£20k - M3 or Cayman S?
Discussion
Davey S2 said:
That's the motoring equivalent of someone saying their grandfather smoked 80 a day since he was 12 years old and died at 106 so don't worry.
Mine did 50,000 miles in 4 years and several trips all over Europe without missing a beat until the problems started.
I'm not scaremongering but if you are buying a used Cayman you need to go into it in possession of all the facts. This is a well known issue which does affect a percentage of cars which is big enough for purchasers to take serious note of.
Yes you could be lucky and never have any problems with the car and if so you will have great time. Alternatively you could end up with a knackered car that you can't afford to fix and at this budget that's an expensive exercise.
If you don't have the funds to fix it it can seriously affect your enjoyment of the car. You will be wary of driving it hard and your paranoia will turn every small noise into the start of a massive terminal engine implosion.
I never felt the same about my car after I had it back and sold it soon after.
From what I gather the non S model doesn't suffer from this issue to the same extent though.
I agree entirely.Mine did 50,000 miles in 4 years and several trips all over Europe without missing a beat until the problems started.
I'm not scaremongering but if you are buying a used Cayman you need to go into it in possession of all the facts. This is a well known issue which does affect a percentage of cars which is big enough for purchasers to take serious note of.
Yes you could be lucky and never have any problems with the car and if so you will have great time. Alternatively you could end up with a knackered car that you can't afford to fix and at this budget that's an expensive exercise.
If you don't have the funds to fix it it can seriously affect your enjoyment of the car. You will be wary of driving it hard and your paranoia will turn every small noise into the start of a massive terminal engine implosion.
I never felt the same about my car after I had it back and sold it soon after.
From what I gather the non S model doesn't suffer from this issue to the same extent though.
It's just easy to get into negative mindset by reading the forums and east to forget there are many many cars out there that don't have (not yet anyway!) these problems.
paulmoonraker said:
Davey S2 said:
I'm not scaremongering but if you are buying a used Cayman you need to go into it in possession of all the facts. This is a well known issue which does affect a percentage of cars which is big enough for purchasers to take serious note of.
This - just do your home work. If you go as far as to understand the underlying cause (or as best you can), then you can better understand the risk.Having had the bang, an expired warranty and a £7k bill my advice is:
Warranty
Warranty
Warranty
Welshbeef said:
Fidgits said:
no - its an epic V10 be in no doubt... but the M3's V8 has it beat... i'd go as far as to say its probably one of the finest engines ever built..
How does it compare to the RS4 V8 - not sure of that revs higher ?paulmoonraker said:
The Audi sounds more like a traditional V8. I have never heard anyone claim it to be as good as the BMW though. In fact, I have never heard them mentioned in the same sentence!
That is the one let down of the BMW - the sound. It's fine when its screaming, but when doodling it's too quiet.
I have the ac schnitzer exhaust on mine.. Makes it sound like a NASCAR at low revs, screams at the red line...That is the one let down of the BMW - the sound. It's fine when its screaming, but when doodling it's too quiet.
Utterly, utterly adore it
Welshbeef said:
paulmoonraker said:
The Audi sounds more like a traditional V8. I have never heard anyone claim it to be as good as the BMW though. In fact, I have never heard them mentioned in the same sentence!
That is the one let down of the BMW - the sound. It's fine when its screaming, but when doodling it's too quiet.
Top gear TV tested the RS4 M3 V8 and C63 together - hardly anything in it 0-100moh RS4 v M3 but C63 won convincingly That is the one let down of the BMW - the sound. It's fine when its screaming, but when doodling it's too quiet.
Track M3 ruled
On road - M3 needs revs to be so high that you are over speed limit to access the fun zone whereas C63 fun zone starts at idlec(noise)
Rs4 - didn't that engine win engine of the year some time ago?
It is true that the M3 is doing some by the time you get it into the zone.
Fidgits said:
paulmoonraker said:
The Audi sounds more like a traditional V8. I have never heard anyone claim it to be as good as the BMW though. In fact, I have never heard them mentioned in the same sentence!
That is the one let down of the BMW - the sound. It's fine when its screaming, but when doodling it's too quiet.
I have the ac schnitzer exhaust on mine.. Makes it sound like a NASCAR at low revs, screams at the red line...That is the one let down of the BMW - the sound. It's fine when its screaming, but when doodling it's too quiet.
Utterly, utterly adore it
However, I have a better car now that's much, much faster 
paulmoonraker said:
The M3 won it for about 4 years in the 3-4ltr category (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Engine_of_the_Year). I cant see the RS4.
It is true that the M3 is doing some by the time you get it into the zone.
I need to get myself a test drive of one as its certainly on my to own list. It is true that the M3 is doing some by the time you get it into the zone.
I have always liked the Cayman S but as I can't afford a gen 2 I would stay away from one due to the engine issues. It's sad Porsche continued to produce the water cooled engines with fundamental design issues, I can't afford to risk an 8-10k bill every time I drive my car! Also love E92 M3's but 20mpg would get old pretty quick.
Welshbeef said:
paulmoonraker said:
The M3 won it for about 4 years in the 3-4ltr category (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Engine_of_the_Year). I cant see the RS4.
It is true that the M3 is doing some by the time you get it into the zone.
I need to get myself a test drive of one as its certainly on my to own list. It is true that the M3 is doing some by the time you get it into the zone.
davey68 said:
Also love E92 M3's but 20mpg would get old pretty quick.
Very wise words and ultimately in bmw`s eyes that was its downfall hence the switch to turbo`s although they are hardly frugal either if you like to enjoy the performance and I think the bottom line either way is if you want to go fast it will always cost plenty in fuel so I suppose its a fact of life sadly. cerb4.5lee said:
Very wise words and ultimately in bmw`s eyes that was its downfall hence the switch to turbo`s although they are hardly frugal either if you like to enjoy the performance and I think the bottom line either way is if you want to go fast it will always cost plenty in fuel so I suppose its a fact of life sadly.
True. A heavy car will burn lots of fuel to accelerate. If you want fast with responsible fuel costs, you have to go light.Isn't it also the case that fuel consumption is much higher in an 8-cyl than a 6-cyl of the same output? That seems to follow from the stats I see on here, but I can't say that the same thing holds true for turbo 4-cyl versus NA 6-cyls - the difference there seems to me to be mostly lab conditions b
ks!Welshbeef said:
The MPG for the E92 M3 is not that bad at all - most seem to be stating 23-26mpg (that's the same as a Focus ST with its dire mpg per bhp)
To me its a huge improvement in economy for better outright performance.
All of these cars with this power knock about between 20-30MPG. It's part of the deal. You cant have that kind of power and use it without paying the price. Smaller engine turbo cars help a bit as with the right gearing and boost settings you can cruise at better MPG.To me its a huge improvement in economy for better outright performance.
The ST in my opinion is an exception - the MPG is dire for the standard power it delivers.
Welshbeef said:
The MPG for the E92 M3 is not that bad at all - most seem to be stating 23-26mpg (that's the same as a Focus ST with its dire mpg per bhp)
To me its a huge improvement in economy for better outright performance.
My last 4k miles has been 22mpg. That's A-roads with maybe a couple of motorways, perhaps 1 overtake per 10 miles or so, the rest cruising at 50-60mph.To me its a huge improvement in economy for better outright performance.
The RS4 is similar to worse from what I read, many struggling to beat 20mpg.
My 987 Boxster S did about 25mpg so the Cayman would be similar.
So, over 10k miles you would save £300 on fuel.
ilduce said:
Sound advice.
Having had the bang, an expired warranty and a £7k bill my advice is:
Warranty
Warranty
Warranty
Is the warranty not hugely expensive with Porsche?Having had the bang, an expired warranty and a £7k bill my advice is:
Warranty
Warranty
Warranty
I seem to remember 1k/year being the rough cost but having done a quick google search it looks some people are quoted closer to 2k/year.
Seems like a lot of money for piece of mind. Especially when they can turn around and say they wont cover an engine because it's got a Range2 over rev logged in the ECU!
For comparison the BMW warranty is £576 a year with £0 excess and great reputation for actually paying out.
I can understand big running costs on the full fat Porsche lineup. But the Cayman starts at £40k. It shouldn't be throwing those kinds of repair bills.
walm said:
Welshbeef said:
The MPG for the E92 M3 is not that bad at all - most seem to be stating 23-26mpg (that's the same as a Focus ST with its dire mpg per bhp)
To me its a huge improvement in economy for better outright performance.
My last 4k miles has been 22mpg. That's A-roads with maybe a couple of motorways, perhaps 1 overtake per 10 miles or so, the rest cruising at 50-60mph.To me its a huge improvement in economy for better outright performance.
The RS4 is similar to worse from what I read, many struggling to beat 20mpg.
My 987 Boxster S did about 25mpg so the Cayman would be similar.
So, over 10k miles you would save £300 on fuel.
The difference is 2wd v 4wd, 5speed auto v 7speed DCT, much less weight and smaller capacity engine delivering nearly the same sort of bhp.
The new M5 does 28mpg combined... And is quicker still (I think the E60 M5 has similar to just better MPG to the C5 RS6)
ORD said:
but I can't say that the same thing holds true for turbo 4-cyl versus NA 6-cyls - the difference there seems to me to be mostly lab conditions bks!
Agree the figures always seem very optimistic our 4 pot turbo is meant to do 35 mpg but it never gets near that and the 330i should do over 30 mpg but that seems a struggle too so I guess in the real world they both do around 25 mpg...diesel might be the way forward then I think. ks!paulmoonraker said:
All of these cars with this power knock about between 20-30MPG. It's part of the deal. You cant have that kind of power and use it without paying the price. Smaller engine turbo cars help a bit as with the right gearing and boost settings you can cruise at better MPG.
I always used to think surely a 4 pot turbo should be fairly fuel efficient and I agree on a run going steady that possibly is the case but my old 200sx used to drink fuel because the temptation to use the power was strong and its the same in the TTS but as you say if you want performance of any real kind you have to pay the price for it at the pumps. Welshbeef said:
The MPG for the E92 M3 is not that bad at all - most seem to be stating 23-26mpg (that's the same as a Focus ST with its dire mpg per bhp)
To me its a huge improvement in economy for better outright performance.
On paper the DCT M3 does offer relatively good fuel economy versus its performance but again the temptation to use it ends up with it delivering nowhere near the stated figures I think. To me its a huge improvement in economy for better outright performance.
CarAbuser said:
ilduce said:
Sound advice.
Having had the bang, an expired warranty and a £7k bill my advice is:
Warranty
Warranty
Warranty
Is the warranty not hugely expensive with Porsche?Having had the bang, an expired warranty and a £7k bill my advice is:
Warranty
Warranty
Warranty
I seem to remember 1k/year being the rough cost but having done a quick google search it looks some people are quoted closer to 2k/year.
Seems like a lot of money for piece of mind. Especially when they can turn around and say they wont cover an engine because it's got a Range2 over rev logged in the ECU!
For comparison the BMW warranty is £576 a year with £0 excess and great reputation for actually paying out.
I can understand big running costs on the full fat Porsche lineup. But the Cayman starts at £40k. It shouldn't be throwing those kinds of repair bills.
Last Feb I haggled with the dealer. He wanted £840 I told him I wasn't paying for the 111 point inspection and I didn't want the Porsche recovery as it's just the AA for £160 and I'd go with ADAC for £60 thanks. So in total I paid £648. Not bad for a real sports car as opposed to a fast coupé.
As for not paying out for an over rev 2 I'm not sure: for 3 and upwards, yes but that's only fair isn't it? You wrong slotted, revved it up to 9k and damaged the engine but expect them to pay because you drive like Stephen Hawking.
The Cayman has the same engine as the 911 and lots of other bits too so why shouldn't the bills be the same?
Anyway, buy one. Get a warranty. Sleep at night.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff