RE: New Porsche Cayman R Revealed

[RobM77]

sledge68 said:

i dont see how my integrale is compromised,

6 consecutive world rally championships and voted one of the best a to b cars ever, how is that compromised??

havoc said:

sledge68 said:

havoc said:

FesterNath said:

Are you sure that it is sensible to be driving so hard on public roads that a delay of fractions of a second can cause the car to slide?

One word: Ice

get 4wd

And compromise your car for the other 11 months of the year? What a daft idea...

I'd just like to point out that I was referring to a change of balance, not the car sliding in the post that Fester was responding to.

Regarding the Integrale being compromised, for sure, 4WD is meant for slippery mud and gravel - the Integrale (and Impreza, Celica GT4, Evo VI) are meant as homologation cars, or selling off the back of rally marketing, they are not designed for use purely on tarmac. The fact is though they can still be amazing driver's cars. The Integrale was voted "best driver's car ever" by Car magazine some years ago. This is much in the same way that the 911 has a non-ideal chassis layout, but is still hailed as a great driver's car. Equally, the Caterham 7 has an outdated De Dion rear axle, but it's still one f the best if not the best lightweight cars to drive out there, winning group tests against cars like the more advanced 2-11. Perfection is not always perfection

[Beefmeister]

kambites said:

Does anyone know how much this weighs if you put the air con (and stereo) back in? I would be interesting to know how much weight they've saved elsewhere.

When playing around on the configurator last night i noticed that you can add the lightweight battery from the 997 GT3 RS as an option.

That saves 10kg, but costs £1200!!!!!

[SFO]

kambites said:

Does anyone know how much this weighs if you put the air con (and stereo) back in? I would be interesting to know how much weight they've saved elsewhere.

I think it's 12kg for a/c and 3kg for radio

[sledge68]

Lambourghini Murcialago
" Gallardo
Porsche 911 turbo
Porsche 911 C4S
Panemera ugly thing
Veyron
Bentleys of new
Audi R8, RS4, RS6 etc

4wd high performance cars off the top of my head

gravel and mud?

RobM77 said:

sledge68 said:

i dont see how my integrale is compromised,

6 consecutive world rally championships and voted one of the best a to b cars ever, how is that compromised??

havoc said:

sledge68 said:

havoc said:

FesterNath said:

Are you sure that it is sensible to be driving so hard on public roads that a delay of fractions of a second can cause the car to slide?

One word: Ice

get 4wd

And compromise your car for the other 11 months of the year? What a daft idea...

I'd just like to point out that I was referring to a change of balance, not the car sliding in the post that Fester was responding to.

Regarding the Integrale being compromised, for sure, 4WD is meant for slippery mud and gravel - the Integrale (and Impreza, Celica GT4, Evo VI) are meant as homologation cars, or selling off the back of rally marketing, they are not designed for use purely on tarmac. The fact is though they can still be amazing driver's cars. The Integrale was voted "best driver's car ever" by Car magazine some years ago. This is much in the same way that the 911 has a non-ideal chassis layout, but is still hailed as a great driver's car. Equally, the Caterham 7 has an outdated De Dion rear axle, but it's still one f the best if not the best lightweight cars to drive out there, winning group tests against cars like the more advanced 2-11. Perfection is not always perfection

[RobM77]

sledge68 said:

Lambourghini Murcialago
" Gallardo
Porsche 911 turbo
Porsche 911 C4S
Panemera ugly thing
Veyron
Bentleys of new
Audi R8, RS4, RS6 etc

4wd high performance cars off the top of my head

gravel and mud?

RobM77 said:

sledge68 said:

i dont see how my integrale is compromised,

6 consecutive world rally championships and voted one of the best a to b cars ever, how is that compromised??

havoc said:

sledge68 said:

havoc said:

FesterNath said:

Are you sure that it is sensible to be driving so hard on public roads that a delay of fractions of a second can cause the car to slide?

One word: Ice

get 4wd

And compromise your car for the other 11 months of the year? What a daft idea...

I'd just like to point out that I was referring to a change of balance, not the car sliding in the post that Fester was responding to.

Regarding the Integrale being compromised, for sure, 4WD is meant for slippery mud and gravel - the Integrale (and Impreza, Celica GT4, Evo VI) are meant as homologation cars, or selling off the back of rally marketing, they are not designed for use purely on tarmac. The fact is though they can still be amazing driver's cars. The Integrale was voted "best driver's car ever" by Car magazine some years ago. This is much in the same way that the 911 has a non-ideal chassis layout, but is still hailed as a great driver's car. Equally, the Caterham 7 has an outdated De Dion rear axle, but it's still one f the best if not the best lightweight cars to drive out there, winning group tests against cars like the more advanced 2-11. Perfection is not always perfection

We've done this before on here Audi pledged to always make 4WD performance cars back in the days when they revolutionised rallying with the Quattro, thus the fast Audis you mentioned (and yes, I'm including the Gallardo and Murcielago in the term "fast Audi", excluding the limited run Balbioni of course). Quattro is Audi's marketing USP like M is for BMW. ANd, incidentally, an M3 handles 414bhp with no problems at all, wet or dry, so the otherwise excellent RS4 doesn't really need 4WD (and yes, I have driven one in the wet and confirmed this). Porsche? Well, the Carrera 4 was introduced building on the four wheel drive expertise gained with the 959 programme (under Group B rally regs for guess what? gravel and snow!). Admittedly, Porsche marketing at the time and the excellent Paul Frere book also mention that the Carrera 4 was also for the less experienced driver, as if he cocks things up mid corner with 4WD he's less likely to get it sideways. They tamed the turbo with 4WD as well for this purpose, although continue to make a driver's version (the GT2). The Veyron is a VAG flagship designed to sell VAG cars, rather than make a profit, which is why it's 4WD (see my point about Audi above), but in all honesty, with over 1000bhp and road tyres, 4WD is probably a good idea anyway!

So, essentially, 4WD has rallying roots and as it happens is a useful feature for less experienced drivers. It's just like FWD I suppose, which has roots in cheaper build costs and also, as it happens is a useful feature for less experienced drivers.

There's no denying that 4WD has a very different feel to RWD, and many people quite within their rights like that. I'd argue against it being necessary on cars though. I've tried the E46 and E92 M3s and also the RS4, and really, the RS4 doesn't need 4WD at all - it feels different in the bends and that's about it. With the extremely good LSDs on the M BMWs, RWD is more than adequate. I think RWD may start to be an issue with much more than 450-500bhp though, at least with chassis as they are now.

As it happens, subjectively I rather like Imprezas, Evos and the like (as much as I also like FWD hot hatches like the 205 GTi, 172 etc); but to be honest I prefer RWD for my primary car, because almost all the time I drive on tarmac. I'ma huge Integrale fan, and don't mean to put it down, but as I said, cars are not about ideal engineering solutions, they're about feel and enjoyment

Edited by RobM77 on Friday 19th November 17:46

[havoc]

sledge68 said:

Lamborghini Murcialago
" Gallardo
Porsche 911 turbo
Porsche 911 C4S
Panemera ugly thing
Veyron
Bentleys of new
Audi R8, RS4, RS6 etc

4wd high performance cars off the top of my head

gravel and mud?

Rob was talking about the 'grale specifically.

And with regard to your list above, in every example above where there's a 2wd version, the 2wd version is deemed to be better (if not necessarily quicker). I wouldn't call the 'VAG' Bentleys "performance cars" anyway - they're just very quick executive lounges. Ditto the RS6 - a very blunt instrument, automotively.


As an example - look at most "top 10"/"top 20" lists of drivers cars - the only 4wd ones that appear are the compact rally-spec cars - Integrale, Impreza P1 or 22B, Evo VI TME. Not one quick Audi has made those lists, nor a 4wd 911, and there have been rather more Ferrari's than Lamborghini's...


Rob's comment "perfection does not mean perfection" can thus be applied - the greater point-to-point and all-weather pace of a 4wd car does not make it a better driver's car!
(But it doesn't necessarily preclude a 4wd car from BEING a great driver's car, either)

[Gary C]

Noe said:

52k buys you your own slice of boring pie

What a knob

[Wills2]

Gary C said:

Noe said:

52k buys you your own slice of boring pie

What a knob

Well thats added to the thread...

[Niffty951]

RobM77 said:

I prefer RWD for my primary car, because almost all the time I drive on tarmac.

I'm a big RWD fan and would describe the difference between RWD and 4wd drifting as like 2d and 3d. With 4wd the car slides as one lump and you can adjust its trajectory with the steering and throttle in a 2d way where in a RWD you can independantly control the front and rear of a car around an axis somewhere just behind the drivers seat, it is more natural feeling and gives a 3d driving experience..

All that said, I drive a 4wd as my primary car and I'm not so confident on your RWD being just as capable a primary car on the road idea. I consider the opposite to be true. On a track where you have space and the limits of grip are pushed I think the 'adjustability' and extra comunication between car and driver gives RWD the edge but on the road when its raining and I'm in the wrong lane at the roundabout.. try to stop me pulling across in front of you then of course you've got un-gritted roads when its snowing during the winter and you want to get to work at 8am. Even a driving god couldn't get a RWD sports car with fat rear tyres and low profile UK typical tyres up an incline but in a 4wd its almost spooky how much more traction you get, even on ice!

Edited by Niffty951 on Saturday 20th November 19:00

[RobM77]

Niffty951 said:

RobM77 said:

I prefer RWD for my primary car, because almost all the time I drive on tarmac.

I'm a big RWD fan and would describe the difference between RWD and 4wd drifting as like 2d and 3d. With 4wd the car slides as one lump and you can adjust its trajectory with the steering and throttle in a 2d way where in a RWD you can independantly control the front and rear of a car around an axis somewhere just behind the drivers seat, it is more natural feeling and gives a 3d driving experience..

All that said, I drive a 4wd as my primary car and I'm not so confident on your RWD being just as capable a primary car on the road idea. I consider the opposite to be true. On a track where you have space and the limits of grip are pushed I think the 'adjustability' and extra comunication between car and driver gives RWD the edge but on the road when its raining and I'm in the wrong lane at the roundabout.. try to stop me pulling across in front of you then of course you've got un-gritted roads when its snowing during the winter and you want to get to work at 8am. Even a driving god couldn't get a RWD sports car with fat rear tyres and low profile UK typical tyres up an incline but in a 4wd its almost spooky how much more traction you get, even on ice!

Edited by Niffty951 on Saturday 20th November 19:00

For snow, yes, I'd rather have FWD or 4WD. I forgot to mention I live in Hampshire though, so we get two or three weeks snow per year worst case, sometimes none at all. Ergo, RWD for me

Edited by RobM77 on Saturday 20th November 19:43

[k-ink]

There's a lot of badge mark up going on here. I'd buy a GTR without a moments hesitation. Yes it's a slightly different style of car. But it seems to offer immense value by comparison to a £52k boxter.

[Wills2]

k-ink said:

There's a lot of badge mark up going on here. I'd buy a GTR without a moments hesitation. Yes it's a slightly different style of car. But it seems to offer immense value by comparison to a £52k boxter.

Cayman RWD, Mid engined, NA 2 seater weighing less than 1400kg. priced from 52k
GTR 4WD, Front engined, Turbo 4 seater weighing over 1750kg. priced from 70k

Slighty different? They are nothing like each other.

Edited by Wills2 on Saturday 20th November 21:19

[k-ink]

As I said above. The value for money is nothing alike either. Which is why I'd opt for the GTR.

[adycav]

Wills2 said:

k-ink said:

There's a lot of badge mark up going on here. I'd buy a GTR without a moments hesitation. Yes it's a slightly different style of car. But it seems to offer immense value by comparison to a £52k boxter.

Cayman RWD, Mid engined, NA 2 seater weighing less than 1400kg. priced from 52k
GTR 4WD, Front engined, Turbo 4 seater weighing over 1750kg. priced from 70k

Slighty different? They are nothing like each other.

Big difference in servicing, parts, insurance and fuel costs too.

[Niffty951]

k-ink said:

As I said above. The value for money is nothing alike either. Which is why I'd opt for the GTR.

No idea what kind of an enthusiast you are but if you enjoy driving you should probably go out in one before you consider it more car for the money. I think you get a lot more for your money with the boxter in terms of smiles and driving pleasure, plus its a nicer place to be. Horses for courses but I'd take a boxter.

People complain about the 911 turbo being too distanced from the driver but its WAY more playful than the skyline. Almost entirely RWD in somw respects (look at the way it handles here):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q84jfWC1mT8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnD2uLmh29c

Edited by Niffty951 on Saturday 20th November 21:37

[Wills2]

k-ink said:

As I said above. The value for money is nothing alike either. Which is why I'd opt for the GTR.

Eh?

[RobM77]

I guess everyone likes cars for different reasons Some like power, some looks, some engineering, history etc etc. Personally, I just love driving, and go for feedback, controls, balance and handling, but everyone's different

[ajprice]

Thinking out loud here. To the people wanting a Cayman as fast or faster than a 911... for whatever reason, Porsche are never going to do it, so isn't that what RUF, Techart, Gemballa etc are for?

Strange that Aston can quite happily sell their big V12 engine in the 'little' Vantage though .

[RobM77]

ajprice said:

Thinking out loud here. To the people wanting a Cayman as fast or faster than a 911... for whatever reason, Porsche are never going to do it, so isn't that what RUF, Techart, Gemballa etc are for?

Strange that Aston can quite happily sell their big V12 engine in the 'little' Vantage though .

That's a really good point actually. I doubt it's damaged DB9 sales. Mind you, Aston are in a slightly different market to Porsche; they sell GTs rather than sports cars.

[Niffty951]

I'm fairly certain that if they had a turbo cayman 'GT' with 400hp to compete at that mid level area of the market it would not damage its reputation. It would probably get a lot of press, move it a step beyond the bracket of cars like the Audi TT and improve the image, therefore also the sales of the whole cayman range.

The 944 turbo didn't hurt 911 sales in the 80's and yet it was reviewed by magazines as being faster than the 911 turbo at the time!