When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I'm sure there is zero "dealer enthusiasm" ....I'd be worried too if my cash cow aka service dept. was about to lose tons of business due to the lack of service EV's need.
say good bye to the $700 oil changes
Damn 700. Im not fan of the dealers but they are about 300-400 around here.
Aside from that I was saying more from the sales side. Mostly no interest. Few greenwich eco execs and stay at home types, but thats mostly it.
So Rivian with a big day, if they can deliver those vehicles near that price it should be a win for them. Really nice looking cars, that will be 40% cheaper than a Macan. I know the Porsche would ride better, but these EV segments are looking very competitive. Porsche has no engine advantage in these spaces, and priced the Macan EV way too high IMO. It’ll be really interesting to see how the Macan does, and then the boxster. What will that be priced at, higher than the retired GT4 / Spyders? Higher than the Macan?
Couple that with the fact you have dealers asking 10K over for the macan ev like I mentioned a few pages back. I cant see why you would buy one either. Brand loyalty I guess, but then you're admitting to blindly paying more for the entry fee of having a porsche. Even still I think the macan will sell reasonably well since there are enough of the brand conscious types to buy one (and yes they are for sure here on this forum).
the 718 however is a different story. It's not an opinion but a fact more or less that this thing has little to no buzz and customer interest around it. Im sure there will the few hundred or so who jump onboard, but at rennsport renunion I heard it was laughable that they rolled the thing out. Again EV's are cool, but sports car EV's, and expensive ones like this thing will be doa at what porsche will want for it, which right now is about 90-100K starting.
You can get a plaid or M3P for that money. Or anything else with an engine (mustang dark horse, M4, M3). Dare I say if you spend a bit more your in Z06 territory. Why you would get this over that I couldn't say.
Wrong... No way the 2.5 Turbo is regarded as "better" that the N/A Flat six. The main reason Porsche went to a 4 cylinder turbo was for Tax levels in China and emissions requirements...
Disagree. 2.5L turbo vs the 400hp flat-6, give me the turbo. It has better low-end and mid-range and it's just a tune away from matching/exceeding the horsepower of the flat-6 while having the ability to get better fuel economy in everyday use.
So Rivian with a big day, if they can deliver those vehicles near that price it should be a win for them. Really nice looking cars, that will be 40% cheaper than a Macan. I know the Porsche would ride better, but these EV segments are looking very competitive. Porsche has no engine advantage in these spaces, and priced the Macan EV way too high IMO. It’ll be really interesting to see how the Macan does, and then the boxster. What will that be priced at, higher than the retired GT4 / Spyders? Higher than the Macan?
The R3X is going to be a serious hot hatch. With the tri-motor setup, I'd guesstimate 0-60 in ~2.5 seconds and probably for ~$60k. Serious Lancia Delta Integrale vibes. The R2 is slightly shorter than the Macan EV, and also well under 3.0s 0-60 for guesstimate $65k. The R2 and Macan EV are a bit different use cases with the R2 targeted for more of the outdoorsy crowd and the Macan for the asphalt only crowd. But the R2 is going to come in $30k-$50k less than the Macan EV and have more practicality. In my opinion, that's the problem the Taycan has; it's asking for way too much for little functional or practical benefit. Or less even. It's really just the badge. With a 911, you still have the unique driving dynamics of the rear engine platform. With EVs, yeah, you can do suspension tuning and steering feel, but everything is still motors front and rear with a battery pack in the middle. There's no differentiation there from a dynamics point of view. Have to differentiate on tuning of the torque vectoring on the dual motor setups to generate the differentiated driving dynamics.
Last edited by spdracerut; 03-08-2024 at 01:34 PM.
The R3X is going to be a serious hot hatch. With the tri-motor setup, I'd guesstimate 0-60 in ~2.5 seconds and probably for ~$60k. Serious Lancia Delta Integrale vibes. The R2 is slightly shorter than the Macan EV, and also well under 3.0s 0-60 for guesstimate $65k. The R2 and Macan EV are a bit different use cases with the R2 targeted for more of the outdoorsy crowd and the Macan for the asphalt only crowd. But the R2 is going to come in $30k-$50k less than the Macan EV and have more practicality. In my opinion, that's the problem the Taycan has; it's asking for way too much for little functional or practical benefit. Or less even. It's really just the badge. With a 911, you still have the unique driving dynamics of the rear engine platform. With EVs, yeah, you can do suspension tuning and steering feel, but everything is still motors front and rear with a battery pack in the middle. There's no differentiation there from a dynamics point of view. Have to differentiate on tuning of the torque vectoring on the dual motor setups to generate the differentiated driving dynamics.
I can literally buy two R2s for the price of one Macan Turbo.
Heck, even at price parity, I might still pick the R2.
Assuming Rivian can remain viable for the next two years, it will be interesting to see how the R2 does in the market. Given Bezo's ego and more importantly his bank account, I'm betting that Rivian will have enough $$$ to burn for the next two years.
Disagree. 2.5L turbo vs the 400hp flat-6, give me the turbo. It has better low-end and mid-range and it's just a tune away from matching/exceeding the horsepower of the flat-6 while having the ability to get better fuel economy in everyday use.
Disagree. 2.5L turbo vs the 400hp flat-6, give me the turbo. It has better low-end and mid-range and it's just a tune away from matching/exceeding the horsepower of the flat-6 while having the ability to get better fuel economy in everyday use.
i mean honestly thats all just personal preference. Personally i'll take the 4.0 flat 6 any day of the week. I prefer the power delivery of a NA engine. Sure it doesnt have as much "oomph" at the low end, but thats not what i care about honestly. I care way more about the sound and feel when shifting at 8k RPM. For me it's such a rush and way more than any sort of turbo boost. I'm currently driving a G82 Competition X Drive and the thing has over 500hp. 0-60 Car and Driver managed a 2.8. But you know what? The car is boring to me. I dont feel excited to drive it at all. I havnt gone on a back road drive in nearly 6 months because i just dont feel any sort of rush when i drive the car. And now i wait for my Boxster GTS which i know will make me happy.
i mean honestly thats all just personal preference. Personally i'll take the 4.0 flat 6 any day of the week. I prefer the power delivery of a NA engine. Sure it doesnt have as much "oomph" at the low end, but thats not what i care about honestly. I care way more about the sound and feel when shifting at 8k RPM.
If the metric is performance, and that's typically the primary measure of how 'good' an engine is, the 2.5L turbo has more torque and power than the 4.0L 6-cyl everywhere one would be able to use in everyday driving. The top of 2nd gear is already breaking the speed limit everywhere in the US. Stock for stock, its not until 6700rpm does the 4.0L make more tq/power. In everyday driving, where you're typically around 3k rpms, it's 330tq vs 280tq which is a massive difference. Because of the long gearing, the 4.0L doesn't get into the operating range of always being higher power than the 2.5L until 4th gear and almost 120mph. So that's only good for high speed tracks or the autobahn. And the 2.5L gets better gas mileage too. So in most operating ranges and where most people will be using it everyday, the 2.5L is better than the 4.0L. Two areas where it's not as good, purely talking performance, is throttle response and max power. if I were going to get the 4.0L, I'd budget for the shorter gears set so that I could actually get to use the 8k rpms slightly more often.
Last edited by spdracerut; 03-09-2024 at 01:54 AM.
To be fair (and on-topic), these are all arguments for buying the 718EV over either. To the extent the 2.5L four is 'better' than the 4.0L six, the EV will be 'better' than the 2.5L four.
Of course, so are any number of more-powerful engines from Chevy, Ford, and friends. I guess not everything comes down to graphs that don't include latency and numbers that don't record sensations.
Last edited by Larson E. Rapp; 03-09-2024 at 12:53 PM.
the 718 however is a different story. It's not an opinion but a fact more or less that this thing has little to no buzz and customer interest around it.
I don't think that is necessarily fair... my observation is there isn't a whole lot of buzz about *any* new vehicle until folks (eg reviewers, dealers, the general public) have a chance to get their hands on it. Hell, many here scoffed at the idea of a Spyder RS... until the it became very real indeed.
I don't think that is necessarily fair... my observation is there isn't a whole lot of buzz about *any* new vehicle until folks (eg reviewers, dealers, the general public) have a chance to get their hands on it. Hell, many here scoffed at the idea of a Spyder RS... until the it became very real indeed.
Even now, outside of RL, there is very little buzz about the SRS.
Apples and oranges comparing SRS buzz to 718EV buzz. Little outside buzz about SRS because it is limited volume unobtanium. Little buzz about the mass production 718EV because who the eff wants one.
YMMV (especially if you drive it hard in which case you'll be spending more time charging than driving).
If the metric is performance, and that's typically the primary measure of how 'good' an engine is, the 2.5L turbo has more torque and power than the 4.0L 6-cyl everywhere one would be able to use in everyday driving. The top of 2nd gear is already breaking the speed limit everywhere in the US. Stock for stock, its not until 6700rpm does the 4.0L make more tq/power. In everyday driving, where you're typically around 3k rpms, it's 330tq vs 280tq which is a massive difference. Because of the long gearing, the 4.0L doesn't get into the operating range of always being higher power than the 2.5L until 4th gear and almost 120mph. So that's only good for high speed tracks or the autobahn. And the 2.5L gets better gas mileage too. So in most operating ranges and where most people will be using it everyday, the 2.5L is better than the 4.0L. Two areas where it's not as good, purely talking performance, is throttle response and max power. if I were going to get the 4.0L, I'd budget for the shorter gears set so that I could actually get to use the 8k rpms slightly more often.
I mean all you did here was describe the difference between a NA engine and a turbocharged engine. You can't claim your metric is "performance" and then talk about daily driving. The only thing you've convinced me of is that you have a Golf R engine in your Cayman and that it's a great daily driver. I get it you prefer turbocharged engines and that's great and I'm happy for you. But again it's all preference. I prefer the performance of the NA Flat 6. I like having my power in the top of the rev range, I like the skill it requires on track to keep t in the power band and I love how it sounds. For me, the 4.0 is the better engine.
I mean all you did here was describe the difference between a NA engine and a turbocharged engine. You can't claim your metric is "performance" and then talk about daily driving. The only thing you've convinced me of is that you have a Golf R engine in your Cayman and that it's a great daily driver. I get it you prefer turbocharged engines and that's great and I'm happy for you. But again it's all preference. I prefer the performance of the NA Flat 6. I like having my power in the top of the rev range, I like the skill it requires on track to keep t in the power band and I love how it sounds. For me, the 4.0 is the better engine.
We can talk performance on the street, canyons, and track. Which is exactly why I made the chart of engine speed vs gear vs vehicle speed. Let me put this in more simple terms. I'll call the 2.5T 4-cyl = A and the 4.0L 6-cyl = B. Typical street use, even on the more aggressive side, 3k rpms to 4k rpms is common range.
At 3k rpms, engine A = 330tq, B = 260tq. Engine A is faster.
At 4k rpms, A = 350tq, B = 275tq. A is faster.
Let's talk fun tight canyon driving where we will call max speeds are 80mph which tops out 2nd gear.
At 5k rpms, A = 350tq, B = 310tq. A is faster
At 6k rpms, A = 325tq, B = 315tq. A is faster.
At 7k rpms, A = 280tq, B = 290tq. B is faster, finally.
At 7.5k rpms, A = 270tq, B = 280tq. B is faster.
This is where gearing is important. Because when you're in the canyons, you're not going to be sitting above 7k rpms in 2nd the whole time. You'll have to slow down for slower corners which will drop your speeds down to 40-50mph where engine A has much more torque. So in the real world in lower speed scenarios, engine A is going to be faster. And this translates into shorter road courses, say anything around the 1.5 mile length. Again, this is where gearing is important. With B, shifting at redline from 3rd into 4th drops you to 6500rpms which is where B starts to gain the torque advantage over A and that's at almost 120mph. Where do you see these speeds? Past 1/4 mile, so talking half mile events, autobahn, and big road courses like COTA, VIR, etc. On those tracks where you're dropping down into 2nd and 3rd gears, A will pull away a bit until 6.5krpms, B will claw back some up until 7.5.k-8k rpms. That's the scenario on the 2-3 shift because shifting at redline on B from 2nd into 3rd drops you down to 5750rpms where B is behind on torque compared to A. Of course, A has to shift 500rpm sooner which mitigates the deficit B has a little bit.
As for the Golf engine, it's an inline-4. So that's a different engine architecture than the flat-4 in the 718. You would have been closer to say there was a Subaru engine in the 718. And if you knew a little bit more, you would have distinguished between the WRX and STI engines. If you really wanted to talk down in the 4-cyl turbo, you would have mentioned slower throttle response and potential heat soak issues with sustained hard driving.
Your metrics for 'performance' are subjective 'feel' based, which is fine, if those are the things that make the car more fun to drive for you. But that's different than quantifiable performance numbers as it pertains to going faster. The PDK is the better performance transmission, but for many, it's not as much fun.
And, to loop this all back to the EV discussion, 'feel' is why most of us think gas cars are more fun to drive than EVs. So is there a market for an EV 718? Sure! It's still certainly going to be more fun as a DD than a Tesla Model 3. If I need to make a quick hop to the store or the gym, give me the 718 EV over any other EV out there right now. Why not drive the gas 718? It's plain bad for the engine to do short drives where the oil never gets up to full temp. And other reasons like minimizing gas use and pollution, saving some money, you can romp on the EV right away without having to wait for a warm-up (assuming it hasn't been cold soaking outside in freezing weather, but at that point, gas car will take forever to warm up too). Save the gas 718 for actual fun driving instead of everyday chores.
03-08-2024, 07:57 AM
