Porsche Cayman 981 2.7 PDK, 2013-on. Is it too slow?
Discussion
The thread on the Porsche forum has made me interested in the wider view about this car. In your view, as a current top notch sports car, is way less bhp than many hot hatches now kick out simply too little and does the engine therefore fall short? Over 100 bhp below the latest Merc A series AMG? About the same below an RS3? 6 seconds to 60 when you can buy a Golf which does it in 4.8?
Or is power and acceleration unimportant and getting left behind by a hatchback, lights to lights and out of roundabouts, etc. really not the point with a 2 seater thoroughbred like the Cayman?
I ask because it seemed to split opinion big time on another smaller forum.
Or is power and acceleration unimportant and getting left behind by a hatchback, lights to lights and out of roundabouts, etc. really not the point with a 2 seater thoroughbred like the Cayman?
I ask because it seemed to split opinion big time on another smaller forum.
CorvetteConvert said:
The thread on the Porsche forum has made me interested in the wider view about this car. In your view, as a current top notch sports car, is way less bhp than many hot hatches now kick out simply too little and does the engine therefore fall short? Over 100 bhp below the latest Merc A series AMG? About the same below an RS3? 6 seconds to 60 when you can buy a Golf which does it in 4.8?
Or is power and acceleration unimportant and getting left behind by a hatchback, lights to lights and out of roundabouts, etc. really not the point with a 2 seater thoroughbred like the Cayman?
I ask because it seemed to split opinion big time on another smaller forum.
I had a Boxster 3.2S which I bought in 2004. It was an awesome car, and one of the very few that I kept until the end of the lease, rather than getting bored half way through. The new 2.7 car is as powerful as my 3.2S was then. So I'd say that, no, it probably isn't too slow. But, as other people have said, there's so much more to Boxster ownership than there is for Hot hatch ownership. Hot hatches are compromised because they need to be able to do the job of many different cars. Boxster was designed to be a sports car. And it's ace. Or is power and acceleration unimportant and getting left behind by a hatchback, lights to lights and out of roundabouts, etc. really not the point with a 2 seater thoroughbred like the Cayman?
I ask because it seemed to split opinion big time on another smaller forum.
kambites said:
For me straight line speed isn't the point of a sports car (or indeed any road car) so no it isn't.
Have to agree with this. What makes owing a sports car so special is how it makes you feel every time you drive it.I enjoy mine (although not a Porsche) most when driving on the twisties and not doing warp speeds. I am not interested (at age 48) in traffic light grand prix's in city centres, in fact, I hate traffic and enjoy my car most when there's nothing in front or behind me. If there is, I drive it like any other car and leave plenty of space for the car in front - and I still enjoy the feeling of driving it then!
I also enjoy looking at it and cleaning it (as I would if I had the Porsche, which I think is a very nice looking car)
So, given the choice, it would be a purpose built sports car every time for the best driving experience package, when taking all factors into consideration - straight line speed is quite a small factor - although I can fully understand why some obsess about it, more so when choosing from a raft of (relatively) identikit slab sided hatches.
Having more power doesn't always necessarily equal more fun. (IMOHO, of course..)
There is slwsys something faster. My Tuscan would do 0 to 60 in under 4 secs, but a 4 door saloon left me standing. (Mitsubishi Evo X)
Where there is a big difference in straight line speed on most roads the more powerful car will probably be quicker from a to b. But, IMO the fun is in the corners and hot hatches are simply much less enjoyable on the twisties.
Where there is a big difference in straight line speed on most roads the more powerful car will probably be quicker from a to b. But, IMO the fun is in the corners and hot hatches are simply much less enjoyable on the twisties.
Edited by blueg33 on Sunday 2nd August 16:29
ChrisRS6 said:
I've just had a Boxser 2.7 PDK (265 bhp think?)as a courtesy car while Panamera was in for work.
Believe me it's sloooowwww and gutless!!!
I assume the Cayman is the same engine?
Although I will admit handling was great and more than made up for lack of torque etc etc.
I've had the Cayman 2.7PDK for a few days too, it really is slow and gutless though looks fantastic. Believe me it's sloooowwww and gutless!!!
I assume the Cayman is the same engine?
Although I will admit handling was great and more than made up for lack of torque etc etc.
