People can't have it both ways. We can't say it's not the same as it used to be, then ask for radical change.
The 911 hasn't changed much because it doesn't need to.
It is still the benchmark by which the others are judged, and beating it has been the objective of many cars. Whether AM will manage it with the V8 vantage, we will see.
As for introducing new technology, this costs money. Take the ceramic brakes, I doubt that most people want the extra cost. They could add carbon panels to reduce weight, but do you want to pay 15K more? You also have the change for more things to go wrong.
The more technology that is added, the less seems to be the driving enjoyment.
There is also the issue that the higher the bar is raised, the less opportunity you have to use it. Some would argue that they Boxster is more fun, because you can use more of the performance more of the time.
From a styling perspective, they could be more radical, but then it will not be a 911 anymore.
If by technology you mean you want more power, then get a GT3 or TT. From a marketing perspective they can't have the base 911 faster than all the other variants.
Their policy is that extra power has to be accompanied by improved fuel economy.
I would argue that the basic build integrity of the current Porsche cars is not so different to the older ones. If you look at stiffness and rigidity of the shell, it is substantially better. The majority of the car seems to be fine - I do not see problems with brakes, bearings, prop shafts, gearboxes, cam shafts, valves, turbos, trim falling off, etc.
Progress has made all cars more complicated than they used to be. The more things there are, the more likely something will go wrong. Ask Mercedes - they know all about problems, and buying their more expensive models gets more problems than the cheaper ones.
It is after all a performance car and the parts are more stressed than in other cars. There will be more chance of mechanical failures.
AM lose money; they are only going because Ford is putting money in. Having bought them, they can't just walk away.
AM's current image could just as quickly fade.
As for build quality on their older cars, the coachwork is fine, but the electrics and other items you don't see are not quite so rosy.
Ford also have a problem with how to position the Jaguar XK8 against the entry Aston.
In the long term, whether Ford, Aston, Jaguar and various US brands will employ platform sharing and common components, we will see. What will happen if AM do not make a profit, may not be quite so inspiring.
I am also not convinced making all their cars look the same is such a good idea - it was a mistake to make the Boxster look the same as the 911, and I think the same is true of AM.
If the AM foray in racing with the DBR 9 does not go so well, and they lose to the Porsche presence (which I hope is a true rumour for 2006) then they will not look quite so good.
As the volumes increase the opportunities for problems will appear. Will they turn out to be any better than Porsche - I doubt it.
At least they don't have bakelite fuse holders like Bentleys used to.
Ferrari don't have so many reports of problems, because they don't sell as many, and most of what they do sell sits in garages. They also cost considerably more to run.
Residuals are pretty competitive with most other cars. As the volume increases, so the residuals come under more pressure. The plus side is that more people are able to own one and the waiting lists are not as bad.
How/why people wait so long for some cars is beyond me. I would not put my name down for a car I had to wait 2,3 or 4 years for. If this is what exclusivity is about, waiting and then not driving it, then I don't really want to be that exclusive.
Complacency - I don't know. I have not personally experienced much to complain about. If the sales people don't need to sell the product, then it is hard to argue that they should do.
Having said all of this, I do wonder if they should make something bold and new. The problem is that they would then be competing against themself. It makes more sense to concentrate on broadening the range with other products - such as a 4 seat car and a hardcore mid engined car (Cayman). If you were running the company and were answerable to the shareholders, it would be extremely risky to change the 911 dramatically.
However, we will see what the 998 will bring (which is supposed to be a ground-up revision, rather than a facelift).
What is the radical progress that is being made eslewhere?
Variable valve timing and lift is already on Porsche's, the high power Merc gets is just from turning the turbos up and fitting immense and immensely heavy engines, variable length resonance inlet ducts is already on Porsche, the 1 throttle per cylinder BMW have for M5 is interesting, but not really necessary (and hard to tune), Porsche use steel but rather than alumimium, but the 911 shell weighs less than the 360 Modena's aluminium one, Porsche have auto dimming mirrors, rain sensors, gas discharge lights, 12 speaker audio systems, active aerodynamics, underbody pannelling, ABS, PSM, brake balancing, traction control, multiple airbags, force limiting seatbelts, electric seats, ceramic brakes, carbon wing (on GT2), carbon bonnet (on GT3 RS).
Design is a matter of taste and I think Ferrari have lost the plot, AM all look the same, Merc are brash, BMW have gone all bangle'ised, Jag aren't sure what they are doing. I'll accept that Lamborghini look good though - but they always have. I'd like them to do a modern day Muira (like ford did with the GT40). If Audi's input can make then reliable, and I think the jury is still out, then I might get one of these as well in 5 years time.
