RE: Is there hope for the 718 Boxster? PH Blog
Discussion
Ozzie Osmond said:
And I anticipate 718 may prove a worthy successor to the astoundingly good 981.
Absolutely - the potential power curves superimposed by EricE seem to show there is hope. I am lining up a Cayman 2.0 base spec (18', manual, white, cruise for the journeys to the Ring/Spa and maybe rear pdc) : does anyone know when these will be released and how much cheaper than the Boxster they will be ?September/October would be ideal for me but that might be wishful thinking!
I cannot say in the past that I applied too much thought to whether a car had 4/5/6/8/12, until I tried a 2 litre 6 cylinder for the first time, after living with 4 cylinder cars (because generally they were all I could afford at the time) for all my driving up to then. I have to admit the extra two pots did have a significant effect on enhancing the driving experience IMHO.
It was not so much to do with power outputs, as it was to do with the smoothness and feel and sound of (at least) a six cylinder car.
With the exception of a few cars which used balancer shafts, I always found 4 pots to be a bit on the `rough' side. For sure, they gave the power (and often a great noise) alright, but always let you know, and more importantly feel that they were working hard at doing it.
The six cylinder (plus) cars always seemed to do their thing effortlessly in the six or more cylinder cars I have had, which I could not say about the 4 pot motors I had driven.
To be fair Porsche have produced some great big capacity 4 pot cars in the past, but I too wonder if the turbo 4 is a step in the wrong direction for their `particular' type of sports car product?
As always time will tell, but I suspect being a Porsche they will still shift large numbers. just because it is a Porsche.
It was not so much to do with power outputs, as it was to do with the smoothness and feel and sound of (at least) a six cylinder car.
With the exception of a few cars which used balancer shafts, I always found 4 pots to be a bit on the `rough' side. For sure, they gave the power (and often a great noise) alright, but always let you know, and more importantly feel that they were working hard at doing it.
The six cylinder (plus) cars always seemed to do their thing effortlessly in the six or more cylinder cars I have had, which I could not say about the 4 pot motors I had driven.
To be fair Porsche have produced some great big capacity 4 pot cars in the past, but I too wonder if the turbo 4 is a step in the wrong direction for their `particular' type of sports car product?
As always time will tell, but I suspect being a Porsche they will still shift large numbers. just because it is a Porsche.
As has been said car companies are constantly under pressure to meet regulations that are at odds with the elements that make for great sports cars. The only cars in the Porsche range today that are less compromised are the GT cars. So if you want a true Porsche experience either buy old or start saving your pennies.
SidewaysSi said:
Damn right. No more sodding Golf R talk. On a bloody Porsche sports car thread FFS.
Oh don't be such a Luddite, don't you know how hard the engineers work to make these things, look how much power they've got, they're really quick, the CO2 figure is unbelievable, you're just an out of touch snob, you must think you're some sort of Driving God if you think you can tell the difference, how can you possibly know a four wheel drive turbocharged family hatchback is not for you if you haven't driven it, the synthetic engine sound makes six cylinders redundant, LOOK AT ALL THE TORQUES, and frankly you're just jealous because you can't afford one.Think that covers all points?
CABC said:
i know they're quite popular amongst Lotus owners as daily drivers. complementary if you like.
That can be both a compliment or criticism depending where you're coming from!
Which is, of course, the whole point of the Boxster/Cayman. People actually buy and use these fantastic roadgoing sportscars.That can be both a compliment or criticism depending where you're coming from!
Rarely do you hear, "Well of course I keep my Boxster/Cayman in the garage at home. It gets washed once a month but doesn't go out much."
Ozzie Osmond said:
CABC said:
i know they're quite popular amongst Lotus owners as daily drivers. complementary if you like.
That can be both a compliment or criticism depending where you're coming from!
Which is, of course, the whole point of the Boxster/Cayman. People actually buy and use these fantastic roadgoing sportscars.That can be both a compliment or criticism depending where you're coming from!
Rarely do you hear, "Well of course I keep my Boxster/Cayman in the garage at home. It gets washed once a month but doesn't go out much."
I don't read on Loti forums of people selling their Lotus for a Golf. Rather that it's the last thing they'll sell because of the pure driving experience!
that said, the one marque that some Lotus owners do leave for is Porsche. Some return, some don't.
I prefer a mixed garage (at greater expense than a single car), some prefer a single car. That's fine.
I agree that Pork can attempt a single car solution, a Golf cannot.
otolith said:
SidewaysSi said:
Damn right. No more sodding Golf R talk. On a bloody Porsche sports car thread FFS.
Oh don't be such a Luddite, don't you know how hard the engineers work to make these things, look how much power they've got, they're really quick, the CO2 figure is unbelievable, you're just an out of touch snob, you must think you're some sort of Driving God if you think you can tell the difference, how can you possibly know a four wheel drive turbocharged family hatchback is not for you if you haven't driven it, the synthetic engine sound makes six cylinders redundant, LOOK AT ALL THE TORQUES, and frankly you're just jealous because you can't afford one.Think that covers all points?
. Yep, I think you have covered all the usual Golf responses 
One wonders what percentage of these 6 cylinder "enthusiasts" expressing contempt for the 718 also identify as "audiophiles"?
They seem to have much in common in regards to putting subjective engine sound experience above objective measurement as the primary way to judge a car. Very odd, especially given the fact none of them have actually heard the engine note.
They seem to have much in common in regards to putting subjective engine sound experience above objective measurement as the primary way to judge a car. Very odd, especially given the fact none of them have actually heard the engine note.
Edited by caymanbill on Sunday 31st January 16:45
av185 said:
otolith said:
the synthetic engine sound makes six cylinders redundant,
Probably one of the most riculous quotes on PH since Christmas.
I'm going to stick up for FI and four cylinder engines though. Driving the Atom yesterday I couldn't stop smiling at the delivery and noise. Has there ever been a flat four with a supercharger in a production car?
yonex said:
Driving the Atom yesterday I couldn't stop smiling at the delivery and noise.
What? You have driven a car as opposed to post loads of words on PH ? You can't be a driving enthusiast In the M135i late last night, I was so surprised how close it felt to the N52 in terms of power delivery. Not quite there of course but pretty good nonetheless. Zero lag that's for sure unless of course you're in the wrong rev range.
If someone can identify for me anything that comes close to making up for losing the following, I'll change my view that a 4 cyl turbo has no place in a Cayman / Boxster:-
(1) Gorgeous flat 6 engine note.
(2) Proper throttle response.
(3) Crescendo torque and power delivery.
There's nothing that comes close to making up for even one of those things, let alone all 3. MPGs? Who cares?! Torque? The 981 has loads of torque.
That's why I don't need to drive the car to know it's a massive step down the list of 'cars that I want to drive'. Below any modern Lotus, for a start.
(1) Gorgeous flat 6 engine note.
(2) Proper throttle response.
(3) Crescendo torque and power delivery.
There's nothing that comes close to making up for even one of those things, let alone all 3. MPGs? Who cares?! Torque? The 981 has loads of torque.
That's why I don't need to drive the car to know it's a massive step down the list of 'cars that I want to drive'. Below any modern Lotus, for a start.
ORD said:
If someone can identify for me anything that comes close to making up for losing the following, I'll change my view that a 4 cyl turbo has no place in a Cayman / Boxster:-
(1) Gorgeous flat 6 engine note.
(2) Proper throttle response.
(3) Crescendo torque and power delivery.
There's nothing that comes close to making up for even one of those things, let alone all 3. MPGs? Who cares?! Torque? The 981 has loads of torque.
That's why I don't need to drive the car to know it's a massive step down the list of 'cars that I want to drive'. Below any modern Lotus, for a start.
(1) Gorgeous flat 6 engine note.
(2) Proper throttle response.
(3) Crescendo torque and power delivery.
There's nothing that comes close to making up for even one of those things, let alone all 3. MPGs? Who cares?! Torque? The 981 has loads of torque.
That's why I don't need to drive the car to know it's a massive step down the list of 'cars that I want to drive'. Below any modern Lotus, for a start.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff