Future of the 718
01-28-2019, 04:50 PM
#16
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gone. On the Open Road
Posts: 16,322
Received 1,542 Likes
on
1,006 Posts
Just a thought but wondering why Porsche would continue the 718 at all with coming electrification? Since the new 911 is already designed for electrification and the 718 claim to fame is the mid-engine, what would the 718 platform offer without engine placement? I hope that the demise is way in the future but don’t see the need for the platform as internal combustion engines phase out.
01-28-2019, 04:58 PM
#17
Rennlist Member
If you don’t think electrification has everything to do with future cars you aren’t doing much reading on VAG plans for the future. Weight balance isn’t an issue when a battery is the major weight of the chassis, do you think 2 seat cars are big sellers? If Porsche goes electric or even hybrid, why would they need the 718? Look at current sales numbers of the 718 and the 981 and convince me that these cars are important to VAG.
01-28-2019, 06:20 PM
#18
If you don’t think electrification has everything to do with future cars you aren’t doing much reading on VAG plans for the future. Weight balance isn’t an issue when a battery is the major weight of the chassis, do you think 2 seat cars are big sellers? If Porsche goes electric or even hybrid, why would they need the 718? Look at current sales numbers of the 718 and the 981 and convince me that these cars are important to VAG.
01-28-2019, 07:03 PM
#19
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gone. On the Open Road
Posts: 16,322
Received 1,542 Likes
on
1,006 Posts
This is actually a really interesting point. All my life I've sought out 2 seat cars b/c I preferred the maneuverability. With battery banks along the floor though and motors at the axles, what is the loss of the backseats getting you? The wheelbase of the 911 and 718 (I believe) are nearly identical, so it's not a turn radius issue... I never thought of it before,but I may in fact own a 4 seat car one day.
Given two, two-axle cars of the same or similar wheel base, one in a two-seat and one with a 2+2 configuration, and assuming we don't want our "+2" to be hung outboard of either axle (which safety regulations would make very impractical) then the two-seat car has more not-used-by-humans volume between the two axles. This means that the distribution of mass of batteries and all the other bits that make a car go and make a car usable can be closer to the center of the yaw-axis. You can put more stuff between the axles rather than having to move it further from the yaw-center to make room for humans.
In general, what this means is lower polar moment of inertia, or IOWs more-nimble handling for the same overall mass of car and tire contact patch. Less tire wear too. Less dive under braking. Less squat under acceleration. Less sophistication in suspension design to counter squat and dive.
Batteries for cars want to be as flat and thin as possible because that means you can put them on the bottom of the car and not impact the height of the center of gravity. In fact, the mass of batteries can be used to lower CoG which is a good thing for handling. But, that's independent of seat architecture. However, in the 2-seat design you could use the 'rear seat volume' for batteries if you are willing to trade CoG for polar moment. Or, for more electric range.
Furthermore, just because you remove the ICE engine and move and flatten some of that mass out along the bottom of the car as batteries, you have additional systems you have to add back in (e.g. heat, AC, and for Porsche you have to have a different way of actuating RAS and PDCC since you don't have a belt-driven pump) and those systems have mass and need to be put somewhere. It's better for performance if you can get that mass low and between the axles. You have to add the big chunks of copper windings that are electric motors and those are going to be hung in the vicinity of the axles. You still have brakes and differentials and they stay in the same place.
So... no. Electrification does not change the performance advantages inherent in a two-seat architecture. The technology of electrification is not, by and of itself, a valid argument supporting the demise of two-seat platforms.
Actually I have. And the modular platform for a follow-on to the 981/718 exists.
Weight balance isn’t an issue when a battery is the major weight of the chassis,
do you think 2 seat cars are big sellers?
If Porsche goes electric or even hybrid, why would they need the 718?
Look at current sales numbers of the 718 and the 981
and convince me that these cars are important to VAG.
01-28-2019, 09:07 PM
#20
Burning Brakes
981 Spyder worldwide sales were 2400 with 850 coming to the US. Worldwide sales also contribute to an extra model year, unlike the US which only saw 2016. GT4 were marginally more but I can't find the figures. If Porsche keeps them manual gearboxed then don't expect production/sales to be any better. Maybe worse. I owned a 981 Spyder. Fun car to drive but not as sharp as the GT4 primarily in lateral grip. PZeros didn't help. My 2017 Targa 4S will corner considerably quicker. Both on PZeros. My wife now has a 2018 Boxster GTS, which feels inferior to the 981 Boxster Spyder in every way I can think of except Apple CarPlay. But PDK was required!
01-29-2019, 02:20 AM
#21
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gone. On the Open Road
Posts: 16,322
Received 1,542 Likes
on
1,006 Posts
My 2017 Targa 4S will corner considerably quicker. Both on PZeros.
01-29-2019, 09:57 AM
#22
Rennlist Member
Perhaps my initial response was not written very clearly. The original post simply was asking about the future of the 718. Since none of us actually have the answer as to the future, I simply thought the OP was seeking an opinion, so that's how I proceeded. I'll try to simplify my response fo you:
The 718 is a mid-engine platform. If Porsche moves to electrification, there will be no engine. If there is no engine, there is no need for a mid-engine platform.
I hope that this makes my response bit more clear to you. I was not commenting on 2 seat architecture, yaw, weigh, wheelbase or anything else, simply putting forth my opinion that the 718 will not be around in the future. If there is a Porsche 2 seater, it will no longer be a 718 but something else entirely, my opinion. You can feel differently and that's fine, we are all entitled to opinions. I hope that there are 2 seat cars in the future but that has nothing to do with this post - I thought that it was about the 718 - not the future of 2 seat cars.
The numbers on sales of Boxster/Cayman more prove my point than your point - they are not big sellers. Your tone is condescending and unnecessary. I realize that batteries are heavy but again, that wasn't my point regarding weight. Drive a TeslaS in ludicrous mode or even a Model 3 with the dual engines and tell me how much the battery weight affects the performance.
So, thank you for the physics lesson but I didn't ask for one. I'll go back to the original question and simply say that I do not think that the 718 has a long future. I hope that's clear enough for you.
The 718 is a mid-engine platform. If Porsche moves to electrification, there will be no engine. If there is no engine, there is no need for a mid-engine platform.
I hope that this makes my response bit more clear to you. I was not commenting on 2 seat architecture, yaw, weigh, wheelbase or anything else, simply putting forth my opinion that the 718 will not be around in the future. If there is a Porsche 2 seater, it will no longer be a 718 but something else entirely, my opinion. You can feel differently and that's fine, we are all entitled to opinions. I hope that there are 2 seat cars in the future but that has nothing to do with this post - I thought that it was about the 718 - not the future of 2 seat cars.
The numbers on sales of Boxster/Cayman more prove my point than your point - they are not big sellers. Your tone is condescending and unnecessary. I realize that batteries are heavy but again, that wasn't my point regarding weight. Drive a TeslaS in ludicrous mode or even a Model 3 with the dual engines and tell me how much the battery weight affects the performance.
So, thank you for the physics lesson but I didn't ask for one. I'll go back to the original question and simply say that I do not think that the 718 has a long future. I hope that's clear enough for you.
Ah... now we have an actual response. Thank you Sir.
Given two, two-axle cars of the same or similar wheel base, one in a two-seat and one with a 2+2 configuration, and assuming we don't want our "+2" to be hung outboard of either axle (which safety regulations would make very impractical) then the two-seat car has more not-used-by-humans volume between the two axles. This means that the distribution of mass of batteries and all the other bits that make a car go and make a car usable can be closer to the center of the yaw-axis. You can put more stuff between the axles rather than having to move it further from the yaw-center to make room for humans.
In general, what this means is lower polar moment of inertia, or IOWs more-nimble handling for the same overall mass of car and tire contact patch. Less tire wear too. Less dive under braking. Less squat under acceleration. Less sophistication in suspension design to counter squat and dive.
Batteries for cars want to be as flat and thin as possible because that means you can put them on the bottom of the car and not impact the height of the center of gravity. In fact, the mass of batteries can be used to lower CoG which is a good thing for handling. But, that's independent of seat architecture. However, in the 2-seat design you could use the 'rear seat volume' for batteries if you are willing to trade CoG for polar moment. Or, for more electric range.
Furthermore, just because you remove the ICE engine and move and flatten some of that mass out along the bottom of the car as batteries, you have additional systems you have to add back in (e.g. heat, AC, and for Porsche you have to have a different way of actuating RAS and PDCC since you don't have a belt-driven pump) and those systems have mass and need to be put somewhere. It's better for performance if you can get that mass low and between the axles. You have to add the big chunks of copper windings that are electric motors and those are going to be hung in the vicinity of the axles. You still have brakes and differentials and they stay in the same place.
So... no. Electrification does not change the performance advantages inherent in a two-seat architecture. The technology of electrification is not, by and of itself, a valid argument supporting the demise of two-seat platforms.
Actually I have. And the modular platform for a follow-on to the 981/718 exists.
Really? So the mass of batteries obeys laws of physics that are different from those obeyed by the mass of a flat-4 engine? Do tell please.
I presented data above that should answer your question.
Let's take as a given your magical world in which the mass of batteries doesn't behave like a mass of moving bits of metal. Why does the system of propulsion have any bearing on the market for a two-seat sports car?
You mean the numbers I summarized above after a few minutes of searching?
I didn't post to convince you that the mid-engine platform is important to VAG. I have no well-formed opinion on that issue. I posted because your assertion that "Weight balance isn’t an issue" is magical thinking.
Given two, two-axle cars of the same or similar wheel base, one in a two-seat and one with a 2+2 configuration, and assuming we don't want our "+2" to be hung outboard of either axle (which safety regulations would make very impractical) then the two-seat car has more not-used-by-humans volume between the two axles. This means that the distribution of mass of batteries and all the other bits that make a car go and make a car usable can be closer to the center of the yaw-axis. You can put more stuff between the axles rather than having to move it further from the yaw-center to make room for humans.
In general, what this means is lower polar moment of inertia, or IOWs more-nimble handling for the same overall mass of car and tire contact patch. Less tire wear too. Less dive under braking. Less squat under acceleration. Less sophistication in suspension design to counter squat and dive.
Batteries for cars want to be as flat and thin as possible because that means you can put them on the bottom of the car and not impact the height of the center of gravity. In fact, the mass of batteries can be used to lower CoG which is a good thing for handling. But, that's independent of seat architecture. However, in the 2-seat design you could use the 'rear seat volume' for batteries if you are willing to trade CoG for polar moment. Or, for more electric range.
Furthermore, just because you remove the ICE engine and move and flatten some of that mass out along the bottom of the car as batteries, you have additional systems you have to add back in (e.g. heat, AC, and for Porsche you have to have a different way of actuating RAS and PDCC since you don't have a belt-driven pump) and those systems have mass and need to be put somewhere. It's better for performance if you can get that mass low and between the axles. You have to add the big chunks of copper windings that are electric motors and those are going to be hung in the vicinity of the axles. You still have brakes and differentials and they stay in the same place.
So... no. Electrification does not change the performance advantages inherent in a two-seat architecture. The technology of electrification is not, by and of itself, a valid argument supporting the demise of two-seat platforms.
Actually I have. And the modular platform for a follow-on to the 981/718 exists.
Really? So the mass of batteries obeys laws of physics that are different from those obeyed by the mass of a flat-4 engine? Do tell please.
I presented data above that should answer your question.
Let's take as a given your magical world in which the mass of batteries doesn't behave like a mass of moving bits of metal. Why does the system of propulsion have any bearing on the market for a two-seat sports car?
You mean the numbers I summarized above after a few minutes of searching?
I didn't post to convince you that the mid-engine platform is important to VAG. I have no well-formed opinion on that issue. I posted because your assertion that "Weight balance isn’t an issue" is magical thinking.
Last edited by michael818; 01-29-2019 at 12:50 PM.
01-29-2019, 10:47 AM
#23
More 718 bashing by diehard flat 6 guys. In the end, the market will rule- and ICE Porsche's will be soundly beaten by fully electric Porsche's. Life goes on.
01-29-2019, 01:05 PM
#24
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gone. On the Open Road
Posts: 16,322
Received 1,542 Likes
on
1,006 Posts
01-29-2019, 01:24 PM
#25
Yellow Submarine's original post makes the point that's been concerning me for quite some time: No spy shots of any mules at all and very few credible rumors.
Could the recent Taycan 2-door render point the way to a 2-seat Cayman-replacement if petrol engines are eliminated? More likely it would be positioned as more of a 928, but the potential is there to slot it as a 718 successor.
Personally, I've been hoping for a cost-effective 918 trickle-down: A mid-engine plug-in would be fantastic. Ala P1 torque fill and we still get to enjoy the exhaust note. Given a next-gen opportunity, Porsche should be able to nail the exhaust note we've all been savoring and use the instant torque of the electric motors for compelling acceleration times compared to the coming pure-electric benchmarks.
Could the recent Taycan 2-door render point the way to a 2-seat Cayman-replacement if petrol engines are eliminated? More likely it would be positioned as more of a 928, but the potential is there to slot it as a 718 successor.
Personally, I've been hoping for a cost-effective 918 trickle-down: A mid-engine plug-in would be fantastic. Ala P1 torque fill and we still get to enjoy the exhaust note. Given a next-gen opportunity, Porsche should be able to nail the exhaust note we've all been savoring and use the instant torque of the electric motors for compelling acceleration times compared to the coming pure-electric benchmarks.
01-29-2019, 02:03 PM
#26
Racer
Thread Starter
If the data I found is accurate, the 600 HP Taycan is 4850 mm and weight is 2200 kg, range is projected to be 415 km. Imagine chopping off 2 feet of the length and the range doesn't need to be as much, power of 400 HP would be plenty. Then the weight would be a lot less also. There's your 2-seater electric 718 successor...
01-29-2019, 02:07 PM
#27
Racer
Thread Starter
Here on Rennlist, someone posted 2,400 GT4 for N-A only. Someone else posted 400 for UK. Then there's the substantial German market (950 sold according to PFF) ... 6000 global seems possible
01-29-2019, 02:44 PM
#28
Racer
Thread Starter
Just a thought but wondering why Porsche would continue the 718 at all with coming electrification? Since the new 911 is already designed for electrification and the 718 claim to fame is the mid-engine, what would the 718 platform offer without engine placement? I hope that the demise is way in the future but don’t see the need for the platform as internal combustion engines phase out.
Autocar UK on the Taycan: ... will set the scene for the introduction of other new battery-powered Porsche models, including an electric-powered mid-engined sports car in the mould of the existing Boxster and Cayman and an SUV similar in size to the recently facelifted Macan
the new Taycan platform has been conceived exclusively as a dedicated electric vehicle architecture with Weckbach confirming it does not accept a combustion engine. It does, however, form the basis of a more versatile structure being developed in an engineering programme between Porsche and Audi called the Premium Platform Electric (PPE).
link: Taycan
01-29-2019, 03:21 PM
#29
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gone. On the Open Road
Posts: 16,322
Received 1,542 Likes
on
1,006 Posts
Lots of arguing, eye poking, and speculation about what a non-ICE “718” might be based upon. The way I see it, you look at the market segment first. The 981/718 sit in what I call the ‘mid-price toy car segment’ where ‘toy’ means “for pleasure.” That’s a really small segment. Price rules out kids right out of college. Two seats means no room for kids and kid supplies. For empty-nesters if you can afford $70-90k for a toy car you can probably look way further up-market. What remains are exceptions and folks up can do sub-$100k for a toy but not above.
There are lots of cross-shop options in that market segment for those that don’t gravitate to a rear mid-engine. Some with two seats. Corvette is, IMO, the biggest 718/981 rival even though they are super-different in almost all ways.
So, it’s a tough segment to compete in, especially if you have to limit performance to avoid the 911-must-be-king lunatics.
If a ‘mid-battery’ or ‘mid-hybrid’ (i.e. two-seat) Porsche platform emerges outside of that segment it isn’t a follow-on to the 981/718. If one does, then it is a 981/718 follow-on regardless of nomenclature.
01-29-2019, 06:01 PM
#30
Who knows the future of the 718, but the upcoming GT4 and Spyder will be 718s in body only, so I don't think they're relevant at all to the future of the regular 718 lineup.
The question is simply, is there a market for very high dollar turbo four sports cars that justifies the investment in continued development and dedication of production resources. My guess is that 718 gets a mid cycle refresh and then goes the way of the dodo bird.
The question is simply, is there a market for very high dollar turbo four sports cars that justifies the investment in continued development and dedication of production resources. My guess is that 718 gets a mid cycle refresh and then goes the way of the dodo bird.