718 review - test drove today
Discussion
ORD said:
Top gear has a different audience. 'It's fast! Turbos! Boom!'
ok, but my point is that it's the same reviewer. and the 718 review is still for Top Gear.and just as a point of discussion, i had a quick look at this review of his of the new Alfa and in it Mr Harris acknowledges that the turbocharged Alfa engine does a great job of delivering power at high revs, but then says it doesn't have enough low end grunt.
so what's the conclusion here? in the 718 the motor delivers the power too early and isn't exciting enough at high revs. the Alfa delivers exactly that but he then complains there's no low end grunt. and the M2 delivery is fantastic because you get max power at 1500RPM.
Edited by JasonSteel on Wednesday 29th June 08:27
JasonSteel said:
if the engine characteristics of the M2 are so great (according to Mr Harris), why is the almost identical delivery of the 718 so bad?
Because the delivery isn't identical. Just because they have a flat torque curve over a similar range doesn't necessarily mean they will respond the same. Smaller engines rely on boost more than larger ones and off boost the performance can be very different. The M2 engine is 3 litres and has a twin scroll turbo - so it has more in common with a 991.2 3 litre (twin turbo) engine than a 2litre 718. I haven't driven an M2 but the 991.2 (and ignoring noise) is nothing like a base 718. Whereas lag on the base 718 is noticeable below 3500 revs and really bad at 2000, you have to go looking for it on a 991.2. I notice CH says lag is low "for a heavily boosted car" that doesn't mean it isn't noticeable. All that said CH's real beef is with the noise, not the lag. We all have our breaking point. For CH, it seems to be terrible sound and lag. He can cope with modern turbo diesel power delivery in a sports car/ GT. I wonder how much of that is because he drives very fast in reviews. That kind of easy power is great for blasting around at 100mph, but it is deathly dull in real driving.
I don't know why anyone compares turbo petrols to turbo diesels. They behave quite differently because their combustion and intake process is completely different. Turbo diesels start giving power (generally) around 1500 revs and are all done by 4500 (or less), they suffer far less from lag in general because they have no throttle. On the other hand petrol ones like these rev much higher, have lighter flywheels and rev up faster, but have much bigger lag issues because its difficult to keep the turbo spinning with a closed throttle. Turbo petrols have no more in common with turbo diesels than NA petrols have with NA diesels
Sustenpass said:
Because their character and power delivery is more similar than comparing a turbo petrol to an NA petrol, for example. Particularly in the context of 981 vs 718.
A BMW 330d is no more like a 718 ( or 991.2) than a 981 is like a 718. The diesel sneer is simply a meaningless form of abuse which has practically no relationship with actuality. I have owned and driven loads of petrol and diesel turbos - and no confusion which was which has ever arisen.bcr5784 said:
A BMW 330d is no more like a 718 ( or 991.2) than a 981 is like a 718. The diesel sneer is simply a meaningless form of abuse which has practically no relationship with actuality. I have owned and driven loads of petrol and diesel turbos - and no confusion which was which has ever arisen.
I didn't sneer at diesels or abuse anyone.You said you didn't understand why people make the comparison. I've also owned turbo petrol and turbo diesel cars, and found them to be more similar to each other than they are to NA cars.
There isn't even a value judgment in that, so I'm not sure why you're annoyed at my comment.
Edited by Sustenpass on Wednesday 29th June 14:53
bcr5784 said:
Because the delivery isn't identical.
fair enough, i should have said similar instead of identical.bcr5784 said:
Whereas lag on the base 718 is noticeable below 3500 revs and really bad at 2000, you have to go looking for it on a 991.2. I notice CH says lag is low "for a heavily boosted car" that doesn't mean it isn't noticeable. All that said CH's real beef is with the noise, not the lag.
not saying either of you is wrong here, but CH does say in his review that the "there’s no real sense of delay once you’re above 2,000rpm" and that "It’s a developer of force that elicits respect for the ferocity with which it clips the vehicle down the road, but not the manner in which it does so".from that i took it to mean that the throttle response was 'diesel like' (for want of a better description).
is he really referring to the sound here?
JasonSteel said:
not saying either of you is wrong here, but CH does say in his review that the "there’s no real sense of delay once you’re above 2,000rpm" and that "It’s a developer of force that elicits respect for the ferocity with which it clips the vehicle down the road, but not the manner in which it does so".
I can only say nothing could be further from the truth regarding the base 718 I drove. At 70mph in 7th - pretty much 2000 revs (in manual mode) the car took an age to pick up when the throttle was floored - far far slower than my 981 S or even a 981 base. Once the turbo was spooled up (at the same revs) it was completely different. I experimented in manual flooring the the throttle from cruise at various revs from 2000 upwards in 4th and there was a very noticeable delay until 3500 was reached. The only clue as to why CH might have found it different was that the OPC I use DON'T use 98 octane fuel (they say because everyone fills the cars up with 95) and CH says the cars like 98 (but so do the NA cars). I doubt it makes a dramatic difference - but it may make some.
You might find this article in Car and Driver interesting which measures the lag on the new Mustang http://blog.caranddriver.com/turbo-vs-non-turbo-pu... Though my tests weren't so scientific, I could have written a similar article about the lag on the base 718.
Sustenpass said:
I didn't sneer at diesels or abuse anyone.
You said you didn't understand why people make the comparison. I've also owned turbo petrol and turbo diesel cars, and found them to be more similar to each other than they are to NA cars.
There isn't even a value judgment in that, so I'm not sure why you're annoyed at my comment.
Sorry if you weren't sneering. I'm afraid others on this forum use the terms "Audi" and "turbo diesel" as generic terms of abuse rather than genuinely descriptive terms. Personally don't find typical turbo diesels as close to the turbo petrols under discussion as to large capacity NA but low specific output engines of the past which had far more similar torque curves, similar reluctance to rev etc. You said you didn't understand why people make the comparison. I've also owned turbo petrol and turbo diesel cars, and found them to be more similar to each other than they are to NA cars.
There isn't even a value judgment in that, so I'm not sure why you're annoyed at my comment.
Edited by Sustenpass on Wednesday 29th June 14:53
There are, what used to be referred to as "light pressure" turbo petrol engines, which do have similar characteristics to some turbo diesels - but cars such as the 718 with boost pressures of 1.1 - 1.3 bar do not fall into that category by a long way.
bcr5784 said:
You might find this article in Car and Driver interesting which measures the lag on the new Mustang http://blog.caranddriver.com/turbo-vs-non-turbo-pu... Though my tests weren't so scientific, I could have written a similar article about the lag on the base 718.
Interesting results. Mirrors what I felt years ago with the 944 turbo, everyone used to complain about the car having really bad 80's style lag but I honestly felt it wasn't that bad at all if it was kept cooking over 3.5k rpm. I actually quite like old fashioned turbo charging as it gives cars a Jeckyl and Hyde character whereas the latest engines are indeed a bit to much like diesels for my liking.bcr5784 said:
I can only say nothing could be further from the truth regarding the base 718 I drove. At 70mph in 7th - pretty much 2000 revs (in manual mode) the car took an age to pick up when the throttle was floored - far far slower than my 981 S or even a 981 base.
have to say my only real frame of reference is the mk4 Golf 1.8T i drive now, (yes, the mk4 - the slowest one), and of course the 718 is way superior.i tested the 718S and the 981S and although i didn't test myself in 7th like in your example, the OPC guy did demonstrate from low revs in 5th in both cars and i have to say to me the 718 seemed to get going faster. i don't know if this was down to the salesman adapting the pressure of his foot though... or maybe it was down to the different turbo tech.
in any case i don't think these are particularly real world tests, in the sense that if you're driving 'enthusiastically', you're unlikely to be at 1500RPM and above 2k RPM the 'S' seemed pretty responsive to me.
the closing comment in that article summed it up - Downshift, then accelerate.
JasonSteel said:
the closing comment in that article summed it up - Downshift, then accelerate.
The potential - and sometimes actual - "advantage" of a turbo is that it has more midrange grunt. However if, in practise, lag means you can't rely on that grunt then that advantage is lost. You then have an engine which you have to keep on the boil to avoid lag - but which is reluctant to rev quite as high as a NA alternative. For me that is where the base 718 fails to satisfy - whereas the 991.2 impresses. That's why I don't understand why people try to put all turbos in the same box when there is potentially (and actually) just as wide a diversity of characteristics with turbos as there is with NA engines.At one extreme you have petrol turbo cars like the Seat Ibiza Cupra 1.8litre 192bhp at 4300 rpm (not a misprint) and peak torque 1450rpm at the other the 488 with peak power at 8000 rpm, or the McLaren 675 with peak torque coming at 5500 rpm. Hardly fair to imply that they are all the same - or even that similar.
Edited by bcr5784 on Thursday 30th June 08:16
bcr5784 said:
At one extreme you have turbo cars like the Seat Ibiza Cupra 1.8litre 192bhp at 4300 rpm (not a misprint) and peak torque 1450rpm at the other the 488 with peak power at 8000 rpm, or the McLaren 675 with peak torque coming at 5500 rpm. Hardly fair to imply that they are all the same - or even that similar.
Doesn't have to be a high end car though, have a look here for a measured power curve from the latest Civic Type R:https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0748/4239/files/...
from this outfit:
http://tdi-north.myshopify.com/collections/civic-t...
bcr5784 said:
The potential - and sometimes actual - "advantage" of a turbo is that it has more midrange grunt. However if, in practise, lag means you can't rely on that grunt then that advantage is lost.
I agree. However, in many ways the old sixes have a similar but different problem, namely unless you've got the revs at the upper end of the range the lack of torque translates into a lack of progress. I'm sure the turbo car would get on boost at least as quickly as I can change gear. Which is the "nicer" engine? The six. Which is the "quicker" car? The turbo.In buying a manual 981 I was happy to accept that my car is slower than a PDK. Similarly I'm happy to accept that my 6 is slower than the turbo 4 and am not planning a change.
Which is the "better" car? I think it's impossible to say.
- If you're happy going slowly buy a manual 6
- If you want to go fast buy a turbo-4 PDK.
- If you want to win the traffic lights grand prix buy an Audi with 4WD.
JasonSteel said:
have to say my only real frame of reference is the mk4 Golf 1.8T i drive now, (yes, the mk4 - the slowest one), and of course the 718 is way superior.
i tested the 718S and the 981S and although i didn't test myself in 7th like in your example, the OPC guy did demonstrate from low revs in 5th in both cars and i have to say to me the 718 seemed to get going faster. i don't know if this was down to the salesman adapting the pressure of his foot though... or maybe it was down to the different turbo tech.
My comments (as I always try to make clear) relate to the base 718 NOT the S. There are good reasons (larger capacity/less boost/variable geometry turbo) why the S ought to suffer less from lag. I haven't driven the 718S and until I have won't form a view. My interest in the base car stems from the fact that it is just as fast as the 981S and might have made a sensible move at modest cost. Unfortunately lag and (to a lesser extent noise) rule it out for me. i tested the 718S and the 981S and although i didn't test myself in 7th like in your example, the OPC guy did demonstrate from low revs in 5th in both cars and i have to say to me the 718 seemed to get going faster. i don't know if this was down to the salesman adapting the pressure of his foot though... or maybe it was down to the different turbo tech.
bcr5784 said:
My comments (as I always try to make clear) relate to the base 718 NOT the S. There are good reasons (larger capacity/less boost/variable geometry turbo) why the S ought to suffer less from lag. I haven't driven the 718S and until I have won't form a view.
Wise words. However, I drove the S and can assure you there is some lag - or throttle delay as the purists prefer we call it.The guy who's attracted to a base car with PDK sounds sensible to me. I wouldn't spend money on the Sport Chrono though. All personal taste, of course.
Ozzie Osmond said:
bcr5784 said:
The potential - and sometimes actual - "advantage" of a turbo is that it has more midrange grunt. However if, in practise, lag means you can't rely on that grunt then that advantage is lost.
I agree. However, in many ways the old sixes have a similar but different problem, namely unless you've got the revs at the upper end of the range the lack of torque translates into a lack of progress. I'm sure the turbo car would get on boost at least as quickly as I can change gear. Which is the "nicer" engine? The six. Which is the "quicker" car? The turbo.In buying a manual 981 I was happy to accept that my car is slower than a PDK. Similarly I'm happy to accept that my 6 is slower than the turbo 4 and am not planning a change.
Which is the "better" car? I think it's impossible to say.
- If you're happy going slowly buy a manual 6
- If you want to go fast buy a turbo-4 PDK.
- If you want to win the traffic lights grand prix buy an Audi with 4WD.
Back in my 981 PDK Cayman S it didn't suddenly feel pedestrian in comparison, wanting or short of speed. I find it amusing that people here are finding a relatively small/light 3.4 F6 Porsche slow.
On the motorway I used to drive my TTS around the speed where plod take no notice
In my Cayman, I tend to stick to 75.. best mate has just got a Cayman R and he finds he does the same.
It's a car that just feels special cruising, just trundling... And it's plenty fast enough in traffic, quick manoeuvers and when the road gets 'interesting.'
The turbo car maybe faster but I know I would get that same special feeling from it. Just my own personal take, if one of my was after a 718 I'd be happy for them but for me quicker doesn't simply mean better.
Edited by HighwayStar on Thursday 30th June 15:14
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff