which has residual effects of diluting resources and focus.
On the other hand, as per BDLJ's comments, if Cayenne's and Panamera's profitability (and they ARE profitable - not just contributing mightily to revenue, but also to PROFITS) can help development of the next 911 (or Aventador)
AND
the product development strategists don't lose sight of the "core DNA" (whatever that is) - one could argue $100,000 base Porsche's have already strayed from a reliable sports car "for the people..."
Then I will keep my grumbling to myself.
But that said, the LM-002 was one hell of a Mo-Fo badass all terrain vehicle (SUV wasn't coined then) and the Espada was a big comfy four passenger conveyance, so it wasn't always ultra extreme bleeding edge hyper cars like the Miura, Countach, and Diablo. In fact, Lamborghini started out as GT car maker...and before that, a tractor maker.
So how far back does "DNA" remain vital and relevant? and how narrowly is the genome defined? (answer: usually as far back as the person discussing it finds it convenient to support their POV...)
Interestingly, the CEO of McLaren has been quoted as saying, "we are a racing and sports car company..."
Cheers,
TM
Porsche Cayun? Mercedes SLC? Lamborghini Urus? Bentley SUV?
Not wanting to turn the conversation away from the Lamborghini but... wow. Aren't these firms starting to deliberately lose their niche?
They managed to fund the Aventador without the Urus. Ferrari are funding the Berlinetta without an SUV...
It'll offer choice (and affordability most likely) but do we always want choice over individuality of brand?



