ipse dixit

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-sult...ter-1469716718

JCtx

Looks like that guy was ordered to write that review. He starts with the worst aspect of the car trying to make it its best. And not a word of any detractions, like if the car didn't have any. The only thing I thought I liked from the new car was moving the lock/hazard buttons to the center console... but not by removing the distinctive model plaque, so not even that now. The addition of rear reflectors look positively awful. Front is bland as hell. Chrono is a wart now. And finally, car is heavier, and actually less fuel efficient in real-world driving conditions, according to a few reports. But the demotion to a 4-banger was the worst offense by far. At least the Boxster got a promotion within the demotion, now being the superior of the 2 entry-level models. Curious to see how Porsche does with these cars the first year. Not a turbo guy nor a 4-banger guy, so will never own one, but my guess is they should do well with the millennial crowd, especially after all leftover H6s are sold in a few months.

Keadog

It's Dan Neil in the WSJ, which is (or at least used to be) a financial paper of sorts. We have subscribed for decades, but sometimes I wonder why anymore, especially with the non-stop Trump bashing (Hillary as the alternative? Really?).
Just like I wouldn't turn to Road and Track for news about the latest IPO, I don't worry much about what Mr. Neil thinks about any car. And I would bet he knows far less about the 718 than the average person here.

skiahh

And he says the switch to a 4 cylinder engine was to differentiate the various models, rather than forced because of efficiency requirements.

So much credibility in this guy....

MrMoose

Dan Neil was the longtime auto writer for the LA Times and won a Pulitzer there for automotive journalism. I guarantee he's driven more Porsches than 99% of folks on this board, he's well respected in automotive circles, and if you've read his other reviews you'd know he's not the type to pull punches if a car sucks.

Personally I'm withholding judgement on the 718 until I drive it myself. Judging a car solely based on the number of cylinders (as a lot of the Porsche brethren seem to want to do) is just silly.

ipse dixit

+1

It's funny how if a reviewer actually likes the new turbo 4-cylinder it must be because they're on the take, or just an idiot.

skiahh

I'm not judging the car. In fact, I accept that it's better in virtually every way than the 981, except maybe sound. Personally, I don't care for the pod shaped vents in the dash, but I do like the rest of the redesign.

Noise, I can't say... haven't heard it yet.

All that is just to say that I'm not biased (well, much lol) about the 4 cylinder or turbo charging the engine. However, the question remains: did Porsche do this because they were forced to in order to meet efficiency requirements? Or is it to really differentiate between the 911? I'd be hard pressed to believe it's the latter.

il pirata

Hopefully you meant 981...


The six cylinder 911 turbo does not fit into the 981.2...Boxster or Cayman.

beefchopper

Dan O'Neill also wrote for Car and Driver and was a senior contributing editor for Auto Week.

Noah Fect

Gee. If the engine's that great, why don't they offer it in the 911?

MrMoose

For the obvious reason that the Cayman is their entry level model. They're trying to both improve fuel economy and differentiate the 718 from the 911. The Cayman's performance was getting quite close to the base 911, which isn't something the brand wants when the cars are priced ~$30K apart.

They also changed the engine in the Carrera to a smaller turbo 6. Segments of the 911 driver community are up in arms about that one as well. They're going to have to change the name of the 911 Turbo to the "911 Turbo Turbo Uberwagen S Plus" just to keep 911 Turbo drivers happy, LOL.

VGM911

+1

It seems to me that the traditionalist Porsche owners on this board are not likely to accept these evolutionary changes in order to justify keeping the cars that they have now.

Porsche-Jeck

Maybe he has just done his homework better than other journalists
Porsche's mid-engined sportscars come in small numbers compared to the huge fleet of "trucks" providing a much more efficient lever for bringing down the fleet fuel consumption.

Actually one of the Porsche executives in charge of the 718 program spilled the beans in an interview with a german mag:

http://www.autobild.de/artikel/porsc...t-8432237.html

Excerpt: "Die Ausgangslage war komplex", erinnert sich Projektleiter Jan Roth. "Zum einen ging es darum, den Abstand zwischen den Mittelmotor- und Heckmotor-Sportwagen zu vergrößern. Zum anderen hätte der Sechszylinder-Turbo im 718 gar keinen Platz gehabt.

Translation: the task at hand was complex. On the one hand we had to increase the distance between the mid-engined and rear-engined sportscars. On the other hand the six cylinder turbo would not have fitted into the 718 chassis.

Regardless of performance figures the downsizing from 6 to 4 cylinders obviously fulfills the marketing driven requirement "to increase the distance".

The Boxster has grown up over the last 20 years whereas the huge price gap vs. the big brother remained. The new fuel efficiency requirements came in handy for telling a nice story why the 718 had to be fitted with a 4-banger and most journos simply repeated this part of the story without mentioning the other part of the story. IMHO the argument that a 6-flat turbo does not fit the car due to packaging issues does not hold much water either. Porsche claims the 718 is a new model rather than a facelift. My eyes see a facelift only...If they really would have introduced a new model they could have redesigned the car in a way which allowed to fit a flat-six turbo.

MagicRat

Whatever one thinks of the car (and I haven't driven one so I don't know), that is a horribly verbose article. Maybe the 718 is so fast the subeditor couldn't catch up to him...

beefchopper

Here's one that is a lot less verbose: http://www.motortrend.com/cars/porsc...-drive-review/