When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
OK, I'm not going to get into this more than saying that it is the increasing torque with increasing revs that gives a positive feeling in acceleration (derivative on the torque). With flat torque curve on full load - no matter how long the torque extends in revs (of course I know that a diesel doesn't rev as long as a 718...) you get the same acceleration (minus road load) over the rev range. But with an NA you feel MORE acceleration as the rev rises. Please note I am talking about the feeling of acceleration - not the absolute numbers. I know the 718 is quicker and I don't care.
To say the NA engine is dead under 4000 is simply wrong. You can have good throttle response on very low revs, even if the available torque is low. OTOH the response from a turbo engine can be lethargic at low revs because of lower compression and no available boost.
I think you are maybe mixing up the response from the complete powertrain (including automatic gearbox or PDK) with the engine response isolated. I am only talking about the engine response.
And I also think, judging from your response to me, I have to add that I have been working in powertrain development for more than 20 years, including a number of years in motorsport. So even if we don't necessarily agree, I have some professional experience to back up what I am saying.
As a near-future-718-owner, I'd like to mention that this is a great thread. Far more informative and useful (and respectful!) than the usual playground retorts about the engine sound of 981 vs 718.
Global 718 sales? Or Global Porsche sales... in the U.S. they are anything but. Actually down -30% for the Boxster and Up for the Cayman 12% which is due to the GT4 later/bigger production than the Spyder.
Source: Feb 2017 Panorama
it will be interesting to see the numbers a year from now. Which would be a better Apple to Apple comparison to avoid overlap numbers.
"There were 12,848 deliveries of the 718 Boxster, exceeding last year's result by 9 per cent. Meanwhile, the legend of the Porsche 911 continues: With a total of 32,409 models delivered, sales of the 911 once again grew by 2 per cent, helping it to maintain its special position in the market for exclusive sportscars. The Macan reinforced its position as the best-selling Porsche with 95,642 vehicles delivered, representing an increase of 19 per cent."
And I also think, judging from your response to me, I have to add that I have been working in powertrain development for more than 20 years, including a number of years in motorsport. So even if we don't necessarily agree, I have some professional experience to back up what I am saying.
Erik thanks for the considered response - to put it another way from 2000rpm to 7500rpm - which engine, 981GTS or 718S develops the most power as defined by the torque curve? We both know this is the 718S (by a fair margin). The 718S does more work in less time - implicit in this it accelerates harder.
I honestly feel the 981GTS is lethargic to say the least below, 4000 rpm - I very much enjoy my GTS but you have to work hard for the reward (or rather the engine does). I was very impressed with 718S - if you put your foot into it it shimmys and it is true that this is a function of a combination of responses.
But nontheless, the absolute facts speak for themselves - e.g. in gear acceleration. Moreover, the car is the sum of its parts
I just wonder why Porsche went with a 4 cyl. engine (with turbo) in the Boxster/Cayman line. They could have gone with a smaller 6 cyl. with a turbo like they did in the 911s. To me, it just seems like too much of a downgrade to the character of the car.
Actually, I wish they just stayed with a 6 cyl. NA. To hell with gas mileage! I'd rather pay a gas guzzler tax! It's a Sports Car for Pete's sake!
And they also claim which I tend to believe is the engine bay is not large enough to house the 6 cyl motor with all the turbo plumbing.
I caught up on my Car and a Driver issues and in their test, the turbo 4 got less gas mileage than the NA 6. If their intent was to downgrade the Boxster/Cayman, then fine, I will no longer consider a new one again in the future.
I just wonder why Porsche went with a 4 cyl. engine (with turbo) in the Boxster/Cayman line. They could have gone with a smaller 6 cyl. with a turbo like they did in the 911s. To me, it just seems like too much of a downgrade to the character of the car.
Actually, I wish they just stayed with a 6 cyl. NA. To hell with gas mileage! I'd rather pay a gas guzzler tax! It's a Sports Car for Pete's sake!
Just my $.02
The new 911 engine is smaller but you need a lot more room for the turbos, plumbing and cooling. The small cavity in the middle of the 718 makes it near impossible to a.) fit everything and b.) get the cooling it needs for 2 turbos.
The new 911 engine is smaller but you need a lot more room for the turbos, plumbing and cooling. The small cavity in the middle of the 718 makes it near impossible to a.) fit everything and b.) get the cooling it needs for 2 turbos.
Of course they could have made it fit. Porsche's unwritten motto has always been "The impossible costs a little more." Failing that, they could have just kept shipping the older NA 6-cylinder engines in the 982 platform.
Trouble is, tax authorities around the world have done their part to make sure that it costs a lot more. Here in the US, we're saddled with the 718 because it's the only thing they can economically offer for sale in the Asian markets. Porsche knew that this would provoke emotions ranging from annoyance to disgust to spite -- and even worse, indifference -- but the numbers made too much sense to justify any other strategy. And hey, if it safeguards the marketing moat they've built around the 911, so much the better.
Of course they could have made it fit. Porsche's unwritten motto has always been "The impossible costs a little more." Failing that, they could have just kept shipping the older NA 6-cylinder engines in the 982 platform.
Trouble is, tax authorities around the world have done their part to make sure that it costs a lot more. Here in the US, we're saddled with the 718 because it's the only thing they can economically offer for sale in the Asian markets. Porsche knew that this would provoke emotions ranging from annoyance to disgust to spite -- and even worse, indifference -- but the numbers made too much sense to justify any other strategy. And hey, if it safeguards the marketing moat they've built around the 911, so much the better.
Why not just have the 4cyl for Asia? That doesn't make sense to me, but whatever. Hopefully by the time I'd upgrade, Porsche has their head on straight.
Plenty of faster cars out there, it's not just about speed.
Erik thanks for the considered response - to put it another way from 2000rpm to 7500rpm - which engine, 981GTS or 718S develops the most power as defined by the torque curve? We both know this is the 718S (by a fair margin). The 718S does more work in less time - implicit in this it accelerates harder.
Agreed!
Originally Posted by randr
I honestly feel the 981GTS is lethargic to say the least below, 4000 rpm - I very much enjoy my GTS but you have to work hard for the reward (or rather the engine does). I was very impressed with 718S - if you put your foot into it it shimmys and it is true that this is a function of a combination of responses.
Getting closer. Yes, the 981GTS has (much) lower max torque available at lower revs. But here are two things in which I think the NA performs "better" than the turbo, despite that fact:
1. The time from when you decide to push the accelerator to that the engine reacts and actually deliveres whatever torque is available, is much shorter in the NA engine. This is the turbo-lag.
2. Personally I like the character of torque delivery much better when a small increase in rev gives an increase in torque. It's a positive slope of the torque. This gives a feeling of increasing acceleration, and you are also "rewarded" for letting the engine rev. In the 718S - where the torque curve is flat - increasing revs doesn't mean more available torque and the acceleration feels a bit "flat" (I know it isn't, but it feels not as rewarding)
Originally Posted by randr
But nontheless, the absolute facts speak for themselves - e.g. in gear acceleration. Moreover, the car is the sum of its parts
Agreed. And yes, the 718 is a very compentent car and outperforms the 981 in most areas. The thing is, for me a car like this exists in my household solely because of the emotions it stirrs. I do not get any goosebumps from the 718, which I do almost every time I fire up my 981 and definitely every time I can let it rip through the rev range. It is not only the sound, it is the smoothness, the character of torque delivery, the throttle response and yes, the sound - that makes me prefer the 981 over the 718. (I have driven it enough to have an opinion)
What happens in a couple of years when/if I feel the need for change I have no idea, and it makes me a bit sad that there isn't a small mid engine 6-cyl car available anymore
Why not just have the 4cyl for Asia? That doesn't make sense to me, but whatever. Hopefully by the time I'd upgrade, Porsche has their head on straight. Plenty of faster cars out there, it's not just about speed.
Long story: essentially all automakers these days operate on the basis of a "World Car" strategy, where differences in vehicles sold in international markets are kept to an absolute minimum. This has a number of compelling advantages. It keeps costs down and simplifies everything from production facility management to supplier relationships. The World Car concept started ramping up in the 1980s-1990s timeframe, and it was more the rule than the exception by the 2000s.
These days, we're seeing a return to the regulatory climate of the 1970s, where every major market is just a little bit too different for World Cars to make sense. Build an engine bigger than some arbitrary size -- 3.0L in this case -- and your customers will face literally insane levels of taxation in some very important markets. (Literally insane because the cylinder displacement is more important to the tax authorities than the actual amount of fuel burned or emissions produced.)
This is why oddities like the Ferrari 208s were built, where a 1.99-liter turbo V8 was produced to dodge engine displacement taxes specific to the Italian domestic market. The EU put an end to that goofiness, but the Asians are now doing the same thing. Meanwhile, the US market doesn't work that way at all. But Porsche won't abandon their World Car engineering approach on our account. They're addicted to the financial advantages that accrue from selling identical products in every market, and we simply don't buy enough sports cars to matter. Welcome to the lowest common denominator.
02-25-2017, 09:27 AM
