Rant about 4cyl engines and Porsche direction of travel
Discussion
Moved from the Macan thread (with apologies):
"Times have changed. Cars have got enormously heavier and so need to be more powerful. A quick look over the Porsche line up from the last 50 years shows that power to weight ratios havent really gone up very much. A 250hp engine in a 2-seater that (including options) weighs about 1500kg is not really going to cut any mustard! The base Cayman is already underpowered (in my opinion) and wont be any happier and more fun for a smaller turbo engine.
In any case, more worrying is the real danger that the next generation of mid-range Porsches will use lower grade parts wherever possible. A speed limiter will help - Porsche will probably start to find it an unecessary cost to produce cars that can drive safely at over 155mph because this rules out using lots of parts from the rest of the group. Do many people really drive at more than 155mph on the Autobahn (well, the parts of it that are unrestricted)? I doubt it. I think the 911 will always have to be bloody fast but that this wont be seen as being necessary for the cars below the 911 in the precious Porsche hierarchy.
(Incidentally, why on Earth does Porsche even still produce a 3.4l engine? It's a complete waste of money when the 3.8 will fit in the Cayman and the Boxster. It's about nothing other than maintaining the heirarchy.)
Making only high quality sports cars has been the sensible option for Porsche because it made economic sense to retain a tight line-up of cars using many of the same parts (including some of the same engines). It is clear that Porsche now has a much bigger parts bin at its disposal, and it will not now default to expensive and high end parts for much of its output. It will only use expensive parts (those that go into the GT3, for example) for halo products or where it cannot get away with using a cheaper part from the group depository.
In my view, this means that the 911 is probably safe but that the Boxster, Cayman and Macan will be seen as fair game for making savings. The question will be this: do we put in the 911 part that costs us £5x or the VW group part that costs us £x? It will come up in relation to engines, too. Porsche staff are walking around the place tripping over cheap 4-cyl engines that VW leaves lying around. Dropping them into everything but the 911 will make huge sense, and we already know that this is going to happen.
(I leave out of account here all the emissions nonesense, but that also militates in favour of smaller turbo engines - although the real world evidence is that they are not even hugely efficient. I bet its slightly convenient for Porsche to refer to emissions regs when explaining a roll out of 4-cyl engines. I doubt that the emission controls will bite as hard as everyone fears. I know enough EU law and politics to know that ways will be found to ensure that Germans still get big engines.)
As an example of what I am talking about(which may be a good or a bad one), I have been reading up on the LSD that is used in the 981. By all accounts, it is a pretty boggo unit that is set up to work (just about) in normal road conditions but not to cope with high cornering speeds and lots of mechanical wear. It is a sensible choice for anything but the top-end 911s. But it is not very old school Porsche to use a barely functional unit just because most people wont notice because they wont be at the limits very often. The limits, even if not reached very often matter or at all, are important - I will never drive my car at 171mph, but I like that Porsche only used high enough quality components that it can do that speed without falling apart/exploding/flying into a wall because this makes it a better car at lots of the speeds that I do in fact enjoy (just probably not enough better to justify the expense if the parts werent shared with even faster cars).
If Porsche will put a barely functional LSD in a 2-seater sports car, do we really expect it to shy away from downgrading most of its production where it can get away with it? When a car is pretty much universally said to be unbelievably good value (which the Cayman has been since its inception), there are bound to be some quirky economic factors at play. My argument is that the quirk in Porsche's make up that explains the great value of the Cayman/Boxster (and, to a lesser extent, the 911) appears to beon its way out; that the Macan is part of this; that the 4-cyl Cayman will also be part of it; and that this is bad."
There followed a discussion of whether or not it is fair to call the Cayman "underpowered". I think it is; some people think it aint.
"Times have changed. Cars have got enormously heavier and so need to be more powerful. A quick look over the Porsche line up from the last 50 years shows that power to weight ratios havent really gone up very much. A 250hp engine in a 2-seater that (including options) weighs about 1500kg is not really going to cut any mustard! The base Cayman is already underpowered (in my opinion) and wont be any happier and more fun for a smaller turbo engine.
In any case, more worrying is the real danger that the next generation of mid-range Porsches will use lower grade parts wherever possible. A speed limiter will help - Porsche will probably start to find it an unecessary cost to produce cars that can drive safely at over 155mph because this rules out using lots of parts from the rest of the group. Do many people really drive at more than 155mph on the Autobahn (well, the parts of it that are unrestricted)? I doubt it. I think the 911 will always have to be bloody fast but that this wont be seen as being necessary for the cars below the 911 in the precious Porsche hierarchy.
(Incidentally, why on Earth does Porsche even still produce a 3.4l engine? It's a complete waste of money when the 3.8 will fit in the Cayman and the Boxster. It's about nothing other than maintaining the heirarchy.)
Making only high quality sports cars has been the sensible option for Porsche because it made economic sense to retain a tight line-up of cars using many of the same parts (including some of the same engines). It is clear that Porsche now has a much bigger parts bin at its disposal, and it will not now default to expensive and high end parts for much of its output. It will only use expensive parts (those that go into the GT3, for example) for halo products or where it cannot get away with using a cheaper part from the group depository.
In my view, this means that the 911 is probably safe but that the Boxster, Cayman and Macan will be seen as fair game for making savings. The question will be this: do we put in the 911 part that costs us £5x or the VW group part that costs us £x? It will come up in relation to engines, too. Porsche staff are walking around the place tripping over cheap 4-cyl engines that VW leaves lying around. Dropping them into everything but the 911 will make huge sense, and we already know that this is going to happen.
(I leave out of account here all the emissions nonesense, but that also militates in favour of smaller turbo engines - although the real world evidence is that they are not even hugely efficient. I bet its slightly convenient for Porsche to refer to emissions regs when explaining a roll out of 4-cyl engines. I doubt that the emission controls will bite as hard as everyone fears. I know enough EU law and politics to know that ways will be found to ensure that Germans still get big engines.)
As an example of what I am talking about(which may be a good or a bad one), I have been reading up on the LSD that is used in the 981. By all accounts, it is a pretty boggo unit that is set up to work (just about) in normal road conditions but not to cope with high cornering speeds and lots of mechanical wear. It is a sensible choice for anything but the top-end 911s. But it is not very old school Porsche to use a barely functional unit just because most people wont notice because they wont be at the limits very often. The limits, even if not reached very often matter or at all, are important - I will never drive my car at 171mph, but I like that Porsche only used high enough quality components that it can do that speed without falling apart/exploding/flying into a wall because this makes it a better car at lots of the speeds that I do in fact enjoy (just probably not enough better to justify the expense if the parts werent shared with even faster cars).
If Porsche will put a barely functional LSD in a 2-seater sports car, do we really expect it to shy away from downgrading most of its production where it can get away with it? When a car is pretty much universally said to be unbelievably good value (which the Cayman has been since its inception), there are bound to be some quirky economic factors at play. My argument is that the quirk in Porsche's make up that explains the great value of the Cayman/Boxster (and, to a lesser extent, the 911) appears to beon its way out; that the Macan is part of this; that the 4-cyl Cayman will also be part of it; and that this is bad."
There followed a discussion of whether or not it is fair to call the Cayman "underpowered". I think it is; some people think it aint.
As I was saying, 
the federal spec MGB with ~65bhp was an underpowered sportscar. A 2013 Cayman 2.7 with 275bhp isn't. And it wasn't with 245bhp or 265bhp either.
These are all cracking engines with a willing top-end, and you can give them a good thrapping without reaching gaol-worthy speeds. My experience of >400bhp cars on the road is that while they're a novelty at first, from then on tooling around using a fraction of the potential performance is frustrating and no fun at all. Apart from the odd slip road or pub bragging session they're more of an exercise in self-restraint than enjoyment.
So just because Porsche could fit the 3.8 doesn't make the small bore version pointless. By way of contrast, a 3.8 991 will run 3rd up to ~125mph, making the other 3 intermediate ratios in its over-endowed gearbox pretty pointless. A traditionally pricing model that reflects a willingness of customers to pay more for (essentialy) bigger holes in the engine can also be exploited by other customers, so to me a £40k Cayman is hugely more than 50% of a £80k 991.
I'd also be interested to know Porsches thinking behind their current gear ratios, I know there are 7 in the 991 manual 'box because its based on the PDK unit, and I guess noise/emission tests are also responsible.
SS7
the federal spec MGB with ~65bhp was an underpowered sportscar. A 2013 Cayman 2.7 with 275bhp isn't. And it wasn't with 245bhp or 265bhp either. These are all cracking engines with a willing top-end, and you can give them a good thrapping without reaching gaol-worthy speeds. My experience of >400bhp cars on the road is that while they're a novelty at first, from then on tooling around using a fraction of the potential performance is frustrating and no fun at all. Apart from the odd slip road or pub bragging session they're more of an exercise in self-restraint than enjoyment.
So just because Porsche could fit the 3.8 doesn't make the small bore version pointless. By way of contrast, a 3.8 991 will run 3rd up to ~125mph, making the other 3 intermediate ratios in its over-endowed gearbox pretty pointless. A traditionally pricing model that reflects a willingness of customers to pay more for (essentialy) bigger holes in the engine can also be exploited by other customers, so to me a £40k Cayman is hugely more than 50% of a £80k 991.
I'd also be interested to know Porsches thinking behind their current gear ratios, I know there are 7 in the 991 manual 'box because its based on the PDK unit, and I guess noise/emission tests are also responsible.
SS7
The new hybrid 919 Le Mans car will apparently use an 4cyl 2.0 turbo engine.
I think this is a masterstroke. Porsche have been trying to sell the idea of a 4cyl since the arrival of the 924 in 1976.
The only engine - bar that in the 918 Spyder - in the Porsche range, now the Mezger has gone, with a clear link to a Le Mans racer? And its a Turbo 4 in a Cayman/Boxster/wherever it's deemed appropriate to place it?
How will we cope?
I think this is a masterstroke. Porsche have been trying to sell the idea of a 4cyl since the arrival of the 924 in 1976.
The only engine - bar that in the 918 Spyder - in the Porsche range, now the Mezger has gone, with a clear link to a Le Mans racer? And its a Turbo 4 in a Cayman/Boxster/wherever it's deemed appropriate to place it?
How will we cope?
shoestring7 said:
As I was saying, the federal spec MGB with ~65bhp was an underpowered sportscar. A 2013 Cayman 2.7 with 275bhp isn't. And it wasn't with 245bhp or 265bhp either.
These are all cracking engines with a willing top-end, and you can give them a good thrapping without reaching gaol-worthy speeds. My experience of >400bhp cars on the road is that while they're a novelty at first, from then on tooling around using a fraction of the potential performance is frustrating and no fun at all. Apart from the odd slip road or pub bragging session they're more of an exercise in self-restraint than enjoyment.
So just because Porsche could fit the 3.8 doesn't make the small bore version pointless. By way of contrast, a 3.8 991 will run 3rd up to ~125mph, making the other 3 intermediate ratios in its over-endowed gearbox pretty pointless. A traditionally pricing model that reflects a willingness of customers to pay more for (essentialy) bigger holes in the engine can also be exploited by other customers, so to me a £40k Cayman is hugely more than 50% of a £80k 991.
I'd also be interested to know Porsches thinking behind their current gear ratios, I know there are 7 in the 991 manual 'box because its based on the PDK unit, and I guess noise/emission tests are also responsible.
SS7
I actually agree with a fair bit of this. 'How much is too much/just right?' is a very subjective question. the federal spec MGB with ~65bhp was an underpowered sportscar. A 2013 Cayman 2.7 with 275bhp isn't. And it wasn't with 245bhp or 265bhp either. These are all cracking engines with a willing top-end, and you can give them a good thrapping without reaching gaol-worthy speeds. My experience of >400bhp cars on the road is that while they're a novelty at first, from then on tooling around using a fraction of the potential performance is frustrating and no fun at all. Apart from the odd slip road or pub bragging session they're more of an exercise in self-restraint than enjoyment.
So just because Porsche could fit the 3.8 doesn't make the small bore version pointless. By way of contrast, a 3.8 991 will run 3rd up to ~125mph, making the other 3 intermediate ratios in its over-endowed gearbox pretty pointless. A traditionally pricing model that reflects a willingness of customers to pay more for (essentialy) bigger holes in the engine can also be exploited by other customers, so to me a £40k Cayman is hugely more than 50% of a £80k 991.
I'd also be interested to know Porsches thinking behind their current gear ratios, I know there are 7 in the 991 manual 'box because its based on the PDK unit, and I guess noise/emission tests are also responsible.
SS7
Nobody thinks the gearing is sensible for anything but emissions tests!
I do think that the usability of extra power can be underestimated, though. Sure, I can hit 120 or something in 3, but I don't. I use 2nd up to about 50 and then use 3 for a bit, and I have never felt the 3.4 to be too powerful to let it rip (although hitting the limiter other than in 2 ain't gonna happen). Who really exploits all the revs in 3rd or 4th in a powerful car on our roads? I can't imagine anyone is ripping up to the redline 10 times a day in 3 or 4 in the base Cayman, tbh. They are just spending more time building the same speeds.
A 4cyl with much closer gearing might be good fun. It might also help with the heirarchy to give it a relatively modest top speed. Hmmm. Maybe it will be a masterstroke.
Take off 100kg while at it and I will at least give it an extended test drive before slating it! I still think the turbo will ruin it, but we shall see.
I honestly didn't know the 4cyl was going to be specific to porsche. Kinda ruins my argument...oh well. Sorry.
Take off 100kg while at it and I will at least give it an extended test drive before slating it! I still think the turbo will ruin it, but we shall see.
I honestly didn't know the 4cyl was going to be specific to porsche. Kinda ruins my argument...oh well. Sorry.
While I agree with bits of what's been said already, I think it is too soon to come to any conclusions. While I haven't been a fan of turbocharging from a BMW perspective, I'm quite open to the idea of a flat four turbo/turbo'ing in general from Porsche largely due to the fact that it isn't a break in tradition for them. I'm not in a position to comment on whether a turbo'd car is as nice to drive as a n/a as cmoose pointed out in the other thread (also that's a separate debate as to what defines a great driver's car) but the 911 turbo has been around for 40 years and (GT models aside) is marketed as the 'flagship' of the range and has carried over in the intra-model hierarchies in Cayenne and Panamera. This is in stark contrast to BMW for example who used to pride themselves on n/a straight 6s and now there are none to be found anywhere in the model range - had the E30 M3 been a turbo 4 from the outset I'd be more sympathetic - instead it feels like they're getting lazy and deciding to take the 'easy way out' and bowing to external pressure be it EU legislation or the competition's solutions (see the arrival of 4wd for the next generation of M cars...). It's like Porsche saying you know what? Rear engine format is/was a stupid idea, and we can't be bothered to work on it anymore - instead they improved on it generation after generation and silenced the critics and shocked rivals in a triumph of engineering ability that couldn't be matched by other manufacturers. The point is they set out these brand identifiers (rear engined, water cooled etc etc) regardless of their inherent flaws and market it as their USP and what makes them special, but if they strip them away what are you left with? In this sense what you mentioned about the LSDs built to a certain standard really does irk me as they're going the way of BMW etc - check out the rants people had in the sabotage/rip-off thread recently.
Right now IMO it feels like Porsche still has some, if not all, of its identity given cars like the 4.0RS, 991GT3 etc still exist and look forward to seeing what this 4 cylinder Cayman will be like - with the caveat being that the 4cylinder is designed and built by Porsche be it turbo or otherwise, not a rehashed VAG engine. At the end of the day I've always seen Porsche as a brand that produces cars that punch above their weight regardless of the cylinder count or headline figures. It will be a sad day though if every engine option is a turbo though as cars like the 997 GTS won't be around for those discerning customers after the best of N/A without the compromises of a GT3. It does bug me for example that not long ago if I said I have a 6 cylinder twin turbo Porsche, it could only refer to 1 car, now you can get one for 43k brand new and also happens to be a SUV.
Bigger picture wise, as Porsche diversify further (diversify NOT silly niche hunting with saloons, coupes and 4 door coupes of the same car) I can see them becoming more of a 'luxury' brand than a 'sports' brand. They will attract the people who are sick of their BMWs, Mercs and Audis for not being the brands they once were and will be welcomed with open arms as Porsche will have Macan & Cayenne for the yummy mummies and the Pajun and Panamera for 5/7 series replacements as company cars for execs. Of course I have full faith in the Pajun being excellent to drive and being built well with quality materials while supported by decent aftercare - something the others have let slip massively. Yes, you might lose the older crowd who hanker after the older stuff or they move to another brand as discussed in the recent thread about why some people's next car won't be a Porsche, but as long as cars like the 918, GT2/3 RS etc exist and stay true to Porsche values, I'm not complaining.
Right now IMO it feels like Porsche still has some, if not all, of its identity given cars like the 4.0RS, 991GT3 etc still exist and look forward to seeing what this 4 cylinder Cayman will be like - with the caveat being that the 4cylinder is designed and built by Porsche be it turbo or otherwise, not a rehashed VAG engine. At the end of the day I've always seen Porsche as a brand that produces cars that punch above their weight regardless of the cylinder count or headline figures. It will be a sad day though if every engine option is a turbo though as cars like the 997 GTS won't be around for those discerning customers after the best of N/A without the compromises of a GT3. It does bug me for example that not long ago if I said I have a 6 cylinder twin turbo Porsche, it could only refer to 1 car, now you can get one for 43k brand new and also happens to be a SUV.
Bigger picture wise, as Porsche diversify further (diversify NOT silly niche hunting with saloons, coupes and 4 door coupes of the same car) I can see them becoming more of a 'luxury' brand than a 'sports' brand. They will attract the people who are sick of their BMWs, Mercs and Audis for not being the brands they once were and will be welcomed with open arms as Porsche will have Macan & Cayenne for the yummy mummies and the Pajun and Panamera for 5/7 series replacements as company cars for execs. Of course I have full faith in the Pajun being excellent to drive and being built well with quality materials while supported by decent aftercare - something the others have let slip massively. Yes, you might lose the older crowd who hanker after the older stuff or they move to another brand as discussed in the recent thread about why some people's next car won't be a Porsche, but as long as cars like the 918, GT2/3 RS etc exist and stay true to Porsche values, I'm not complaining.
Great post.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I really can see a place for a 4cyl Cayman IF the following conditions are met:-
(1) Turbo is inobtrusive and does not prevent the car being happier at high revs (hard to meet that condition).
(2) Gearing is way tighter than usual - 5th and 6th can be used for cruising (and so emissions tests), but let us have shortish 3 and 4 and a lower top speed.
(3) Weight reduction. As I have said in other threads, I would rather that the Cayman be lighter than more powerful. I only hanker after slighly more power because my PDK S is not a light car. A manual 4Cyl Cayman weighing around 1200kg might well be fun.
Re brand positioning, I think you are probably right. Porsche may well have spotted that BMW and Audi have underestimated the importance (for some buyers) of the kind of thing that Porsche does well and they, recently at least, dont - balance, steering, etc.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I really can see a place for a 4cyl Cayman IF the following conditions are met:-
(1) Turbo is inobtrusive and does not prevent the car being happier at high revs (hard to meet that condition).
(2) Gearing is way tighter than usual - 5th and 6th can be used for cruising (and so emissions tests), but let us have shortish 3 and 4 and a lower top speed.
(3) Weight reduction. As I have said in other threads, I would rather that the Cayman be lighter than more powerful. I only hanker after slighly more power because my PDK S is not a light car. A manual 4Cyl Cayman weighing around 1200kg might well be fun.
Re brand positioning, I think you are probably right. Porsche may well have spotted that BMW and Audi have underestimated the importance (for some buyers) of the kind of thing that Porsche does well and they, recently at least, dont - balance, steering, etc.
I think we will have a 4 pot in the cay and box eventually. And probably turbo hybrid too.
I think it will sell if they ensure it meets certain criteria, like sound, responsiveness etc.
What I think wont wash is using a VAG sourced block/unit. It would be commercial suicide. Can you see the reviews?
PORSCHE WITH GOLF ENGINE!
I think it will sell if they ensure it meets certain criteria, like sound, responsiveness etc.
What I think wont wash is using a VAG sourced block/unit. It would be commercial suicide. Can you see the reviews?
PORSCHE WITH GOLF ENGINE!
shoestring7 said:
NJH said:
Porsche with a Volkswagen derived 4 pot, its 1976 all over again, or 1965 all over again, or...... etc. etc.
The 912 units were Porsche engines, the 912E was a VW engine though.SS7
ORD said:
"Times have changed. Cars have got enormously heavier and so need to be more powerful.
I think that while times have changed, the nature of drivers and the roads haven't. As I, and a few others have posted, 'more' doesn't mean 'better'. For sheer driving pleasure on the road I believe there's an optimum ratio of power to weight. It somehow just adds up to a balanced and exploitable level of performance that just works, and I believe this is around 200bhp tonne. I've listed* the specifications of some hero sportscars (not competition variants) over the years to support my case:
Bugatti T35C 750kg/140bhp - 186bhp/tonne
Alfa Romeo 8C 2300 1000/180 - 180
Ferrari 250SWB 220/1075 - 205
Porsche 911 2.7RST 210/1075 - 195
Lotus Elan Sprint 126/700 - 180
BMW E30 M3 SportEvo 235/1200 - 195
Lancia Stratos Stradale 190/980 - 193
Porsche 968CS 240/1320 - 180
Honda NSX 270/1350 - 200
A Porsche Cayman 2.7 at 275/1350 is 204bhp/t and a 4 cylinder Cayman weighing 1250kg would need 250bhp to reach 200bhp/t.
SS7
*based on 10mins web-research, I know claimed weight and hp numbers can be a long way from the reality
I wouldnt necessarily disagree with that, with two caveats:-
(1) I think the optimum ptw ratio may be different depending on the weight of the car - a really small car can probably be relatively underpowered but still fun because of the feel and "chuckability"; very large cars can feel unresponsive even when they have, on paper, a good ptw ratio.
(2) I would put the optimum a bit higher than 200hp, but that is just taste. I dont think my Cayman S could benefit from having less power (although, with its REAL weight, I bet it isnt a million miles from 200hp per 1000kg).
I suspect that the optimum has gone up as the relationship between the car, road and driver has become more detached. It takes more ooomph to communicate the acceleration and feel of speed when you are on huge tyres and compliant suspension and have a drive-by-wire throttle, etc.
(I remember very fondly my first car - a Fiesta Zetec from about 1999 that seemed bloody fast along tight b-roads...although pretty slow on a motorway. It probably had about 100bhp per 1000kg but felt a lot less underpowered than far more powerful Audis now do)
(1) I think the optimum ptw ratio may be different depending on the weight of the car - a really small car can probably be relatively underpowered but still fun because of the feel and "chuckability"; very large cars can feel unresponsive even when they have, on paper, a good ptw ratio.
(2) I would put the optimum a bit higher than 200hp, but that is just taste. I dont think my Cayman S could benefit from having less power (although, with its REAL weight, I bet it isnt a million miles from 200hp per 1000kg).
I suspect that the optimum has gone up as the relationship between the car, road and driver has become more detached. It takes more ooomph to communicate the acceleration and feel of speed when you are on huge tyres and compliant suspension and have a drive-by-wire throttle, etc.
(I remember very fondly my first car - a Fiesta Zetec from about 1999 that seemed bloody fast along tight b-roads...although pretty slow on a motorway. It probably had about 100bhp per 1000kg but felt a lot less underpowered than far more powerful Audis now do)
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff