Carrera GT values taking dump, owners bailing???

After reading this, I'm glad I didn't go through with my purchase of the CGT. I disagree with those that believe it is ok to put up with finnicky clutches because it's a supercar. It doesn't have to be that way, especially at $440K. The Enzo is not finnicky at all -- the biggest problem with the Enzo is the crowds of gawkers that you need to maneuver through. Clearance on the Enzo is no worse than the Murcielago, and drivability with the F1 in the Enzo is great.

 

The point is the CGT is no harder to drive then the Enzo if you disregard the clutch issue. (Basing this on the fact the only complaints are about the clutch).

And it is unfair to compare the clutch with that of the Enzo since it has an e-gear clutch. Now numerous people here drone on about wanting manual trany, stick shifts, and in a car of this type your going to pay a price.

If they'd stuck an e-gear system in the CGT I have no doubt it would be as easy to use as the Enzo. But then people would complain they want a stick shift.

 

The Enzo F1 transmission is better than any other F1 or e-gear type of transmission on the market. I would agree that, besides the clutch issue, they are equally easy to drive. But the clutch is an issue, nonetheless. That's the point. For $440K, they could have done some additional engineering & R&D to come up with something more palatable.

 

Why? I haven't heard of any similar complaints from F40 and F50 drivers. The CGT is a radical design, very small diameter and carbon construction. Like the GT2 PCCB carbon brakes, Porsche is asking their customers to serve as beta testers.

The Enzo driver can raise the ride height for driveway clearance, don't know about the Merc, the CGT just has to take the abuse.

Gary

 

It's not a problematic clutch. It's just different. A lot of people can't seem to master it. Those who do seem to have no complaints, and in fact praise it roundly.

The mclaren f1 goes through clutches very quickly, unless babied. There is one owner who has gotten over 20,000 miles out of one clutch. The rest seem to need new ones every 3,000 miles or so. I would say that the 20,000 mile person understands the car and how it's meant to be driven. So, is McLaren at fault for putting in a clutch that's easy to mangle, or are the users? Since they very much wanted to provide a usable supercar, I would say the fault lies with them more than the owners.

But, that was also 10 years ago. Materials technology has made huge strides and Porsche has taken advantage of it in both the CGT's chassis and the clutch.

The CGT's clutch might be difficult to master, but it can take years of abuse without skipping a beat. In this case, the fault lies more with the owners who cannot seem to accept that mastering its use will require a change in their driving habits. I have driven one and what I remember is that the clutch requires virtually no use to get the car to move off. If you ride the clutch, the car will pogo. Put it in gear, let the clutch out very quickly, and go. In heavy traffic, use the clutch only when you feel it's going to stall. The car is very tractable without the clutch at all speeds above 5 mph.

 

Interesting comments........

The "incorrectly" perceived problem with the CGT is not the car......but the people buying it IMHO. And there's nothing actually wrong with the people buying it either....they just bought the wrong car for their intended driving style.

Ever walk into a Porsche dealer lately...or any other high end one for that matter, the only thing with more "turnover" than their sales departments, are John Kerry's political positions. Inexperienced, impatient, sales rep says...."well yessirree....just sign right here while I check with the lot man to see if he's finished polishing your gold chains"......as opposed to properly explaining truthfully what the car is like and all about.....pitfalls included.........that's how you get customers for life and build brand loyalty.....not the other way.

Case in point......I had a client that we did a really "nasty" normally aspirated 3.8 litre "RS" spec race motor for in his 1992 911 cabrio about 10 years ago. Told him up front....it'll barely idle at 1,500 rpm....and you are going to have drive across town for race gas and you are also going to have to learn how to drive all over again if you want 400 HP without turbos. It took Andial three different tries to get a chip from PAG that would make it streetable...barely. 'Nuff said......he kept the car for three very happy years....and is a very good customer of mine to this day. Now....imagine if I had not said that.....taken his money...and ran.

Any car over $200K is a lot of money....now we're talking over $400K here.....which means very, very, very few buyers worldwide at that level.....and quite frankly, I think the number of real financially capable "enthusiasts" that accept, have the tolerance level for, and learning curve for, and look forward to, the challenge of mastering a car's uniqueness, at that price level, are a remarkably small fraction of the number of people who can and actually did buy that car.

I don't blame anyone but salespeople. And I am one.

 

I dont think Porsche was making this car so it would sustain value for it's clients. Look at it this way....Ferrari is in the market of making Art, Porsche is in the market of Engineering. You choose which direction you want to go. The car is an amazing engineering masterpiece, and if production values were to stay low, the car would hold value...But Porsche is not that kind of automotive manufacturer. They build cars so people can drive them...Not sit on them...

As for the clutch issue and the cars sitting on the lot...That is a bunch of Bunk....The Porsche dealer here in D.C. has a waiting list of who's who to buy the damn thing and the mark up is insane. Just so you know, wherever you heard about the car sitting on lots; especially this early in the game, is full of B.S.

I heard Seinfeld is estatic about his!!!

 

It's good to see you all aren't completely evil .

 

At this end of the market isn't everyone? If you want a perfectly refined and tested system, wait untill it trickles down to mainstream cars, with huge production numbers, time and budgets for R & D.

As for the F40 I've read people complaining about the clutch. (haven't read much about the F50). And whats the clutch life on these?

Not everyone has a problem with the clutch on the CGT. I didn't hear anything about it in the reviews I read. Or from a couple of guys who've driven one.

Infact I've read more abt the e-gears on the 360 and Gallardo being difficult to drive in traffic and low speeds. Having driven both (later revisions though) I didn't find those problems.

 

"Any car over $200K is a lot of money....now we're talking over $400K here.....which means very, very, very few buyers worldwide at that level.....and quite frankly, I think the number of real financially capable "enthusiasts" that accept, have the tolerance level for, and learning curve for, and look forward to, the challenge of mastering a car's uniqueness, at that price level, are a remarkably small fraction of the number of people who can and actually did buy that car."

GREAT post! The non-"enthusiasts" are all over the net with their "I paid all this money and it ought to be perfect" whining.

 

The people who bought the car purchased it to be in the "IN"! Not for the cars capabilites or becuase they are an enthusiast. As for the clutch problem, look at some of the F cars, talk about tricky driving. There are definately more Ferrari car guys than impulsive buyers. But, either way, you will always have complainers, Ferrari or Porsche. The car is still an engineering masterpiece.

 

I think the CGT is a phenomenal piece of engineering design. It certainly won't hold it's value the same way the Enzo will, given the differential in production numbers, but as somebody rightly noted, Porsche built the CGT for driving, not for investment. Those who bought it for the latter have to deal with the risks that come with "flipping." As for performance, it's up there with the best of them. So much so that it was named Motor Car International's Car of The Year. When I have the financial means to buy (and maintain) this vehicle, I absolutely will. It's a shame the clutch issue is scaring people away - from what I understand it is a little painful to get used to, but once learnt, is easy to get used to.

FWIW, eBay has a couple of new 05 CGT's available for sticker.

 

Can someone explain how the clutch in the Carrera GT acts differently from other clutches? Most magazines that have tested it said the easist way to get it moving from a rolling stop is to apply no throttle & just let the clutch out slowly. I've come to assume that applying throttle w/ the Carrera GT in first gear from 0mph is what creates problems (stalling)?

On a hill or slope I'd be a little hesitant to apply no throttle letting the clutch out for fear of stalling it out. Def. would suck to stall a 500K supercar on a hill w/ somebody right on your bumper.

 

This is correct Liquid. The clutch is unique in that it is carbon ceramic, and measures only 6.6 inches in diameter. Additionally, instead of the dual flywheel that most clutches have, the CGT uses a hollow transmission input shaft. The compactness and lack of a flywheel allowed the engineers to put the clutch just 3.9 inches above the car's underfloor. From what I understand, the carbon ceramic nature of the clutch is also what creates this "on / off" symptom. The way to get rolling in the CGT is to let the clutch out in the manner you describe it: applying little or no throttle, otherwise you risk spinning the wheels.

Definitely an art, but that's why you have the handbrake.

 

Don Mcgill Porsche in Houston,TX has 9 C GT's that are available at MSRP...Ask for Glenn

 

I assume this simply means he has ACCESS to 9 CGT's around the country. I don't believe any dealer would want to take the financial burdens of having $4 mm of slow-moving inventory sitting around.

 

I also read an interview with one of the Porsche engineers quoting phenominal clutch life.

 

Of course the engineer is going to say that. And if you look hard enough, you'll find some marketing people from Porsche who claimed their Ceramic brakes (PCCB) will last the lifetime of the car. This will of course only be in old ads b/c they've revised their statements from "lifetime of car" to significantly longer than their cast iron counterparts.

Greg A

 

I dont think the guy said lifetime. And I dont know if its true. We'll probably never know for sure because of the low production numbers and the fact alot will probably hardly be driven.

Porsche however, do have a reputation for being conservative in their claims for performance. And so I'm guessing there is some truth there somewhere. In short I don't see how you reach the conclusion its an engineer talking bull****, given the conservative numbers their engineers normally quote.

Interesting you pick the PCCB issue. Ofcourse they wont last the lifetime of the car. But they do last significantly longer (not on the track) then the cast iron counterparts. Considering their competitors are only just starting to use CC brakes, they were also way ahead of the competition.

 

Has any body been able to get a discount on a CGT ? Usaually if many are available at list somebody is willing to deal a little. My prediction is by 06 model year you should be able to get 6-7% of list maybe a little more.

 

I didn't say he said, "lifetime". I am talking about the brakes. They are new tech, same as the clutch, which is why I mentioned it. Two brand new technologies are being showcased on the CGT. The marketing dept. said, "lifetime" re: PCCB. They changed their tune real quick on that one. Ferrari warrants their CCM brakes for track use. Porsche doesn't. I don't see how it matters if you came out w/a product ahead of your competition if the product doesn't do what you say it will and you know it and won't warranty it anyway.

Look, Porsche has made some claims about clutch and brake performance and service life that have so far, not matched real world experience. I know that P is usually conservative in their performance claims, but in the case of the CGT, it seems that they were not.

Greg A

 

It doesn't do everything they said it would. But for road use the PCCB brakes are longer lasting. Admitadly not much use in a car like the GT2.

It wasn't meant to be a mark based attack, so why bring Ferrari into it? I was just giving porsche props for pushing the envelope.

Thats clutch IS one hell of an achievement. Those breaks although flawed did pave the way for Ferrari and other manufacturers.

And as for warranty issues. IMO Porsche is way ahead of Ferrari, Lamborghini and every other manufacturer in this market segment. The 911TT & GT2 have proved themselves to be far more reliable then anything Ferrari or Lambo offer. And provide very comparable if not superior performance.

But you are right. Some of the quotes about the CGT have been stupid, to say the least. I'm just saying if i hear a Porsche engineer make a cliam, I might not entirely believe it, but do believe there is some truth there.

If the quote is accurate, I'm guessing that clutch does have significantly better longevity then a conventional clutch. But like I said, we're probably never going to find out. Because alot of these cars will do posers miles only.

 

What times we live in.


People are quoting "FERRARI" as the benchmark for driveability and reliability.

Amazing.


I blame the acura nsx for a lot of the current "driveability" moaning of other makes.

That car really changed the way sports cars are built yet almost nobody will buy an nsx......

 

I did. Beautifully engineered car. I owned it for 6 years with ZERO problems. Drove the hell out of it. Loved it. It's truly one of the world's great (but under-appreciated) sports cars.

In the old days (993 and earlier), Porsche's engineering was the best in the business. The 996 and now the 997 are proving to be very unreliable. From bullet proof to I-wouldn't-touch-it-without-a-warranty in less than a decade...

btw, the notion that Ferrari's engineering expertise is anywhere near Porsche's is laughable. An argument could have been made about Ferrari's (ie, Pininfarina's) styling prowess but with the 430 and the 612, even that is now questionable.