RE: Porsche 718 Boxster - full details

RE: Porsche 718 Boxster - full details

Author
Discussion

garyjpaterson

137 posts

101 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
Yeah I think if they manage to reduce weight over the 6-cyl, it could prove to be a very compelling choice.

Fish

3,975 posts

281 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
Liking the new looks, don't like the logo it is a bit contrived.. I think for most road driving the turbo will be better. We rarely get chance to wring the neck of our NA cars however I think max power at 6500 will feel limiting....

Overall I still think it will be a fantastic car. The stigma of a £50k car with a 4 pot is about done...

Varn

205 posts

200 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
chrispj said:
Varn said:
There's no doubt they had to switch to FI in order to deliver the levels of involvement the majority of the driving demographic require these days.
Not sure what you mean? It seems most in the market require almost no involvement
My point exactly.

TobesH

550 posts

206 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
Hi guys

For more info, specs, emissions etc, see the Porsche website http://www.porsche.com/uk/models/718/718-boxster/

Tobes


DonkeyApple

54,923 posts

168 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
Hugh Jarse said:
Looks good.
206@4,500 - 6,500rpm versus new 280@1,950 - 4,500rpm means in the 2000-3000 range (90%? of driving) power is about doubled. Should keep the TDI generation happy.
That's what I was thinking. What's the actual point in this car using petrol? Just for marketing purposes?

Having the same delivery curve as your company car and local minicab driver just doesn't seem very 'sporty'.

big_rob_sydney

3,394 posts

193 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
Unimpressed.

Subaru had performance like this 10 years ago. WR1 0-60 in 4.25 seconds, and quite a bit cheaper. Litchfield Type 25 did 0-60 in 3.8 for around 40k.

Hey Porsche, welcome to 2004.

tankplanker

2,479 posts

278 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
TobesH said:
Hi guys

For more info, specs, emissions etc, see the Porsche website http://www.porsche.com/uk/models/718/718-boxster/

Tobes
Looks to be 5kg heavier than the NA version, not the end of the world but still in the wrong direction.

Carl_Manchester

12,103 posts

261 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
big_rob_sydney said:
Unimpressed.

Subaru had performance like this 10 years ago. WR1 0-60 in 4.25 seconds, and quite a bit cheaper. Litchfield Type 25 did 0-60 in 3.8 for around 40k.

Hey Porsche, welcome to 2004.
the boxster is not a numbers car, it's about the finely weighted steering, the driving position, the progressive tail out action and of course the wonderful sensation of having the roof down and letting the rest of the world melt away.

the 911 turbo provides a very different experience I don't consider it better or worse just different.

xRIEx

8,180 posts

147 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
big_rob_sydney said:
Unimpressed.

Subaru had performance like this 10 years ago. WR1 0-60 in 4.25 seconds, and quite a bit cheaper. Litchfield Type 25 did 0-60 in 3.8 for around 40k.

Hey Porsche, welcome to 2004.
So what does that say about the previous Boxster which is less powerful? Absolutely nothing, because it's been lauded as a great car for most of its existence (I've not driven one so can't comment). This car has more power, probably less weight* and no doubt they've tweaked various other bits too.

As much as I like Subarus, I can't see how these cars are in any way comparable, a (very) front-engined/AWD saloon against a RME/RWD sports convertible. They both have their places and do their respective jobs very well.

 *Apparently not, according to other posts.

Nimerino

295 posts

112 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
The DIN weight is quoted at 1335 kg, which I assume is for the lightest variant. That makes it roughly 25 kg more than the outgoing 981 Boxster with a manual transmission. Turbo gubbins weigh an engine down, no question...

shost

825 posts

142 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
A10 said:
Are there parts missing on the steering wheel spokes?
Thought same, but looking at the link on page three it's a chrome insert with exposed heads!

Overall like the look. The performance means I'd be less upset with a standard boxter vs the S. Just hope sound isn't too flat.

red997

1,304 posts

208 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
I thought the 981 series ran out of puff at around 6500 as well...

I think it's a great looking car
looking fwd to a test drive when the dealers get some in.
Minimal spec should do it too.
Can see it complimenting my 991 GT3 quite well...

EricE said:
Somebody found the link to the swiss microsite which has more information than the other languages:

http://www.porsche.com/microsite/718/international...




CO2: 158g-184g
Boxster S with PDK: 1385 kg EG / 1460 kg DIN

juansolo

3,012 posts

277 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
This does nothing at all for me. Part of the fun of the old Cayman was wringing it's neck, it's why I preferred (and bought) the lower powered one. The torquier more powerful ones made little sense where I live as to enjoy them required being in northern Scotland where the roads suited it, not West Yorkshire where they very much don't.

This just sounds like the usual; add more power because more power = better and they won't care that we've dulled the driving experience yet again. Everyone seems to forget that we've currently got a surplus of power and grip that is massively beyond the roads on which we drive. It's all a bit pointless to me to add some more to make it 'better'.

MrTappets

881 posts

190 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
Best looking Bosxter yet! And should we expect it to sound like an Impreza?

dlockhart

434 posts

171 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
2 points:
1. I am glad you get continuous power increase until you hit 6.5K
2. Shaving 1 second off the 0-92 is pretty impressive making a base spec 718 faster than the base spec 991

Guvernator

13,105 posts

164 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
"Torque plateau from 1900 to 4500rpm"...shudder.

As others have pointed out that engine characteristic will mean it'll drive like a diesel but that's OK because the majority of buyers aren't really car enthusiasts anyway so will lap it up as the second coming and and revel at the fact that they'll be able to beat that pesky Audi Tdi driver off the lights with a mere twitch of their right foot which is the most important aspect of owning a sports car after all wink

deltashad

6,731 posts

196 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
The back bumper seems to cover 80 percent of the back of the car which is a bit strange looking, otherwise I think it looks pretty good. They get a little more agressive looking over in incarnations, which I like.

As for having a four pot turbo, what's shocking about it? It's not the first time a four cylinder has been dropped in a Porsche, even the 911 had a four pot at one time.

In a few years time, warranty finished, boost it up and you'll have a very quick car.

GroundEffect

13,819 posts

155 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
Guvernator said:
"Torque plateau from 1900 to 4500rpm"...shudder.

As others have pointed out that engine characteristic will mean it'll drive like a diesel but that's OK because the majority of buyers aren't really car enthusiasts anyway so will lap it up as the second coming and and revel at the fact that they'll be able to beat that pesky Audi Tdi driver off the lights with a mere twitch of their right foot which is the most important aspect of owning a sports car after all wink
A torque plateau is a GOOD thing. A power plateau generally isn't.


PGM

2,168 posts

248 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
Guvernator said:
"Torque plateau from 1900 to 4500rpm"...shudder.

As others have pointed out that engine characteristic will mean it'll drive like a diesel but that's OK because the majority of buyers aren't really car enthusiasts anyway so will lap it up as the second coming and and revel at the fact that they'll be able to beat that pesky Audi Tdi driver off the lights with a mere twitch of their right foot which is the most important aspect of owning a sports car after all wink
It is a petrol engine though, able to rev higher, that is where the power band takes over, surely? Torque at bottom, power at top?

GroundEffect

13,819 posts

155 months

Wednesday 27th January 2016
quotequote all
PGM said:
It is a petrol engine though, able to rev higher, that is where the power band takes over, surely? Torque at bottom, power at top?
That's not how engines work.