A concession to US emissions standards...
 

http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/11/911c.jpg

"According to Auto Motor und Sport, the next-generation Porsche 911 (991) will have its wheelbase extended by ten centimeters compared to the current model, a concession to US emissions standards which are categorized by footprint."

And...

* stop-start technology
* electrically-controlled handbrake

Perhaps the journalists at Auto Motor und Sport have been reading these forums? :)

Given the high power demands on starters to crank these high compression engines, How is that stop start "feature" going to work. I mean, it takes 20 minutes of Drive time to replenish each start of the car in current models. Must have been some serious advancements to keep the car from needing a new battery every month.

tractor beam to the car ahead of you that pulls you off...

...plasma drive powers the tractor beam.

Ferrari is including this same "feature" on the California (which we left-coasters pronounce: CAH-LEE-FOWN-JAH)

The break-even point for stop/start is around 10 seconds (if you're going to idle more than 10 seconds, it's more efficient to stop and re-start the engine). The AC and power steering also need to be electrically driven so they continue running while the car is at a standstill. The tech has been around for a long time, but the Porsche implementation will probably be the best, just like the Cayenne is the best parallel hybrid tech on the market right now.

No one questions gas savings on urban driving, What Hella-Buggin' is raising is battery life and starter/alternator longevity, and rightly so.

Have the start stop on my wife's new Cayenne that is the first feature we turned off the start stop sucks and that is being nice.

What's the downside of the start/stop? Does the car hesitate from a standstill?

it improves MPG im sure they are doing it just so on paper the MPG is higher... **edit** i guess not :-/

when i test drove cayenne the other day i didnt even notice, as soon as your foot comes off the brake it starts before your foot reaches the gas.

I've said it before...the 991 has been in development a lot longer than the upcoming legislation for US emissions. And stop/start is for the EU test cycle; it does not improve EPA numbers.

Electronic handbrake, which is no surprise after seeing the interior spyphotos, is a travesty in a performance car.

I didn't mind the stop/start in the Panamera loaner I had a few weeks ago. It was unsettling at first, but once I got used to it I didn't even notice.

The wheelbase increase is the only part of this that makes me sad.

My wife's Highlander Hybrid has stop/start. Maybe it's the torque of the 2 electric motors getting the vehicle going, but it's seamless and basically unnoticeable. I would hope Porsche could figure out a way to make it work as well as a Toyota.

Who wants a sports car that shuts itself off at a stop light? No one. It will be the first feature every owner turns off.

My very limited experience with start/stop vehicles is there is no hesitation when the venicle is driven normally.

I never tried it but I would not be surprised if one attempted to launch (sans using the launch feature) a car with this feature active, that there might some slight delay or latency.

Depends upon how the starter is constructed. In some cases the starter is an electric motor that is part of the flywheel and there is no starter gear to engage. The starter motor has enough power to spin the engine and start the car moving along and then then engine reaches sufficient rpms that it is started and E-Gas and the engine controller see that the take off is as about as seamless as it can be.

The starter may actually be a starter and alternator in one.

The start/stop fearture has a huge payback in improved gas mileage and reduced CO2 emissions -- especially important in European markets which tax cars on their CO2 emissions -- that I would not be surprised though to find the the start/stop feature is not perfect. The drivers who put the car through its EU emissions tests and mileage tests can't turn the feature off and driveability/etc is of no importance.

Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions is all the car is graded on.

Sincerely,

Macster.

it's going to kill aftermarket exhaust systems :)

Absolutely ridicolous! Like a larger car has LESS emissions becuase how it's calculated (emission per volume).

I know this is considered blasphemy by some but... I was at the dealer yesterday and have to say...
The caymen looks like a fun car. I love my 911 but I think I'll consider it next time around as an option.
I plan on keeping the 997s until my kids either don't fit or don't want to ride in the back anymore.

Who cares about when your car is stopped? Its all about the driving!

don't be silly - that's not blasphemy. it's a nice car. fun, balanced. in 10 years the cayman spec series will be killer, i'll bet.

Nonsense. Tons of people are interested in having a fun car that is also good for the environment; people would love to "have their cake and eat it too" so to speak. Just because you don't care doesn't mean no one does.

Porsche seems to be pushing Hybrid "intelligent performance" pretty hard; I wonder if the 911 will be a Hybrid some day? I can just see Adias' ears steaming now!

Yeah the footprint loophole is certainly something worth getting upset about. It's a loophole that was put in a long time ago to help the American car makers, which would otherwise just be killed on CAFE because they make such awfully polluting huge cars.

The even more absurd loophole is the "flex fuel" loophole, which tons of GM cars qualify for because they can run ethanol.

The European system is much better, where large polluting cars pay a reasonable extra tax at purchase time and also annually. This tax is a fair market way of recouping the costs imposed on society as a whole by the owners of these vehicles.

If we want to reduce carbon emissions NOW, while dramatically improving fuel economy, there's only one word: DIESEL. Not for the 911, mind you, but the 911 is already the most efficient car in its class. The only thing that comes close is the Evora...

Don't even get me started about the practicality of corn-sourced ethanol...
:soapbox:

Agreed on diesel (done right) for fuel economy on everyday cars. For CO2 reduction I suggest its proponents to stop exhaling.

Re the 991 complexity... it's just that and complexity comes as a way to compromise. Why should we compromise on a sports car?

My ears are fine... :)

The Cayman is a great car. I only hear that very tall guys have a problem fitting.

But do expect all the gov-dictated nonsense to permeate all cars in the line...

+1000!

I agree with lower emission/lower gas consumption regulation overall and I think better technologies can give us that without any issues. Europe model WAY better!

Exactly! Biggest CO2 production is caused by raising cattle! I don't see any regulation on HOW MUCH I SHOULD EAT MEAT, now do I? They said there's MORE CO2 emission by driving in your Prius to your groceries to buy ONE piece of steak, then driving 200 miles in your V8 Range Rover!

I really have NO IDEA who's behind the whole non-sense CO2 causing global warming crap. Even if they were legitmiate, they need to look at ALL things that produce CO2, while it seems the target is almost 100% towards combustion engines and car industry.

I did not mean to open a viper's nest here... so let's refrain ourselves. :)

Re reg on what you (I) eat... if we do not pay attention...

The impetus is gov control and gov revenue and cronyism-fueled profits for some.

Diesel returns better MPG than petrol because the fuel contains more energy. The reason so many European cars burn diesel is because of taxation. Diesel fuel is taxed at a somewhat lower rate than petrol based on its energy content, so it's cheaper to run a diesel car over there. Diesels aren't particularly nice to drive either. There's a surge of torque but the engine is out of revs very quickly. It's OK in something like a Range Rover but it's no fun in a performance car.

Have you driven a 2010 Golf TDI? I think not.

Nope, I usually rent something different when I travel to Europe. But given the choice, I always pick a gas car over a diesel. I like revs.

1. I drove a VW Passat TDI regularly when I lived in Germany and cruised at 125+mph..... getting 30mpg while doing it. Otherwise, I got about 50mpg on the "B" roads.

2. Diesels are also more efficient because they have higher compression ratios...a fundamental thermodynamic efficiency advantage.

3. Diesels dominate at the endurance race.....Le Mans... Audi and Peugeot Diesels have been the top performers for some time.

I wonder how the stop / start will work with a manual transmission? My Friends Panamera has it and I noticed it when driving, but it wasn't a bother.

It's not just a cheaper fuel, the consumption of a Diesel engine is significantly less than a comparable gas engine.

Every single time I travel to EU (a few times a year) I rent a diesel, and they are absolutely GREAT, not sports car feel, but as a regular commuter or a sedan they are fantastic! The lower rev limit takes some getting used to, but it's perfectly fine for 90% of commuting we do everyday.

As to Tony's comment on Golf TDI. I rented even a smaller Golf TDI engine 1.6 (than what's offered here) last time in Germany, and I drove to Nurburgring for my track day and back (300 Km each way), it was GREAT. I did 220 KM/h on the Autobahn, went back and forth to work everyday for a week, and only had to fill-up 2/3 of the tank before returning it.

Reads like a description of Integrated Motor Assist, Honda's hybrid technology.

If they built in this kind of system with a decent electric motor, it could be used to allow a manual transmission car to run smoothly down to 0 RPM without having to use the clutch. Under about 900 RPM the fuel injection would stop and the electric motor would spin the engine, above that it would fire up and run on gas as normal.

Not significantly more energy. Regular and premium grades of gasolines have a specific calorific value of between 42.7 to 43.5 MJ/kg while diesel fuel has a specific calorific value of 42.5 MJ/kg.

Gasoline density is 0.715 to 0.780 kg/l while diesel fuel is a bit densor at 0.815 to 0.855 kg/l.

Diesel engines deliver better fuel economy for mainly two reasons:

1) Diesel engines run unthrottled at the air intake. The benefit is pumping losses -- the drag of the engine having to "pull" air past a very restrictive throttle plate -- are much less for diesel engines vs. gasolines engines.

This is one reason why some gasoline engines are using intake valve lift and timing to act as an air throttle to lower pumping losses under some operating conditions. (Remember the majority of personal passenger vehicles operating at 30% of load or less most of the time.)

2) Diesel engines run with a surplus of air. In big rigs at idle the air:fuel ratio can be nearly 100:1. In passenger vehicles, the air:fuel ratio is much lower, my info is around 30:1, tops. IOWs, diesel engines are lean burn engines in that there is an excess of air in the combustion chamber at all times. Some gasoline engines are also now lean burn.

The theoretical air:fuel requirement for gasoline is 14.7:1 to 14.8:1 while for diesel fuel it is 14.5:1 so theoretically a diesel engine requires a richer mixture than a gasoline engine.

BTW, I owned a 2002 VW Golf TDi -- 1.9l 90hp and 160ftlbs variable vane turbo-charged diesel engine.

By way of contrast my 02 Boxster with its 2.7l engine delivered nearly 220hp but just 192ftlbs of torque.

The TDi was no rocket but it was no sled either. The car managed to keep up with traffic just fine and could run 100mph all day long even at high altitudes with no complaint.

Over the 120K miles I drove the thing it delivered on average just over 40mpgs under a wide variety of driving conditions, from short hops to multi-thousand mile road trips covering sometimes nearly 1000 miles per day of driving.

Sincerely,

Macster.

But look at the added complexity... does that make sense in a sports car? Heck, I don't even need electric windows. Soon (if Eric Schmidt has his will) cars will drive us...

Sure there's added complexity, but you'd be removing complexity at the same time because you'd be combining several components into one. Also you wouldn't need a complex transmission like PDK, just a straightforward manual 6 speed with a clutch pedal. A motor that can smoothly spin up from 0 RPM to 7000 RPM has a certain sense of elegance about it.

I stand corrected! Although my reasoning was diesel fuel contains more energy than gasoline because it's denser and we purchase both by volume at the pump.

If they just reduced the size of the 911 to what it used to be they wouldnt have to do any of this silliness.

When I park my 997 next to my 964, its ridiculous how huge these cars have gotten.

From the 964 point of view, the 997 is a minivan.


Kirk

While not exactly that extreme, my company is moving to a health benefit program that is based on health measurements. Everyone does blood tests once a year and based on results, your premium varies...

So, if you are willing to pay, go ahead and eat and smoke all you want. Maybe it should be the same with cars. Put a polution tax on it, let us pay for it, and get it over with...

-T

I wish we could go back too, but that's impossible. If you look at how much weight, in the average car, comes from safety and emissions equipment it's staggering!

But all cars have gotten bigger. I think some of you guys would rather be driving an Elise.

Not only that but also consumer demand for doodads and gobbles of space. One would think that sports cars would be immune to that but just scan pages of this forum and see posts essentially clamoring for more of that nonsense. When someone objects, the std reply is that they can, and should, have it both ways. The reality is that no, one cannot have it both ways - it's an illusion for those people.

I would love to hear, from a Porsche engineer, how much weight is added to a 911 solely because of safety and emissions gear. And also, how much extra size is required to accommodate said gear.

We are to a point where the biggest gains -- in both performance AND economy -- will come from advances in materials. Several companies seem to be on the verge of price breakthroughs on carbon-fiber or composite materials, and when that happens things will get interesting. Lambo is on the cutting edge of this, as they have a joint research project at the University of Washington that incorporates Boeing's expertise. Their new show car, the Sesto Elemento, is a great example of this, as it's not a Lotus-sized car -- yet it weights 2,200 pounds. A little more than a ton and it has 570 HP!

Now imagine a real-world implementation of this technology in a Porsche. Say we keep the 400 HP output of a GTS, but drop the weight to 2,800 pounds. Sounds like fun, doesn't it?

It's easy to be upset about the issues that seem to be strangling our cars, but we may also be on the verge of new technologies that make Porsches more fun than ever. Case in point: towards the end of the 19th century New Yorkers held a series of meetings to deal with an impending environmental crisis that threatened to shut the city down. The issue? Commerce depended on transportation by horse, and the sidewalks were stacked with horse manure. By the end of the 1890's most people forecast doomsday scenarios that involved shutting the city down. However, none of this came to pass; a technology no one anticipated -- the automobile -- changed the course of history and saved New York City from ecological disaster.

Ironic, ain't it?

What would be interesting would be to take advantage of mass saving technologies to the max, not just use that to mitigate the addition of extra stuff with no place in a sports car. It is the average sports car buyer, who buys a sports car for its image only, who demands that nonsense and forces it on the rest of us.

You only have to look at the Boxster Spyder and Cayman R, which use the same platform as the 997; the Spyder at 2,9XXlbs, and the Cayman R probably right at 3,000 (unless they have some tricks up their sleeve) with basic creature comforts (AC, stereo, power windows/locks). Even being substantially larger, with 50% more power and chassis to easily handle it, and a full complement of modern safety equipment, you have to go back to the 1980s to find a 911 that is lighter.

I'm confused here, don't you have a PDK transmission in your car? The PDK certainly adds complexity and much to your point does that really make sense in a sports car?