I wouldn't care a hoot. As others have said, there's always something faster. A bike, for starters. Unless every traffic light is the Grand Prix, and if it is then I think you need to grow up, then 6 sec to 60 is quick enough, you can then exploit the superior handling and driving experience.
On a track, then yes, the fact that you "only" have 265bhp may be a problem. On the public road, no. Even on track, you'll go a long way before you are exploiting all those 265 horses and need more.
On a track, then yes, the fact that you "only" have 265bhp may be a problem. On the public road, no. Even on track, you'll go a long way before you are exploiting all those 265 horses and need more.
Even in that Porsche you will only use a fraction of its ability on the road. If you were to use more than that you are in license losing territory. If you were to welly the golf R apart from hitting NSL a bit quicker on a slip road you generally have a very dull car to drive. Hold the accelerator for a few seconds too long and you realise why people refer to some cars as license losers.
I had a 987 boxster s and my last 2 cars have been from the current super hatch crop. I have had just as much fun in the hatches although both have been more flawed than the Porsche.
I did test drive a 981 Cayman 2.7 and for me the pace failed to match the chassis or rather failed to make best use of it. I've since driven a GTS and that was more like it.
I did test drive a 981 Cayman 2.7 and for me the pace failed to match the chassis or rather failed to make best use of it. I've since driven a GTS and that was more like it.
WCZ said:
I've had the Cayman 2.7PDK for a few days too, it really is slow and gutless though looks fantastic.
My 50p says you guys are almost certainly comparing the base Cayman with either cars costing double the money or humdrum saloon/hatches with a big engine. IMO a base Cayman with PDK is quick enough for most people and has one of the best chassis available at any price. In some ways the 2.7 revs for freely than the larger 3.4 in the S models. The car is right up to date in every respect and fantastic value for money.
The question you have to ask yourself is "What other sportscar can I get for £40k?", because Cayman sets a very high benchmark.
ChrisRS6 said:
I've just had a Boxser 2.7 PDK (265 bhp think?)as a courtesy car while Panamera was in for work.
Believe me it's sloooowwww and gutless!!!
I assume the Cayman is the same engine?
Although I will admit handling was great and more than made up for lack of torque etc etc.
It has 275 ps, 271 bhp, 10 more than the convertible.Believe me it's sloooowwww and gutless!!!
I assume the Cayman is the same engine?
Although I will admit handling was great and more than made up for lack of torque etc etc.
I just compared the Cayman S 3.4 from 2008 with the Cayman 2.7 from 2013.
Porsche's own figures are almost identical for 0-60, both around 5.3 seconds with automatic 'boxes. The 3.4 is under half a second quicker to 100 mph than the smaller motor.
The new car puts out almost 20% less emissions and does around 6 mpg more.
The 2.7 engine has 10 bhp more than the 2.9 from 2012.
Not so bad when we view it thus?
Porsche's own figures are almost identical for 0-60, both around 5.3 seconds with automatic 'boxes. The 3.4 is under half a second quicker to 100 mph than the smaller motor.
The new car puts out almost 20% less emissions and does around 6 mpg more.
The 2.7 engine has 10 bhp more than the 2.9 from 2012.
Not so bad when we view it thus?
Edited by CorvetteConvert on Sunday 2nd August 17:35
I would say that no matter how divine the chassis is and despite the low slung driving position and sports car looks, all those will fade in appeal when an octavia vrs is unshakeable or some rattling golf GTD has shot past you before you've even though about swapping cogs to access the power band.
There will be no shortage of bellends trying to goad you knowing that underneath that aerodynamic body is a wheezy n/a 2.7 chugger.
There will be no shortage of bellends trying to goad you knowing that underneath that aerodynamic body is a wheezy n/a 2.7 chugger.
Edited by lord trumpton on Sunday 2nd August 16:49
lord trumpton said:
I would say that no matter how divine the chassis is and despite the low slung driving position and sports car looks, all those will fade in appeal when an octavia vrs is unshakeable or some rattling golf GTD has shot past you before you've even though about swapping cogs to access the power band.
Happily that's not the case for most owners. Mr Zorst can go past any time he likes but will never have the pleasure of a sportscar's sleek looks or sublime chassis.With a nice girlfriend you're really not bothered that Lord Sewell's hookers are faster. You just know you're better off.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff