Considering New Boxster as only car - 4Cyl Refresh Options?
Discussion
DavidJG said:
The bit I don't get is the move from 6 to 4. Sure, reduce the capacity and add a turbo. Can't quite see how a 2.0 4 cylinder turbo produces less emissions than a 2.0 6 cylinder turbo though. AMG seem to have managed by downsizing the V8 and adding turbos - 'M' cars are 6 cylinder turbos now, so why do Porsche see a need to go to just 4? Seems that the brand will lose a key part of its character, and potentially will also lose a good number of enthusiast buyers.
4 cylinders produce less friction than 6, hence the trend to ever fewer cylinders with Ford majoring on 3 cylinders and Fiat even going down to 2. The result IS usually better economy. BUT in real life the gains are usually less than the official figures would suggest and their real-world economy rarely gets close to the official figures. That's for petrol engines - diesels much more often get close to their official figures in real life. Edited by bcr5784 on Thursday 18th June 08:58
My fairly limited experience is that, driven at the same speeds and in similar cars, a turbo 4 is about 10%-15% more fuel efficient than an NA 6. I haven't really noticed turbo 6 pots being any more fuel efficient than NA 6s. Perhaps very slightly.
Perhaps the big difference is that a turbo 4 is quite a lot more efficient when driven like a granny than an NA 6 driven the same way. As long as you are off boost, the 4 will burn fuel as its capacity would suggest.
I find the 3.4 in the Cayman/Boxster to be quite remarkably fuel efficient (except in town, where it is very thirsty indeed). The 2.7 burns pretty much an identical amount of fuel from what I can tell, so perhaps the point about a 6 being a 6 is right.
Perhaps the big difference is that a turbo 4 is quite a lot more efficient when driven like a granny than an NA 6 driven the same way. As long as you are off boost, the 4 will burn fuel as its capacity would suggest.
I find the 3.4 in the Cayman/Boxster to be quite remarkably fuel efficient (except in town, where it is very thirsty indeed). The 2.7 burns pretty much an identical amount of fuel from what I can tell, so perhaps the point about a 6 being a 6 is right.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
And weight saving. Even bigger, shinier, new, improved performance figures for marketing to latch onto.anonymous said:
[redacted]
When BMW used to make 2.0 litre 4 and 6 cylinder versions of the same car (early 5 series, for example) the 4 cylinder versions were always slightly quicker, both due to the efficiency savings you quote and the weight advantage. Strangely, they didn't lose much in character back then either - when good 4 cylinder engines weren't turbocharged and could have an awesome bark. (Old Alfa fours also come to mind here). Other than the less-than-ideal power delivery of a typical turbo four, the main issue is the massive silencing effect, on the intake and exhaust systems, of putting a bl**dy-great big turbocharger in the middle of both. No amount of tweaking will put back sound that's no longer there (listen to current F1 cars as an example) hence the oddball, contrived sound 'solutions' the manufacturers have started to use.
Edited by Ian_UK1 on Thursday 18th June 12:31
I was thinking of earlier cars than that - the 520/4 and 520/6 E12 5 series. The M10 4 was a characterful little engine whilst the M20 wasn't that good in carburetted form! (From memory, a single 4-barrel Solex with vacuum operated secondaries that used to stick - either shut or open - and make the car run like crap).
Later BMW 4s lost a lot of their character, whilst the later small-block 6s always seemed to sound good.
Later BMW 4s lost a lot of their character, whilst the later small-block 6s always seemed to sound good.
rlw said:
mollytherocker said:
Its hard to imagine the 4 cylinder motor being anything more than a crushing disappointment.
But it depends what you want. I am sure that the average new Boxster buyer will be fine with it.
Haven't read the whole thraed but didn't a 4 cylinder motor just win Le Mans?But it depends what you want. I am sure that the average new Boxster buyer will be fine with it.
thegreenhell said:
rlw said:
mollytherocker said:
Its hard to imagine the 4 cylinder motor being anything more than a crushing disappointment.
But it depends what you want. I am sure that the average new Boxster buyer will be fine with it.
Haven't read the whole thraed but didn't a 4 cylinder motor just win Le Mans?But it depends what you want. I am sure that the average new Boxster buyer will be fine with it.
ORD said:
Yep. It is ALL emissions. It is a massive risk for the brand, in my view. I would not buy a 4 cyl Porsche, and I am a big Porker fan.
Accepting that it is mostly emissions driven (but also significantly to distance the 981 from 991) I think that risk to the brand is being overstated. Because1) Although a few will defect, some - probably the most loyal Porsche supporters - will go 911 - so a win for Porsche, not a loss.
2) Many will be unconcerned - for many (I regret to say) the brand image - bolstered by LeMans wins (b
ks, I know) will be of far more importance than the whether its NA or 6 cylinders3) Some will be seduced by the fact that the turbos will (I have no doubt) have more power and torque than their predecessors.
4) And some will actually prefer the torque of a turbo.
The bottom line is that - like it or not - Porsches have become a designer label/lifestyle choice as much as a serious sports car. All rather sad if you are interested in driving rather than image....
Edited by bcr5784 on Thursday 18th June 20:32
I think they will have to make the pot 4 turbos monster quick in comparison to the 981 we see today (and no doubt they will). It's only this way they create enough daylight between 981.1 and 981.2 as the body is just a mid life refresh of bumpers and lights etc...
If they don't (which I can't imagine for a second) there will be enough of a customer base that will still prefer to either retain their current 981 if on a PCP deal or drive up residuals for owners as the cars that do make the 2nd hand market will be highly desiresable to those that value pedigree over reading the performance specs in the manual. IMO you can see the potential for this already as there is daylight forming between second hand 981s and gts already. A muted Turbo version would only send this into overdrive. This would be the last thing Porsche want as they want to sell more units to repeat customers every three years etc...
Most people who buy a new boxster or Cayman do because a fully loaded 911 is out of price range. And with the performance gap in entry level 911's is hardly noticed on real world street driving people are more than happy to pick the box or cay and that's before you get onto looks or mid engine layout etc...
If they don't (which I can't imagine for a second) there will be enough of a customer base that will still prefer to either retain their current 981 if on a PCP deal or drive up residuals for owners as the cars that do make the 2nd hand market will be highly desiresable to those that value pedigree over reading the performance specs in the manual. IMO you can see the potential for this already as there is daylight forming between second hand 981s and gts already. A muted Turbo version would only send this into overdrive. This would be the last thing Porsche want as they want to sell more units to repeat customers every three years etc...
Most people who buy a new boxster or Cayman do because a fully loaded 911 is out of price range. And with the performance gap in entry level 911's is hardly noticed on real world street driving people are more than happy to pick the box or cay and that's before you get onto looks or mid engine layout etc...
Trotmant said:
Most people who buy a new boxster or Cayman do because a fully loaded 911 is out of price range. And with the performance gap in entry level 911's is hardly noticed on real world street driving people are more than happy to pick the box or cay and that's before you get onto looks or mid engine layout etc...
I love 911s and could have gone in that direction, rather than ordering a BGTS, but thought it would be massive overkill. A fully loaded BGTS is £70K and now looks and goes the part IMO (986 and 7 gens always looked like they were styled as an afterthought to my eye) and a base Carrera Cab starts at £82K, which makes the former the bargain of the century in relative terms. Since the 981 came out, 911s have been very difficult to justify as new purchase IMO, the cynical part of me thinks that the marketing heads at Porsche are going to be over the moon if the entire 981.2 range is 4 cylinder, it'll finally put some clear air between them and the 911 again. The 911 will become a halo model again, they'll lose 981.2 sales from a small percentage of people like us who'll just get a used 991 instead, a few prospective 981.2 buyers will probably go 992 when they otherwise wouldn't, and a whole new chunk of regular VAG buyers will surge in from underneath as the turbo 4 will finally provide the straight line performance they'll accept for Porsche pricing.
IMO
Been following this thread for a few days. Whilst I understand the emotional argument of 6 v 4 and NA vTurbo, don't forget that many years ago Porsche produced a very successful range of 4cyl, NA and Turbo cars :- 924/944/968. So a 4 cyl is not the heresy many seem to think. I owned several of those cars and have owned a couple of 911's (930 Speedster and 996 Turbo) and am currently on my third Boxster (Spyder). I have enjoyed them all and I am sure that whatever Porsche come up with will be entertaining. Bearing in mind that you cannot even see the engine on the current (sports car) range, then apart from the exhaust note (which can be subjective) the majority of people wont know (or care) about configuration provided that they get the performance they are looking for.
Though a loyal customer for almost 30 years, I think the brand lost its exclusivity/specialist appeal with the launch of 996/Boxster not because of the switch from air to water cooling (which like the move to turbo 4 was driven by legislation)as these were aimed at a very different (non entusiast ) market. The large numbers of Porsches now on the road indicate the success of this policy. I think this makes the production of "halo" cars like Spyder/GT4/GT3 et al all the more important for maintaining the Porsche brand as the maker of the finest sports cars.
Though a loyal customer for almost 30 years, I think the brand lost its exclusivity/specialist appeal with the launch of 996/Boxster not because of the switch from air to water cooling (which like the move to turbo 4 was driven by legislation)as these were aimed at a very different (non entusiast ) market. The large numbers of Porsches now on the road indicate the success of this policy. I think this makes the production of "halo" cars like Spyder/GT4/GT3 et al all the more important for maintaining the Porsche brand as the maker of the finest sports cars.
Exhaust note is neither here nor there (and can be easily made to sound pretty much however you want). It's the induction noise and the smoothness and free-revving nature of a 6 cyl that you won't get. Being used a flat 6, all 4 cyl engines feel ragged, stifled and cheap. The Porsche flat 4 will be a good turbo 4 (probably an excellent one), but that's like saying 'Hot for a minger'.
