Considering New Boxster as only car - 4Cyl Refresh Options?
Discussion
ORD said:
Now I am confused.
If the dip in torque isn't big enough to counteract the increase in revs, power still increases - so the actual delivery is not 'flat'; it is still increasing.
Your complaint can only be about lack of power, as it is power that accelerates the car.
)
Sorry ORD you are simply wrong. It is torque (at the wheels) NOT power as such which produces acceleration. The result is that in ANY GIVEN GEAR the rate of acceleration will reduce as torque falls above 2500 and increase again as revs rise above 4000. Sure you can increase the torque at the wheels by selecting a lower gear but whatever gear you are in the rate of acceleration will fall as you go into the dip.If the dip in torque isn't big enough to counteract the increase in revs, power still increases - so the actual delivery is not 'flat'; it is still increasing.
Your complaint can only be about lack of power, as it is power that accelerates the car.
)
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Simply not so read what I wrote COMPLETELY. It is the torque AT THE Wheels IN A GIVEN GEAR that determines the acceleration at any given instant. If it was power then as power increased (even though torque reduces) the rate of acceleration would still increase - it doesn't it falls. This is basic o level maths. Acceleration is Force/Mass - Force is TORQUE - turning effect at the wheels, not power.
As you say a more powerful car will produce better acceleration if you rev the nuts off it - but that is not what is being discussed - it's what happens in a given gear over the hole in the torque curve we are talking about.
Edited by bcr5784 on Saturday 20th June 17:23
I see what bcr is saying here. If you look at the Cayster dynos, there's no reason to have the dip. Either Porsche couldn't (packaging, technical, emissions whatever) or wouldn't (keep Carrera faster) get rid of it. We're not talking about having a flat torque line of max torque from 2500 to 6000rpm, we're talking about drawing straight line between he current values at 2500 and 4500 (so you get pressed into your seat ever harder over that range), then keeping the rest.
Mario149 said:
I see what bcr is saying here. If you look at the Cayster dynos, there's no reason to have the dip. Either Porsche couldn't (packaging, technical, emissions whatever) or wouldn't (keep Carrera faster) get rid of it. We're not talking about having a flat torque line of max torque from 2500 to 6000rpm, we're talking about drawing straight line between he current values at 2500 and 4500 (so you get pressed into your seat ever harder over that range), then keeping the rest.
That is understood but its only 20nm! Most wouldnt notice it!I would rather it wasnt there of course, but thats Euro 5 emissions b
ks for you....mollytherocker said:
I dont own one no, but I drove one 2 weeks ago. A non S with 20" wheels. It felt fairly linear to me to be honest. I didnt know about this slight dip in torque until this thread.
I have to say that the non-S 981 engine is pretty lifeless under about 4000 revs, but it does still feel reasonably linear. Perhaps the slight drop is perceptible; perhaps not. I don't think removing it would fundamentally alter how the car drives, though - it would still be very peaky. ORD said:
I have to say that the non-S 981 engine is pretty lifeless under about 4000 revs, but it does still feel reasonably linear. Perhaps the slight drop is perceptible; perhaps not. I don't think removing it would fundamentally alter how the car drives, though - it would still be very peaky.
The drop of 20nm at 2500 means that the rise in torque between 4000 and 4500 is more like 40nm - about a 15% increase - which makes the engine feel particularly peaky.bcr5784 said:
The drop of 20nm at 2500 means that the rise in torque between 4000 and 4500 is more like 40nm - about a 15% increase - which makes the engine feel particularly peaky.
...this actually makes me think that Porsche put the trough in the 2.7 and 3.4 torque curves in deliberately for something in addition to emissions reasons (or at least not engineered it out): climbing up the curve from 3500rpm if you've dropped a gear or 2 from cruising to overtake is going to feel quite a bit more "sportscar-y" in a Cayster S than doing the same in a Carrera
Well started my test drive process on the lowest rung today with a Leon Cupra 280. Seemed to have everything included, grip was good, the cabin was better than I expected and it dealt quite well with full throttle out of a junction but steering seemed too light, brakes too bitey, didn't seem that powerful and sounded crap compared even to my C350 SC.
+1Well; tried a Cayman and Boxster S today. Had 3 or 4 hours in the Cayman and a quick try in the Boxster for comparison. Both cars were on the largest wheels with PASM, the Boxster had optional exhaust on lots of trim options.
First impression was the engine is quite lethargic in traffic but I got used to just being a little more generous with the throttle. Things got better from then on; steering is much weightier and nicer than anything else I've tried, brakes were good and nicely progressive and above 4000RPM the engine really starts to sing and speed begins to gather. Definitely wont be going PASM or indeed large wheels, one due to speed bumps and the other due to road noise. Spent about an hour on tight country roads and some single track tarmac and it seems the chassis is indeed as good as they say. The S model seemed much torquier in traffic (Much more similar to my C350 in traffic) but I found it not that much better above 4000RPM and by the time was revving in 3rd I had to slow down so it doesn't seem like I really need the 3.4.
Options wise was more muddled. The Bose setup seemed a bit overly harsh to me, event with treble and bass in the negatives; I heard the Burmester in a 911 convertible and it was better but still too harsh for my liking. Sound pack plus was a bit better tonally and not too short of volume, standard audio was poor. Not too sure on Burmester I wonder if it sounds better in a hard top cabin but Caymans with Burmester seem to be as rare as Rocking Horse Poo. It seems they've removed every seat option I like too, I wanted Agate Grey and Orange but both this and the Grey/Green and even plain Grey have gone so my specced car now looks quite boring.
Will see what the A45 and M135 are like tomorrow.
First impression was the engine is quite lethargic in traffic but I got used to just being a little more generous with the throttle. Things got better from then on; steering is much weightier and nicer than anything else I've tried, brakes were good and nicely progressive and above 4000RPM the engine really starts to sing and speed begins to gather. Definitely wont be going PASM or indeed large wheels, one due to speed bumps and the other due to road noise. Spent about an hour on tight country roads and some single track tarmac and it seems the chassis is indeed as good as they say. The S model seemed much torquier in traffic (Much more similar to my C350 in traffic) but I found it not that much better above 4000RPM and by the time was revving in 3rd I had to slow down so it doesn't seem like I really need the 3.4.
Options wise was more muddled. The Bose setup seemed a bit overly harsh to me, event with treble and bass in the negatives; I heard the Burmester in a 911 convertible and it was better but still too harsh for my liking. Sound pack plus was a bit better tonally and not too short of volume, standard audio was poor. Not too sure on Burmester I wonder if it sounds better in a hard top cabin but Caymans with Burmester seem to be as rare as Rocking Horse Poo. It seems they've removed every seat option I like too, I wanted Agate Grey and Orange but both this and the Grey/Green and even plain Grey have gone so my specced car now looks quite boring.
Will see what the A45 and M135 are like tomorrow.
A45 was interesting. Suspension was more complaint than I expected, variable steering was at least better than VW, brakes better than anything else I've tried so far. The powertrain was good too with plenty of urge and grip. Wont be buying an A45 though as the cabin is appalling for tall people, large A pillars make visibility a problem while low roof line and seemingly small windscreen make it feel somewhat claustrophobic.
Interesting observations on the Cayman & Boxster. I don't think the choice between engines is an easy one - the extra torque with the 3.4 certainly makes it easier to make progress, but the 2.7 is a delightful little thing to rev. It is quite remarkably lifeless at low - medium revs, though, as you say.
Amazed re the brakes on the A45. I guess that shows that the 981 brakes really are fairly poor.
Amazed re the brakes on the A45. I guess that shows that the 981 brakes really are fairly poor.
Krobar said:
A45 was interesting. Suspension was more complaint than I expected, variable steering was at least better than VW, brakes better than anything else I've tried so far. The powertrain was good too with plenty of urge and grip. Wont be buying an A45 though as the cabin is appalling for tall people, large A pillars make visibility a problem while low roof line and seemingly small windscreen make it feel somewhat claustrophobic.
I'm curious to see what you make of the M135i. As I've previously said I find mine boring but fast, and couldn't personally consider instead of a boxster.ORD said:
the 2.7 is a delightful little thing to rev. It is quite remarkably lifeless at low - medium revs, though, as you say.
That'll purely be due to the silly tall gearing issue manual 981s suffer. If you had a 2.7 with appropriate shorter ratios than the 3.4 models, say 2nd took you to 65mph instead of 84mph and so on, there'd be nothing in it performance-wise compared to a 3.4 with the regular ratios. Would make justifying the purchase of the larger engine very difficult indeed.A 2.7 with a shorter final drive in keeping with the performance ethos of the car rather than being a slave to emissions would be a wonderful thing and epic VFM - c.100bhp/litre and a manual 'box you could actually work and use properly
TB303 said:
I'm curious to see what you make of the M135i. As I've previously said I find mine boring but fast, and couldn't personally consider instead of a boxster.
Just finished my last test drive; the M135. Way better than the other hatchbacks I tried and I'm trying to decide between this and the Cayman. M135 had by far the easiest going and torquey engine which was keen enough to rev too with what seemed like lower gearing to the Porsche. Variable stering was a bit light but perfectly good and the brakes didn't suffer from the Seat/VW switch like operation; it was crashier on 19s over bad roads than the Cayman was on the largest wheels though and the Cayman chassis/looks might just be worth the extra 10K.Excluding the perhaps more practical golf R, the M135i is definitely the drivers hatch choice.
Steering is extremely numb but still a pleasant enough car to drive, but less sense of occasion than a Porsche of course.
Your test drive had 19in wheels? Is that a new model as mine has 18s (2014 MY).
Steering is extremely numb but still a pleasant enough car to drive, but less sense of occasion than a Porsche of course.
Your test drive had 19in wheels? Is that a new model as mine has 18s (2014 MY).
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff