718 Cayman T
12-19-2018, 04:56 PM
#61
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
You can't rely on a currency conversion - Porsche prices cars differently in each market (US prices usually lower than currency conversion implies), but your numbers look pretty close.
12-19-2018, 07:08 PM
#63
Price it at $65k with LWBS and the 5 spoke wheels, and fix the sound so that it sounds at least as good as a Golf R inside and out, and it would be an interesting proposition. I still don't think it'd be a big seller, but it would be a somewhat desirable car if the 718 styling was to your liking.
12-20-2018, 03:47 AM
#64
SJW, a Carin' kinda guy
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Why does anyone think the US will not get LWBs? 911 Carrera T got them. Only in the US (and Canada) is the LWB option a big deal because the other markets get the folding buckets (the seats in the 997 GT and some late regular cars).
Based on thr UK configurator, the options are nearly identical to the 911 Carrera T. And they still make you get alcantara wheel and **** if you get LWB. And pay close to a grand to do so. Ugh why! Say no to alcantara.
Based on thr UK configurator, the options are nearly identical to the 911 Carrera T. And they still make you get alcantara wheel and **** if you get LWB. And pay close to a grand to do so. Ugh why! Say no to alcantara.
12-20-2018, 06:26 AM
#65
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gone. On the Open Road
Posts: 16,325
Received 1,542 Likes
on
1,006 Posts
Golf R is about 400 pounds heaver with slightly less bhp. AWD only in VW’s nose-heavy understeering econbox platform. Crappy seats and ergonomics with an engine that doesn’t sound as good as the 718 flat-4.
In what fantasy world do the Golf R and Cayman Base have the same performance?
The following users liked this post:
RobMtz (07-29-2019)
12-20-2018, 08:15 AM
#66
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
THIS IS THE HYPERBOLE POLICE: Put down the bong, back away slowly and come out with your hands up.
Golf R is about 400 pounds heaver with slightly less bhp. AWD only in VW’s nose-heavy understeering econbox platform. Crappy seats and ergonomics with an engine that doesn’t sound as good as the 718 flat-4.
In what fantasy world do the Golf R and Cayman Base have the same performance?
Having owned many different cars over the years, including a base 981 and a base 718, the 718 is better in almost every way. I’m so sick and tired of every reviewer complaining about the loss of the “holy grail” flat six. Did it sound great? Sure. But did it lack torque too? Absolutely. In fact, I would call it slow and underpowered. The power from the base 718 really brings this chassis to life. I think the Cayman T would be an excellent choice against any sub $70k offering out there today, including the M2C. The 718 Cayman chassis is in super car territory. Everything else is just a sedan chassis with performance parts thrown on it. In addition, as an autocross/track day car, the T with the LWBs would be amazing. Even if they offered the 718 T today wth that same 2.7 flat six as an option, I would absolutely choose the 2.0 turbo.
12-20-2018, 10:42 AM
#67
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gone. On the Open Road
Posts: 16,325
Received 1,542 Likes
on
1,006 Posts
I would still like to see the Cayman/Boxster platform not be saddled with the must-always-have-less-bhp-than-the-911 crippling mandated by PAG due to the 911-fanboyz cryin’ like little schoolgirls if their icon isn’t placed on a pedestal.
12-20-2018, 11:11 AM
#68
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,523
Received 823 Likes
on
452 Posts
lol. So true. I had a Golf R for about 4 months myself. It was one of the least satisfying cars I’ve ever owned, but to each their own.
Having owned many different cars over the years, including a base 981 and a base 718, the 718 is better in almost every way. I’m so sick and tired of every reviewer complaining about the loss of the “holy grail” flat six. Did it sound great? Sure. But did it lack torque too? Absolutely. In fact, I would call it slow and underpowered. The power from the base 718 really brings this chassis to life. I think the Cayman T would be an excellent choice against any sub $70k offering out there today, including the M2C. The 718 Cayman chassis is in super car territory. Everything else is just a sedan chassis with performance parts thrown on it. In addition, as an autocross/track day car, the T with the LWBs would be amazing. Even if they offered the 718 T today wth that same 2.7 flat six as an option, I would absolutely choose the 2.0 turbo.
Regarding 2.0T vs 2.7 NA: I’m less certain about my choice there. The 2.7 NA is underpowered and lacking low end torque. However, it’s immediate, and satisfying to rev out. When I test drove a 718 base, the main reason I wanted extra low end torque is to facilitate lazy right turns where I don’t shift out of third gear. The 2.0T completely failed at that. The turbos took well over a second to
spool up, and the 2.0T felt very weak before that, much weaker than my current Boxster’s 2.7 NA motor. The 2.0T is a bit quicker when you put it in the right gear with a high RPM for the turbos to spool up, but the 2.7 NA is no slouch at high RPM either, and it has instant torque with a satisfying soundtrack to go with it.
In the end, since I myself already have a Boxster with a 2.7 NA motor, a 2.7 NA 718 T wouldn’t be enough of an upgrade. A Boxster T with a 2.0T motor just doesn’t really excite me. If I had to pick between a 2.7 NA or 2.0T, I’d probably pick 2.7 for it’s satisfying power delivery, despite its lack of power.
What I really want is a GT4 motor in a non-GT chassis.
The following users liked this post:
RobMtz (07-29-2019)
12-20-2018, 11:20 AM
#69
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Absolutely. I find it funny that most manufacturers are willing to throw all kinds of HP and performance mods on their cars (Audi TTRS, BMW M2C, etc), to compete with the 718. All Porsche would need to do to blow every one of them out of the running is simply add a little more power (and a stickier tire option). Arguably the easiest things to do to a car, but since the 718 can't possibly be faster than a 911, it will never happen (other than the GT4). I wish Porsche would just keep the 911 focused on being the top performing "touring" car that it is and allow the 718 to fully shine. For example, if Porsche took a standard 718 Cayman GTS and tuned it up to 400hp to match the TTRS and M2C, it would be game over, and they could easily do this. Add in a track tire option, and the 718 would be easily lay down a ~7:25 Nurburgring time.
12-20-2018, 11:26 AM
#70
I like that. It’s a nice touch. What bothers me is that when they prepak the options for the T, they also limit your cxx options. I would have liked a Carrera T with carbon fiber touches but it’s a negative, AFAIK. I guess that is part and parcel of the T being a runoff model. And then, I don’t want to know how much the fabric upcharge was. Getting “”718” stitched into the headrest is also pretty steep. As we all know these option do run up.
I’m sure the upcharge for the T interior in the 718 will be hefty. IIRC, the charge for the Carrera T was about $3500 and if you wanted leather it wa s closer to $7k.
In any event, the more 718s the better. I’m hoping that the real upshot of the switch to the 718 moniker and turbo4 is that the platform is no longer capped by the 911 and eventually is a legitimate competitor to the bigger brother. I.e. no longer the poor mans Porsche but rather just another choice. Now it has its own body, it’s own engine and it’s own interior, perhaps it will be judged by that standard and not the “ how close it’s it to a 911?” standard.
I
12-20-2018, 11:29 AM
#71
Everyhead to head I see with the M2C and the TTRS, 718 comes out on top. It already is game over. Besides I don’t think TT sales have been that great regardless of all the hooping and hollering about the fantastic sound of the 5 cylinder.
12-20-2018, 11:44 AM
#72
Haha...@Archimedes is busted again. Anybody who has been on the forums for more than a few days knows he spends an inordinate amount of time bitching about the 718 ( in all it's variations) and doesn't even own one.
12-20-2018, 11:53 AM
#73
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Regarding 2.0T vs 2.7 NA: I’m less certain about my choice there. The 2.7 NA is underpowered and lacking low end torque. However, it’s immediate, and satisfying to rev out. When I test drove a 718 base, the main reason I wanted extra low end torque is to facilitate lazy right turns where I don’t shift out of third gear. The 2.0T completely failed at that. The turbos took well over a second to
spool up, and the 2.0T felt very weak before that, much weaker than my current Boxster’s 2.7 NA motor. The 2.0T is a bit quicker when you put it in the right gear with a high RPM for the turbos to spool up, but the 2.7 NA is no slouch at high RPM either, and it has instant torque with a satisfying soundtrack to go with it.
In the end, since I myself already have a Boxster with a 2.7 NA motor, a 2.7 NA 718 T wouldn’t be enough of an upgrade. A Boxster T with a 2.0T motor just doesn’t really excite me. If I had to pick between a 2.7 NA or 2.0T, I’d probably pick 2.7 for it’s satisfying power delivery, despite its lack of power.
What I really want is a GT4 motor in a non-GT chassis.
TheSmokingTire did an honest comparison of a significantly modded GT4 vs. a stock 718 GTS, and under most circumstances, he said he would choose the 718.
Last edited by chriswd62; 12-20-2018 at 12:32 PM.
12-20-2018, 12:09 PM
#74
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,523
Received 823 Likes
on
452 Posts
I get what you're saying about the turbo lag vs. the response of an NA; however, I feel the strength of the 718 is that you don't always need to be in the right gear to get to the power. With 280 lb.ft. of torque available from 2,000 - 5,000 rpm, I rarely needed to downshift to tap into the available power. With the 2.7, flooring it in 6th gear seem to make more noise than anything else. On the other hand, one could argue that this forces you to be more engaged by constantly needing to keep it in the high RPM. If you have a PDK, it would change things a bit. It's all a preference, but there is no denying the base 718 is much faster than the base 981.
TheSmokingTire did an honest comparison of a significantly modded GT4 vs. a stock 718 GTS, and under most circumstances, said he would choose the 718.
TheSmokingTire did an honest comparison of a significantly modded GT4 vs. a stock 718 GTS, and under most circumstances, said he would choose the 718.
I haven’t tried the 2.5T motor of the S/GTS models, but I expect it to be much better than the 2.0T, since it has more displacement, less boost, and variable turbine geometry. Assuming the lag is minimal, the only thing lacking from a 718 GTS for me is the top end screaming sound of an NA, though honestly I don’t think the 718 sounds bad at all - I even thought the 718 base I tried sounded fine.
The real reason I haven’t bought a 718 GTS is that they’re expensive and I fear they’ll depreciate heavily - I don’t have endless funds to lose to depreciation. I’m considering a 718 Spyder because in addition to the sound, performance, and styling, I don’t expect they’d depreciate much. All the GT cars seem to barely depreciate.
12-20-2018, 01:02 PM
#75
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gone. On the Open Road
Posts: 16,325
Received 1,542 Likes
on
1,006 Posts
On the subject of the "lag" in the 2.0...
When I test drove a 718 2.0 MT6 I quickly found that while the 2.0 has, off-boost, enough torque that you can toddle-around at 1200-1600 rpm, you really do notice that there's not much more torque when you want to *go*. On the other hand, who does that with a manual? It was easy, and natural to choose a gear where the engine speed was around 2000 rpm and at that speed the response was great.
Compared to my wife's 981S the 2.0 was far more responsive in the 2k-4k rpm range where I'd be spending most of my time.
On the other hand, if you test the 2.0 with PDK and let the PDK choose gears in normal mode, where it is intent on passing CAFE and European CO2 testing, and absolutely keeps the motor out of boost, then the 2.0 is going to feel like a dog.
On the subject of Audi TTs: we've had 5 of them since 1999. They are great little 'run-abouts' and the RS 5-pot motor is a masterpiece. The MK1s '99-'06 were honest 'sporty' cars - especially with the original 'outlaw' front lower control arms - with a lot of personality and unique design. The MKIIs were more sports-car like but most of the personality was designed-out. I DD'd an MKII TTS for 7 years and never bonded with it. Tons of lag below 2800 rpm, rode like a go-kart where there's no springs or shocks, seats were crappier than the MK1s, stereo was worse, etc. I wasn't sad, a bit, to let my wife trade it in on her '16 991 MT. The '12 RS I miss. A bit. Every once in a while.
When I test drove a 718 2.0 MT6 I quickly found that while the 2.0 has, off-boost, enough torque that you can toddle-around at 1200-1600 rpm, you really do notice that there's not much more torque when you want to *go*. On the other hand, who does that with a manual? It was easy, and natural to choose a gear where the engine speed was around 2000 rpm and at that speed the response was great.
Compared to my wife's 981S the 2.0 was far more responsive in the 2k-4k rpm range where I'd be spending most of my time.
On the other hand, if you test the 2.0 with PDK and let the PDK choose gears in normal mode, where it is intent on passing CAFE and European CO2 testing, and absolutely keeps the motor out of boost, then the 2.0 is going to feel like a dog.
On the subject of Audi TTs: we've had 5 of them since 1999. They are great little 'run-abouts' and the RS 5-pot motor is a masterpiece. The MK1s '99-'06 were honest 'sporty' cars - especially with the original 'outlaw' front lower control arms - with a lot of personality and unique design. The MKIIs were more sports-car like but most of the personality was designed-out. I DD'd an MKII TTS for 7 years and never bonded with it. Tons of lag below 2800 rpm, rode like a go-kart where there's no springs or shocks, seats were crappier than the MK1s, stereo was worse, etc. I wasn't sad, a bit, to let my wife trade it in on her '16 991 MT. The '12 RS I miss. A bit. Every once in a while.