THE NEW BOXSTER 4 CYL TURBO

[StevepGT3]

Yahoo, thanks Raven, I agree 100 pissant.   I think we are in the minority though.

you can take the boy out of a wrx 

but you can't take the wrx out of the boy 

[Raven]

I understand the opinions of others and do wish that Porsche could have stayed with the flat six NA power plants , that is the way I would also want it to be,,,,but with the current emissions standards being  enforced in Europe ,they really have no choice in the matter ,if you wish to build and sell cars in that market you have to comply with the targets set,,,,,sadly this means the days of the high reving aspirated engines are gone ....Porsche has to produce a car that,s meets all the EU requirements for emissions and safety aspects before they can even consider other aspects such as performance , road holding and market sales pricing ..Even the construction methods at the plant are subjected to pollution target requirements  .

At the very least Porsche should be praised for the development of the turbo flat 4 engine in the new Boxster it is after all as far as i know a Porsche engine and unique  ,,,,,,They could have gone down the road of using and existing VW or Audi power plant that meet their requirements did a little tweeking for a few extra HP and fitted in the Boxsters Chassis ,,that was my biggest fear and I am so glad they spent the time and money on the development of the flat 4 ,at least it has Heritage with in the Brand ,I didnt want to see  the Boxster get a GTi Golf motor 

On a very positive note the new turbo charged engines will really lend them selves well to tuning and you will really be able to get some serious HP Gains out of them if you wish too ,,,,,I am looking forward to getting a closer look at one when they arrive down under  latter in the year , they should be a real weapon on the road if the performance figures are any thing to go by ......   

[tazzieman]

they should be a real weapon on the road if the performance figures are any thing to go by ......   

I shall wave from behind my shield   

[Harvs11]

,I didnt want to see  the Boxster get a GTi Golf motor 

 

It wouldn't be a Boxster with out a boxer engine.

[LeeM]

Don't most new Porsche's sound crap with all the emissions stuff in the exhaust?  I heard a newish 911 the other day and all I could think was GET A PIPE MATE! Sounded like Labrador with a hare lip that had been debarked! 

[tazzieman]

It wouldn't be a Boxster with out a boxer engine.

 

It would be a Gitster. Probably suit quite a few drivers out there. in sportscarland.

[Redracn]

Don't most new Porsche's sound crap with all the emissions stuff in the exhaust?  I heard a newish 911 the other day and all I could think was GET A PIPE MATE! Sounded like Labrador with a hare lip that had been debarked! 

Nothing to do with emissions stuff. Just listen to all the other cars out there that pass emissions and sound great inc GT3 and optional sports exhausts. 

More to do with current Suit and Tie philosophy at Porsche which seems similar to Audi's. VW influence?. Then need to bring back a bit of mongrel. Sports cars are not executive express's. But some executive express AMG/Jaguar R do sound good.

[randr]

Here are a few torque curves (engine) - certainly worth pondering the implications  All 981 Caymans, GT4, 718 base, 718S, Focus RS and WRX STI

[randr]

Nothing to do with emissions stuff. Just listen to all the other cars out there that pass emissions and sound great inc GT3 and optional sports exhausts. 

More to do with current Suit and Tie philosophy at Porsche which seems similar to Audi's. VW influence?. Then need to bring back a bit of mongrel. Sports cars are not executive express's. But some executive express AMG/Jaguar R do sound good.

mmm - Porsche have publicly stated that the move to turbos across the 911 range and 981 range has been driven by regulations in Europe and North America (primarily driven by CO2+NOX emissions and fuel economy).  

The key to performance is governed by the fact that HP is directly proportional to torque multiplied by rpm.  High performance cars have high revving engines that generate high average HP as a combination of torque and RPM - most turbo charged cars rely on mid-range torque and then die.  

[Whytar]

Thought they had overlaid a VW beetle soundtrack. God I hope it doesn't sound like that...

[tomo]

Turbo sound track;

 

[Redracn]

mmm - Porsche have publicly stated that the move to turbos across the 911 range and 981 range has been driven by regulations in Europe and North America (primarily driven by CO2+NOX emissions and fuel economy).  

The key to performance is governed by the fact that HP is directly proportional to torque multiplied by rpm.  High performance cars have high revving engines that generate high average HP as a combination of torque and RPM - most turbo charged cars rely on mid-range torque and then die.  

Probably need to define what is meant by emmisions. Is the harmfull stuff like Nox and CO or is it the odorless colorless harmless CO2. 

This has nothing to do with the nasties and everything to do with CO2 which is a direct function of fuel consumption. The official fuel consumption numbers are a big con job. Who actually acheives them? and especially in a sports car. Then you have turbos which actually encourage you to use more fuel by using the abundant low down tourque to accelerate harder than you would otherwise normally do. Which enginge is more fuel efficient when operating at full power. My money is on the NA. But of course the fuel consumption tests only cover low rpm and throttle ranges normally used by granny to drive to church. The tests are unrealistic and unrepresentive but goverments rely on them and and that is a big problem.

[randr]

I agree, most educated people know the tests are a "pyrrhic victory" the reality is seen as soon as you put your foot down in a turbocharged car and watch in astonishment as the fuel needle goes down before your eyes.  The worst offenders, in many respects, are the very small turbocharged cars - put them on a highway and they literally drink fuel (relative to the stated figs).  

What is more surprising is people actually believe EVs have no emissions.  The fact is, something like a Tesla P85D is heavy beast ~ 2.2 tonnes, and if recharged on mains power is actually worse than a conventional petrol powered car.  

Take a simple scenario like this; for a Cayman to move from point A to point B takes 1 unit of energy - a 2.2 tonne P85D would take 1.7 units of energy to cover the same distance.  The Cayman engine is 25% efficient, thus in terms of energy released from petroleum to move from A to B would equate to 1/.25 x 1 which is 4 units of total energy.  

In contrast, for the P85D, if charged from mains power generated by a coal fired power station with 33% efficiency - the following would hold, 1.7 x 33% = 0.56  and 1.7/0.56 x 1.7 = 5.16 total units of energy to move from point A to point B 

Thus the reality is, due to the combination of weight and energy losses the Porsche is more efficient than the Tesla, if the Tesla is charged from mains power. In fact the Porsche is 20% more efficient in this case e.g. 5.16-4/5.16 x 100 = 22.5%, largely due to the fact it is light.  

The fundamental problem we face is governments of all persuasions have little in the way of technical skills and hence lack the ability to form a cogent position or rather an educated position in relation to energy efficiency and emissions - hence meaningless targets and thresholds.  Enough said :).  

[Redracn]

Another con is that solar is free. That is rubbish. The cost of all power i.e. solar, hydro, coal, gas, wind etc. is the cost of delivery as in all cases the raw ingrediant itself is FREE the cost is in turning the free ingredient into power and delivering it to the user in a form that meets their needs. Sorry for the hijack.

But back on topic I bet they do not do any real world tests to see if the new turbos use less fuel (and hence emit less CO2 etc.) when used use in the real world by real people. Porsche could easily collect this data from the onboard ECU when the car is serviced.

[Redracn]

Looks like some in the media are even catching on. Would be good if the compared the Caymans!?

http://www.motormag.com.au/features/1602/opinion-emissions-rules-are-rubbish/?utm_source=exacttarget&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=34412&utm_content=270141&user_id=e38e22ee601a62b03d318025b83624b79c69f763

 

[firstone]

Entertaining writer.

It is what it is.

Be glad to have captured a 6 in a Porsche. ?

 

[Caver]

I love it!  I've watched a lot of reviews and I'm hooked.  One review stated that the 'S' model was only 2 seconds slower that the GT4 on the Nurburgring.  Yikes!

Anyway, according to Porsche Cars Australia website the base 718 drive away is $125 k whilst the "S" is $157 k, before any options.  I'm kinda wondering why the "S" is $32 k dearer.  That's a lot of coin for an extra 1/2 litre and 50 hp.

Anyway, I'll be sticking with the 986 unless the lotto gods smile upon me.

[Niko]

I love it!  I've watched a lot of reviews and I'm hooked.  One review stated that the 'S' model was only 2 seconds slower that the GT4 on the Nurburgring.  Yikes!

Anyway, according to Porsche Cars Australia website the base 718 drive away is $125 k whilst the "S" is $157 k, before any options.  I'm kinda wondering why the "S" is $32 k dearer.  That's a lot of coin for an extra 1/2 litre and 50 hp.

Anyway, I'll be sticking with the 986 unless the lotto gods smile upon me.

you want one......just do it.....you would look nearly as good as me in one....

[Whytar]

I heard one in the flesh in Portugal a few weeks ago. I think it was part of the global launch fleet being fanged around near Lisbon.

Really dissappointing! Just doesn't sound like a Porsche at all.

For me, I would have thought something like a turbocharged 2.7L flat 6 would have put it nicely in line with the 911?

[Jim45]

Turbo sound track;

 

I want the part at 37 seconds to be my drive way.....

[tomo]

718 Add;