the TT has ties to older Porsches. However, the TT and TTs remind me more of the 356 Porsches, with the high body panels and short window areas. Of course, the engine is in the worng end, but so is the engine on the new Beetle. Whatever the case, I think the retro influences of the TT are spectacular.<p>Charles<br>

 

The 912 was a piece of crap Porsche, meanwhile the TT is a piece of art! A guy in the Corrado Club of America was saying the TT was the modern Corrado.......please, let's just be real and give some credit to Audi NOT VW and or PORSCHE.<p>Thanks,<p>Oscar <br>Going to order a TT Roadster in a couple of months.

 

Cameron, a couple of days ago I questioned your assertion that "Porsche is one of the companies within the Volkswagen conglomerate." I stated my belief that Porsche is not a subsidiary of Volkswagen, but a separate and independent corporation, though controlling interests in both are held by the same family. In fact, I believe that at one time in the late 1980's, VW was considered a likely candidate to take over the then-struggling Porsche, but the latter company was able to survive independently.<p>I think this is relevant, because of your idea that "the TT is a Porsche product." This theory really doesn't make sense if the two companies are independent. Porsche management and shareholders (other than those with VW interests as well) would undoubtedly not support the idea of a "Porsche product" adding to the bottom line of VW, while possibly cannibalizing Boxster sales. Surely, they would at least insist on joint-venture status, as with the RS2 or whatever it was, and the upcoming SUV. <p>I could, however, see Audi positioning the TT as a modern-day 912. The TT has a sort of retro Porsche look to it, and might attract the type of buyer that in bygone years would have opted for the 912. However, I think it would have to be considered a Porsche competitor rather than a Porsche product-line extension.<p>Incidentally, Cameron, I just caught up on some old posts that I had missed. One of yours seemed to argue (correct me if I'm wrong) that it is irrelevant if the editors of car magazines own shares in companies that make the products that they test. I strongly disagree. It is unlikely that a shareholder would rank his company's product as inferior, and at the very least there is great potential for conflict of interest. I don't know anything about Valentine's relationship with the car magazines or lack thereof, I just disagree with your opinion as I understand it.<p>I don't know if you watch CNBC's stock market coverage, but the very knowledgeable on-air personalities are prohibited from owning their own stock portfolios, thus preventing personal interests from affecting their objectivity. Guest analysts are asked about their positions in investments they discuss, for disclosure purposes. And every time someone mentions General Electric, they qualify it as "the parent of this network." So, IMO, if the editor of Car & Driver owns Valentine stock, the magazine should disclose that fact, or else they should not be considered an objective source.<p>Rich D.<br>Former 912 owner, current A4 owner, Republican, capitalist (exchange-floor trader), and shareholder in numerous companies

 

My '66 912 was a blast.

 

The second part of my above post should have gone in the general/off-topic discussion forum. Sorry, and I'll repost it there.

 

nt<br>

 

Much more than I expected from an idea toyed with at school, but in response...<p>You're right, I was wrong on the VW/Porsche relationship discussion a few days ago. Though some of the same people/entities own significant amounts of both companies, the companies are not related in the same way VW and Bugatti or VW and SEAT are related.<p>On the stockholder-as-editor issue, I would like to know the editors of Consumer Reports' positions in the companies producing the products reviewed. Not that I'd buy on the basis of a Consumer Reports review, but that others would. One viewpoint is that car magazines are distrusted and disagreed with often enough (why else would we be discussing this issue?) that biases are assumed. A friend of mine, when re-reading the December 95 (I think) issue of R&T on the McLaren F1, said jokingly, "Uh oh, what if the McLaren doesn't have a cigarette lighter for the beloved V1?"<p>The editors are people, and they're biased. Not neccessarily biased because they plan to make money. If, on the day before the story was due to the copy editors, my V1 alerted me to a radar source seconds before I saw a state trooper around the corner, I'd be biased in favor of the V1. I think the V1 has accumulated more "It saved my a$$" points than any other detector, biasing individuals reviewing the product in its favor, possibly with good reason.<p>Incidentally, what did you think of the 912?<p>Cameron<br>never owned a 912, current A4 owner (not legally, since I'm a minor), Libertarian, high school student, and not a shareholder in the company responsible for manufacture of the Valentine One radar detector

 

I think it was inappropriate of me to post these two subjects under the same thread; in retrospect, it seems kind of personal (not in a good way). Sorry.<p>You're right about people having biases. I focused on the shareholder-disclosure issue, because I feel it IS important. BTW, I don't know anything about radar detectors, and Valentine may well be the best.<p>I liked the 912 a lot. It wasn't fast, but it seemed faster than it was, and handled great. I especially liked the way you could roll both windows down, and yet get very little direct wind in your face. Mine wasn't a pristine example, though, and I spent a lot on repairs (I don't know anything about fixing cars, either). As cheap as they are, maybe some day I'll get another one, only in better condition.<p>Rich D.

 

nt<br>