Great post Jim!! I agree!

It would be interesting to see what kind of car they could turn the Cayman into if the engineers were given free rein in the company parts bin.

 

It's not a conspiracy. The issues of noise, emissions and fuel economy as imposed by German law were real, not made up. The thing that people forget is, when you invest in developing a new engine, you do it in the hope that you can keep developing that platform for years to come so you get your money back. It's not that the air cooled motor couldn't be forced to meet the regs and get a little more powerful. It's that Porsche needed an engine with ten + years of development potential ahead of it. That, the 993's engines could not give them. They could be 'fixed', but they had a limited future.

 

No kidding. I lust over the idea of a 3000 lb. Cayman with a GT3's suspension and engine. A Cayman based cup car would be great.

Personally I think there are two groups that are a real boat anchor on Porsche. There is the "I own a 911 and therefore I've arrived" crowd that just want to drive around with their Porsche letter jackets pretending to be cool.

And there are the so called "enthusiasts" that seem to think Porsche should remain mired in 1960’s technology. Maybe it’s just me but calling anyone a “sport car enthusiast” that puts history and looks over performance is a joke.

But that’s just me. I could be wrong.

 

You know what you get if you build the fastest possible Porsche with no flaws and absolutely up to date engineering?

A Nissan.

Porsche has an interesting problem. If they lose their quirkiness, they'll get eaten alive by more 'modern' car companies in the marketplace. If they keep it, they'll wither away and lose their cred. Their only hope is to keep racing, and keep the 911 distinct for as long as they can while they invent their future.

With all due respect, I think that to say putting history and looks ahead of performance a "joke" in the sports car world is a bit simplistic. Sports car enthusiasts have a century of history of falling in love with beautiful, flawed cars. Keeps life more interesting. If everybody demands only objective definitions of superiority, then eventually there will only be one of everything.

 

I was not speaking of longevity, (even a water-cooled 1000hp motor wont last long), just cooling the engine with more power. I hear it again and again about the engine making too much power to cool, wrong.

I dont think they were lying, I am just wondering why the change myself? It can be done.

 

and you cant do this air-cooled?

 

Read the rest of my post. You can't do it air cooled and end up with an engine with ten more years of development potential in it. Even motorcycles, snowmobiles and ATVs have gone to liquid cooling...

 

Nissan hasn't build a great sports car since the 240z so I'm not sure what you're talking about Bruce. And who said anything about building a perfect car? I was talking about building the best sports car! Sports cars are far from perfect. To make them light you compromise on sound proofing and stereo equipment. To make them handle you compromise on ride. To make them stop you have squeaky brakes. To make them powerful you compromise on reliability. It's those compromises and many more that make great, but flawed, sports cars. My point is that being required to hang the engine from the rear bumper because the marketing department wants it there is not the right compromise.

BTW, I have nothing against 911s. We currently have a 997 cup, a 996 cab and an 84 euro cab. I've owned a 993 and built a pretty fast 996 race car. We also have a Cayman S which is one amazing sports car that just cries for more power.

Again, just my opinion.

 

The combination of water and air cooling is the most effective, practical and advanced means to cool, bottom line.
This is not to say just air does not do the job, it simply does not do it as effectively as w/H2O. I believe this to be the main reason the movement to H2O took place. Why not use the best/most effective methods in mowing forward.

 

Why did they make the move if air works already? That is my question. You can make the same power and keep the engine cool using air/oil cooling.


If Eddie Bello can cool his 1100hp motor on the street and pass emissions, why do I need water? There are several 930s/964Ts/993TTs making huge power and passing emissions.

I am not bashing the 996 (cant wait to be in another),just questioning the blanket statement that an engine needs water-cooling to pass emissions due to stricter laws. I know someone read this probably in Excellence and quoted it here, I just dont understand why non-Engineers figured it out on their cars but Porsche cant?

 

Tippy, give up, man. Water-cooled is superior to air-cooled. It's like trying to discuss the Converse sneaker back when shorts were really short v. the Air Jordan series.

There's a home for them flat, rubber, simple Converse sneakers, but no one's going to bank on them for future builds because it is outdated technology.

I love the 993, but it's too dated for me to like, though a Turbo with Turbo S aerokit would be fantastic. It's the one TT car I could enjoy because of its place in 911 history. It's the most iconic of the best of the last gen.

 

It's not about what CAN be done. It's about what it makes sense to do. Heaven knows, there's no percentage in second guessing what's possible today when it comes to engineering. It's about what's practical, to build, own and maintain, and to comply with the various laws and realities we live with. I'll answer your question specifically:

Snowmobiles moved to liquid cooling to allow them to build engines that reliably produce more power. Period. My lowly touring sled makes 100hp, gets better mileage than fan-cooled engines half its size, and is half as noisy.

ATVs do it for the same reason, and add one: Utility machines don't generally operate at high speeds. The ATV equivalent of heavy traffic is a mud bog, or a treed area. A liquid cooled engine will stay cooler under that kind of stress, and be quieter and more reliable besides.

The only air cooled engines I have left in my life are on a lawn mower and a weed whacker. I contend that the air cooled flat six was nearing the practical limit of its development potential for a road car, so it didn't make commercial sense for Porsche to invest in compliance and additional horsepower. It's called 'diminishing returns'.

 

We agree: The conversation is about building the best sports car. All I'm saying is that the single minded pursuit of eliminating flaws will, by definition and so long as there is consensus about a product's purpose, eventually eliminate differences, too. And differences are fun. Your remark about the 240z is funny and ironic in context. And it seems to me it's only been a few days since guys around here were at it tooth and nail, half of them creaming their jeans over a new Nissan sports car.

I'll tell you a story: Many years ago, I was on a test track in Nagoya. We were comparing a bunch of sports coupes for a car company I worked with. They had rounded up a bunch of both direct competitors and benchmark cars. I remember as clearly as if it was yesterday that the car I was most impressed with by far that night was a Nissan. And the car I loved the most, by far, was a 944.

I guess what I'm saying is - and maybe I'm alone in this - I actually think that objectivity has almost no place in a discussion about sports cars. Yeah, I know, stopwatches and all that. But these are emotional and sensual products. I have more fun accepting them as such, or I would have bought a Corvette.

 

Preach, Bruce, preach.

 

I agree. I think Porsche could go even further than the Cayman in the future.

There is no reason they can't bring out a 2,400 - 2,500 lb mid-engine car car (ala-Lotus Exige) w/GT3 motor and brakes. It could be a true enthusiast car that goes back to the "Giant Killer" basics. For racing the power to weight would be huge and the car would be much easier on tires and brakes.