Snowboarder54

I owned my first Porsche in 1962, before they even build the first 911. This is what a real "R" is: a rare and wonderful purpose built Porsche! It's not because it is a Cayman with a few bolt on's and a hideous paint job that I am negative about this car. It's because there is already an 'R" and it's a 911! Thank God Porsche no longer builds a 1600CC motor, otherwise they would steal the name of my all time favorite Porsch; 1600GS Carrea GTL! AKA Abarth Carrera!

mooty

if you put my RS engine and tranny in cayman, i'll pay the same price i did for any of my RS and get the rear engined cars out of my garage like a plague.

Z356

Gentlemen: This is a whole more interesting, constructive and nuanced conversation on the Cayman R that we had here a few short days ago. I thank you all for this new input.

Re: The 'R' Moniker. Lest we all forget, Porsche has been diluting their special 'historic' model names from very early on in their history. Carreras were special designations in the 1950's and 1960's, as a tribute to Mexico's 'Carrera Panamericana' in the early fifties where Porsches fared well. When later on the name 'Carrera' was used to designate 911s, that hallowed name was debased. When I tell people I used to own a Carrera 2, the initial image that comes to mind for most is probably NOT that of my very special 1964 356 Four-Cam. So they been doing it for decades, long before Wiedeking delivered Porsche into the hands of VW. I find the current outrage over this particular use of 'R' on the Cayman as over-the-top, especially when it was introduced at the LA Auto Show next to two heavily larded-up models called respectively a 'GTS' and a 'Speedster'. Please, let's put our outrage in historical perspective!

But to be perfectly frank, I do think Porsche AG mishandled the introduction of the Cayman R at the LA Auto Show. They should have had the head technical engineer in charge of suspension development for the Spyder and Cayman R on hand to give a detailed description of what this car was MEANT to do, what it CAN do, and why Porsche only needed to add 10 hp to accomplish this limited goal - which was simply to create as good a coupe as the MY2011 Boxster Spyder. Also, Porsche should have explained the technical specs of the existing Aerokit rather than the 'ducktail' we expected. And perhaps explain to us why the latter would not have worked as well on this car due to documented wind-tunnel testing. Finally, an explanation should have been given why they didn't lighten the rear hatch or offered the Club Sport roll bars on ROW/European models (we knew that couldn't be offered in US due to gov't regulations). But we should have been told why they scaled all of this back, even if it only really existed in the minds of imaginative auto bloggers.

They also should have highlighted what this Cayman R can do in the track. Having someone say "this Cayman R went around the Nurburgring so many seconds faster than a Cayman S with aerokit and Pasm and so many seconds faster than our own Spyder", if true, would have been very effective and served greatly their marketing efforts. Instead, they had the VW appointed CEO of Porsche (Matthias Mueller) give a boring general speech which was badly delivered to boot. And I also would have brought at least two Cayman R's to Los Angeles, one in Peridot and one in another of the standard or special colors (e.g. Speed Yellow or Amethyst), to make the point 'if you don't like the 'pea green', you have other alternatives - look!'.

But aside from some valid criticism about the Cayman R in this thread, I have also detected an underlying resentment about the direction Porsche is going and how they are going about doing their business. And I share that concern. The recent announcement of the Limited Edition MY2011 gt3 RS next summer perhaps started the worries, at least on this forum. And I think this grievance and loss of trust will come to have major consequences for us all as we decide how we will go forward purchasing from Porsche. z356

zellamsee

This is a great thread. Putting aside the R moniker (and the green paint), Porsche delivered exactly what I expected with this model -- essentially, a coupe version of the Boxster Spyder. In my profession, I have been taught to put substance over form, and sometimes it is easy to be tricked by the form (labels put on things). This "new" model clearly isn't worthy of the "R" designation (form) . . . . The marketing guys got in front of the engineers. But in substance, if it drives anything like the Boxster Spyder, it will be hoot to drive. Could Porsche have done more with this variant, i.e., add less weight, more power, etc.? Sure. But, let's face it, Porsche's hands are tied, unless they want to encroach on 911 sales . . . and I guess they aren't ready to do that just yet. That being said, if this new Cayman drives anything like my Spyder, I would probably take one over any version of the Carrera.

stout

A great point, and one I have been stressing for years — the downhill slide in Porsche naming indeed began in 1984, prompting all those "Real Carreras Have Four Cams" T-shirts (which are of course now outmoded since all Carreras since the first 996s have had four cams).

I guess the difference now is the suffix degradation (GTS, R, etc.), but you are right in noting the use of Carrera 2 as far back as 1989.

I guess I find R the most egregious yet — but I agree with Pete and z356 that the substance of the car and its engineering matters more than its name. After all, just look at the Cayenne and Cayman, two Porsche monikers that don't need any suffixes to be silly.

pete

FTS

I certainly agree. However, my disappointment is that they could have made this car special in such a way that you just could not get certain features that comes with it as an option on the Cayman S. For example, the difference between the GT3 vs. the GT3 RS, you cannot get the wider track, the front fenders or 245 tires as a check-the-box options, something like that does not need to cost any more than the price increase, how ever small of a special thing it could have been, it should have been IMO. As it is with the Cayman R right now, it looks and feels like a pricing game than anything else. I don't care about what the "R" means, but if you are coming out with a "special" model, make it a "special" model.

quickxotica

Putting aside the controversial "R" label, isn't this the Cayman we've always wanted? Ever since the car debuted in 2006, RL'ers have been moaning for an LSD, more power, less weight and a "real" sport suspension. Well, we finally have it folks.

Now, the market will test our hypothesis: If we've been right all along that this is what the original Cayman S should have been, then a very high percentage of new Cayman sales next year ought to be the "R" model, right? 'Cause when money talks it counts for more than web forum carping. On the other hand, if the Cayman R gets outsold by the Cayman S, then I guess that would prove that we are in the extreme minority, wouldn't it?

Time will tell, but if I were in the market for a new Cayman (again), the R would be the one. So I am done complaining about the stupid name.

aussie jimmy

rs 60 is another one. even though it being so luxurious differentiates it from the original - it was still a unique car in it's own individual right. it feels special, as does the boxter spyder. maybe we should all reserve judgement until the press get their first go behind the wheel - but that shows the speed of the internet, allowing people to examine/dissect issues and discuss in the public domain, long before they become effetive.

zellamsee

On the flip side, the Carrera GT label was properly used a few years ago -- that car definitely is worthy of the name!!

stout

In fairness, the car does come with two performance features you can't get in a Cayman S: -20 "true" sport suspension and 10 more hp. While the power gain is just as academic as it is in the Spyder, the sport suspension is just as key as it is in the Spyder — it's enough to make me prefer the Spyder in some ways against the GT3/RS with its PASM.

Would have been nice had Porsche done a decklid like the 904 (or Dino) with a vertical rear window to differentiate this Cayman in a similar way to what it did with the Spyder, but it didn't. It will be interesting to see how it sells against the Cayman S, especially as it poses no loss in practicality (as the Spyder does).

pete

quickxotica

Don't forget the Aluminum doors, Spyder wheels and the A/C & stereo delete. None of those can be ordered on a regular Cayman S, IIRC.

aussie jimmy

yeah, that would have been nice! just like ferrari did with the 575 superamerica.

Alan Smithee

Which is the entire point of this model. Like the GTS, it is to get benchsitters into an outgoing model while keeping transaction prices high, and nothing more.

And nothing more was rumored or promised for the US market, so I am surprised by the widespread disappointment in its spec. It was not intended to be a true high-performance model in the vein of the GT3; it is naive to think significant development money would be put into such a car for a limited run at the end of a production cycle ($200k+ models excepted).

stevecolletti

My wife's two favorite cars... and would probably make the car a classic.
btw, dino coupe or dino spyder?

Alan Smithee

It should have had that Pininfarina styling cue from Day One, along with pricing at or below the Boxster. IMO, the Cayman would have been a much more successful model, further differentiating it from the 911 with its similar large glass rear window, and along with the mid-engine, making it more of a baby Ferrari.

I voiced my opinion in an early Cayman focus group, but nobody listened. Perhaps with the next generation...