Possible 987 Cayman S purchase - advice and help please
Discussion
ORD said:
I haven't driven the new M3/M4, but people who despise turbos a lot less than I do have said it is uninspiring (see, e.g. Sutcliffe at Autocar, who is a bit of a knob but certainly not a turbo-hater). Even Cmoose, who at least tries to like new cars, thinks its a turd 
Not sure Moose does try to like new cars - he hates turbos, active suspension, autos (or autoblippers?) so he's not likely to like it. All the road tests I've seen rate it 4 1/2 or 5 stars, so clearly most think it has some merit. I don't think many are keen on the Active Sound (me neither) but then there are ways to turn it off, so I wouldn't regard it as a deal breaker. If the M235i is anything to go by with the sound turned off, the sound would be fine for me, but, perhaps (or probably) not everyone. Would YOU really right off a 488 or MP12C JUST because they are turbos? Roadtesters certainly haven't.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I remember reading that at the time. I had forgotten that it was that bad, though: it got trounced by the Golf R and barely beat the Audi. Shocking.Bcr, yes, I would rule out any turbo supercar (or, indeed, sports car). While there are still awesome NA engines out there, I dont see why I would settle for a turbo just for the extra torque. More than 300 or so lb/ft is a complete irrelevance in cars that are already so fast as to be practically unusable on the road. Why would I want a turbo lump when I could have the F6 in the GT3 or the V8 in the 458 S (even the on-paper statistics for which make me tingle)?
ORD said:
Bcr, yes, I would rule out any turbo supercar (or, indeed, sports car). While there are still awesome NA engines out there, I dont see why I would settle for a turbo just for the extra torque. More than 300 or so lb/ft is a complete irrelevance in cars that are already so fast as to be practically unusable on the road. Why would I want a turbo lump when I could have the F6 in the GT3 or the V8 in the 458 S (even the on-paper statistics for which make me tingle)?
If (as commentators seem to be saying) that overall the 488 is a better car than the 458? It's similar to ruling out any supercar because they are all auto. Of course it's obviously a choice you can legitimately make. I wanted a DD as fast, refined and practical as a Cayman that was no wider or heavier than an Elise, with manual steering. I might have had to wait a while ... or decide which lines I was prepared to cross.And relating to moose's view - on the M3 turbo engine - let's get back to the issue we were discussing - Autocar said
"Yes, there is the tiniest delay between asking for a lot and getting it, but BMW has still crafted an engine that is better than any of its turbocharged peers. It is silky smooth, revs commendably high and, at higher revs, responds as closely to natural aspiration as it’s reasonable to expect" - hardly a dog.
bcr5784 said:
If (as commentators seem to be saying) that overall the 488 is a better car than the 458? It's similar to ruling out any supercar because they are all auto. Of course it's obviously a choice you can legitimately make. I wanted a DD as fast, refined and practical as a Cayman that was no wider or heavier than an Elise, with manual steering. I might have had to wait a while ... or decide which lines I was prepared to cross.
And relating to moose's view - on the M3 turbo engine - let's get back to the issue we were discussing - Autocar said
"Yes, there is the tiniest delay between asking for a lot and getting it, but BMW has still crafted an engine that is better than any of its turbocharged peers. It is silky smooth, revs commendably high and, at higher revs, responds as closely to natural aspiration as it’s reasonable to expect" - hardly a dog.
It's funny how differently people read things And relating to moose's view - on the M3 turbo engine - let's get back to the issue we were discussing - Autocar said
"Yes, there is the tiniest delay between asking for a lot and getting it, but BMW has still crafted an engine that is better than any of its turbocharged peers. It is silky smooth, revs commendably high and, at higher revs, responds as closely to natural aspiration as it’s reasonable to expect" - hardly a dog.
I read that as polite speak for 'It's good for a turbo'. Autocar, as much as I like it, does tend to mince its words when it comes to the Germans (to the point of hilarity in Audi reviews where, reading between the lines, the writer obviously hates the car). I also would never again buy a sports car with any type of auto, not until I am old, anyway. There is still enough choice that you don't have to make that huge compromise!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I wouldn't buy either the old or new M3 so I'm not hell bent on defending it - but I do think a bit of balance ought to be brought into the argument regarding turbos. ORD originally raised the point suggesting that this was just a run of the mill turbo - which looking at the power curve and reading road tests it isn't. I accept that you have driven it and don't like it - but since your views on turbos are based upon your engine priorities (whether turbo or not) which I know from previous discussions are completely different to mine, I would much prefer to take the consensus of magazine opinion, particularly as the magazine actually says WHY they take that view. Simply saying it's s
t without a reason carries no weight with me.It seems that ORDs position is that he wouldn't ever countenance a turbo if he had an option. Given that with modern turbo technology - as the 488 demonstrates to a great extent (and the M3 to a lesser one) you can pretty much engineer any power curve you like and get good throttle response, it's not an opinion I share.
But we might as well leave it there - we don't have any common ground.
Edited by bcr5784 on Tuesday 29th September 10:57
The best can be said for the engine is that it approximates well the experience of an NA engine.
I am not saying that this is true or not, as I do not know from my own experience, but it is the point that is made most strongly in its favour. For what it is worth, when I have driven FI cars said to have "no lag" or to "feel like an NA engine", I have found that to be utter bks. This car might be different, but I am inclined to trust Cmoose's judgment (because I usually agree with his assessment of cars that I too have driven (except he is wrong about the 997 )).
Why would I want an engine that does its best to be like an NA engine when I can have an NA engine? If capacity was limited to 3 litres, I could see an argument that choosing a FI engine that is trying to feel like a bigger NA engine might be a good idea; but while I can instead just get the real thing, I have no interest in an approximation.
I am not saying that this is true or not, as I do not know from my own experience, but it is the point that is made most strongly in its favour. For what it is worth, when I have driven FI cars said to have "no lag" or to "feel like an NA engine", I have found that to be utter b
ks. This car might be different, but I am inclined to trust Cmoose's judgment (because I usually agree with his assessment of cars that I too have driven (except he is wrong about the 997 )).Why would I want an engine that does its best to be like an NA engine when I can have an NA engine? If capacity was limited to 3 litres, I could see an argument that choosing a FI engine that is trying to feel like a bigger NA engine might be a good idea; but while I can instead just get the real thing, I have no interest in an approximation.
Moose if you actually analysed and stated WHY you disliked this or that, I might take more notice. I'm not cherry picking (you are with Evo) there are plenty of 4 and 5 star reviews of the car - and I've not found anything worse. Sure it may not be perfect, but you damage what validity there may be in your argument by making all black statements when there is plenty of grey about.
And regarding power curves - sure they don't tell you everything - but (shock horror) I have to say I wish the Cayman had one the same shape as the M3 turbo, rather than a hole in the middle. If the (rather silly) sports diesel comment means anything - say - doubling the width of the power band by raising the rev limit by 2500 revs to 7500 revs, removing diesel combustion harshness, and making the flywheel vastly lighter - sounds like a pretty good idea to me...
But the bottom line is that, unlike you, I like SOME of the characteristics of turbo engines and SOME of highly tuned NA ones so we are never going to agree what are the qualities of good engine.
And regarding power curves - sure they don't tell you everything - but (shock horror) I have to say I wish the Cayman had one the same shape as the M3 turbo, rather than a hole in the middle. If the (rather silly) sports diesel comment means anything - say - doubling the width of the power band by raising the rev limit by 2500 revs to 7500 revs, removing diesel combustion harshness, and making the flywheel vastly lighter - sounds like a pretty good idea to me...
But the bottom line is that, unlike you, I like SOME of the characteristics of turbo engines and SOME of highly tuned NA ones so we are never going to agree what are the qualities of good engine.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Have to agree - when I was looking for a new car recently, I test drove the new M3. Good point - it's seriously fast. The performance is impressive by any standards. But - I actually thought the engine was not unlike a 335i, but with more power available. Not like driving a traditional M car. The exhaust note is disappointing for an M, although quite good compared to a lot of other cars out there. Ultimately, I preferred driving the E90 M3 despite the fact that it's not as fast. There's something very satisfying about a high revving NA engine that just isn't there in the new breed of turbos. We have to accept that smaller capacity, fewer cylinders and turbos are the way that cars are going if they have any chance of meeting the requirements of the current emissions tests - but that doesn't mean that everyone is going to enjoy driving them. When I drove it, I was hoping that the F10 M3 would be my 'one car that does everything' - but it wasn't the case. Seems I'm stuck with a combination of 987S for fun, and something less exciting for family duties.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
As I said if you explained WHY you take your view it might be helpful.Sounds crap - might well agree, but am no fan of any synthetised noise and, as I've said above, I'd be quite happy with the noise an M235i makes with the artificial stuff disabled, so doubt I'd have a problem with the M3, so fixed (Car and Driver seem to do that on their tests) .
It lacks high rev crescendo - probably GOOD as far as I am concerned ON THE ROAD - high rev crescendo means low rev lethargy generally speaking (Trust me having ridden fast bikes - particularly two strokes - it's something I am EXTREMELY familiar with - and, in some circumstances like, but not as a DD )
It clearly feels turbocharged - not sure if that is bad or good. Bad for you, no doubt, not sure for me.
Like I say because you are coming from a different perspective, and almost certainly use your car differently from me, you come to different (perfectly valid) conclusions for YOU. Consider that others might just have a different perspective - and might JUST come to different, but equally valid, conclusions - for THEM.
You're both right
People resort far to easily to saying 'It's a matter of opinion' as a way of avoiding engaging on an issue. Nonetheless, a lot of this does come down to taste and preference.
Some people like mid-range punch and enjoy the characteristics of a 3 litre turbo engine. Others, like me, are not nobdheads and would prefer a gorgeous V8.
People resort far to easily to saying 'It's a matter of opinion' as a way of avoiding engaging on an issue. Nonetheless, a lot of this does come down to taste and preference.
Some people like mid-range punch and enjoy the characteristics of a 3 litre turbo engine. Others, like me, are not nobdheads and would prefer a gorgeous V8.
ORD said:
You're both right
Some people like mid-range punch and enjoy the characteristics of a 3 litre turbo engine. Others, like me, are not nobdheads and would prefer a gorgeous V8.
There must be lots of nobheads around - buying "crap" like Megane 275s etc - and can you believe it - if the Evo review is to believed - choosing a non-NA engined car (F Type) over a Cayman GTS.Some people like mid-range punch and enjoy the characteristics of a 3 litre turbo engine. Others, like me, are not nobdheads and would prefer a gorgeous V8.
Can you even believe that even a nobhead (let alone professional journalist) would highly rate a car without a gearbox or a soundtrack (BMWi8)?
Well it's escalated in here gents!
Ref the new vs old. I bought the best I could afford, would I purchase the new m3. I'm not sure , I haven't driven it. What I can say is the gearbox is supreme and whilst it doesn't have the same positive feeling as the DCT it certainly is efficient. Engine wise, I've driven the baby version in the 135i and the 235i and found it to be a positive experience. Sound wise though they aren't in the same league as the s50 engine in the e9X series. They need the M Performance exhaust.
On track at Cadwell tomorrow as had a phone call from the TDO and offered me a price I couldn't refuse as opposed to just being a passenger!
Ref the new vs old. I bought the best I could afford, would I purchase the new m3. I'm not sure , I haven't driven it. What I can say is the gearbox is supreme and whilst it doesn't have the same positive feeling as the DCT it certainly is efficient. Engine wise, I've driven the baby version in the 135i and the 235i and found it to be a positive experience. Sound wise though they aren't in the same league as the s50 engine in the e9X series. They need the M Performance exhaust.
On track at Cadwell tomorrow as had a phone call from the TDO and offered me a price I couldn't refuse as opposed to just being a passenger!
bcr5784 said:
There must be lots of nobheads around - buying "crap" like Megane 275s etc - and can you believe it - if the Evo review is to believed - choosing a non-NA engined car (F Type) over a Cayman GTS.
Can you even believe that even a nobhead (let alone professional journalist) would highly rate a car without a gearbox or a soundtrack (BMWi8)?
Frankly, it doesn't surprise me that a journo could rate the i8. In general, car journos are cash poor with access to expensive cars so are obsessed with running costs, and they (like most people) are also obsessed with the next new thing, shiney shiney trinkets and technology. Can you even believe that even a nobhead (let alone professional journalist) would highly rate a car without a gearbox or a soundtrack (BMWi8)?
The F-Type is so compromised that I have never even been interested enough to go and drive one (and I quite like Jags and was, for a while, convinced it would be the car for me).
There was a time when I bought car magazines religiously. Autocar for 20 years.
It was a wrench to stop. And I sold them all on ebay!
I still buy the odd mag but I am mostly over it. The bullst.
I am surprised that printed media still exists. But then, I heard today that vinyl is now beating downloaded digital stuff.
And I feel good.
It was a wrench to stop. And I sold them all on ebay!
I still buy the odd mag but I am mostly over it. The bulls
t.I am surprised that printed media still exists. But then, I heard today that vinyl is now beating downloaded digital stuff.
And I feel good.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I agree entirely. It is what it is. Reading articles by the good journos requires you to learn their individual code for 'This car is actually horrid, but I have to give it 4 stars'. I think Prior strikes the right balance. Sutters went off the rails a year or so ago and now almost always talks Clarksonian crap. Anyone who can keep a straight face while saying anything at all about the latest 2.0d Audi deserves a f
king medal, though, and it must become pretty tiresome after a while!I still enjoy the odd piece in Autocar and Evo, but I will gladly write off a journo for good if he doesn't at least drop hints to the reader that, despite the editorial line, he thinks that latest 500bhp Audi Quattro TFI Sportswagon AMG S-Line Le Mans D Sport (M Division) is actually s
t. ORD said:
Frankly, it doesn't surprise me that a journo could rate the i8. In general, car journos are cash poor with access to expensive cars so are obsessed with running costs, and they (like most people) are also obsessed with the next new thing, shiney shiney trinkets and technology.
The F-Type is so compromised that I have never even been interested enough to go and drive one (and I quite like Jags and was, for a while, convinced it would be the car for me).
If you see the video of the ECOTY http://www.evo.co.uk/videos/14716/evo-car-of-the-y... you will (I think) get the clear view that HANDLING and FUN are really their key values in rating their cars. Gearbox type manual/auto/none , NA/non-NA/No A and engine/exhaust note are (seem to be) very much secondary issues. I am completely in sync with that.The F-Type is so compromised that I have never even been interested enough to go and drive one (and I quite like Jags and was, for a while, convinced it would be the car for me).
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff