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.
The rear is weird, but not horrible. The front of the Spyder should go; it's the same bland 718 GTS bumper... but seems like it has the wheels and tires of the GT4, as noted, so great news. But the most important aspect of those cars is the engines: Did anybody hear them, to confirm NA H6? And what about WHICH H6? Probably the 9A1 from the turbo but sans turbos, no? Don't think even the narrower new GT3 engine fits in there, but would love to be wrong. I initially predicted the 991.1 GTS engine (430HP), but since it's out of production, probably not.
I like the cleaner lines of the GTS front bumper. If the car doesn't need it from an engineering and performance standpoint, let it be.
The car looks really "unbalanced" with that huge rear diffuser and a GTS front bumper, IMO. Not to mention, I find the current GTS/Sport Design bumper to be pretty ugly itself...
63A 981510, thanks for all your efforts in posting the pics and photoshopping!
That is simply a serious diffuser. Something that the 981 Spyder/GT4 were missing. It is also an obvious plug to later sell us an upgrade to a Carbon Fiber version, presumably one that has a couple more fins.
It all looks good to me. I actually want Porsche to streamline GT4 and Spyder a bit:
- make them mostly the same except for roof
- choice of manual or PDK
- standard Boxster roof on Sypder
- same suspension
- Spyder with rear spoiler (option)
- both of them need better brakes than what the 718 has now (in fact the 718 needs an option for better steel brakes)
Engine. Don't care that much as long as it isn't the 718 turbo. The 991.2 engine works fine, along with the options stated here. BTW, I would be surprised if the 991.2 GT3 engine was much bigger than the 3.8 in 981 Spyder and GT4. And there probably is some space in the 718 that currently has to be used for turbo-related items such as extra cooling.
It will need additional air flow. The front wing will be needed to balance the rear diffuser and more aggressive rear wing.
Another sign that this prototype could be in alignment with the GT4 is, it sits lower than 981. It is pretty apparent from the side view.
I'm not sure they can do much better with the front wing/splitter except a real lip with some horizontal surface.
An obvious improvement would be to drag the side skirts a bit lower (which would also be done by lowering the entire car).
Personally I think the only front downforce way to go from here is front fender venting. Doesn't have to be toward the top like the GT3RS (looks probably reserved for more expensive cars), but plenty of performance cars released in the last few years vent the front fenders somewhere. Ideally all the way to the back and down the trunk area.
I like it. If they offer PDK I'm in. I also think the Spyder will join the new Cayenne with the new " white" brake option which is half way to PCCB's with half the cost.
From the side view, that rear diffuser looks like some sort of growth you'd pay a surgeon to remove. And the front bumper/splitter looks too way to small vertically relative the to the rear. The car definitely looks lower than the 981, but that front height just doesn't come down far enough. Looks unfinished and needs to extend another few inches to balance the car out visually.
Really hope this is not close to the finished product.
Last edited by Archimedes; 11-17-2017 at 03:47 PM.
Not that it's a bad thing but if the next Spyder is a topless GT4, I imagine it would be MORE expensive than the GT4 since you're getting all the performance components plus a bespoke light weight top.
Given the photographer was likely relatively close to this car when he/she shot these pics, you'd think that maybe there'd be some report out there as to whether it sounded NA or Turbo.
11-17-2017, 01:06 AM
. I initially predicted the 991.1 GTS engine (430HP), but since it's out of production, probably not.
