Considering New Boxster as only car - 4Cyl Refresh Options?
Discussion
ORD said:
(2) Revving a 2.7 hard to keep up with traffic in town? What? First gear is pretty short, and 2nd pulls hard from 18mph or so. I don't think I have ever used anything like full throttle in town (driving a 3.4 admittedly).
(3) Turbo 4 pots have nothing whatsoever to do with what the majority of drivers want or will enjoy (as the majority, even of Porsche drivers, have no clue about engines). It is ALL about CO2 targets, and Porsche will sell us what it has to sell us to keep VAG within the limits. Nobody at Porsche will think anything other than that they are having to piss on our chips and tell us it's vinegar.
I doubt the turbo 4 will have 380bhp - first, that is quite a high specific output, and, more importantly, the 4 will have to be a lot slower than the GT4 (and its replacement, which will probably keep an NA 6). I would expect about 330bhp but a fair bit of torque (so a horrible flat top end or low redline).
Re 2) But you've got a 3.4 which is not what we are talking about - the lack of torque in the 2.7 is why I went S.(3) Turbo 4 pots have nothing whatsoever to do with what the majority of drivers want or will enjoy (as the majority, even of Porsche drivers, have no clue about engines). It is ALL about CO2 targets, and Porsche will sell us what it has to sell us to keep VAG within the limits. Nobody at Porsche will think anything other than that they are having to piss on our chips and tell us it's vinegar.
I doubt the turbo 4 will have 380bhp - first, that is quite a high specific output, and, more importantly, the 4 will have to be a lot slower than the GT4 (and its replacement, which will probably keep an NA 6). I would expect about 330bhp but a fair bit of torque (so a horrible flat top end or low redline).
Re 3) While doubtless CO2 targets are undoubtedly the main driver, that doesn't mean that a turbo 4 won't produce some things that drivers will like. A Seat Cupra has a 2 litre engine producing just about as much power as the 2.7 (280ps) but much more torque - 350nm vs 290. In fact below 3500 rpm it produces more torque than the 3.4S. Agreed it won't have quite the top end zing - though peak torque on the Cupra is maintained to 5600, and peak power is maintained all the way to 6600. I personally practically never use over 6500 revs, so I hardly think the loss of the last 1000 revs is such an issue. So it's hardly likely to feel horribly flat at the top end (to me at least) - indeed if you look at the 3.4S engine it's power is pretty flat above 6000 to the (very slight) peak at 7400. So in reality, a Turbo 4 is going to FEEL much faster than a 2.7 NA 6 and not that much slower than an NA 3.4 for much of the time.
Would I choose a turbo 4 over an NA S - definitely not. Over a 2.7 (with current gearing) if that was the limit of my budget? A much closer call and really depends how good a job Porsche do.
I find the negativity about 4 cyl engines to be very strange. It's immaterial that dull cars have dull 4 cyl engines. It's all about what the sports car manufacturer does with them. Is the 4 cyl duratec a dull reps engine? Yes. Is the Caterham r500 a dull car?
For a bunch of Porsche enthusiasts you lot sure are negative about Porsche as a manufacturer. You really hate them it seems to me.
They might just might produce something good although they have no track record of producing good sports cars have they?
Bert
For a bunch of Porsche enthusiasts you lot sure are negative about Porsche as a manufacturer. You really hate them it seems to me.
They might just might produce something good although they have no track record of producing good sports cars have they?
Bert
I love Porsche. A major part of that is that they manufacture lovely and unusual engines.
The turbo flat 4 might turn out to be brilliant, but the odds are stacked massively against it: turbo engines almost always sound crap; 4 cylinder engines almost always sound crap; turbo four pots are unpleasant to use. And, as Cmoose says, it is not as though Porsche WANTS to build these engines - P is simply trying to find the least bad way to hit stupid emissions targets.
If Porsche had said "We think we can make a bloody awesome flat 4 and want to do so because it will sound great, be smooth as silk and be just as emotive as the 6", I would try to have faith. But Porsche says "Look, we have to do this. We are sorry. It will be tolerable, we hope..."
ORD said:
P is simply trying to find the least bad way to hit stupid emissions targets while retaining obscene profit margins.
edited for accuracy...A micro 918 would have been a much more elegant choice. Downsized N/A 2.7 flat six augmented by an plugin electric motor and maybe a partial carbon tub to offset weight. Real world consumption would not go down much but it would meet all emission targets.
The technology is there. The Golf GTE does exactly that already, although with a very hamfisted and heavy approach using the old Mk7 chassis and a 1.4 TSI.
The only reason why Porsche isn't doing that is the price, so instead we're getting engines that according to Walter Röhrl sound "like a Volkswagen Beetle". This is coming from a guy that has heard and likely even driven the preproduction prototypes.
Roehrl said:
“At least it’s not a four-cylinder turbo like in the next Boxster. That sounds like a Volkswagen Beetle, I’m not kidding you! I tell the guys, ‘You’re joking with this sound, right?’ But they just say they are working on it. I’m sure they will get it right.”
http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/news/1502/exclusive-porsche-911-to-get-a-27-turbo/Ordered a 2.7 Cayman today due for delivery in October as didn't want to take a chance on leaving it to next year and finding that the F6 is no longer an option. Don't care about the much talked about reduced performance/torque of the smaller unit because in the real world it really doesn't matter to us. What we do want is an engine sound track that enhances the driving experience and I don't think the T4 will provide that.
Miopyk said:
Ordered a 2.7 Cayman today due for delivery in October as didn't want to take a chance on leaving it to next year and finding that the F6 is no longer an option. Don't care about the much talked about reduced performance/torque of the smaller unit because in the real world it really doesn't matter to us. What we do want is an engine sound track that enhances the driving experience and I don't think the T4 will provide that.
I agree - the subjective stuff is far more important.The turbo 4 will be plenty fast - more torque than the 3.4 and just about as much power, I expect. It'll sound thoroughly s
t and be a straining turd, in all likelihood, though 
ORD said:
I agree - the subjective stuff is far more important.
The turbo 4 will be plenty fast - more torque than the 3.4 and just about as much power, I expect. It'll sound thoroughly st and be a straining turd, in all likelihood, though
Don't think many Scooby fans would agree with that. Early 2 litre Scoobies are very revvy (eager to go to the 7300rpm limit with no strain) and definitely characterful. No reason why Porsche can't do better with current technology.The turbo 4 will be plenty fast - more torque than the 3.4 and just about as much power, I expect. It'll sound thoroughly s
t and be a straining turd, in all likelihood, though bcr5784 said:
Don't think many Scooby fans would agree with that. Early 2 litre Scoobies are very revvy (eager to go to the 7300rpm limit with no strain) and definitely characterful. No reason why Porsche can't do better with current technology.
I think they're very much an aquired taste, to my ears they sound like a lawnmower that needs the points changing.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Noise is a very personal thing but I think in the grand scheme of things far too much is made of it. As practically everyone would once have agreed a nice rumbly sounding V8 must have a two plane crank. A single plane crank makes a sound like 2 in line 4s joined at the hip and is nothing like as nice. (Unless you like the sound of tearing calico). Hasn't done Ferrari any harm though....In any case, these days much of the noise is, by one means or another, artificially engineered/generated so I think such concerns will either be overcome or fashions will change. I regret to say that fashions in cars are marketing/profit driven and no more logical or rational than fashions in womens' clothes . (Dr Zeuss's Star Bellied Sneechers spring to mind).
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That's your personal preference - and as valid as anyone else's - but as you say "you don't get to define what other people care about" any more than I do. It's not that I particularly welcome turbo 4s - just that I see there are pluses and minuses, whereas you seem to see the world totally in black and white.Edited by bcr5784 on Sunday 24th May 22:19
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That, as my amended post says, there are pluses and minuses with turbo 4s whereas you see the world in black and white - and there will be those who prefer the grunt of a turbo engine at least some of the time. It is perfectly possible, with modern ECUs and turbos (twin, ceramic, variable geometry) to give a turbo engine any power curve you like (and good throttle response) and, these days, there is great scope for changing the noise by tuning the exhaust and induction systems - as you acknowledge - currently happens. So to dismiss the turbo 4s as inevitable crap is, at very least, premature and unsubstantiated.Edited by bcr5784 on Sunday 24th May 22:43
Edited by bcr5784 on Sunday 24th May 22:45
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Torque is not cheap UNLESS you have use a turbo. You seem to ignore the fact that the cars are going to continue to have very high gears (ridiculously so in the case of the current 2.7) but a turbo will allow the car to pull them. You may wish Porsche would lower the gearing - but you must know perfectly well that they won't. So given that reality there is a significant real-world plus (for many - if not you) in a turbo - even though it probably won't sound as nice.Also, these cars are too fast for the road as it is - adding lots of mid-range torque will just make it even less possible to enjoy them without losing your licence. More torque means faster acceleration without the noise and drama of revving it out. Effortless mid-range punch is for motorway cruisers, not sports cars.
ORD said:
Also, these cars are too fast for the road as it is - adding lots of mid-range torque will just make it even less possible to enjoy them without losing your licence. More torque means faster acceleration without the noise and drama of revving it out. Effortless mid-range punch is for motorway cruisers, not sports cars.
Both I AND moose (if his previous posting are to believe) chose to buy a 3.4 because, although the 2.7 is plenty fast enough outright for us both, it lacks torque. Would I have bought a 2 litre turbo over a 3.4 and saved myself £10000 if that choice had been available? Not sure and depends how good a job Porsche do. Moose and you presumably wouldn't but we all have different priorities. Compared with really focussed sports car (Caterhams, Atoms, some Lotuses) a Cayman IS a bit of a motorway cruiser. Indeed it's breadth of abilities IS its appeal to me (and I suspect to many buyers).But we are never going to agree.
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff