Matt Farah’s own DeMan 4.5L 718 Spyder - Page 1 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

[Image-only or quote-only post; no author-written text.]

Good for Matt… But definitely a pass from me. It’s a canyon build for the US. Wouldn’t suit me and my usage of the car, on track, being built THAT extreme and requiring special rocket, and a chemistry degree, to run it, lol. Probably limited support for the UK also and that’s just a ballache. The sound of this conversion in the 718 is again nowhere as nice as the 981 version. My takeaways are… - probably do the LWFW that I’ve got sitting on the shelf, as that seems to have quite a dramatic effect on how the car revs up… - and if I want to do gearing.. look at the 2-5 option that DeMan offers, as this does look good, can easily pick up a second gearbox for them to build and that can be installed anywhere. I prefer this personally to CW&P as it also changes the gap between the gears and not just shortening overall. DeMan gears in standard 718 4.0 Original 981 4.5 version for reference… Edited by TDT on Monday 23 January 19:07

I will keep the original CWP and spent a couple of months using 5th as my top gear, no problem. I wasn't planning doing more than 95mph on motorways anytime ever ... It will be great to compare notes ... !!

ChrisW. said: I will keep the original CWP and spent a couple of months using 5th as my top gear, no problem. I wasn't planning doing more than 95mph on motorways anytime ever ... It will be great to compare notes ... !! As i say.. IF i were to…. Lol. LWFW will probably happen soon though, as I want the response.

What’s so special about needing 98 octane (is that the same as 98 in Europe or different)? My stock Mercedes also needs 98. Looks like a nice car (only watched a few minutes) - would not mind owning that at all, assume the engine does not have TUEV though, so probably/possibly wouldn’t work

MDL111 said: What’s so special about needing 98 octane (is that the same as 98 in Europe or different)? My stock Mercedes also needs 98. I wondered similar the other day whilst watching one of the many JR Garage videos of cheap Boxsters on YouTube. In one they got quite giddy about sticking 100 Octane fuel in (‘it’s like race car fuel, man’), but that’s only 2 more than the usual 98 we stick in here. By coincidence I had just watched Spinal Tap a bit before so it immediately made me think of the classic ‘goes up to 11’.

soxboy said: MDL111 said: What’s so special about needing 98 octane (is that the same as 98 in Europe or different)? My stock Mercedes also needs 98. I wondered similar the other day whilst watching one of the many JR Garage videos of cheap Boxsters on YouTube. In one they got quite giddy about sticking 100 Octane fuel in (‘it’s like race car fuel, man’), but that’s only 2 more than the usual 98 we stick in here. By coincidence I had just watched Spinal Tap a bit before so it immediately made me think of the classic ‘goes up to 11’. In the UK we use RON to measure, whilst the US uses AKI which is the average of the RON and MON figures. Our 97-98 is roughly 91-93 ‘premium’ in the US. So a US 98-100 is rocket fuel.

Ah that explains it then Thanks

Another school day, thank you

From what I understand you can't usually get their 93, our 98, Octane in California. Well, that's what he's said in various videos. With California being such an important market it might explain why the GT3's power hasn't increased massively in the last 10 years

kmpowell said: So a US 98-100 is rocket fuel. I did say that. TDT said: … requiring special rocket, and a chemistry degree, to run it, lol.

It's a cool car, I did think the DeMan power claims were dubious but being the fuel it needs explains that. I'd like to see a 100-200kmph time from it.

That sounds excellent and seems to go well too. Can see Matt is truly in love with it. Respect for getting it done even though he may have upset some purists.

nice, but if you like a great sounding car the 981 (or 987 for that matter) is in a different league

TDT said: ChrisW. said: I will keep the original CWP and spent a couple of months using 5th as my top gear, no problem. I wasn't planning doing more than 95mph on motorways anytime ever ... It will be great to compare notes ... !! As i say.. IF i were to…. Lol. LWFW will probably happen soon though, as I want the response. It looks to me rather a half way house ... 40 / 68 / 95 / 120 / 143 / 163 vs. 49 / 75 / 103 / 130 / 156 / 194 .... which is fine if you have a 4.5 conversion ?

Seems like a hell of a machine, but good grief that colour is bloody awful. Yes, Matt says he doesn't care what anyone else thinks (and I normally believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder), but surely he's just trying to own the mother of all car-spec mistakes here!!!??? SURELY!!!

ChrisW. said: It looks to me rather a half way house ... 40 / 68 / 95 / 120 / 143 / 163 vs. 49 / 75 / 103 / 130 / 156 / 194 .... which is fine if you have a 4.5 conversion ? Not as short overall as CW&P - but is shorter vs OEM and evens up the RPM/Speed delta between the gears- 2-5... which CW&P does not address. Updated numbers for 8k RPM. This all said - I haven't actually found gearing really to be an issue, on balance... other than the niggling thought that the car would feel punchier with shorter ratios, and of course the maths suggests it should do. But I've been out in cars with the mod done such as the RPM demo car, but this also has exhaust and tune, and it was really difficult to pick out exactly where the benefit might be coming from. I've also been on track with cars that have had a version of re-gearing done also, and had no issue with pace comparative to them. Ultimately I have not yet seen empirical evidence of the hard benefit of this 1 modification alone, and not in concert with others e.g. improved lap times... so will reserve judgement overall. Will interesting to see the results.

That does sound amazing. 565 hp isn't too shabby either.

scogins said: Seems like a hell of a machine, but good grief that colour is bloody awful. Yes, Matt says he doesn't care what anyone else thinks (and I normally believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder), but surely he's just trying to own the mother of all car-spec mistakes here!!!??? SURELY!!! I think there’s simply an element of enjoying the attention, whether it’s good or bad. Good luck to him, it’s his money, albeit I suspect carefully accounted for through his business ventures.