Additionally, if you don't need electric windows, then why not drive a manual 6 speed in lieu of a computer controlled gearbox?

Help me understand your passion for reducing complexity in a sports car.

Sure we Porsche can use super exotic materials, just like Lambo and Ferrari. But look how much more they cost too. Remember the days when Porsche was the everyday sports car? I think Porsche still wants to keep it that way.

PWND

That's why I said this in my original post:

Several companies seem to be on the verge of price breakthroughs on carbon-fiber or composite materials, and when that happens things will get interesting.

No inconsistency at all. A dual clutch tranny is just an extension of a manual tranny adding performance with a small weight penalty. An electrical stop-start is added complexity that penalizes performance. A compromise for commuter use of a sports car in an urban environment - a compromise in itself.

By your logic then wouldn't an electric window just be an extension of an manual crank window adding performance with a small weight penalty as well?

I'll give you that, as it turns out today's electrical windows may not be much heavier than a crank mechanism, but please do not add more useless crap, mostly dictated by the government elites of the day.

First off, I was being sarcastic, but your missing the point. I actually agree with incentives on healthy living and live quite well myself, my point was, the largest CO2 producer by far is kattle. So, if government or green groups are truly serious about CO2 and treat they should go after meat industry as well, and treat them like car industry. Set limits to production, and hence your meat consumption!

Yea those evil government elites! Without them, we'd have no ABS, airbags, crumple zones, clean air to breath, seat belts, back up lights, laminated windshields! We don't need any of that crap.

Just read a recent article saying that Porsche’s goal is that the new model should not be heavier then the outgoing model. So they need to be 10% lighter due to the standards that they have to comply to.

have you driven an Audi A3 tdi - that thing is a hoot to drive...

I have, and you're right, it is a hoot. I'm trying to convince my wife that's what she needs for around town instead of a new Prius.

More 991 spy shots.

Note the flap jus above the windshield. There's another in the rear.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog....sche630opt.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog..../porsche-7.jpg

This car is less-and-less 911, with its (Beetle-like) bulging front bonnet and its Jag-XK stretched silhouette.

Those spy shots show panels which have been taped over the nose, around the headlights, over the rear tail lights, etc. to disguise the cars true lines and help create the bulging profile. I think it's be safe to assume that other bits may be changed before production and we're not seeing the final configuration. There will be plenty of time to pass judgment after there's a finished product to view.

Looks like a BMW 6-series type of sunroof to me...

I agree re details. The curved bulging hood though is there to be seen and is a result of EU pedestrian regs (which are destroying car noses, impairing aero in some cases for no real good reason).

Maybe the larger panel is for a Targa model?

I was so looking to buy one, but damn Audi USA will only deliver the thing in the US with a friggen auto transmission and not a manual gearbox... those bastards. Why do I have to buy a car IN GERMANY to be able to get the configuration I want... oh yeah, even German car companies have their US offices run by the same US morons that deliver US car products to the masses and have the same brainwashed thinking.

I understand your frustation, but has it occurred to you that Audi US management 'morons' (as you call them) may be driven by market numbers and made the decision knowing that they would only sell half a dozen manual cars in total? I recently purchased a manual Golf, and there were very few to choose, as the market is auto, even for those cars.

I think the new car is fantastic. Better balanced. More sleek. It looks faster somehow.

The roof panels are an interesting question. Perhaps there's a new sunroof design for the coupes that's much larger than the current one.

Also I have no idea why the EU pedestrian impact regs keep coming up ... cars that don't have a solid engine block in the front haven't been affected a whole lot.

Spy Shot speculation mainly:
http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1...12-porsche-911

...but they are likely wrong about the upright headlamps - could be wrong about the front as well given all the camo.

more info:

http://www.automedia.com/Pedestrian_...sm20050401ps/1

Reading that, seems the 911 would not need a higher hood, as you say - there's no engine there to whack a head on.

But a big WTF? Why are all these people getting hit by cars? Making the impact less severe is a mind-blowing solution. If you walk in front of a car, bad things will happen - don't walk in front of cars. And don't hit people with your car. I think a better solution is for pedestrians to wear those big "fat" suits so that they just bounce off of whatever hits them:

http://wrestlingcostume.net/wp-conte...o_fat_suit.jpg

Those Sumo suits are a lot of fun after a few drinks :)

Cars and pedestrians mix a lot more in crowded European cities. The regs are intended to make the more severe in-town collisions a trip to the hospital, rather than a trip to the morgue. They are particularly designed to protect children.

Edit : thanks for the link to the spy shots, I hadn't seen a couple of those pics yet. The big new sunroof is clearly visible in one of those. I have no idea why they would bulge the hood (if they have at all). Perhaps it's to make room for a spare tire?