RE: Chris Harris meets Porsche R&D chief
Discussion
I think he avoided a truth. That a fully specified new Cayman will be real world and on track "faster" than than a bog standard entry level 991. So one would be paying £20K more for the two extra seats of the 991. Which I think is why he has to cite the 991 as a first car because its main advantage is passenger accommodation !
For sure the Boxster / Cayman combo is the entry level but also the dynamic choice, unless you have the big bucks for a specced 991 or one of the higher power variants. Personally I think the new cayman will be amazing. A dream would be to put a supercharger or TCP racing turbo on it for £8 K and then it really would be a world beater.
For sure the Boxster / Cayman combo is the entry level but also the dynamic choice, unless you have the big bucks for a specced 991 or one of the higher power variants. Personally I think the new cayman will be amazing. A dream would be to put a supercharger or TCP racing turbo on it for £8 K and then it really would be a world beater.
DodoRacing said:
Interesting how he categorized the old Boxster as "feminine" (which even females like his wife don't like). Not something I would expect from a top Porsche executive.
He needs to work on a better way of explaining product differentiation between the Boxster/Cayman and the 911. If you're (relatively) poor buy the Boxster and if you're rich buy the 911 is essentially what he's saying. I thought that's exactly the image they were trying to change with the new Boxster/Cayman.
Also, if the RSR/Cup cars use the Mezger engine and the new GT3/2 use the DFI engine, what happens to the Motorsport pedigree in road-going GT cars?
Exactly what I thought - the thinking man knows the Cayman is the best car they make dynamically, and i'm surprised someone from Porsche would come out and say something which effectively knocks a peg off the Cayman. I'd still take one over a 911, although not tried the newer models.He needs to work on a better way of explaining product differentiation between the Boxster/Cayman and the 911. If you're (relatively) poor buy the Boxster and if you're rich buy the 911 is essentially what he's saying. I thought that's exactly the image they were trying to change with the new Boxster/Cayman.
Also, if the RSR/Cup cars use the Mezger engine and the new GT3/2 use the DFI engine, what happens to the Motorsport pedigree in road-going GT cars?
(MB - ex 997 GT3 CS owner)
Motormatt said:
This is not a result of accounting interference, electric steering is an essential tool to allow Porsche and every other car manufacturer to meet ever more stringent emissions standards.
Is it true though ? Hybrid allows Porsche to get a supercar with 90mpg and low C02 ( forgetting the real world for the moment) but how much better fuel economy does a Boxster get with it and is it really that important for someone who can afford a £40+ k car whether it is 25mpg or 25 plus something when driven in a sports car like manner? They don't tend to do 30 000 miles per year in general like someone in a Mondeo would.I think it is more to do with the cost of the system, does anyone know how much it costs compared to the old system? Conversely it if cost 10 times more do we think it would be as popular with Porsche?
Seems like Vauxhall have kept with hydraulic system with the new Astra VXR but they have put the beancounters on the back burner as it also has expensive chassis parts too rather than cheaper electronic wizardry.
AW35 said:
Motormatt said:
This is not a result of accounting interference, electric steering is an essential tool to allow Porsche and every other car manufacturer to meet ever more stringent emissions standards.
Is it true though ? Hybrid allows Porsche to get a supercar with 90mpg and low C02 ( forgetting the real world for the moment) but how much better fuel economy does a Boxster get with it and is it really that important for someone who can afford a £40+ k car whether it is 25mpg or 25 plus something when driven in a sports car like manner? They don't tend to do 30 000 miles per year in general like someone in a Mondeo would.I think it is more to do with the cost of the system, does anyone know how much it costs compared to the old system? Conversely it if cost 10 times more do we think it would be as popular with Porsche?
Seems like Vauxhall have kept with hydraulic system with the new Astra VXR but they have put the beancounters on the back burner as it also has expensive chassis parts too rather than cheaper electronic wizardry.
Max_Torque said:
Agent Orange said:
So in summary a traditional PAS system is drawing an amount of energy from the engine at all times where an EPAS system is on demand and therefore more efficient.
Indeed, and i could have said just that, but then i would have missed a good oportunity to sound massively inteligent........ ;-)Seriosuly, though, the one place where it really wins of course is over the emissions/FE test cycle, where the car is fixed onto a set of chassis rolls, and no steering occurs whatso ever. In effect, you drive 11km (for the STD Euro test) in a dead straight line! (No wonder the OEM's like to fit it, no matter what the percieved "cost" in terms of feel etc)
Obviously it must make a difference for them to do it but does it really make a noticeable improvement? I can't believe it would have a greater affect than say turning of A/C for example?
The A/C is already off for the std NEUDC cycle. The US have a specific "AirConditioning" test cycle, but Europe does not.
As the average speed is so low over the NEUDC cycle (33.6kmh only) the average roadload is very low (hence modern cars getting >50mpg over it!). A typical medium sized passenger car will only be using about 3-4kW to do that speed. So, if your "unloaded" PAS loss is ~200W (again typical) you can see that it makes up something like 5% of the energy consumption. So, getting rid of that 5% loss, for zero cost (in fact, it's a possitive cost saving moving to EPAS) is a no brainer. Saving 5% via lower aero drag, or reducing engine parasitic friction would cost the manufacturer hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Add in the modern trend to make everything "adaptive", "characterisable" and "selectable" and the OEM's are already well hooked on the EPAS route.
As the average speed is so low over the NEUDC cycle (33.6kmh only) the average roadload is very low (hence modern cars getting >50mpg over it!). A typical medium sized passenger car will only be using about 3-4kW to do that speed. So, if your "unloaded" PAS loss is ~200W (again typical) you can see that it makes up something like 5% of the energy consumption. So, getting rid of that 5% loss, for zero cost (in fact, it's a possitive cost saving moving to EPAS) is a no brainer. Saving 5% via lower aero drag, or reducing engine parasitic friction would cost the manufacturer hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Add in the modern trend to make everything "adaptive", "characterisable" and "selectable" and the OEM's are already well hooked on the EPAS route.
Speedraser said:
I've also seen references to EPAS allowing things like automatic parallel parking. These are Porsche's priorities now? 
Hmm, maybe especially in the Panamera and Cayenne, both cars that have to compete with the top end of luxury car makers, where things like lane keep assist and automatic parking are almost standard.
Speedraser said:
I've read in many sources that the economy savings is about 0.5 mpg -- tiny. This is worth the loss of feel??? I've also seen references to EPAS allowing things like automatic parallel parking. These are Porsche's priorities now?
Id say thats a conservative estimate, but either way no saving is too small. Think of it like F1, everyone is running around trying to save 0.001 of a second through expensive testing, engineering and innovation, and someone rocks up and gives you the option of being 0.1s faster by swapping a single part, which also saves you money. No brainer for the bean counters.Its something that happens all the time, the cycle is so far from reality there is a lot of "Inventive" engineering to reduce emissions, even (usually?) only in theory. Emissions limits in the USA are weight related, so you obviously want to be at the low end of the weight scale in a category, rather than only just scraping inside a lower one so you have higher limits to play with.
In the USA one model of MINI came with sunroof as standard, which neatly jumped it up 20kg into the bottom of the next category, making the emissions seem much better. BMW use horrible runflats to get rid of a 20kg alloy wheel from the boot in Europe. Says it all really, real world emissions worse due to 20kg added weight, but looks better on the test. Customers with useless ride quality and no way to fix a split tyre, but looks better on the test. Start stop all the time requiring bigger/heavy duty alternator and more kit in the car, making it cost more, while only saving about a tank of petrol over 100tkm. But looks better on the test.
Until a representitive test it used, this is the norm unfortunately. Save your cash and buy an older car, or flick V's and build an Ultima. I cant think of any new sportscar I would buy over a well cared for older model, as long as the only criteria is driving experience. Its the category 5 w
kers interested in the automatic parallel parking who wear "Porsche" hats and jackets down the pub sustaining sales, not the enthusiasts Just realised thats quite a rant there....EPAS doesnt bother me and im not stressed, honest
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff