2019 718 Spyder OR 2018 991.2 GT3
#46
Three Wheelin'
Thanks, Pete. Great explanation.
#47
Three Wheelin'
#48
Rennlist Member
Exactly! Except your rhetorical questions are all aimed in the wrong direction. Why not mandate radio deletion? Why not remove the power steering rack? Why not equip the car exclusively with centerlocks? Who needs air conditioning on a race track? And what's that passenger seat for, anyway? This is a driver's car, after all!
The decision of how to handicap the Spyder is 100% arbitrary. The manual top wasn't so annoying when you could still buy a Boxster with a 3.4L NA flat-6. Now, the only way to get a two-seat Porsche with a modern convertible top will require substantial compromises in other areas. Once again, the company will steadfastly refuse to deliver the car the market actually wants. Then they'll wonder why their sports-car sales are headed off a cliff.
The decision of how to handicap the Spyder is 100% arbitrary. The manual top wasn't so annoying when you could still buy a Boxster with a 3.4L NA flat-6. Now, the only way to get a two-seat Porsche with a modern convertible top will require substantial compromises in other areas. Once again, the company will steadfastly refuse to deliver the car the market actually wants. Then they'll wonder why their sports-car sales are headed off a cliff.
#49
Exactly! Except your rhetorical questions are all aimed in the wrong direction. Why not mandate radio deletion? Why not remove the power steering rack? Why not equip the car exclusively with centerlocks? Who needs air conditioning on a race track? And what's that passenger seat for, anyway? This is a driver's car, after all!
The decision of how to handicap the Spyder is 100% arbitrary. The manual top wasn't so annoying when you could still buy a Boxster with a 3.4L NA flat-6. Now, the only way to get a two-seat Porsche with a modern convertible top will require substantial compromises in other areas. Once again, the company will steadfastly refuse to deliver the car the market actually wants. Then they'll wonder why their sports-car sales are headed off a cliff.
The decision of how to handicap the Spyder is 100% arbitrary. The manual top wasn't so annoying when you could still buy a Boxster with a 3.4L NA flat-6. Now, the only way to get a two-seat Porsche with a modern convertible top will require substantial compromises in other areas. Once again, the company will steadfastly refuse to deliver the car the market actually wants. Then they'll wonder why their sports-car sales are headed off a cliff.
When the Spyder was originally conceived it was without any top at all. The original's tent was added late in the game, and it's been getting watered down ever since. There's always going to be a natural pull towards the tyranny of mediocrity. Unfortunately average tends not to be very exciting.
I fully understand the desire for a more mainstream normally aspirated convertible, and I think that should be addressed by Porsche if possible (ask yourself why it hasn't been). It should not by adressed watering down their most focused models, however. There are three cars Porsche has made in last few years I personally considered buying: the Boxster Spyder, GT4 and the 911R. Perhaps not by coincidence all of these sold better than Porsche had expected. I see no need to pull any of those towards the other slower selling sports cars you mention by homogenizing them.
#50
Rennlist Member
I fully understand the desire for a more mainstream normally aspirated convertible, and I think that should be addressed by Porsche if possible (ask yourself why it hasn't been).
It should not by adressed watering down their most focused models, however. There are three cars Porsche has made in last few years I personally considered buying: the Boxster Spyder, GT4 and the 911R. Perhaps not by coincidence all of these sold better than Porsche had expected.
Kind of a bummer for those of us whose budgets don't allow for 918s and 911Rs and the like. We're left with overpriced Subarus.
#51
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
This argument is such a forehead-slapper.
Essentially, you and the other "purists" are saying the Spyder should have 44 electric motors, 119 solenoids, and 62 microprocessors. The rest of us are saying it should have 45 electric motors, 121 solenoids, and 63 microprocessors.
The battle for "purity" has long been lost. Why artificially handicap the car with a stupid manual top? What does it weigh, maybe 20 pounds less than the standard Boxster roof?
Essentially, you and the other "purists" are saying the Spyder should have 44 electric motors, 119 solenoids, and 62 microprocessors. The rest of us are saying it should have 45 electric motors, 121 solenoids, and 63 microprocessors.
The battle for "purity" has long been lost. Why artificially handicap the car with a stupid manual top? What does it weigh, maybe 20 pounds less than the standard Boxster roof?
I know I'll get flamed for this but personally I think Porsche took a step backwards with 981 Spyder. They could have very easily maintained a similar top and further reduced the weight of the car but they decided to make it mechanical and easier. They could have used carbon fiber for the hood and rear lid and maybe a titanium exhaust for further weight reduction. They could have used thin plastic liners in the wheel wells and eliminated more insulation inside the cabin. If they had done these things I likely would have pulled the trigger on the 981 but I feel the design effort Porsche put forth was compromised in the interest of addressing the complaints of dealers and those what wanted more comfort.
Playing devils advocate now, I also understand that some creature comforts are not worth eliminating and I guess this all becomes subjective in the end. I admit I added the radio and AC back into the car so I'm just as guilty of diluting the cars focus.
#52
I don't think so. Consider the Porsches regarded today as the greatest built in the 90s. 964RS, 964 RS America, etc. Now consider that in today's world the 981 Spyder is about as close to those cars as Porsche makes. You're arguing to get rid of the RS or RS America in favor of a regular 964 C2 with similar performance. Not the same...
Not necisarrily boutique at all. I'd argue the distribution is bi-modal. There are some who want mainstream, but there are a large number of others that do not. Compare the over 3.5k GT4s made vs normal Cayman production over a similar period. Hard to argue that the market didn't speak.
Not necisarrily boutique at all. I'd argue the distribution is bi-modal. There are some who want mainstream, but there are a large number of others that do not. Compare the over 3.5k GT4s made vs normal Cayman production over a similar period. Hard to argue that the market didn't speak.
Last edited by Petevb; 05-20-2017 at 01:22 AM.
#53
Rennlist Member
At 6'3"- I appreciate the 981 Spyder's leg room. In these cars an inch makes a difference which is why I stayed away from the 987 even though it looked amazing and still does IMHO. I just don't want the Spyder to go down like the 280Z.
#54
Rennlist Member
I don't think so. Consider the Porsches regarded today as the greatest built in the 90s. 964RS, 964 RS America, etc. Now consider that in today's world the 981 Spyder is about as close to those cars as Porsche makes. You're arguing to get rid of the RS or RS America in favor of a regular 964 C2 with similar performance. Not the same...
(Also, if I'd wanted a 964, I'd have bought one.)
I know I'll get flamed for this but personally I think Porsche took a step backwards with 981 Spyder. They could have very easily maintained a similar top and further reduced the weight of the car but they decided to make it mechanical and easier. They could have used carbon fiber for the hood and rear lid and maybe a titanium exhaust for further weight reduction. They could have used thin plastic liners in the wheel wells and eliminated more insulation inside the cabin. If they had done these things I likely would have pulled the trigger on the 981 but I feel the design effort Porsche put forth was compromised in the interest of addressing the complaints of dealers and those what wanted more comfort.
Playing devils advocate now, I also understand that some creature comforts are not worth eliminating and I guess this all becomes subjective in the end. I admit I added the radio and AC back into the car so I'm just as guilty of diluting the cars focus.
#55
In many ways the Spyder is far more ligitimate in my mind than the most highly regarded cars we got in the US at the time. In either case it's imaterial- the Spyder represents the edge of the envelope now. You're arguing to dull that edge because you can't be bothered to get out of the car to close the roof. It's a nice dividing line: at the end of the day many of us buy cars based on the statements they make about us and our values, and that's a pretty clear statement. Which sounds flip but absolutely is not: cars are in part a (very expensive) way to express ourselves, and in my mind dynamic range to do that is not just a matter of heritage, it's also a good thing. There are plenty of cars that everyone likes but no one loves already.
Last edited by Petevb; 05-20-2017 at 03:55 AM.
#56
Rennlist Member
Gen 3 Spyder... Targa-style Top from the 918?
I would be pretty disappointed in Porsche if they automate the top on the Spyder. The whole point of the car is to make it lighter and more driver focused.
Perhaps Porsche will develop a fourth type of Boxster which will include the big engine with the comforts that everyone wants.....or maybe the GTS will get an NA engine. Hmm
Perhaps Porsche will develop a fourth type of Boxster which will include the big engine with the comforts that everyone wants.....or maybe the GTS will get an NA engine. Hmm
Then the Gen 2 (981) lost those lines with the windows, keeping IMO the "dumpy" curved windows of the Boxster as a compromise to the keep the roof somewhat automated. Note that 98% of the picture that you see of the Gen 2 is with the windows DOWN. And IMO it's not really any faster with to don or doff. I found it confusing when I attempted it the other day at a local dealership so I can't really say it's an improvement, especially with the loss of the pointed-windows. It is more insulated I'll say which will make it a better daily driver.
Now for the Gen 3, I think it would be super cool to adopt the basic roof design of the 918 Spyder - a removable two piece targa-style. Just think how SIMPLE and FAST that would be? Snap, pop-off and on, storing in the rear or frunk, with no lost of use. Structurally the car would be safe as well.
Last edited by Zeus993; 05-20-2017 at 12:24 PM.
#57
Rennlist Member
I think the 981 Spyder roof is cool. Would like the removable back section of the 987.
You should see how quick I can put that thing up now
Noah Fect - I couldn't remember if you own / owned one of the Spyder generations? I'm assuming so given the stentgh of your viewpoints.
You should see how quick I can put that thing up now
Noah Fect - I couldn't remember if you own / owned one of the Spyder generations? I'm assuming so given the stentgh of your viewpoints.
#58
981 Spyder
I agree. The new 718 will probably be NA and faster. But it could also loose some of the magic as well. Newer, faster isn't always better. I'm selling my white 981 Spyder to buy a Shelby GT350R and I fear I may regret it! My silver car has almost 9000 miles on it. It's seen Europe, Colorado, California and now it's in the northeast. It's my favorite drive.
#59
I'd like to comment on the "less to go wrong" point: when I look at my 981 Spyder's top, I see elastic straps that are sewn into the fabric. These are obvious weak points. Every time I put the top up or down I wonder if Porsche will be making replacement tops for this car in 10 years when the elastic finally goes.
Tom
Tom