RE: Driven: Porsche Boxster S

RE: Driven: Porsche Boxster S

Author
Discussion

playalistic

2,269 posts

163 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
Turbo Harry said:
And yet idiots will still repeat that dated, hackneyed Clarksonism.
+1

Contigo

3,113 posts

208 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
Overstier said:
It's the coast function I don't quite understand.

If you are going down hill in gear clutch engaged, throttle closed then no fuel is required, the momentum of the car turns the engine.

However if you do the same but disconnect drive and coast then fuel will be required to turn the engine, even if it is only turning at idle speed.

Or am I missing something??
Indeed, most people who put the car into neutral on a descent thinking it will save fuel know nothing about how a modern car works and actually backing off the accelerator with the car in gear will save more fuel.

The coast function is designed to not go into neutral as you described but drop down to idle speed to preserve fuel but not drop the speed as if you were to take your foot off the throttle.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
I had an original Boxster and Boxster S. This is firmly in my list of possible purchases this year. Vastly better looking than the original. The End.

MrQuick

130 posts

159 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
Disappointed the S only has 315hp, the spyder had 320hp.
Also, those wheels are comically stupid. I hate the way the average consumer perceives big wheels on cars these days. I know everyone will option them because they look flash. This st makes me lose my faith in humanity.

Otherwise looks great!

Mogsmex

446 posts

234 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
Vladimir said:
20 inch wheels on a Boxster?

what he said smile

Overstier

15 posts

146 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
That was kind of my point. It's not possible to go to idle speed when going downhill without either disconnecting the drive, which can only be done by disengaging the clutch and/or putting the gearbox into neutral or slowing the car to a speed that corresponds to idle speed in that gear.

So when the engine us at idle fuel has to be added to keep the engine turning, but when going down hill with a closed throttle no fuel is being used regardless of engine speed.

Closed throttle I think = no fuel

Idle I think = idle air control valve open fuel added

billzeebub

3,862 posts

198 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
To me that is the best looking Boxster to date by some margin. I love the more aggresive shape and it will obviously be a great ownership proposition..looks very good value too, standard car just over 38k makes some other metal look very overpriced

Lox

632 posts

280 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
vimfuegoturbo said:
some bright spark suggested melding the words 'boxer' and 'roadster', to be met by simultaneous back slapping and nodding of heads.
Technically nerd, it's a fusion of Boxer and Speedster, it being a Porsche after all. But I get your point!

Love the car, love the wheels, love the fact that it's deliberately been moved away from the 911. Bring out a 981 Spyder and I'm all over it like the proverbial rash.

mattiselvis

991 posts

220 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
I've always been more of a 911 man, but I love the look of this car. I've emailed Porsche West London about delivery dates, which is always a bad sign...

Bencolem

1,013 posts

238 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
Think this is a stellar car. For the first time ever, I'm starting to think that I could genuinely go for one of these over a 911.

But the 911 graphic for the rear spoiler button would upset me every time...

Thejimreaper

3,178 posts

204 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
Very nice, I would actually like one of those.

SFO

5,162 posts

182 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
vimfuegoturbo said:
For me the problem with the Boxster is it's origin and more particularly the name itself.
easily solved, tick "model designation delete"


paulmoonraker

2,850 posts

162 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
Take 2 inches off the wheels. They are just too big.

Wills2

22,669 posts

174 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
paulmoonraker said:
Take 2 inches off the wheels. They are just too big.
20" are an option 19" standard.

cossey

148 posts

188 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
Overstier said:
That was kind of my point. It's not possible to go to idle speed when going downhill without either disconnecting the drive, which can only be done by disengaging the clutch and/or putting the gearbox into neutral or slowing the car to a speed that corresponds to idle speed in that gear.

So when the engine us at idle fuel has to be added to keep the engine turning, but when going down hill with a closed throttle no fuel is being used regardless of engine speed.

Closed throttle I think = no fuel

Idle I think = idle air control valve open fuel added
Someone did the calculations to say that the added friction of turning the engine over faster uses more fuel in total over declutching and idling the engine.
It is quite rare to completely cut fuel even on extended over run as it messes up the catalysts.

paulmoonraker

2,850 posts

162 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
Wills2 said:
paulmoonraker said:
Take 2 inches off the wheels. They are just too big.
20" are an option 19" standard.
Okay, 1 inch then wink

FesterNath

652 posts

235 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
Overstier said:
It's the coast function I don't quite understand.

If you are going down hill in gear clutch engaged, throttle closed then no fuel is required, the momentum of the car turns the engine.

However if you do the same but disconnect drive and coast then fuel will be required to turn the engine, even if it is only turning at idle speed.

Or am I missing something??
Yeh, that's my thinking too! What's the point?

veevee

1,455 posts

150 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
Me too, can someone explain the coast thing? Can't be no engine braking, but it does sound like it.

HokumPokum

2,049 posts

204 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
juansolo said:
Oddly these days I think lower powered cars with less grip are more fun to drive than higher powered grippier ones. This reads like it has way too much grip rather than not enough power...

Edited by juansolo on Saturday 10th March 08:47
couldn't agree more. What is better on paper isn't always the case.

it is pretty though. well, except for the headlights

Wills2

22,669 posts

174 months

Saturday 10th March 2012
quotequote all
veevee said:
Me too, can someone explain the coast thing? Can't be no engine braking, but it does sound like it.
No, but I've read some bumf from Porsche on it, they admit that an engine on over run shuts down the fuel but the coast system enables a car to "sail" thus over a given distance it consumes less petrol than simply lifting off the loud pedal as it travels further as there is no engine braking.

(well they said something like that)