Another 987 vs 981 thread...
Discussion
mrdemon said:
Look at my past posts and I state the roofs s
t. (But does work and is water tight)
I am not going to say black is white because I own one, the roof sucks monkey balls.
The thing is I bought my Spyder over a caterham, atom, lotus etc. it's my 3rd car for dry use only I don't even carry the roof let alone put it on.
So the roof is not a faff if you don't use it, ;-p. My car has no radio so nothing to nick, I leave it roof off when parked.
It's a open top concept , so. Not sure why people buy and spec them up the wrong way then moan about the roof.
At the point you spec the weight back in you have bought the wrong car.
Cars best feature is the way it feels light with a low C of G that's the fun that's why I don't even carry the roof about.
But not sure why this is now a Spyder thread ?
Have to agree with MrD on this one... I'd have a Spyder or 4C in a heart beat, as a third car, but alas both are financially out of reach for me without sell my GTS which ain't gonna happen, for a while anyway...t. (But does work and is water tight) I am not going to say black is white because I own one, the roof sucks monkey balls.
The thing is I bought my Spyder over a caterham, atom, lotus etc. it's my 3rd car for dry use only I don't even carry the roof let alone put it on.
So the roof is not a faff if you don't use it, ;-p. My car has no radio so nothing to nick, I leave it roof off when parked.
It's a open top concept , so. Not sure why people buy and spec them up the wrong way then moan about the roof.
At the point you spec the weight back in you have bought the wrong car.
Cars best feature is the way it feels light with a low C of G that's the fun that's why I don't even carry the roof about.
But not sure why this is now a Spyder thread ?
Edited by mrdemon on Thursday 4th September 00:48
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You could also say the best thing about a base 987.2 is the revvy 2.9 lump! This engine sounds absolutely glorious (far nicer than the 3.8 in my 997S.2). It does lack a little low-end torque - something it shares with the later 2.7 - but really comes alive over 4000rpm or so and is a genuine joy to drive. In the real world, for road use, it's also rare that you're left desperately-wanting for more outright go (and you can regularly use all of the performance there is)! Another big bonus (as you'll already know) is that despite being the reliable 9A1 lump, the 2.9 uses port fuel injection, not DFI, so the intake ports/valves stay absolutely clean over time (if you use decent petrol). Comparing the cars, the performance of 981 and 987 feels very similar. I think the nominal extra abilities of the 981 chassis are probably inaccessible to 95% of us (certainly on public roads) and unfortunately, the 981 steering just isn't as good as 987 and never will be. I'm not particularly keen on the slightly over-servoed-feeling 981 brakes either. On the plus side, the base 981 certainly has a 'nicer', quieter interior (if you want a plush place to be - I can understand those that prefer the more spartan 987 feel).
Overall, I agree with others above who have stated that 981 is different to, but not outright better than 987 in absolute terms. ('Progress' isn't always an improvement)! I definitely agree with those who wouldn't part with another £20k+ to 'upgrade'.
Comments apply to Boxster, as I haven't driven either Cayman.
Edited by Ian_UK1 on Thursday 4th September 11:53
TB303 said:
Has anyone driven spyder/cayman r back to back with a sport chassis'd GTS then?
MrD, you're fun to provoke
I have you little provoker MrD, you're fun to provoke
I have driven a Boxster GTS with Sport Chassis & Ceramic Stoppers ... awesome kit indeed and just like most things on the 981 that have been smoothed over v a 987 so has the ride quality on the latest chassis / sport suspension set up over a Spyder.
TB303 said:
Love the way people still convince themselves the roof is some kind of benefit/feature of the car or that you aren't serious if you can't put up with the roof! "If you don't get the roof, you don't get the car". Just ridiculous.
Plenty of us are enthusiasts who couldn't put up with the roof! I'd want a proper roof so I could use the car more often.
The car would have been a bigger success for Porsche if they'd have got the roof right. It's still an enthusiasts car because of the great driving experience and low production volume. At least the ex-owners have the honesty to admit the short-comings.
You just don't get it.Plenty of us are enthusiasts who couldn't put up with the roof! I'd want a proper roof so I could use the car more often.
The car would have been a bigger success for Porsche if they'd have got the roof right. It's still an enthusiasts car because of the great driving experience and low production volume. At least the ex-owners have the honesty to admit the short-comings.
The roof quite clearly is a feature, it allows the different bodywork and is just so as a result of ripping out the standard electric roof. Porsche haven't got it wrong, they have designed a lightweight solution to providing a means of keeping the cabin watertight. It isn't by accident it is designed the way it is. Porsche were fully aware it wouldn't appeal to all, that's why it is an additional model on top of the normal range. It isn't meant to be as refined as a normal boxster with the roof up.
You buy the car knowing exactly why the roof is as it is. You don't stupidly buy it and then moan because it is a bit noisy.
If the spyder is your only car and you do a lot of motorway miles and want hushed refinement, then it simply isn't the right car for you. But that doesn't mean it hasn't been designed correctly, it means you picked the wrong car.
As a second car for having fun in and mostly using it as intended with the roof down it is fit for purpose.
I agree with cmoose most of the time, but the Spyder and R have perfect steering feel and weight.
no 911 can match it in any model due to the lack of front weight and the GT cars ruin it with the stiff ARB's which effect the feel over bumps to a point the steering wheels moving about on it own way more than one would want.
with the geo set to zero toe on the Spyder/R up front, the cars perfect.
Only the Noble betters it.
no 911 can match it in any model due to the lack of front weight and the GT cars ruin it with the stiff ARB's which effect the feel over bumps to a point the steering wheels moving about on it own way more than one would want.
with the geo set to zero toe on the Spyder/R up front, the cars perfect.
Only the Noble betters it.
Bear in mind the steering feel and response can differ quite markedly between nominally identical cars due to tyre type, tyre age, tyre pressures, tyre wear, damper condition, suspension setup, suspension wear, steering rack wear etc. etc. This is probably a big contributor to the substantial difference of opinion about which cars steer/feel the best.
The variable steering took a bit of time to get use firmilar with I found, its ok now though. Out of the box the 981 steering is easier to 'learn', quicker and more precise I think, it just lacks the buzz of the 987 and its more noticable in the wet. Not a deal breaker, but its not exactly Porsche either.
Can anyone confirm what (if any) changes there are to the 3.4 in the 981 to the 987? Its slightly more economical on the EU test but that may just be stop start, and its 0.2 seconds quicker to 62, maybe thats down to the chassis and putting the power down on a hard launch? 0-99 also down 0.6 seconds. Quite an improvement for an extra 5PS and a little less weight.
Can anyone confirm what (if any) changes there are to the 3.4 in the 981 to the 987? Its slightly more economical on the EU test but that may just be stop start, and its 0.2 seconds quicker to 62, maybe thats down to the chassis and putting the power down on a hard launch? 0-99 also down 0.6 seconds. Quite an improvement for an extra 5PS and a little less weight.
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff