718 review - test drove today
Discussion
pete.g said:
Have people been driving in another world and not telling me about it?
It would explain quite a lot . . .
Comparing "S" times the 718 is over a second quicker to 100mph than 981. In gear (once past the lag) the difference is proportionately even greater 50-75 in fifth is quoted at 5 seconds for the 718S, 6.6 for a 981S. So it's hardly a surprise that it feels much faster - because it is.It would explain quite a lot . . .
That said to say a 981S has "meagre" performance is clearly OTT, but revved or not it never feels genuinely fast to me. OK I'm coming from bikes - but I'm not comparing it with modern 1000cc Superbikes or even 600cc Supersports bikes - any 20 year old sports bike with 100bhp feels VERY quick by comparison at vaguely legal speeds.
I do have to agree though that, to me, chasing through the gears is much more of an "event" in the 981 - pity there are only 3 (2 legally) to chase through.
Porsche718S said:
You've all got wonderful cars (they do sound glorious at higher revs), just balancing the discussion from the point of view of someone who a. prefers the 718 (for many reasons beyond the engine/sound) and b. thinks it sounds good enough given the compromises Porsche is working with and improvements it has offered us in other area's.
Which other areas? I can't say I've noticed much difference other than the engine.Porsche718S said:
In my view, instead of ridiculing Porsche, the internet should be celebrating the flat-4 in the Cayman/Boxster
Good luck convincing everyone to do that, can't say I will be I'm afraid. Sorry!anonymous said:
[redacted]
Whilst I personally prefer the older 6 cylinder 981’s, I am sure that most readers of this forum could have a pretty good guess at what Porsche 981S is referring to without having to agree with him or having to overtax their brain cells.Why don’t you have a go at working it out for yourself without opening up yet another unnecessary and provocative interchange in a rather juvenile attempt to prove how smart you are.
Seems to be rather a speciality of yours. Sad when you clearly have valuable information and experience to share that others could find useful.
Twinfan said:
Porsche718S said:
You've all got wonderful cars (they do sound glorious at higher revs), just balancing the discussion from the point of view of someone who a. prefers the 718 (for many reasons beyond the engine/sound) and b. thinks it sounds good enough given the compromises Porsche is working with and improvements it has offered us in other area's.
Which other areas? I can't say I've noticed much difference other than the engine.Porsche718S said:
In my view, instead of ridiculing Porsche, the internet should be celebrating the flat-4 in the Cayman/Boxster
Good luck convincing everyone to do that, can't say I will be I'm afraid. Sorry!Styling (both interior/exterior) is better resolved to these eyes.
Technology - has taken a big step forward.
Firmer/more direct chassis (I prefer my cars set up this way).
etc
Porsche simply couldn't continue to offer us cars like the 911 in their current form without compromises elsewhere in the range. So I'm prepared to take it on the chin, welcome and enjoy the change knowing that it's helping Porsche to continue to make great sports cars.
pete.g said:
My issue isn't with the relative acceleration/speed of 981 vs 718, it is with the phrase 'real world' - what other one is there?
If you mean ordinary, mundane, day to day (or quotidian to be a bit of a show-off), then say so.
I think you are being a bit pickey. In day to day motoring (I'd tend to use the term "real world" too) most people don't go around in the lowest gear possible. So if, for example, you were following a queue of cars (very real world situation) and you come around a corner and an overtaking opportunity presents itself, you will be more likely to be able to use it if you don't have to change down, particularly as this will often involve a cross plane change into 2nd with an NA manual car. If you mean ordinary, mundane, day to day (or quotidian to be a bit of a show-off), then say so.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Since when did owning a two-seat sports car become a one-dimensional activity where you either drive everywhere chasing every last rev to maximise the aural delights of the engine...or you don't?Its needed because there are times when 'I' wish to drive fast in my two-seat sports car to make timely progress, but am not in the mood to wring its neck to extract this level of performance. The 718 allows be to do this with much greater ease than would a CGTS. When in the mood, you can rev a 718S hard and the engine rewards you for it with excellent performance; it's maybe not the aural delight that is a CGTS, but it will happily pull cleanly to the red line. So I get the best of both worlds in this respect if the mood takes me, or it doesn't?
Ease of use is important to 'me', even in my two-seat sports car - my C718S will be my daily, it will get used all year round and that includes the slog home after a long day at the office, trips to the supermarket, to visit family, friends etc. in all weathers and at all times of the day and night - not every drive I do is therefore a proxy for qualifying at the Monaco GP, which doesn't exclude in 'my' book, driving quickly.
I also appreciate other aspects of my two-seater sports car: I like the way it looks, I like the way it feels to drive, I like spending time in it and I enjoy the brand. Performance and the engine are important to me, but they are one of many attributes that I considered before purchasing. Its some of these other attributes that meant that a CGTS wasn't quite right for me, but a C718S was. It's great that we have a choice isn't it?
Twinfan said:
Cheers 718S, not sure I agree that the chassis is much different so you must be a better driver than me 
I found the SPASM chassis on the 718 quite a bit firmer (in a good way for me) than the similarly spec'd CGTS I drove and preferred it.I'm just an average Joe behind the wheel who enjoys many aspects of the car, not only the outright performance and driving.
Porsche718S said:
I found the SPASM chassis on the 718 quite a bit firmer (in a good way for me) than the similarly spec'd CGTS I drove and preferred it.
Not really a like-for-like comparison though as SPASM wasn't available on the 981, just regular PASM. I agree that's an advantage though as I would have specced it on my CGTS if it had been available. I didn't choose the Sports Chassis option as I wanted active/adaptive suspension.anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think the "real world" performance thing is a fair enough criticism of the 2.7 - it is genuinely a slightly irritating car to drive in a lazy way (which is how a lot of people drive most of the time).I think the larger 6 cyl engines didnt lack ooomph, though. If you really wanted to, you could comfortably overtake in the wrong gear in a 3.4 Cayman / Boxster.
The thing I always find strange is the idea that driving in lower gears is somehow harder. It is, if anything, easier because it requires fewer gearchanges.
Relative to a turbo car, I simply drive 1-2 gears lower most of the time, and it is lovely.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yeah, I can see where you're coming from.I think you've answered my point for me in a previous post: take the overtaking example and your definition of an element of 'good driving' - constant anticipatory gear changes to prompt a potential overtaking manoeuvre/opportunity. Good stuff, nothing wrong with that technique, tried and test by me a lot in previous cars with peaky power delivery.
My point is that where you need to constantly anticipate overtaking opportunities to ensure your in the 'right gear' to complete the manoeuvre safely, this can become wearisome and frustrating (even when driving a two-seat sports car), depending on the context of the day your having, your frame of mind etc.
What the 718 offers in this scenario is that you are already in the 'right gear' more of the time. It may be a significantly taller gear than you'd be using in, say, the CGTS, but this doesn't make it the 'wrong gear' for the manoeuvre, it's just that the engine is more flexible - those repetitive 5th/6th gear down-changes all the way to 2nd gear 'just in-case' would drive me potty when I'm not in the mood...they have done in the past...whereas I can simply use the engines' torque and flexibility to waft me past slower moving traffic in the 718.
This is not poor driving in my book, just exploiting the engines characteristics for ease of use. And of course, if I want to overtake someone with my hair on fire I can also drop it into 2nd gear and scream past like I've been possessed (I'd wager the response of the 2.5 flat-4 at the top of the rev range is nothing to be ashamed of). It's the balance the 718's engine has between this flexibility and being able to chase the red line when I'm in the mood makes it the better engine choice for me. Yep, the flat-6 is the better engine in the upper reaches of the rev range, but for me, not to the extent that it is more challenged at the lower end.
Allow me to summarise this thread:
Some people can't see past the engine/sound.
Some people see the additional power/torque/other changes to the car as an improvement.
Every so often somebody will drive the car for the first time and post their thoughts here. Usually falling into one of the above camps. This will then be followed by:
1) Playground insults from F6 fans (usually the same few people). Ironically most of whom are probably 50+ years old.
2) Defensive responses / justification from 718 fans/owners.
3) cmoose arguing with somebody
This repeats each time somebody posts either a new review or their thoughts from driving it. It's getting a little stale now.
Hope I haven't missed anything.
Some people can't see past the engine/sound.
Some people see the additional power/torque/other changes to the car as an improvement.
Every so often somebody will drive the car for the first time and post their thoughts here. Usually falling into one of the above camps. This will then be followed by:
1) Playground insults from F6 fans (usually the same few people). Ironically most of whom are probably 50+ years old.
2) Defensive responses / justification from 718 fans/owners.
3) cmoose arguing with somebody
This repeats each time somebody posts either a new review or their thoughts from driving it. It's getting a little stale now.
Hope I haven't missed anything.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You never fail to disappoint.I agree that the sound isn't the only thing people have problems with, that's why I wrote engine/sound. From what I can tell most people's issues fall under one or the other (or both).
Do you ever wonder why it's always you involved in these pointless exchanges?
I have a challenge for you: Don't quote or reply to this post. Just let it go. Can you do that?
Back to topic. Ignoring noise for a second (which I cannot understand why all can't agree is entirely subjective and therefore cannot be a matter of rationale debate) - as far as I am concerned both the 981's hole in the midrange between 2500 and 4000 AND the lag of the 718 are significant flaws. As it happens I find the lag (compounded by my subjective noise views) as the more signicant. I can, however, understand why others might have a different bias.
Am I being unreasonably reasonable?.
Am I being unreasonably reasonable?.
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff