The Porsche 718 GTS bombshell | PH Footnote
The idea of a 4.0-litre, six-cylinder Cayman is heavenly. But at what cost?
If there is a band of people out there somewhere hoping that the combustion engined performance car will soon meet its end, they’ll be licking their wounds this week. I’d only just stopped daydreaming about the Toyota GR Yaris – the most interesting new hot hatch for a very long time, I reckon – when the press release dropped in from Porsche confirming that GTS versions of the 718 Cayman and Boxster are ditching the underwhelming flat-four turbo engines in favour of a naturally-aspirated flat-six. If good news comes in threes, perhaps next week PH will be reporting on a factory-approved manual gearbox conversion for the Alpine A110. We shall see.
I’ve been wondering what the knock-on effects of Porsche’s announcement might be. On the not unreasonable assumption that these new GTS models will turn out to be really rather good, I think the fallout might look something like this…
Reduced demand for 718 Cayman GT4 and 718 Boxster Spyder
Before these latest GTS derivatives were announced, there was one very good reason for the Cayman or Boxster buyer to covet the range-topping models: they were the only way to dodge the tuneless turbocharged four-pot. But now you can have the same six-cylinder powertrain as the Porsche Motorsport models, minus 20hp and a couple of hundred rpm, for 10 per cent less outlay. Not bad.
Porsche has already said it’ll try to meet demand for the Spyder and GT4 this time around rather than favouring long-standing customers, as has tended to be the case with its GT models, but that won’t happen right away. Regardless, this week’s announcement will probably let it off the hook. After all, if your OPC tells you that you won’t be getting your mitts on one of the halo models for a little while yet, are you going to stamp your feet and write angry forum posts about it, or buy a GTS and get on with enjoying the thing?
Chances are, too, that anybody who might have been hoping to flip a GT4 or Spyder to spin a few quid will now have a harder time of it. Hear those tiny violins ring out.
Four-cylinder 982s lose value
Now that Porsche has publicly declared that a four-cylinder engine with a turbocharger attached to it actually isn’t the right kind of motor for a high-end sports car – which it just has, effectively – who’s going to want one with exactly that behind the seats? I suspect four-cylinder 982s will quickly become less desirable and lose value as a result. Suboptimal for anybody who owns one now, sure, but very good news indeed for the rest of us, not least because a four-cylinder Boxster or Cayman is actually a very desirable car. Okay, so the soundtrack and power delivery aren’t quite right, but they offer very punchy performance and what could be the best chassis in the business. If 982s slip far enough, I would gladly overlook an uninspiring exhaust note.
As an aside, I’ve just spotted something curious: official figures suggest Porsche sold about as many 982s as six-cylinder 981s, but in the PH classifieds right now there are 206 four-cylinder Boxsters and Caymans up for sale, but only 102 six-pot 981s. It seems owners of four-cylinder cars are twice as likely to want to move them on.
981s lose value too
It seems likely to me that values of pre-2016 981 Caymans and Boxsters, with their lovely 2.7 and 3.4-litre n/a flat sixes, were being propped up by the quiet suspicion that they could be the last of their type. And now we know they’re nothing of the sort. They won’t be quite so sought-after in that case and, what’s more, plenty of owners will upgrade to a new GTS and 981s will flood the market. In either case, values take a tumble.
Other manufacturers follow suit
Okay, file this one under ‘wishful thinking’. I don’t believe for a moment that BMW will be inspired to turn its back on downsizing, cylinder-shedding and turbocharging, but wouldn’t it be grand if it did introduce a high-revving V8 for the next M3? Actually, as long as we’re daydreaming about this sort of thing, I would have Mercedes-AMG reintroduce a modernised version of that show-stopping 6.2-litre V8 from the SLS Black Series and drop it into the AMG GT. Yummy.
In more ways than one, then, the introduction of these new six-cylinder GTSes is very good news, whether you’re about to put down a deposit for one or not. But mostly I’m encouraged by this development because it comes at a time when many of us were beginning to assume that really evocative engines were becoming a thing of the past. For giving the naturally-aspirated performance car engine a stay of execution, let me say this: thank you, Porsche.
I currently work for a global organisation that is heavily involved in the understanding and advocation of climate change reversal, and as a lifelong petrolhead the recent, swift changes to the automotive world leave me conflicted.
The move in general makes complete sense to me and I couldn’t be more behind it, which feels odd, but the right thing given the overwhelming evidence. However the impact of a small number of N/A cars for enthusiasts is so small, that has to be something that’s manageable moving forward.
I’m really intrigued to see, particularly in the UK which in many ways is leading western policy, how older enthusiast models are treated in upcoming regulations. If screaming V8’s will be provided special licences and insurance at higher cost and lower mileage for example, or will they simply be taxed off the road?
Similarly, public perception. When horrific weather cranks up even more globally, people’s homes begin to flood in low lying areas, will driving around with an overtly ICE powered car put you in the category of social pariah?
In the immediate, great news to hear we have the N/A scream just a little longer.
The only option would then be to lower the power expectation in the market which may be possible longer term as EV’s will have far more outright grunt, potentially leaving N/A engines to be optimised for emissions and enjoyment over power?
TimoMak - Can you explain the logic in calling it BS, similar to others allover the PH forum mocking Thunberg and labelling everybody on that side of the debate a tree-hugging sandal wearing (insert Clarkson re-hash here) so-and-so? Do you know more than the vast majority of international experts?
Obviously there are more polluting behaviours than buying a flat 6 over a flat 4, and with moderation elsewhere you can make a strong arguments for a R8 V10 weekend toy, but there's no excuse for ignoring the logic and evidence behind it. Ignorance is allover PH, unwilling to listen because it doesn't fit what they want to hear, as if that will alleviate the problem. We in the richer economies made our riches on the back of fossil fuels; we have a responsibility to lead the way to sustainability. Maybe an intelligent conversation will mean we can keep our passion in the long run. It's about time PH and other publications (TG etc) put their stake in the ground too.
For those requesting specific information on climate change I politely point you to Google where you will find every answer you're interested in, and it's great you're asking them. This is a shock change to our view of the world and the lives we lead and it's totally unprecedented, the only comparable events in modern human history have been through the effects of war. That being said it is happening, the lack of human precedent doesn't change the facts, and the realities continue on regardless of people's desire to understand or accept them. If you seek the reality, review the evidence with an open mind, if you seek justification for an uninformed opinion you'll find those answers and that will become your version of the facts but not the reality.
Some very fair points are being made around the impact of the UK vs other countries, a small number of cars vs global industries. The truth is we are in a dangerous position for the lives of millions on this planet. The UK has to opportunity to lead initiatives that change the tide on anything contributing, and they will work in unison. A change in one area will catalyse change in another regionally or by sector, providing leverage for conversation and action globally. The vast majority of global economies are still developing, they don't have a fraction of the quality of life we have and they aren't in the same position to lead the charge financially, let alone pragmatically, before morally.
As for world leaders, China and India are the first and third largest polluters respectively and are going through huge and complex economic growth, both countries having gargantuan GDP and a rampantly expanding middle class, but also massive regional poverty. The US as the second largest global polluter are the highest economically developed country on the planet, who have dissolved their environment agency and retracted from the Paris Climate Treaty thanks to a government highly averse to climate change. We need to convince these countries by leading by example.
Additionally there is unfortunately not always clear logic in human psychology, for example the huge public shift against diesels is damaging sales when Euro 6 diesel engines are cleaner than current petrol alternatives, combined with the fact diesels are better for the environment out of the city than petrol ones. But previous generations of diesel engines have contributed to the early death of thousands in built up areas, there has been a movement and people are conscious of environmental impact of cars, which overall is a positive outcome. People follow the tune, not the individual notes.
If climate change continues, millions will be displaced from lands that are no longer able to support agriculture or organised human life. Those people need to go somewhere, that creates geopolitical tension as well as human pain. There is already populism rising in the countries those displaced will travel to and there is a lot at stake, it's far bigger than driving around in the cars we want. It's not just about whether you want to help others, I dont think anyone should feel pressured to help others, that is a personal decision. However we are now at a point where the effects will reach us all if changes to climate being witnessed now are allowed to continue to build.
Finally however as many have discussed, the specific impact of enthusiast cars is negligible. I'd be willing to wager that most people who purchase 'fast' cars will be happier with the power and instant torque of EV's than they have been with a performance ICE. As another poster mentioned many are buying a premium product that comes with the power as part of the package, with the actual method of movement not their concern (beyond range considerations). The nuances enthusiasts are passionate about are very separate to those of the public. I hold out hope there is room for policies to support our passion, and those in the positions to lobby for it, over the coming years whilst these factors play out.
The temperature predictions have been less than accurate - hence the need to explain ‘the pause’. If it had been accurately forecast, there would be no need to explain it! There are also plenty of emails from the climategate saga (in which, I think, Hansen was implicated) showing frustration that observed data didn’t meet the output of the models.
I’m in the business of forecasting and a 16% standard deviation about the mean would get me fired. This is why I treat climate alarmism with a healthy dose of skepticism.
As for the general public being fed up, we know that polls are a useless indication of opinion - witness the Brexit referendum polling and the 2019 GE polling.
When the fires in California begin to burn down entire townships, or weather cycles in Florida wipe out settlements there, and the American bond market refuses to insure them against future occurrences. I wonder if that will be the point. Does the system have to believe in it too? Isn't that a huge waste of intelligence.
It's a bewildering thing to advocate, it's not the percentile accuracy that's the concern its the story the data is telling you should be worried about. I'm sure intelligent people argued against the Earth being round, they were no more correct than you are.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff