Considering New Boxster as only car - 4Cyl Refresh Options?

[bcr5784]

chriscoates81 said:

I guess it boils down to cost, after all a boxster a hell of a lot cheaper than a 918 and i imagine the electric engine in the 918 would add a fair whack ontop of the cost of a boxster.

Agree - but as has been said there are other options - dual sequential, variable geometry, twin scroll or even electrically assisted turbos which will all reduce lag. Whilst I think it highly unlikely they would get close to the throttle response of NA engines OF OLD. Modern fly by wire engines (emissions again) don't match the throttle response of the best engines of the past either. The S may be better than a turbo is likely to be but its not that fantastic.

[cardigankid]

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.”

I prefer the flat 6 too, though I have never been able to find another one that howled like a 996.1 cabrio I once drove. PSE is fine by me but the sound, however they achieve it, tends more to the fart than the howl, so not a total success.

Having said all of that, and as Rohrl says, they will get it right. No way are they going to produce a Boxster or Cayman with the marketing line 'a bit st'. They always produce a car which will outperform the previous model, whatever the constraints placed on them, whether that be water cooling, DFI, electric power steering. I am quite certain that no-one is going to drive a Boxster Turbo 4 and be unimpressed. But I do think that the immediate F6 predecessor will be worth holding onto, for the fun, of course, not the money.

[ORD]

cardigankid said:

I prefer the flat 6 too, though I have never been able to find another one that howled like a 996.1 cabrio I once drove. PSE is fine by me but the sound, however they achieve it, tends more to the fart than the howl, so not a total success.

Having said all of that, and as Rohrl says, they will get it right. No way are they going to produce a Boxster or Cayman with the marketing line 'a bit st'. They always produce a car which will outperform the previous model, whatever the constraints placed on them, whether that be water cooling, DFI, electric power steering. I am quite certain that no-one is going to drive a Boxster Turbo 4 and be unimpressed. But I do think that the immediate F6 predecessor will be worth holding onto, for the fun, of course, not the money.

[ORD]

It will be faster but still a turbo four pot. Better performance, worse car to drive.

[Krobar]

I spoke to my local dealer who was helpful and not too worried about offering some discount on a to order car; also added that an additional £1500 was available as a PCP contribution if that is what I wanted. I need to drive one and I think I will organise a Friday off work in the next few weeks and try all the cars over a couple of days, short list:
BMW M135
Nissan 370Z
Boxster
Toyota GT86
VW Golf R

[TB303]

Krobar said:

I spoke to my local dealer who was helpful and not too worried about offering some discount on a to order car; also added that an additional £1500 was available as a PCP contribution if that is what I wanted. I need to drive one and I think I will organise a Friday off work in the next few weeks and try all the cars over a couple of days, short list:
BMW M135
Nissan 370Z
Boxster
Toyota GT86
VW Golf R

By all means try it, but don't buy an M135i. Very boring compared to a boxster, and lands you in trouble quickly due to the pace. I have a lease one and it's brilliant as a daily driver, but if you are looking for something "fun" and special, you can cross it off your list... I'd never take the M135i out on a Sunday just to go for a drive.

[ORD]

TB303 said:

By all means try it, but don't buy an M135i. Very boring compared to a boxster, and lands you in trouble quickly due to the pace. I have a lease one and it's brilliant as a daily driver, but if you are looking for something "fun" and special, you can cross it off your list... I'd never take the M135i out on a Sunday just to go for a drive.

To be frank, the same reasoning applies to everything on that list except the Pork and the GT86!

[TB303]

ORD said:

To be frank, the same reasoning applies to everything on that list except the Pork and the GT86!

Hehe - I was looking at the list thinking the same really. Just a get a boxster. Most useable sports car out there of its type. Golf R/M135i make great daily drivers though.

[bcr5784]

Krobar said:

I spoke to my local dealer who was helpful and not too worried about offering some discount on a to order car; also added that an additional £1500 was available as a PCP contribution if that is what I wanted. I need to drive one and I think I will organise a Friday off work in the next few weeks and try all the cars over a couple of days, short list:
BMW M135
Nissan 370Z
Boxster
Toyota GT86
VW Golf R

Frankly I would ignore everything people say on here and form your own view. Particularly when it comes to the flat 6 vs turbo 4 argument there are those who have made up their minds in the absence of any actual information. That said, I don't thing you will have the opportunity to compare those variants for quite a while yet.

[ORD]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Absolutely.

Even more so for the 981. Take the engine away and what is left isn't very special at all. Do most people notice the difference between a great chassis and a good one? We have plenty of people who think the EPAS isn't worse than the hydraulic steering (or that it doesn't matter).

If the engine doesn't matter much, what does?

I am not sure that my next car would be a Porsche except that they have the best engines. I prefer MR engine to any other installation, but it's not like I couldn't enjoy a front engined car with the engine nice and far back.

[bcr5784]

ORD said:

Absolutely.

Even more so for the 981. Take the engine away and what is left isn't very special at all. Do most people notice the difference between a great chassis and a good one? We have plenty of people who think the EPAS isn't worse than the hydraulic steering (or that it doesn't matter).

If the engine doesn't matter much, what does?

I am not sure that my next car would be a Porsche except that they have the best engines. I prefer MR engine to any other installation, but it's not like I couldn't enjoy a front engined car with the engine nice and far back.

Given that the poster is considering a Golf R - a 2 litre inline turbo, and a (flat 4) GT86 he is clearly not fixated with the idea of an NA 6. He is considering a quite disparate group of cars and clearly doesn't have the same priorities at the moment as you - or even I do. And there is nothing wrong with that.

[ORD]

Not at all.

But it's a pretty strange world in which a Golf R and a Boxster are seen as alternatives:-)

[Trotmant]

a golf r is just a quick shopping trolley - I've never understood the concept of buying a 'hot hatch' which is just a fast average looking car, when can have or afford a true sports car. 100% boxster

[bcr5784]

Trotmant said:

a golf r is just a quick shopping trolley - I've never understood the concept of buying a 'hot hatch' which is just a fast average looking car, when can have or afford a true sports car. 100% boxster

You have introduced looks into the equation. I'm sure that some are actually not concerned - or some are even uncomfortable - with the looks, or image of a Boxster. A previous poster felt he might be viewed as a poser if he bought a Porsche (and some certainly do view Porsches as posers cars). Personally - all things being equal - I prefer an unpretentious looking car. If a Golf R were as dynamically capable as a Boxster/Cayman I'd choose it every time. But looks/image are clearly VERY important to many Porsche buyers - just look at the picture/colour threads. Accept that not everyone has the same priorities - and their priorities might be just as valid, or invalid as yours.

Edited by bcr5784 on Friday 12th June 22:48

[EricE]

ORD said:

But it's a pretty strange world in which a Golf R and a Boxster are seen as alternatives:-)

It's a strange world where a Golf R is as quick as a Boxster S, both in a straight line as well as around the Nordschleife.
Bring on the turbos I say. Hopefully the whole sports car range gets a much needed 50 bhp + massive torque boost.

[36270k]

This have been an interesting thread with a wide variety of opinions.
I started with a Focus estate daily driver and a 924 restoration project.
Loved driving the 924 and replaced it with a 986 Boxster S about a year ago.
I am now only using the Focus to take garden rubbish to the dump and using the Boxster as a daily driver.
After 3000 miles experience in the 986 Boxster S, I love it and take it out whenever I can. I would never replace it with a 4 cylinder turbo 981.

[chriscoates81]

We're all assuming it will be a petrol 4 pot and not a diesel like you get in the Audi tt? I thought emmisions were averaged across the range so a diesel would mean no 4 pot petrol needed maybe.

[bcr5784]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I agree that an S doesn't need more power - but it could certainly use more torque with the gears it is lumbered with. Peak TORQUE is about 66mph in third (manual). It means that in a typical 3rd gear overtaking manoevre on single carriageways the engine is just coming on song when you are 3 parts past the other car. You can use 2nd of course, but that seems overkill and not everyone wants to do that as a norm. You are a bit better off with PDK, but even there when overtaking from 50mph the initial response in 3rd is lacking a bit. Again you can drive around it - but not everyone wants to. The plus a NA engine over a turbo should have is response, but because of where the torque is you don't always have it.

With the smaller engine, of course, the situation is more pronounced.

That criticism continues to be made with the 3.8 engine in GT4.

Don't get me wrong the flat 6 engine is a great engine - flexible and pleasant at low revs when pootling and stirring at high ones when you are on it. Trouble is you are too often caught between the two when you just want to get along briskly.

[bcr5784]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Bit pointless Porsche fitting 4 redundant gears. Get it into your head that not all (not even a small minority) of Porsche owners want to do that ALL the time - even though we want to do it SOME of the time.

[Mario149]

bcr5784 said:

I agree that an S doesn't need more power - but it could certainly use more torque with the gears it is lumbered with.

No, you've said it yourself, it needs a different gearing not more torque. ~270lbft is plenty to be getting on with in a car that weighs ~£1,350kg wet, it's just spoiled by long gearing whereby 2nd and third gears go to 84mph and ~115mph instead of something vaguely sensible like 70mph and 95mph respectively