ORD said:
Exhaust note is neither here nor there (and can be easily made to sound pretty much however you want). It's the induction noise and the smoothness and free-revving nature of a 6 cyl that you won't get. Being used a flat 6, all 4 cyl engines feel ragged, stifled and cheap. The Porsche flat 4 will be a good turbo 4 (probably an excellent one), but that's like saying 'Hot for a minger'.
I'd disagree about exhaust note being irrelevant. As PH very recently demonstrated to us here: http://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-germancars/bmw-... (from about 20 seconds in) a properly-sorted 4 cylinder engine, with no exhaust fakery - just the sound that comes as a consequence of engineering the motor for maximum performance - can sound every bit as good as a 6. Different, yes, but still epic! This engine certainly isn't ragged, stifled, cheap or unwilling to rev!!Unfortunately, the issue is how manufacturers now employ 4 cylinder engines: it's about as far removed from that glorious M3 Evo engine as you can get. All done in the name of ill-conceived 'green' credentials (and fiddling the Euro drive cycle for meaningless on-paper emissions / fuel consumption figures) turbocharging now kills REAL induction and exhaust noise, whilst a seeming obsession with low-down turbo 'shove' leaves engines optimised for maximum power/torque at low-revs rather than top-end grunt. The results is engines that are boring-to-drive and dull-sounding if you want to extend them.
What I find frustrating is that with modern engineering and control systems, there's no reason why an engine can't be optimised both for low-rpm torque/economy AND top end fireworks. Variable valve lift and timing together with variable inlet geometry and variable vane turbochargers have made this possible for years, but the manufacturers don't seem to care anymore. Unfortunately, progress is sometimes anything but.
Wonder if Porsche will try to do things differently.....?
Edited by Ian_UK1 on Friday 19th June 12:23
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I generally agree with your points. However, it is not correct to say that a four cannot be made to sound good, although I note you maybe specifying turbos.There have been some great 4's made, BDA Cosworth, Alfa 2.0 etc etc. It can be done, even today, I am sure. In fact, the 16v 944/968 unit sounds quite nice and mechanical above about 4k. OK, its pretty dull below that.
But yes, its unlikely to ever be as musical as a 6, all other things being equal.
Ian_UK1 said:
I'd disagree about exhaust note being irrelevant. As PH very recently demonstrated to us here: http://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-germancars/bmw-... (from about 20 seconds in) a properly-sorted 4 cylinder engine, with no exhaust fakery - just the sound that comes as a consequence of engineering the motor for maximum performance - can sound every bit as good as a 6. Different, yes, but still epic! This engine certainly isn't ragged, stifled, cheap or unwilling to rev!!
Unfortunately, the issue is how manufacturers now employ 4 cylinder engines: it's about as far removed from that glorious M3 Evo engine as you can get. All done in the name of ill-conceived 'green' credentials (and fiddling the Euro drive cycle for meaningless on-paper emissions / fuel consumption figures) turbocharging now kills REAL induction and exhaust noise, whilst a seeming obsession with low-down turbo 'shove' leaves engines optimised for maximum power/torque at low-revs rather than top-end grunt. The results is engines that are boring-to-drive and dull-sounding if you want to extend them.
What I find frustrating is that with modern engineering and control systems, there's no reason why an engine can't be optimised both for low-rpm torque/economy AND top end fireworks. Variable valve lift and timing together with variable inlet geometry and variable vane turbochargers have made this possible for years, but the manufacturers don't seem to care anymore. Unfortunately, progress is sometimes anything but.
Wonder if Porsche will try to do things differently.....?
Short answer is 'No'. It will be turbocharged and aimed at fuel efficiency (at least on the official cycle if not in real life). It will also be all about mid-range shove.Unfortunately, the issue is how manufacturers now employ 4 cylinder engines: it's about as far removed from that glorious M3 Evo engine as you can get. All done in the name of ill-conceived 'green' credentials (and fiddling the Euro drive cycle for meaningless on-paper emissions / fuel consumption figures) turbocharging now kills REAL induction and exhaust noise, whilst a seeming obsession with low-down turbo 'shove' leaves engines optimised for maximum power/torque at low-revs rather than top-end grunt. The results is engines that are boring-to-drive and dull-sounding if you want to extend them.
What I find frustrating is that with modern engineering and control systems, there's no reason why an engine can't be optimised both for low-rpm torque/economy AND top end fireworks. Variable valve lift and timing together with variable inlet geometry and variable vane turbochargers have made this possible for years, but the manufacturers don't seem to care anymore. Unfortunately, progress is sometimes anything but.
Wonder if Porsche will try to do things differently.....?
Edited by Ian_UK1 on Friday 19th June 12:23
I overheard a would-be Porsche buyer in an OPC the other day complaining that he had to change down in the 911 he had just driven about. That's the way 'sports cars' are going - power delivery like a turbo diesel to suit a generation of people who have driven dervs for many years and can't be doing with cars that make their power at high revs. Contrast the generation of people that grew up thrashing little NA petrol engines and expect to drive a fast car the same way. (Luckily I have always hated diesels so am old school despite being younger than most buyers).
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff