718 review - test drove today

[ORD]

I dislike turbo 4s. Every single one I have ever driven. I hate maximum torque from low revs. I hate slow throttle response.

Journos don't. They always give far more positive write ups of turbo 4 'sports cars' than I would. I have driven plenty of turbo 4s said to have good throttle response, and have found that they don't.

Engine sound also matters to me, and I've heard the 718: it sounds like a hatchback. Even the 991.2 sounds properly bad to my ears, and that at least has 6 cylinders.

So, no, I don't need to have driven the 718 to conclude that it has a bad engine. I can read the things said about it and form a view.

[gstev]

just wanted to clarify my opinion on the improvements between 987.2 and the 981S and 718S, to put in context my current 987.2 is a daily user with bi-weekly 800 mile round trips rather than weekend car. So my opinion is the 987.2 would be my choice for weekend car but for daily drive would go for 981 or 718

[nsm3]

I'm still reeling from the nugget of data that gives the 987.2 'better' brakes than a 981.1?

[mr pg]

The comment probably refers to the over served brakes on a 981, not the fact one stops faster than the other.

[Dyffed]

ORD said:

I dislike turbo 4s. Every single one I have ever driven. I hate maximum torque from low revs. I hate slow throttle response.

Journos don't. They always give far more positive write ups of turbo 4 'sports cars' than I would. I have driven plenty of turbo 4s said to have good throttle response, and have found that they don't.

Engine sound also matters to me, and I've heard the 718: it sounds like a hatchback. Even the 991.2 sounds properly bad to my ears, and that at least has 6 cylinders.

So, no, I don't need to have driven the 718 to conclude that it has a bad engine. I can read the things said about it and form a view.

Simply because you dislike turbo 4 engines does not make it a bad engine.You have yet to even drive one. I've had the chance in recent weeks to drive both 2itr. and 2.5ltr. cars on a number of occasions. I've ordered the 2ltr. PDK. I loved it, having sold my 986 recently. Had the car from new back in 2002 and also loved it. In fact I'd be very happy with every Boxster I've ever driven. The engines IMHO are anything but bad having had the chance of testing both. The steering,ride, grip ,brakes,power,handling,build quality were all outstanding.Sound matters to most people on here and though it sounds different, it is still a good sports car sound which gets even better when on the move.

[ORD]

mr pg said:

The comment probably refers to the over served brakes on a 981, not the fact one stops faster than the other.

Yep. Audi brakes (not quite, but getting that way).

[Krobar]

ORD said:

Yep. Audi brakes (not quite, but getting that way).

IMHO Some way off the Audi brake switches.

[bcr5784]

ORD said:

I dislike turbo 4s. Every single one I have ever driven. I hate maximum torque from low revs. I hate slow throttle response.

Journos don't. They always give far more positive write ups of turbo 4 'sports cars' than I would. I have driven plenty of turbo 4s said to have good throttle response, and have found that they don't.

Engine sound also matters to me, and I've heard the 718: it sounds like a hatchback. Even the 991.2 sounds properly bad to my ears, and that at least has 6 cylinders.

So, no, I don't need to have driven the 718 to conclude that it has a bad engine. I can read the things said about it and form a view.

I hate slow throttle response too - but the 991.2S (which I have driven) has as good or better throttle response over most of the rev range as my 981 S - and I can't see any reason why a 718 (which I haven't) is necessarily any different. Sure, PDK does mask a bit (but only a bit) of lag - but no more than it masks the lack of low down response on the NA engine. Indeed with the variable geometry turbo and only modest boost the 781 S it should be better than the 991.2. There are, I believe, only 2 variable geometry turbos in production - the 911 Turbo itself - and the 781S, so unless you have driven one or the other I think it premature to judge.

In any case turbos themselves (with 2 3 and 4 turbo engines, VG, lighter materials, electric assist all here or on the horizon) are getting better. The remainder of the engine is advancing too with more sophisticated varicams, holding the throttle open and cutting fuel on upchanges (to keep turbos spinning), variable length induction tracts, Miller Cycle technology. To assume they are all the same is, I think, unjustifiable when technology is advancing so fast.

Noise - well I didn't like the 991.2S - just a much too loud drone whether PSE was on or not. But on the other hand the 981 GTS exhaust note which Mr Demon posted was FAR worse to my ears. I'll reserve judgment on a 718 until I hear one without PSE.

Brakes - yes 981 brakes are overservoed. Not such an issue with PDK, but certainly one with a manual. But that applies to practically every car with servo brakes and has been so for as long as I can remember. I first put in hard pads and brake linings to overcome it donkeys years ago.

[Porsche911R]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

new one on me, it's always had x73 Shocks and springs, but hay who am I to argue with you :-)

Also it depends what you call Suspension, the 718 has the same set up of chassie suspension parts etc , just not down to the specific shock used.
the 981 SPyder using the Porsche named x73 shocks/springs.

I tend to called the ARMS and parts used Suspension setup and I called shocks well shocks ! be that a Ohlins, bilstein etc :-)

[Cpb1702]

Dyffed said:

ORD said:

I dislike turbo 4s. Every single one I have ever driven. I hate maximum torque from low revs. I hate slow throttle response.

Journos don't. They always give far more positive write ups of turbo 4 'sports cars' than I would. I have driven plenty of turbo 4s said to have good throttle response, and have found that they don't.

Engine sound also matters to me, and I've heard the 718: it sounds like a hatchback. Even the 991.2 sounds properly bad to my ears, and that at least has 6 cylinders.

So, no, I don't need to have driven the 718 to conclude that it has a bad engine. I can read the things said about it and form a view.

Simply because you dislike turbo 4 engines does not make it a bad engine.You have yet to even drive one. I've had the chance in recent weeks to drive both 2itr. and 2.5ltr. cars on a number of occasions. I've ordered the 2ltr. PDK. I loved it, having sold my 986 recently. Had the car from new back in 2002 and also loved it. In fact I'd be very happy with every Boxster I've ever driven. The engines IMHO are anything but bad having had the chance of testing both. The steering,ride, grip ,brakes,power,handling,build quality were all outstanding.Sound matters to most people on here and though it sounds different, it is still a good sports car sound which gets even better when on the move.

Have you gone for pse?

[Mario149]

Dyffed said:

Simply because you dislike turbo 4 engines does not make it a bad engine.

At the risk of putting words in his mouth, it's not a bad engine per se, but it is a bad engine in the context of putting it in a sportscar that previously had one of the best engines you could buy.

[ORD]

Mario149 said:

Dyffed said:

Simply because you dislike turbo 4 engines does not make it a bad engine.

At the risk of putting words in his mouth, it's not a bad engine per se, but it is a bad engine in the context of putting it in a sportscar that previously had one of the best engines you could buy.

Yes. It would be a perfectly fine engine for a fast shopping car or family hack. I have a turbo 4 in my family car, and it does its job perfectly well.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Krobar said:

ORD said:

Yep. Audi brakes (not quite, but getting that way).

IMHO Some way off the Audi brake switches.

I think you are correct, but some people are determined to diss anything they can about the new Porsches. Comparison with a modern Mercedes similarly shows the 981 brakes to be rather good.

But, hey! It's a sports car. So why would anyone want to go fast in it, go round bends in it, or stop quickly in it? Much more fun to stand at the bar and talk about it. I'm off for a drive...

[Dyffed]

ORD said:

Yes. It would be a perfectly fine engine for a fast shopping car or family hack. I have a turbo 4 in my family car, and it does its job perfectly well.

I've had poor 6 cylinder and also poor V8 engined cars. That does not make all 6 cylinder and V8 engines bad.

[bcr5784]

Mario149 said:

At the risk of putting words in his mouth, it's not a bad engine per se, but it is a bad engine in the context of putting it in a sportscar that previously had one of the best engines you could buy.

Don't get me wrong the flat 6 is a very nice engine and gives a lot of pleasure. But it does have an (unnecessary?) hole in the torque curve between 2500 and 4000 which irritates me and long gears which irritate practically everyone. Of course the right answer might well be smooth the torque and shorten the gears. But we all know that isn't going to happen. In the absence of that it seems to me a torquier engine with a flatter torque curve might well prove a better solution OVERALL - however many cylinders it might have.

[Mario149]

bcr5784 said:

Mario149 said:

At the risk of putting words in his mouth, it's not a bad engine per se, but it is a bad engine in the context of putting it in a sportscar that previously had one of the best engines you could buy.

Don't get me wrong the flat 6 is a very nice engine and gives a lot of pleasure. But it does have an (unnecessary?) hole in the torque curve between 2500 and 4000 which irritates me and long gears which irritate practically everyone. Of course the right answer might well be smooth the torque and shorten the gears. But we all know that isn't going to happen. In the absence of that it seems to me a torquier engine with a flatter torque curve might well prove a better solution OVERALL - however many cylinders it might have.

Gears are not strictly part of the engine But I know what you mean - the length of the manual gears was a deal breaker for me. If I thought 84mph in 2nd and 115mph in 3rd in my GT3 was stupid, I was never going to think it was a good idea to have gears just as long in a 981 Hence (in part) my decision to go PDK

Ref the torque hole, I genuinely think it's a deliberate performance limiting / emissions thing. From memory of when I did a bit of research a few months ago, you can have it mapped out.

I kinda don't mind it though as if pottering around I stick the PDK in Sport auto and never get much above 3k rpm as the GTS is grunty enough there for everyday driving. And if I'm giving it some beans, I'm normally working it manually from 3.5K and up so actually coming out from the bottom of the "hole" is quite fun as you're riding quite a steeply increasing torque curve

The torque hole problem only arises if you try and drive it like you would a modern performance turbo engine and give it full beans from 2.5K - that's not to excuse Porsche for it though just to be clear!

[Cpb1702]

I tried the TT Quattro today the 2.0 Fsi. I've got to say with that car I can definitely relate to the issues with 4 pot turbos.

0-62 times are 5.3 so very close to the Cayman. But the way it was delivered, the lack of sound, the lack of excitement, the lack of soul was there for all to see. Just plastic, false, crap.

The new Cayman is in a different class to that for sure. But has got me wanting to test drive the 718 again and the 981, to make sure I'm on the right track with the 718 route I'm seriously considering.

This is a big purchase, it's got to be bang on. It's got to give me that buzz and adrenaline otherwise what's the point!

Maybe this thread is starting to get in my head 😫

[bcr5784]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

No I favour what happens between 2.5 and 4, which I spend a fair bit of time in, over the bit above 6500 which I spend little time in.

Changing at 6300 or thereabouts in an S lands you back in the middle of the meat of the torque - which I like - and is as fast as I need.

I find changing at the red line less satisfying - you land in the falling part of the torque curve in the next gear.

Changing gear at 4500 to 6000 revs or so , lands you in the torque trough, which I'd rather it didn't.

And given that the 991.2 is very eager to 6500 and all reports say that the turbo 4s are too, I would probably find the shape of the torque curve of the turbos more to my taste. How I would find other aspects of the turbo 4s I don't know, because I've not tried them.

You like to spend most of your time "revving the snot off the thing", I don't. It's that simple.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Well, either that or some people are still happy to potter about in an old, gutless car while the rest of the world moves on.

[bcr5784]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Can't think of a car diesel that revs anywhere near 6500 myself, nor a production car that revs to the 10000++ revs any sports bike revs to. But you could say that petrol car engines are far closer to diesels that bike engines - it you wanted to continue with silly comparisons.

Edited by bcr5784 on Wednesday 18th May 21:08