718 review - test drove today

718 review - test drove today

Author
Discussion

CarreraLightweightRacing

2,011 posts

208 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
ORD said:
Mario149 said:
Interesting that the base model got such a slating compared to the S. Normally they're on an equal footing. Makes me think they've been a bit kind to the S as there's only really VTG to separate them, and I'm not sure that can be worth a whole star.
It is surprising. It must have been a different reviewer. This guy seems to have really hated the engine, as he even slates PDK (which I have never seen anyone do before). He seems to have got in a right huff with the car. I expect that I would feel the same. Interesting to see a journo expressing his actual views rather than toeing some editorial line.
I don't think he is slating the PDK as such; is more a case of, in this application is doesn't particularly work very well.

bcr5784

7,102 posts

144 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
mollytherocker said:
That I agree with. My point is that options do not 'help residuals' as many believe. Options depreciate too!

£10k of options is unlikely to put more than £2k on a 3 year old car. So, another £8k lost!
Accepting that options depreciate - some depreciate more than others. Things like Pdk, big wheels, PSE which are in demand depreciate far less than some obscure trim options. And some marmite trim options will devalue the car come resale. A very basic car is likely be much more difficult to sell privately - though it ultimately will sell if the price is right.

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
CarreraLightweightRacing said:
I don't think he is slating the PDK as such; is more a case of, in this application is doesn't particularly work very well.
True. But the things he says don't sound right to me. I had a PDK car for 2 years, and I hated the gearbox, but it was bloody good for an auto. It was a lot more sophisticated than he suggests. It would change its behaviour depending on whether the engine was up to temperature, for example, taking higher gears at lower speeds once the engine was warm. I would be amazed if it didn't select intermediate gears for most acceleration in a turbo car. Even my 2010 PDK box wouldn't take 3rd on the motorway unless you stamped on the accelerator. It would use 5th or 4th in response to even quite positive throttle inputs.

All that said, anyone driving a 'sports car' in automatic mode is fooling themselves.


Sparkyhd

1,792 posts

94 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
ORD said:
All that said, anyone driving a 'sports car' in automatic mode is fooling themselves.
Or maybe anyone driving a 'sports car' on regular roads is fooling themselves, what with average speed cameras, sleep bumps and congestion.

Forgive my ignorance but aren't F1 cars closer to a PDK with paddles than to a conventional manual stick with a floor pedal? If true then a F1 is less of a 'sports car' than a manual 981.

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
Sparkyhd said:
Or maybe anyone driving a 'sports car' on regular roads is fooling themselves, what with average speed cameras, sleep bumps and congestion.

Forgive my ignorance but aren't F1 cars closer to a PDK with paddles than to a conventional manual stick with a floor pedal? If true then a F1 is less of a 'sports car' than a manual 981.
Yep. And if you think F1 has anything to do with driving a road car on roads, you've not thought about it very carefully.

bcr5784

7,102 posts

144 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
Mario149 said:
Interesting that the base model got such a slating compared to the S. Normally they're on an equal footing. Makes me think they've been a bit kind to the S as there's only really VTG to separate them, and I'm not sure that can be worth a whole star.
There are a wide disparity of reviews of the base car from "avoid like the plague" to saying it's a much better option than the S and a significant step forwards from the 981.

I have to think that there must be something wrong with Evos car for it to be soooooo bad.

Sparkyhd

1,792 posts

94 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
ORD said:
Yep. And if you think F1 has anything to do with driving a road car on roads, you've not thought about it very carefully.
I was more questioning 'sports' and 'foolish' when using the PDK.

Forget the label.

That EVO report doesn't mirror my impression of the car. I'd say forget the reviews and judge for yourself.

RSVP911

8,192 posts

132 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
ORD said:
It is surprising. It must have been a different reviewer. This guy seems to have really hated the engine, as he even slates PDK (which I have never seen anyone do before). He seems to have got in a right huff with the car. I expect that I would feel the same. Interesting to see a journo expressing his actual views rather than toeing some editorial line.
It was really interesting to read - I've not read a review that's as negativity honest as that for as long as I can remember - after reading it I'm amazed it got any stars ! What I find amazing though is that EVO can review two versions of the same car so differently , you'd think their would be some form of editorial control from a consistency POV - very odd smile

HighwayStar

4,216 posts

143 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
FrankCayman said:
Mario149 said:
Interesting that the base model got such a slating compared to the S. Normally they're on an equal footing. Makes me think they've been a bit kind to the S as there's only really VTG to separate them, and I'm not sure that can be worth a whole star.
From what I've read, the 2.0 seems to be the better out of the two - but I guess this chap just hates the engine. I should be getting a drive in one soon - that's how I form my opinion.

But it would have to be a complete dog for me to consider an Audi TT !!!
I came to the same conclusion from the reviews, the 2.0 appears to be the sweeter engine.
To take a TT over a 718 though... I had a MK2 TTS and driven the MK3 TTS, it's better than it was but beyond the tech and bar the flexibility of the coupé it's still pretty bland proposition. TT owners tend to believe there's nothing better out there, with particular dislike for the Cayster but I can't see many Cayster customers headed over to the TT. Treacherous engine or not the Porsche will still be chosen by the more enthusiastic and badge leasers (I love that term).

HighwayStar

4,216 posts

143 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
Sparkyhd said:
ORD said:
All that said, anyone driving a 'sports car' in automatic mode is fooling themselves.
Or maybe anyone driving a 'sports car' on regular roads is fooling themselves, what with average speed cameras, sleep bumps and congestion.

Forgive my ignorance but aren't F1 cars closer to a PDK with paddles than to a conventional manual stick with a floor pedal? If true then a F1 is less of a 'sports car' than a manual 981.
I'd never drag F1 into this type of conversation. Seamless shift in F1 is all about a means to an end. Anything that contributes to saving fractions of a second on a lap. None of that really counts on the road, in pursuit of fun.

n17ves

591 posts

177 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
I’ve not read any of the 718 reviews yet, but I did drive both the S and non S at the PEC last week…

To briefly summarise the chassis is sublime and beautifully balanced, steering more direct and the brakes have a bit more feel / progression than the 981 (excl. GT4). There is also some nice styling touches inside and out, plus the fully integrated iphone capability is a nice touch.

Now the engine, its dull!!! Although the power plant will rev, its delivery is typical turbo with low end grunt and less linearity normally found in a good NA engine. The extra torque did provide some entrainment on the handling circuit with plenty of rear end fun and driving the car in isolation would make you realise the engine is actually pretty good. But, driven back to back with a 6 cylinder NA and you can tell the soul has been sucked out of the new 781. It just doesn’t like to rev the same, nor does it have the same feel when rev matching with heel and toe through the gears… and the sound it makes it’s just not remotely comparable, despite the guys at Porsche telling you it will be better with a sports exhaust! Interestingly I found the base Boxster to be the pick of the bunch, certainly didn’t feel any slower than the S but felt a bit more livelier and nimble IMO.

Driven back to back with my GT4 I walked away impressed with the 718, but I definitely won’t be considering a turbo charged Porsche anytime soon… let’s hope the GT Porsches stay normally aspirated.

mogli882

166 posts

160 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
n17ves said:
I’ve not read any of the 718 reviews yet, but I did drive both the S and non S at the PEC last week…

To briefly summarise the chassis is sublime and beautifully balanced, steering more direct and the brakes have a bit more feel / progression than the 981 (excl. GT4). There is also some nice styling touches inside and out, plus the fully integrated iphone capability is a nice touch.

Now the engine, its dull!!! Although the power plant will rev, its delivery is typical turbo with low end grunt and less linearity normally found in a good NA engine. The extra torque did provide some entrainment on the handling circuit with plenty of rear end fun and driving the car in isolation would make you realise the engine is actually pretty good. But, driven back to back with a 6 cylinder NA and you can tell the soul has been sucked out of the new 781. It just doesn’t like to rev the same, nor does it have the same feel when rev matching with heel and toe through the gears… and the sound it makes it’s just not remotely comparable, despite the guys at Porsche telling you it will be better with a sports exhaust! Interestingly I found the base Boxster to be the pick of the bunch, certainly didn’t feel any slower than the S but felt a bit more livelier and nimble IMO.

Driven back to back with my GT4 I walked away impressed with the 718, but I definitely won’t be considering a turbo charged Porsche anytime soon… let’s hope the GT Porsches stay normally aspirated.
Agree - I haven't driven the base model, but did drive the 718 Boxster S over the weekend and though its quicker, the power delivery (in my view) is effortless, lots of low down torque but I felt it lacked the engagement over the outgoing model. For me part of the fun is pushing the engine, enjoying the tone and finding that torque.

Its too easy in the 718, it comes down to personal preference but its not for me (I think!). The 981 is a beautiful car and the 718 builds on that, the tweaks both outside and in are good, I especially liked the updated GT steering wheel.






Mario149

7,750 posts

177 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
CarreraLightweightRacing said:
ORD said:
Mario149 said:
Interesting that the base model got such a slating compared to the S. Normally they're on an equal footing. Makes me think they've been a bit kind to the S as there's only really VTG to separate them, and I'm not sure that can be worth a whole star.
It is surprising. It must have been a different reviewer. This guy seems to have really hated the engine, as he even slates PDK (which I have never seen anyone do before). He seems to have got in a right huff with the car. I expect that I would feel the same. Interesting to see a journo expressing his actual views rather than toeing some editorial line.
I don't think he is slating the PDK as such; is more a case of, in this application is doesn't particularly work very well.
It's probably uber sensitive to kick down to hide the low rev lag. In the 991.2 S I drove it'd also kick down if you looked at it too hard, again to hide th elag presumably, but it felt responsive and to be fair I was flogging the car hard so didn't mind. I suspect on the Boxster it's even more sensitive and I can see how that would get on your tits.

bcr5784

7,102 posts

144 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
Mario149 said:
It's probably uber sensitive to kick down to hide the low rev lag. In the 991.2 S I drove it'd also kick down if you looked at it too hard, again to hide th elag presumably, but it felt responsive and to be fair I was flogging the car hard so didn't mind. I suspect on the Boxster it's even more sensitive and I can see how that would get on your tits.
I have to say I'm surprized no-one has mention lag on the base car. In PDK guise it's pulling gears about 7% higher than the old 2.7 and (obviously) off boost is developing less torque so one might expect that to be noticeable off the line at least. At other times it's quite possible for the box to disguise any lag, and in any case gearchanges are so fast that most of the time the turbo won't lose significant momentum, unlike on a manual car.

mogli882

166 posts

160 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
bcr5784 said:
I have to say I'm surprized no-one has mention lag on the base car. In PDK guise it's pulling gears about 7% higher than the old 2.7 and (obviously) off boost is developing less torque so one might expect that to be noticeable off the line at least. At other times it's quite possible for the box to disguise any lag, and in any case gearchanges are so fast that most of the time the turbo won't lose significant momentum, unlike on a manual car.
Re the lag I saw it mentioned in one review - where they said the base model was best avoided due to said lag.

I know the S has the VTG tech from the 911 but I didnt think it would make that much difference, I haven't driven the base model so dont know, but I thought it could be a better option as their isn't much between that and the S in terms of the spec and power figures.

bcr5784

7,102 posts

144 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
mogli882 said:
I know the S has the VTG tech from the 911 but I didnt think it would make that much difference, I haven't driven the base model so dont know, but I thought it could be a better option as their isn't much between that and the S in terms of the spec and power figures.
I'd expect the S to feel less laggy than the base car, partly because of the VGT and because it's running less boost - 1.1 vs 1.3 bar. As before the base and S models are pulling the same gears.

I haven't driven either yet, but since even the base car has more torque than the 981S all the way to about 5500 rpm it's going to feel as quick if not quicker than the old S (once on boost). I expect the 718S to feel much much faster than the 981 S or GTS since it has more torque everywhere.

bcr5784

7,102 posts

144 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
Accepting that turbos still have lag issues (though much reduced over the years), I have to say the throttle response issues of modern day fly-by wire engines ( increased over the years) seem to being ignored.

Anyone who has driven sporting engines of the past will know that, in terms of throttle response, a 981 really isn't very good. For example, it doesn't compare with the original (40+ years old Cooper S for example, in that respect).

Emissions are the reason - in order to get good throttle response extra petrol used to be squirted into the inlet manifold (either by "accelerator" jets or SU type carbs) as the throttle was opened. That wouldn't be acceptable today - and fly by wire systems tailor the throttle response to meet emission/economy dictats.

So I think that some of the turbo/na arguments are overstated and rather simplistic.

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
That boils down to 'Because throttle response is not instant even in an NA, there's no problem with the slushy dead pedal in turbo cars'. What if I think even good NA engines are annoying slow? Won't the slush and lag in a turbo car be annoying?

It is the same structure of argument as 'No champagne is perfect, so why not drink Cava?'.

Sparkyhd

1,792 posts

94 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
ORD said:
It is the same structure of argument as 'No champagne is perfect, so why not drink Cava?'.
You're quite big on champagne analogies. How many bottles do you get through per week? wink

bcr5784

7,102 posts

144 months

Tuesday 31st May 2016
quotequote all
Sparkyhd said:
You're quite big on champagne analogies. How many bottles do you get through per week? wink
I was tempted to suggest that some might (quite reasonably) prefer a full bodied red to a fizzy (overpriced?) white - but it's a waste of time. I don't think that there is hope of a reasonable debate between those who see the world in black and white and those who acknowledge the existence of grey.

Generally, the only areas of the rev range where turbo response is an issue are the SAME areas where lack of torque/response is an issue with NA engines. Take your pick!