CAlexio

I'm nothing of the sort lol!

So shifter feels mildly heavier, maybe a touch more direct, but I'm splitting hairs because both are very good. The clutch on the R is really really light, while on Spyder it's actually quite heavy. Shifting up on both is pretty similar without Sport autoblip engaged, you have to be quick with the right hand and smooth with clutch foot. With the sport autoblip engaged shifting up you seem to get a greater blip or assistance between gears on the R.. it makes a definite rev on the R while it just seems to hold the gear on spyder. Downshifting both are the same from what I can tell. R has a closer ratio gearbox which seems almost too short for relaxed highway driving, but is really fun in all other situations.. spyder has those long gears which really makes most driving in twisties a 2-3-2-3-2... exercise at best.

Engine-wise the 911 body leaves the engine a bit further from the ear, so it makes a nice boomy sound in the R but it's not right next to you. My favorite part of spyder is that engine is RIGHT THERE, and you can hear everything it does.. very connected.

Hope that answers it.

Nizer

"One of the biggest changes is a new, rigid valvetrain that doesn't use hydraulic lifters that's simpler than before, and interestingly, is less stiff than a conventional unit. This lack of stiffness means there's less resistance to turn the camshaft, which Preuninger says frees up eight horsepower.

Since there are no hydraulic actuators, the valves only need to be adjusted once, when the engine is built. Otherwise they're good for life. This valvetrain also requires less oil pressure and oil volume to run. Preuninger says the previous GT3's 3.8-liter unit requires 120 liters of oil circulating per minute. This new motor only requires 70 liters per minute, meaning there's more power to go to the tires."


My question after reading this and other articles on the updated motor: if this new valvetrain was so obviously superior then why wasn't it spec'd from the start? All engineering solutions have trade-offs. I'm just curious about this one.

GrantG

I would guess that a big over-rev would do even more damage with a rigid valvetrain - lots of stuff would bend/break if the valve springs can't control the float that can occur with really high revs. Not sure the damage wouldn't be practically the same with the hydraulic lifters and stiffer springs of the .1 though.

Would be interesting to know at what rev value each motor goes into self-destruct mode...

And of course the hydraulic lifters probably keep valve lash clearances to a closer spec after lots of miles (again, not sure of the real-world impact of this), but hydraulic lifters also have a finite lifespan.

unotaz

Can't say I agree with you there. The SMFW makes up a huge chunk of the R experience. With the way Mclaren and Ferrari is heading, Porsche NEEDS to be all about the driving experience in their NA lineup.

Sometimes I'm the cleaning lady to your cleaning lady, and sometimes it's the opposite!

GrantG

I wonder if the aftermarket will see either SMFW's that will work with the .2 GT3 (despite cautions to the contrary) or maybe a lighter version of the DMFW that has a livelier nature?

I'm also curious to hear review from people like you with 911R SMFW experience, compared to the manual .2 GT3 in stock form.

drdonger

The new engine will be better, no one will miss the SMFW. More low end torque and a 9000 rpm redline will more than make up for it.

GrantG

It's going to be awesome, but it is possible that with a broader and flatter torque curve and a heavy flywheel it may not feel as dramatic as a 911R with a light flywheel (even though the GT3 engine will be more effective). Shifting 500rpm higher will certainly help (with drama in gear and harder charging after an upshift also). Won't know for sure til someone drives both...

drdonger

Can't wait til we start seeing some reviews. The anticipation...

CAlexio

Haha yea I know, you high level cleaning ladies all meet to share secrets.

I'm sure GT3 will be less involving than the R.. but a mere mortal needs to be excited about he can actually get into his garage right?

Waxer

PAG is always marketing. AP also talked up the RS and R engine in videos. AP: "Engines very similar and derived from our race engines". In fact the then new 2015 GT3R was using same engine as the GT3RS in 2015. No issues that we know of.

From the Porsche newroom website for 2015:

"Powering the new 911 GT3 R is a cutting-edge four-litre flat-six unit which is largely identical to the high-performance production engine of the road-legal 911 GT3 RS. Direct petrol injection, which operates at pressures up to 200 bar, as well as variable valve timing technology ensure a particularly efficient use of fuel. Moreover, the normally-aspirated engine offers significantly better driveability and a broader usable rev range. Power from the rear engine is transferred to the 310 mm rear wheels via a Porsche sequential six-speed constant-mesh gearbox. As in the GT road-going models of the 911, the driver changes gears via shift paddles conveniently positioned on the steering wheel."

From Car and Driver on the 2015 GT3R:

" Just like its predecessor, the GT3 R is again powered by a 4.0-liter flat-six engine shared with a production model. In this case, the engine donor is the epic 911 GT3 RS, meaning the GT3 R gets direct fuel injection, dry-sump lubrication, and at least 500 horsepower. That muscle is routed to the rear wheels via a six-speed sequential transmission and a mechanical limited-slip differential, and racing-specific anti-lock braking and traction-control systems help keep things in check.

"

AP also talked up the R/RS lump.



The new engine clearly rev's higher and has a higher ceiling for RPMs and power due the solid lifters. An improved version. Doesn't make the previous versoin bad.

Bottom line. R and RS have R/RS gen 1 4.0L. Great motor and motorsport heritage. That 4.0 hydraulic lump is is part of the R/RS and GT3R history now.

New .2 GT3 has new Gen 2 4.0. Improved motor (so they say) with greater rev limits and same power. New 4.0 has higher rev and power capability due to solid lifters for future improvements. Also connected to current motorsport heritage.

Nearly all high performance street/track cars today have hydraulics inclulding the prevous Mezger in the 997 street GT3/RS. Even the new GT4 Club Sport adopted the Cayman GT4 3.8 hydraulic motor.

Solids give you more upper rpm range to play with but had their draw backs. Hopefully PAG has figured a way to have solids that never need any attention. We will see. Again, I hope they turn out to be great motors.

At the end of the day and what's its really all about is that GT3/RS and R will give you a ride that will make your hair stand on end.

bronson7

If solid lifters are generally old tech, then why go there? I understand the extra benefits that have already been discussed here but there must be more reasons than these? Does Porsche ever go back to the hydraulic lifters?

Waxer

Not if they found a way run solids that never need adjustment. Mho.

bronson7

Makes sense. I guess we'll find out down the road. Thank you.

Dante

.2GT3 is great engine for sure and I hope it will be the basis for further development on NA before moving to turbo, but..."Why not "R" 4.0 in .2GT3 ?"

Look at the emissions comparing these two engines, I do believe that the development is mainly driven by this.

Second, listen to AP when talking about .1 failures: he repeats they were caused by third party supply (everybody knows this is not true ) and says that people wrongly thinks that the reason was too high revving.
Porsche absolutely needed to do a 9.000 rpm engine to support its thesis and they did it, but not 1 single Hp and Nm more than previous generation 4.0 engine, maximum power is delivered at same 8.250 rpm and just torque is available 200 rpm below, I’m pretty sure we get no better acceleration time shifting at 9.000 instead of 8.800 with .2GT3 (especially given the maximum torque available lower), surely a limiter at 9k is cool and sound will be amazing…but to what extent?

Third, we all know how Porsche is keen on increasing profits, you can be sure that when they find the way to reduce costs without leaving on the table anything else (let’s assume reliability is not an issue) they do it…and they avoided to use the very expensive RS/R crankshaft and reduce complications (1 oil pump less, no hydraulic lifters, etc.) with the new engine.

The new engine is surely great but I think AP is really an excellent sales&marketing man

“we focused less on lap times and more on driving pleasure than in the past” he says; the truth is that the room for (sensibly) improving laptimes from .1GT3 was close to zero – look at the effort put in the RS to gain from 1 to 1,5 sec versus .1GT3 in 90% of “normal” tracks, that’s why now he emphasizes the driving pleasure 

Less rigid camshafts free up engine so what about the cranckshaft which on the other way is more rigid than the R/RS one? And we’re talking about a crucial part of an engine …which deliver power directly to transmission.

What is relevant at the end of all are performances on the road…hp gains are real when results are tangible, this is for everything…from figures declared by manufacturer to improvements found on dyno by tuners.

Hope to not disappoint all the R-haters around…but I wouldn’t say the new engine is that much better than previous one, the only figure improved is emissions…

RealityGT

^Only time will tell. Once real world tests are completed and these cars are on the road putting on mileage, than we will know for certain. But for now, your words are simply conjecture.
FYI, not an R hater