ljcool_17

Was looking at the new Cayman on the Porsche USA site and noticed something odd. According to the site the 718 has worse fuel economy than the previous Cayman which is still shown on their site. Not sure if it's an error but that's rather confusing since it now only has 4 cylinders.

zedcat

Turbo= thirsty. Depends how you drive too. Use the power, pay for fuel.

ljcool_17

What was the purpose of Porsche downsizing if it doesn't yield better fuel economy? This seems like a dumb move.

zedcat

lol, plenty of folks share your view. Many would prefer the response and especially sound of the NA H-6 vs turbo 4. But look at the fuel economy numbers they are actually very close and the turbo 4 makes 300hp vs 275hp. I can't recall the torque figures but the turbo is significantly up there too. So more power for essentially the same fuel economy in the epa tests. I haven't checked the euro specs maybe there is more of a difference in those tests.

Pokerhobo

The primary reason is to separate the Boxster/Cayman twins from the 911.

catamount

It's also been suggested that going to a turbo 4 gave Porsche the ability to better increase HP over the N/A 6. This argument then begs the question, could they not have gotten even better performance from a lower displacement turbo 6 rather than a similarly displacement turbo 4?

zedcat

No question. But PAG wants to precisely position the Boxster/ S (and Cayman) relative to the 911. Despite the criticism of the turbo 4 on some forums to me it's a pretty elegant solution. PAG has stated they could not fit a H-6 and associated turbo plumbing in the mid-engine configuration. Obviously that's a matter of time/money. What they really meant I think is it couldn't easily be engineered to fit for their price point. So they have a new engine with more power than the outgoing NA H-6 which can be further developed for more power easily with boost/ tuning for future models while also making more of a distinction to the higher priced 911.

The turbos will tide them over for awhile but will be very interesting to see how hybrid tech trickles down. Will the ICE for the 911 have reduced cylinder count? If not a H-6 how will that be received? Time will tell.

extanker

if you want a car that is easy on gas and your budget ,perhaps a honda type auto would fit your needs

Macster

Lots of car makers losing cylinders. Less friction.

In the case of the new Cayman (and Boxster) 2 fewer cylinders reduces engine friction which helps fuel economy and CO2 emissions.

A big 4 vs. a small 6 still wins out. Turbo-charging is like adding displacement though so when the driver applies the whip the engine responds.

I suspect the cylinder reduction is aimed more at improving the EU test results.

For the EPA fuel economy numbers does anyone believe those represent reality?

Pokerhobo

So you think it's cheaper for them to develop a new turbo flat-4 than to detune the turbo flat-6? As for fitment, they fit the previous 3.4 and 3.8 in both the 911 and the 981. 3rd parties added turbos to the 3.4 in the same packaging in the 981, yet Porsche isn't able to? They didn't want to so people who want a flat-6 needs to buy a rear engine 911 even if they want a mid-engine car.

As for others saying the flat-4 was to meet emissions, that would only make sense if the Boxster/Cayman twins sold more than the 911 which it never has not to mention the 911 and 981/718 sell much less in volume than the SUVs of which only the base Macan even offers an inline-4. So it doesn't make sense to have a flat-4 to meet emissions on one of their lowest volume selling models.

nowakm99

Porsche went with the turbos in most of their 2017 models to meet the more stringent CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards in the US and similar C02 PPM limits in Europe.

Turbos do quite well on the standard EPA cycle where the car cruises most of the time at highway speeds. This is what CAFE measures, so turbos are a great way to meet the requirements. In real-world driving conditions, however, the advantage of the turbo is often not realized and sometimes results in worse fuel economy.

Eyelise

Many countries, most significantly China, place significant luxury tax on vehicles determined by displacement. The simple answer is you can achieve the same or better performance and fuel economy with less displacement using forced induction. Isn't it curious all the major auto manufactures have moved to 3.0 liter forced induction engines for premium vehicles. Why.... b/c China's luxury tax over 3.0 liters is huge.