RE: Porsche Cayman GT4 vs. Lotus Exige V6 Cup
Discussion
This is getting silly. I get the rationale for the track version of the Exige becausd it is the most extreme version against Porsche's most extreme version but then to pull it up for its suspension when this actual car was designed for the track?
Whats even more strange is the Porsche is supplied by the company and we have a reader's Lotus. What's that about? Have Lotus not got a Exige you could have used?
I'm a fan of both brands but this really wasn't a head to head.
Whats even more strange is the Porsche is supplied by the company and we have a reader's Lotus. What's that about? Have Lotus not got a Exige you could have used?
I'm a fan of both brands but this really wasn't a head to head.
Phooey said:
kambites said:
I guess it's interesting to note that, as tested, the Porsche is almost £20k more expensive too.
True, but to be fair none of the £20k worth of extra's make it any better a car than a stripper at £65k 
A few kg of unsprung mass can make an astonishing difference to how a car handles on a bumpy road. It always strikes me as a bit odd that manufacturers spec press cars up so much; when I read a review like this, I always end up thinking of the Cayman as an £80k car rather than a £60k one.
Kolbenkopp said:
Very naive question perhaps -- but why does Porsche limit the production runs of their best sports cars?
Profit. The margins on the lesser models will be much better and a limited run of halo models will help boost the image and therefor demands or the standard product where the real money is made. The simple fact is that most blokes want the pretence of super performance and at a more affordable price so these halo products are hugely important as they cater for the minority who do actually want performance and the normal cars' image benefits via association. It's the same as having an RS Audi on the shelves but also fitting a very similar bodykit to a basic diesel, or BMW's 'MSport', all the look of the M without the costs.
Lotus' real problem is that they don't have a utility, bread and butter product to leverage sales off the image of their serious sports cars.
Dan Trent said:
Hello!
I'll just chip in with a couple of points to hopefully help with the context of this comparison. Firstly, the roads we drove on are EXCEPTIONALLY bumpy, even by the standards of British tarmac. I've driven a lot of seemingly comparable roads from Wales to Scotland but have never encountered anything quite as vicious as these ones. And the Lotus owner, who wasn't local, said if he drove on them regularly he'd be fiddling with the dampers on his car to suit; sadly there wasn't the time or scope to do so on the day.
I have to say though, the way the Porsche handled those roads straight out of the box was also exceptional and way, way above my personal expectations. True, the PCCBs and reduction of unsprung weight is a 'performance advantage' gained through an expensive option. But given how much heavier the car is in general I think credit where it's due - the damping is very, very good.
Second, I've driven both of these cars independently on track, albeit not the same one. But the impressions in the test incorporate observations from these and the behaviour on the road would seem to confirm them. I first drove the Lotus at Hethel; it was a press car in the stock 'safe' geometry and damper setting and the instinct to push on under power rather than rotate like the Porsche was noticeable there too. Indeed, I went out with Gavan Kershaw on the steering circle and even he was struggling to get round the understeer under power. As I said in the story, a lift and tuck very quickly adjusts the poise and can then be exploited to the full. But you have to lift, rather than power through like you can with the Porsche.
Comparisons have to be tempered with experience and the fact the behaviour of both cars can be significantly altered with mechanical adjustments to chassis and/or aero. One of the Caymans we drove on the track on the launch event had, for instance, been set soft front/hard rear on the three-step anti-roll bar settings and was massively oversteery compared with the default set-up on the other cars. Let's just say it had been configured with photo and video shoots in mind.
I don't doubt you could do the same with the Lotus too, given the amount of adjustment available.
As I say, nothing on this road drive in different cars from ones I'd driven previously overturned any significant impressions previously derived from testing them on track. So I stand by what I said, hopefully this just helps a little with the context of the conclusions.
Cheers!
Dan
DanI'll just chip in with a couple of points to hopefully help with the context of this comparison. Firstly, the roads we drove on are EXCEPTIONALLY bumpy, even by the standards of British tarmac. I've driven a lot of seemingly comparable roads from Wales to Scotland but have never encountered anything quite as vicious as these ones. And the Lotus owner, who wasn't local, said if he drove on them regularly he'd be fiddling with the dampers on his car to suit; sadly there wasn't the time or scope to do so on the day.
I have to say though, the way the Porsche handled those roads straight out of the box was also exceptional and way, way above my personal expectations. True, the PCCBs and reduction of unsprung weight is a 'performance advantage' gained through an expensive option. But given how much heavier the car is in general I think credit where it's due - the damping is very, very good.
Second, I've driven both of these cars independently on track, albeit not the same one. But the impressions in the test incorporate observations from these and the behaviour on the road would seem to confirm them. I first drove the Lotus at Hethel; it was a press car in the stock 'safe' geometry and damper setting and the instinct to push on under power rather than rotate like the Porsche was noticeable there too. Indeed, I went out with Gavan Kershaw on the steering circle and even he was struggling to get round the understeer under power. As I said in the story, a lift and tuck very quickly adjusts the poise and can then be exploited to the full. But you have to lift, rather than power through like you can with the Porsche.
Comparisons have to be tempered with experience and the fact the behaviour of both cars can be significantly altered with mechanical adjustments to chassis and/or aero. One of the Caymans we drove on the track on the launch event had, for instance, been set soft front/hard rear on the three-step anti-roll bar settings and was massively oversteery compared with the default set-up on the other cars. Let's just say it had been configured with photo and video shoots in mind.
I don't doubt you could do the same with the Lotus too, given the amount of adjustment available.
As I say, nothing on this road drive in different cars from ones I'd driven previously overturned any significant impressions previously derived from testing them on track. So I stand by what I said, hopefully this just helps a little with the context of the conclusions.
Cheers!
Dan
Looks like the masses would like us to.....
a) take this to the track
b) go back to those roads [now dampers have been fiddled with] or find some others.
Still think both are great cars though. Not sure why everyone wants a 'winner'?
kambites said:
HokumPokum said:
If you want a multi-dimension car, the gt4 will eat whatever lotus has.
If you want a "multi-dimension car" wouldn't the normal Cayman R be better than the GT4 though? I don't really have a feel for how they compare. On a separate note, perhaps a Boxster Spyder and the Exige Roadster comparison please
Can you still buy the Spyder or is that sold out as well by the way?
Impasse said:
Interesting that it's deemed to be unacceptable to have to adjust one's driving style to get around a car's handling characteristics. With this in mind, I look forward to reading the next 911 review.
Cute. But the 991 drives like a mid-engined car, so you'll have to wait for a review of a 993.Max_Torque said:
So, the car that is slightly heavier, but has almost certainly had over 100x more money and man hrs spent on its development, is "better" than the car which is slightly lighter, but was almost certainly developed on a shoe string.
Wow, who'd 'ave thunk it eh!
Sacrilege!Wow, who'd 'ave thunk it eh!
You don't need development budgets, engineering skill and hard work to make a sports car. You need 'soul' and other made up stuff. This is why no Porsche will ever hold a candle to an Alfa.
Max_Torque said:
So, the car that is slightly heavier, but has almost certainly had over 100x more money and man hrs spent on its development, is "better" than the car which is slightly lighter, but was almost certainly developed on a shoe string.
Wow, who'd 'ave thunk it eh!
But, but...Lotus are the masters. That's what Lotus say, and assorted other experts on t'internet.Wow, who'd 'ave thunk it eh!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff