718 review - test drove today
Discussion
Mario149 said:
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'd be interested to know where you have seen that. I've seen torque curves which do get rid of the valley - but they all seem to include a back cat exhaust or new manifolds, and I don't want to take that route. A relatively inexpensive remap would be much more attractive.
I am really intrigued by the whole, the NA6 was gutless below 4k, chat. Have any of those commenting actually driven these engines before commenting? On the motorway in 6th which means the revs are around 2.5-3k, the 981 has the power the accelerate to overtake without any issues. If we are talking about A/B roads, then anyone trying to overtake without changing to a lower gear is just plain silly, and doesnt know how/want to drive properly. In fact, at below motorway speeds, the 718 engines are probably worse due to the lag. Of course the pdk eliminates the lag BY CHANGING DOWN GEARS - just like you would do in the 981 engine anyway!
cypriot said:
I am really intrigued by the whole, the NA6 was gutless below 4k, chat. Have any of those commenting actually driven these engines before commenting? On the motorway in 6th which means the revs are around 2.5-3k, the 981 has the power the accelerate to overtake without any issues. If we are talking about A/B roads, then anyone trying to overtake without changing to a lower gear is just plain silly, and doesnt know how/want to drive properly. In fact, at below motorway speeds, the 718 engines are probably worse due to the lag. Of course the pdk eliminates the lag BY CHANGING DOWN GEARS - just like you would do in the 981 engine anyway!
I have to say that's my experience. I've never found the larger NA 6s to lack torque in the mid-range. They are actually quite torque-heavy for their capacity. The 2.7 is different kettle of fish but a lovely engine nonetheless. I don't understand the desire for massive torque in the mid-range. All that means is you hit licence-losing speeds without even getting any engine noise or excitement. Much better to use high revs when you want to accelerate hard.
My memory of my 2012 2.0 4cyl turbo'd TTS, sold last October, was that I if I accelerated moderately without changing down, or kicking down, or paddling down, at low revs, it would bog down, slowly pick up, then maybe change down, then speed up. All in an S-Tronic! This, the tendency to bog down at the lights, and the tendency for the turbo to overrun were the main reasons for getting rid.
My 981 PDK does none of this. It picks up and changes down intuitively, seemingly reading my mind. A far superior box it seems?
But as I've said before it's the noise that I crave most, and having heard the farty 718 at the launch I can't imagine taking a step backwards into 4cylinder land again. But I can imagine someone new to Porsche would think the contrived burps and farts a bonus, just as I did when hitting the gas in the TTS and hearing the BLAP... BLAP... BLAP...
I'll have to go drive a 718 just to compare to my 981 so I can take a more objective view.
My 981 PDK does none of this. It picks up and changes down intuitively, seemingly reading my mind. A far superior box it seems?
But as I've said before it's the noise that I crave most, and having heard the farty 718 at the launch I can't imagine taking a step backwards into 4cylinder land again. But I can imagine someone new to Porsche would think the contrived burps and farts a bonus, just as I did when hitting the gas in the TTS and hearing the BLAP... BLAP... BLAP...
I'll have to go drive a 718 just to compare to my 981 so I can take a more objective view.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
In technical terms, I've no great axe to grind in this debate. I've owned several 981's including a Boxster S and a Cayman GTS. Found them to be wonderful cars. However I can also appreciate some of the merits attibuted to the 718. And I particularly respect the views of those – unlike myself – who have actually driven one.What I do take exception to in a board aimed at adult discussion is the use of put down phrases such as "I like how you tiny mind works", and cheap sarcasm such as "It really adds to the quality of discourse". It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that those who resort to such juvenile language are the ones who really have a problem!
Having glanced through a random selection of the authors numerous posts, utterances of this sort would appear to be a speciality.
Surely it should be possible to focus on the merits of a debate without regularly resorting to such puerile and adolescent behaviour.
I apologise if this sounds like a personal attack on a particular individual. It’s not meant to be. It is aimed purely and simply at improving the maturity and quality of debate and avoiding bully like behaviour - an aim I am sure most of us would share. Unfortunately there is no easy way of getting the point across without referencing a typical example.
It might be helpful if a moderator could step in and add his/her thoughts concerning the standards we should all be aiming for.
Edited by surtees on Thursday 19th May 16:09
ORD said:
I wouldn't lay any blame, to be frank. There's a little bit of 'history', and some people do struggle to suffer fools gladly.
Thank you for pointing out the history.It was never my intention to take sides or apportion blame. I would simply make the point that it is unacceptable for ANY poster to make a virtue of intimidating or aggressive posts – irrespective of the circumstances.
The fact that X or Y does “not tolerate fools gladly” can be no excuse for immature behaviour.
The vast majority of posters on these sites – including those on the receiving end of such posts – are anything but fools. The fact that their views might differ from our own is no reason to label them as such.
All I am advocating is adherence to some basic standards of adult behaviour and respect for freedom of expression.
Anything else simply lowers the quality of the debate and the status of the Site – not to mention the reputation of the poster.
I agree. But it's a hopeless task to try to get people to play nicely. I often point out that the default response to disagreement on here is to get personal and unpleasant, but it falls on deaf ears. The mods couldn't care less and are more likely to ban the reasonable guy who eventually says something rude.'
bcr5784 said:
Mario149 said:
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'd be interested to know where you have seen that. I've seen torque curves which do get rid of the valley - but they all seem to include a back cat exhaust or new manifolds, and I don't want to take that route. A relatively inexpensive remap would be much more attractive.
Speaking of torque/power curves, the one on my 993 looks like this, I don't know why it's different from factory (may be the 130k miles, or the carnewal exhaust, I don't care), but it's f*cking epic. Lovely and linear but with a noticeable hardening as you approach 4000 and the engine comes on song, max torque at 5500rpm, max power 1k revs later just before the redline, the harder you thrash the engine the more you get rewarded. And all with gearing that means you can almost rev out 4th gear before hitting 100mph, magic 
Note that this is at the wheels, adjusted for at the crank she's producing bang on the factory 268bhp 
...
If you could take that shape and stretch it out to 7800rpm for the 3.4 with the same max power of the 991.1 Carrera, you'd get max power at 7500rpm, max torque at 6600rpm, the engine coming on song at 4400rpm and ripping towards the redline - it would be an *epic* piece of kit!
Note that this is at the wheels, adjusted for at the crank she's producing bang on the factory 268bhp ...If you could take that shape and stretch it out to 7800rpm for the 3.4 with the same max power of the 991.1 Carrera, you'd get max power at 7500rpm, max torque at 6600rpm, the engine coming on song at 4400rpm and ripping towards the redline - it would be an *epic* piece of kit!
Mario149 said:
Speaking of torque/power curves, the one on my 993 looks like this, I don't know why it's different from factory (may be the 130k miles, or the carnewal exhaust, I don't care), but it's f*cking epic. Lovely and linear but with a noticeable hardening as you approach 4000 and the engine comes on song, max torque at 5500rpm, max power 1k revs later just before the redline, the harder you thrash the engine the more you get rewarded. And all with gearing that means you can almost rev out 4th gear before hitting 100mph, magic Note that this is at the wheels, adjusted for at the crank she's producing bang on the factory 268bhp ...
If you could take that shape and stretch it out to 7800rpm for the 3.4 with the same max power of the 991.1 Carrera, you'd get max power at 7500rpm, max torque at 6600rpm, the engine coming on song at 4400rpm and ripping towards the redline - it would be an *epic* piece of kit!
That is the sort of shape I'd be much happier with, for the use I put my car - if you want to go X% faster, rev X% higher (or something like). ie the transition from toodling to balls out is PROGRESSIVE. Note that this is at the wheels, adjusted for at the crank she's producing bang on the factory 268bhp ...If you could take that shape and stretch it out to 7800rpm for the 3.4 with the same max power of the 991.1 Carrera, you'd get max power at 7500rpm, max torque at 6600rpm, the engine coming on song at 4400rpm and ripping towards the redline - it would be an *epic* piece of kit!
It's not that I'm immune to the pleasures of ultra peaky engines, having owned and driven highly tuned two stroke bikes which wouldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding below 6000 or 7000 revs, go like hell on an ever-rising torque curve to a torque peak at 9000 revs or more and are all done a few hundred revs later. For top end "fiz" nothing else on two or four wheels I have driven gets close. Fine for a weekend fun vehicle - but I simply don't see a Cayster as anything like that sort of vehicle - nor do I want it to be.
Edited by bcr5784 on Thursday 19th May 20:38
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think the high revs for me is about1) the noise, dear god the noise
2) the engineering that I know has gone into it which gives me great satisfaction
After owning an S2000 (9k rpm), an F355 (8.5k rpm), 7.1 GT3 (8.4k rpm) and now the E60 M5 (8.25k rpm), I'm absolutely smitten
Conversely, too long gearing infuriates me eventually, much more than most I think
I had a 2.7 981 loaner the other day, and even with the shorter PDK gearing I really struggled. It was partly a pace thing - it didn't feel like it had the full complement of ponies due to the gearing - but almost worse was the psychological part whereby you know how good the car could be, but isn'tGassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff