Rev Matching Blips on Downshift. - Page 3 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

Hello. Just to confirm, as long as i have Sports Chrono, the rev matching blips on downshift will happen in the 2.7, 3.4 and GTS manual Cayman? Thanks, Phil

Rev matching is applied slightly in SPORT mode and aggressively in SPORT PLUS on PDK equipped cars. Manual cars got it from late in the MY14

Rev marching comes as standard on the GT4?

Scooty100 said: Rev marching comes as standard on the GT4? Yes but you can turn it off.

anonymous said: [redacted] on the GT4 one button for on and off. ie that's all the sport button does on the GT4.

anonymous said: [redacted] As I wrote earlier you can turn it off. It is that simple

anonymous said: [redacted] It is "on" with the sport button, but that is only due to the fact that Porsche decided to use it in the GT4 very late on and there was no time / money to change the name of the button, so they decided to use the existing "sport button" and only assign it one task; to auto blip!

It works very well, I have driven a 981 manual on track with it, really liked it. you get the interaction, but can learn the track if it's new with out ******* up. I prob have it in sports most of the time to be fair, clutch and gear stick is enough interaction for me. Hence why people say they are happy with even less with PDK, I do can do without heal and toe all the time. The plus point is I can turn it off when I want to keep my skills in check, PDK owners just get worse drivers lol I know they don't like that, but I only had my V8 M3 for 2 months and was getting into bad habits.

acey81 said: It is "on" with the sport button, but that is only due to the fact that Porsche decided to use it in the GT4 very late on and there was no time / money to change the name of the button, so they decided to use the existing "sport button" and only assign it one task; to auto blip! Any idea whether this will be the same with the spyder? One of my annoyances with the 987.2 cars was the inability to separate each of the settings. I remember sport plus on PDK cars for example being a bit of a joke!

TB303 said: Any idea whether this will be the same with the spyder? One of my annoyances with the 987.2 cars was the inability to separate each of the settings. I remember sport plus on PDK cars for example being a bit of a joke! I am assuming that it will be the same for the Spyder considering the drivetrain is carried over (minus a few horses that apparently got stuck in the GT4 stable). I doubt they would add extra functionality to the sport-button on the Spyder.

PorscheGT4 said: It works very well, I have driven a 981 manual on track with it, really liked it. you get the interaction, but can learn the track if it's new with out ******* up. I prob have it in sports most of the time to be fair, clutch and gear stick is enough interaction for me. Hence why people say they are happy with even less with PDK, I do can do without heal and toe all the time. The plus point is I can turn it off when I want to keep my skills in check, PDK owners just get worse drivers lol I know they don't like that, but I only had my V8 M3 for 2 months and was getting into bad habits. When I drove a manual BGTS on track with the rev matching thing it just annoyed the sh it out of me. Not because it was bad, in fact I thought it was very impressive, but because it didn't feel right to have the car doing it. For me, it's one thing getting a PDK and acknowledging that you're going for all out computer sorted performance with the bonus of practicality (my BGTS will be PDK), but quite another to engineer a system that let's you "cheat" at driving a manual - when I see/hear someone heel/toeing, I know they've got bit of skill and I enjoy it, likewise I hope the odd petrol head that sees/hears me doing it thinks the same. A little of that specialness is gone now

On a new track I thought it was great, out braking myself on a bend, so now brain over load to get the car in the bend on track and down a gear and turn in while way off line. Got to H&T now as any lock up in the rear would be fatal ! like wise threshold braking as to not get ABS to cut in on a panic. But Auto blip let me brake, get the gear and make the bend. pro drivers cannot threshold brake 100% perfect every time every bend, hence GT CUP cars have auto blip fitted even in racing. PDK you just change gear anywhere in the bend or most of the time the car changes gear out the other side all for you. So you are still thinking with Auto blip, choosing gears etc but not having to have brain over load if you make a mistake, I am sweating buckets on a track day when going fast. PDK owners get out and look refreshed. not sure how I will use auto blip but it will get used esp on new tracks until I know them and braking points etc. will I tire of auto blip ? who knows , at least it's a switch for on and off unlike PDK with is just dull. Edited by PorscheGT4 on Monday 15th June 14:41

anonymous said: [redacted] Porsche really have no excuse, it's one extra button on a panel that's got plenty of room. It's a bit like the inability to decouple the soft suspension from sports modes in Ferraris in times gone by.

pro drivers cannot threshold brake 100% perfect every time every bend, hence GT CUP cars have auto blip fitted even in racing. Edited by PorscheGT4 on Monday 15th June 14:41 [/quote If you had any idea what you were talking about you'd know how ridiculous that statement was

Steve Rance said: pro drivers cannot threshold brake 100% perfect every time every bend, hence GT CUP cars have auto blip fitted even in racing. Edited by PorscheGT4 on Monday 15th June 14:41 [/quote If you had any idea what you were talking about you'd know how ridiculous that statement was

ok Carrera CUP ! they all have auto blipers fitted any way and when I spoke to the drivers the answer was to allow to brake perfect every bend and take that bit of doubt away. this is going back 3 years mind you, but the year before no auto blip then when I had a VIP tour all had Auto blip.

Was the "I" for ignorant?

PorscheGT4 said: On a new track I thought it was great, out braking myself on a bend, so now brain over load to get the car in the bend on track and down a gear and turn in while way off line. Got to H&T now as any lock up in the rear would be fatal ! like wise threshold braking as to not get ABS to cut in on a panic. But Auto blip let me brake, get the gear and make the bend. You have changed your tune somewhat! You once said that PDK owners/drivers were lame because they cant concentrate on braking, changing down a gear and turning the wheel at the same time! Now its become clear that your hallowed GT4 has an auto-blip function its the best thing since sliced bread! If you like a manual gearbox, you like the interaction of having to manually blip the throttle to make a smooth mechanically-sympathetic shift. You know its not as quick as a PDK and you don't care. If you like a PDK gearbox you like the fact that the car can shift so quickly and seamlessly and you are willing to give up the 'heel-and-toe' technique as the car can do it so much better. Plus it's a lot faster and smoother and the car is more thrilling for you as a driver than a manual gearbox car. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH EITHER OF THE ABOVE OPTIONS!!! As for the track...If you are wanting the fastest lap times then get a PDK. If you want to be as fast as you can while controlling the gearbox, get a manual and learn how to heel and toe yourself. IMO a manual gearbox with this auto-blip function is pointless! Why have it? Because you want to be the fastest 'manual' driver on track?

V8KSN said: You have changed your tune somewhat! You once said that PDK owners/drivers were lame because they cant concentrate on braking, changing down a gear and turning the wheel at the same time! Now its become clear that your hallowed GT4 has an auto-blip function its the best thing since sliced bread! If you like a manual gearbox, you like the interaction of having to manually blip the throttle to make a smooth mechanically-sympathetic shift. You know its not as quick as a PDK and you don't care. If you like a PDK gearbox you like the fact that the car can shift so quickly and seamlessly and you are willing to give up the 'heel-and-toe' technique as the car can do it so much better. Plus it's a lot faster and smoother and the car is more thrilling for you as a driver than a manual gearbox car. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH EITHER OF THE ABOVE OPTIONS!!! As for the track...If you are wanting the fastest lap times then get a PDK. If you want to be as fast as you can while controlling the gearbox, get a manual and learn how to heel and toe yourself. IMO a manual gearbox with this auto-blip function is pointless! Why have it? Because you want to be the fastest 'manual' driver on track? +1 but I'm not sure auto blip is a bad idea for those who like a manual gearbox but who want the car to autoblip for them because it does a better job than they consistently do (pretty much the same argument as for PDK). Lets face it autoblip just happened to come a long time after synchromesh. It could have come before and we wouldn't be debating its merits now - any more than we debate (any more) whether synchromesh is a good idea. The need/desire to heel and toe is an accident of the chronology of the development of various driving aids - and should be seen as such, rather than a religious movement.

d41d8cd9 said: Was the "I" for ignorant? but fact :-)

V8KSN said: You have changed your tune somewhat! You once said that PDK owners/drivers were lame because they cant concentrate on braking, changing down a gear and turning the wheel at the same time! Now its become clear that your hallowed GT4 has an auto-blip function its the best thing since sliced bread! If you like a manual gearbox, you like the interaction of having to manually blip the throttle to make a smooth mechanically-sympathetic shift. You know its not as quick as a PDK and you don't care. If you like a PDK gearbox you like the fact that the car can shift so quickly and seamlessly and you are willing to give up the 'heel-and-toe' technique as the car can do it so much better. Plus it's a lot faster and smoother and the car is more thrilling for you as a driver than a manual gearbox car. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH EITHER OF THE ABOVE OPTIONS!!! As for the track...If you are wanting the fastest lap times then get a PDK. If you want to be as fast as you can while controlling the gearbox, get a manual and learn how to heel and toe yourself. IMO a manual gearbox with this auto-blip function is pointless! Why have it? Because you want to be the fastest 'manual' driver on track? AFter 2 laps I can turn auto blip off, PDK is PDK no tune changed, you cannot turn it off can you lol , I find PDK dull only using 1 leg and not my left arm, Auto blip is still using all my limbs to the max. I enjoyed the 981 auto blip, maybe that's because the 5 laps before I was in a PDK dull as **** thing lol, and it was nice to get back into a manual again. Only time will tell if it gets used, but imo it's a great feature and worked very well for the 5 laps I did with it. I have always said at my level I could lap faster in a PDK car, it's not what I want. not hard to grasp imo.

anonymous said: [redacted] Given that I habitually heel and toe when driving manual cars, that really is a load of b ks isn't it.

Why does everyone use the term "blip" when describing rev-matching? Isnt a blip entirely the wrong way of doing it? It sounds "cool", but isn't the whole point to actually match the revs, rather than flaring up the tacho only to fall back down? Perhaps I have missed something (a genuine statement - not being a nob).

[redacted]

d41d8cd9 said: Was the "I" for ignorant? That made me chuckle.....

anonymous said: [redacted] There is nothing for me to understand. I just don't see everything in black and white as you do. I can see absolutely no difference to anyone being wedded to a crash box (when you could buy a road car with one) and decrying synchromesh as deskilling driving (as it does), than you taking the same attitude to heel and toe. Similar arguments apply to ABS - it's far more important/difficult to get your heel and toe right when you haven't got ABS to lean on. As people keep trying to tell you there is no right or wrong in this - just personal choice. And given that I have chosen PDK for MY car on the road and use a manual car with no ABS on the track, to suggest I don't "understand" is simply nonsense.

anonymous said: [redacted] I will try one last time. What I ACTUALLY said was that IF the autoblipper was invented donkeys years ago then no one would have seen the need to invent the heel and toe technique. (And indeed IF synchromesh had existed before cars were developed then double declutching technique would never have been used). They are, as I put it, both the result of the chronology (order of development) of the driving aids (autoblip and synchromesh). Given that both are accidents of history - I see no reason to be unreasonably attached to either - though I enjoy both. And religious fervour? If your defense of the manual gearbox isn't akin to religious fervour, I'm not sure what is.

I can see the sense of that, but it misses that there is quite an important difference between auto-blip and synchromesh. Synchro got rid of something annoying but that didnt require the learning of a technical skill - double declutching is slow but not technically hard. Auto-blip gets rid of the need for quite a delicate skill that, if you like that kind of thing, materially increases the sense of engagement and driving pleasure. It's horses for courses in my view - I wouldn't object to auto-blip on an everyday car. It's a ball ache to have to rev-match into first around town, for example. But I wouldn't want it on a sports car - if I couldn't get the rev matching right, I would just work on the skill. One point that might not apply to Porsches but does to a lot of modern cars - if the clutch has a huge delay and is slushy, the brakes are over-assisted and the throttle is binary, heel and toe is like hitting your head against a brick wall. I would definitely choose a good auto over a bad manual, and the auto blip function probably makes bad manuals a bit more bearable. Also has a massive advantage over an auto of having a H pattern box rather than sequential gears - I absolutely hate approaching a roundabout in a PDK car: holding down a paddle and counting the gears is infinitely s t compared to braking braking braking, slot 2nd and go!

I see the drivelometer is still turned up to 11 on here!

ORD said: I can see the sense of that, but it misses that there is quite an important difference between auto-blip and synchromesh. Synchro got rid of something annoying but that didnt require the learning of a technical skill - double declutching is slow but not technically hard. Auto-blip gets rid of the need for quite a delicate skill that, if you like that kind of thing, materially increases the sense of engagement and driving pleasure. It's horses for courses in my view - I wouldn't object to auto-blip on an everyday car. It's a ball ache to have to rev-match into first around town, for example. But I wouldn't want it on a sports car - if I couldn't get the rev matching right, I would just work on the skill. One point that might not apply to Porsches but does to a lot of modern cars - if the clutch has a huge delay and is slushy, the brakes are over-assisted and the throttle is binary, heel and toe is like hitting your head against a brick wall. I would definitely choose a good auto over a bad manual, and the auto blip function probably makes bad manuals a bit more bearable. Also has a massive advantage over an auto of having a H pattern box rather than sequential gears - I absolutely hate approaching a roundabout in a PDK car: holding down a paddle and counting the gears is infinitely s t compared to braking braking braking, slot 2nd and go! Not sure I'd agree with the bit about double declutching being easy - I don't know what cars you have driven with crash boxes - there weren't many around when even I was young - though quite a lot had a crash first gear. Most of mine was done on a BMW motor cycle - which in days of old had a gearbox which required every bit as much delicacy as heel and toe to get a smooth silent gearchange. I took great pleasure in making silent changes when police bikes went by sometimes clonking theirs - I had the same R90/6 bike (childish I know - but I was young). And slow? Yes a bit. But no slower than a manual box (when sympathetically used) is relative to PDK. And sequential vs H. Well the normal racing technique is to go down through ALL the ratios when braking for a bend - you don't "block" shift - so sequential is much better there. Of course you don't NEED to do that on the road - but you don't NEED to heel and toe either. You COULD do as the police do and do your rev matching when you have finished braking (Slower I know - but you are not racing on the road). On PDKs the gearing is still high and so if you are driving manually (and presumably sportingly) you only typically have to change down a couple of gears - and a couple of pulls on the lever is actually easier than a 4th to 2nd change on a manual box. On the road it's just a matter of what gives you pleasure AS MOST OF US KEEP SAYING there are no rights and wrongs, just personal preference.

anonymous said: [redacted] I said the EXISTENCE of H&T is a quirk of history which it is - NOT it's enjoyment. BUT!!!! are you ACTUALLY NOW saying that the choice of Manual or PDK is purely a matter of personal preference with no right or wrong - not a religious tenet?????? REALLY? I'd better sit down while I take that in.

anonymous said: [redacted] Just confirm that YOU are saying that the choice of Manual or PDK is purely a matter of personal choice, with no right or wrong decision...... It will prevent any "misunderstandings" in the future.

anonymous said: [redacted] Yes or no will do fine.

anonymous said: [redacted] I think I've lost track here, can we take it from the top please? What I want to know which is much more important is why the subject of rev matching (plus HnT and DDC) always generates such enthusiastic debate? Just pop over the the Advanced Driving bit and see the endless streams of rhetoric on the subject there. Bert PS I happen to have some sympathy to the other chap's view about things we think of as inviolate pleasures being just a result of chronology.

anonymous said: [redacted] Bookmarked, screenshotted and backed up on an armageddon-proof external hard drive for future reference and posterity

bcr5784 said: Not sure I'd agree with the bit about double declutching being easy - I don't know what cars you have driven with crash boxes - there weren't many around when even I was young - though quite a lot had a crash first gear. Most of mine was done on a BMW motor cycle - which in days of old had a gearbox which required every bit as much delicacy as heel and toe to get a smooth silent gearchange. I took great pleasure in making silent changes when police bikes went by sometimes clonking theirs - I had the same R90/6 bike (childish I know - but I was young). And slow? Yes a bit. But no slower than a manual box (when sympathetically used) is relative to PDK. And sequential vs H. Well the normal racing technique is to go down through ALL the ratios when braking for a bend - you don't "block" shift - so sequential is much better there. Of course you don't NEED to do that on the road - but you don't NEED to heel and toe either. You COULD do as the police do and do your rev matching when you have finished braking (Slower I know - but you are not racing on the road). On PDKs the gearing is still high and so if you are driving manually (and presumably sportingly) you only typically have to change down a couple of gears - and a couple of pulls on the lever is actually easier than a 4th to 2nd change on a manual box. On the road it's just a matter of what gives you pleasure AS MOST OF US KEEP SAYING there are no rights and wrongs, just personal preference. Unless you've been pootling along in 7th on a straight road and need to go down 5 bloody gears. An automated H pattern box would be so much better.

ORD said: Unless you've been pootling along in 7th on a straight road and need to go down 5 bloody gears. An automated H pattern box would be so much better. If I'm pootling I'd let the auto take the strain - but IF I happen to be in manual - AND pootling - the box will still prevent me letting the engine labour. So, if I'm (say) approaching a roundabout it will change down to second or first as I enter the roundabout anyway without any action from me. It's a feature I quite often use when I'm pootling. In all normal circumstances either I am in complete control over the gear I'm in or I'm happy to let the box take the strain. You really never need to go down 5 "bloody" gears manually - unless you want to. To be fair you do need to understand what the box will do unaided - but that is hardly a criticism, most of it is in the manual.

bcr5784 said: If I'm pootling I'd let the auto take the strain - but IF I happen to be in manual - AND pootling - the box will still prevent me letting the engine labour. So, if I'm (say) approaching a roundabout it will change down to second or first as I enter the roundabout anyway without any action from me. It's a feature I quite often use when I'm pootling. In all normal circumstances either I am in complete control over the gear I'm in or I'm happy to let the box take the strain. You really never need to go down 5 "bloody" gears manually - unless you want to. To be fair you do need to understand what the box will do unaided - but that is hardly a criticism, most of it is in the manual. Are you being deliberately obtuse and patronising? I have been driving the car for quite a while now and there is nothing I don't know about how PDK works. I never use it in auto because the ECU is stupid. It 'learns' in a really crude way and tries to force you into a caricature of your driving style. In the circumstance you describe, the box would (even in manual mode) select a lower gear, but it would select one that would give you about 1500 revs as you go around the roundabout. It reverts to 'granny driving' whenever it can. I have had this argument 5 or 6 times, but in my view PDK emphatically does allow you to labour the engine; in fact, it loves to labour the engine in auto mode. Catch it in a high gear, apply gentle throttle and it will labour pretty badly rather than dropping a gear.

ORD said: Are you being deliberately obtuse and patronising? I have been driving the car for quite a while now and there is nothing I don't know about how PDK works. I never use it in auto because the ECU is stupid. It 'learns' in a really crude way and tries to force you into a caricature of your driving style. In the circumstance you describe, the box would (even in manual mode) select a lower gear, but it would select one that would give you about 1500 revs as you go around the roundabout. It reverts to 'granny driving' whenever it can. I have had this argument 5 or 6 times, but in my view PDK emphatically does allow you to labour the engine; in fact, it loves to labour the engine in auto mode. Catch it in a high gear, apply gentle throttle and it will labour pretty badly rather than dropping a gear. Certainly not trying to be patronising - just explaining how I drive it. I'd agree that, left to its own devices, it uses lower revs than I would naturally use. But that is common to ANY (manual) car I have driven with an upchange indicator - it always suggests an upchange before I would naturally do it. Have all manufacturers got it wrong? I don't know - but since I can override/anticipate it - it really doesn't cause me an issue. And yes - the algorithm certainly gets "over excited" when you start driving sportingly - which I have mentioned in earlier posts. My view is Is PDK better at choosing the right gear than me - Answer No! Is it better at changing gear than me - Answer Yes! So I decide and let IT change - and use its "foibles" where it helps. Edited by bcr5784 on Wednesday 17th June 21:00

bcr5784 said: But that is common to ANY (manual) car I have driven with an upchange indicator - it always suggests an upchange before I would naturally do it. Have all manufacturers got it wrong? Please tell me you are joking here? Do you know whats going on in the car industry currently? Surely, you know what is at the root of all this?

mollytherocker said: Please tell me you are joking here? Do you know whats going on in the car industry currently? Surely, you know what is at the root of all this? Course I do - economy/emissions - but the suggestion was that this was damaging to the engine (allowing it to labour). Is it damaging? Frankly I don't know - do you? Given that whatever an upchange indicator may or may not do has no effect whatsoever on official economy figures, why would a manufacturer suggest drivers do something that might damage (cause a warranty claim?) to their cars? Edited by bcr5784 on Wednesday 17th June 21:11

bcr5784 said: mollytherocker said: Please tell me you are joking here? Do you know whats going on in the car industry currently? Surely, you know what is at the root of all this? Course I do - economy/emissions - but the suggestion was that this was damaging to the engine (allowing it to labour). Is it damaging? Frankly I don't know - do you? I don't mean to be patronising as its not in my nature, but you need to understand the bigger picture for Porsche, or indeed any other automotive brand. You may be surprised to learn that their strategy and direction may be compromised more than any of us can truly appreciate. They are a business, and a bloody successful one at that, but they can only operate within the window of regulation and that makes them have to manage buyers expecations very cleverly.

mollytherocker said: I don't mean to be patronising as its not in my nature, but you need to understand the bigger picture for Porsche, or indeed any other automotive brand. You may be surprised to learn that their strategy and direction may be compromised more than any of us can truly appreciate. They are a business, and a bloody successful one at that, but they can only operate within the window of regulation and that makes them have to manage buyers expecations very cleverly. So what are you trying to say - spit it out man!

bcr5784 said: So what are you trying to say - spit it out man! The upchange indicators are probably programmed to match the shift points used for the official cycle test - so Porsche can say "At 35mph, the manual car is in 6th" and have the testing done on that basis. I know what a labouring engine feels and sounds like, and the manual gear indicator and PDK both allow the engine to labour a lot. I would be amazed if it is not damaging, especially as the main weaknesses of these engines manifest in low rev / high load situations (e.g. the Tip box used to shag engines by pulling off in 2nd). I don't allow my engine to spend much time below 2,000 revs, as it sounds a bit iffy below that and like it is labouring below about 1750 with any load at all (i.e. it is fine going downhill or with very minimal throttle, but I certainly wouldn't accelerate at all at those revs).

bcr5784 said: I'm pretty sure that isn't the case regarding economy. As I understand it the testing cycle mandates the gears used at the various parts of the cycle - nothing to do with what the auto might do - which, in any case has, different gearing so wouldn't be a valid basis anyway. That's probably the main reason why the manual has such long gears. Obviously the auto is allowed to do its own thing - and uses higher gears as a result, and in the case of Porsche gets better official economy figures. Regarding labouring - as I say it does use higher gears than I would, and I sometimes knock it down a gear as a result. But it sounds like your engine seems unhappier than mine at low revs. Mine sounds fine at 1500 revs (with the amount of throttle the auto will allow) even in 7th - and with fewer revs in lower gears. Mine does (or would if I let it) grumble briefly on occasion in 7th when the auto allows it to get down to 1200 rpm before knocking down to 6th. But all that said I've never spotted the upshift indicator telling me to shift up when to do so would cause the engine to labour (not that I take much notice of it - but I find it interesting to see what it "thinks" on occasion). As I say it would be rather foolish of Porsche - particularly with their history - to advise you to do something that would might cause a warranty claim, but they may have got it wrong. Labouring is unlikely to cause damage that manifests within the warranty period. It's more about repeated excessive wear, etc. As contrasted to that, Porsche has bright line CO2 obligations from on high. It's obvious which way that cookie crumbles. Porsche couldnt care less about what happens 5 years down the line.

ORD said: The upchange indicators are probably programmed to match the shift points used for the official cycle test - so Porsche can say "At 35mph, the manual car is in 6th" and have the testing done on that basis. I know what a labouring engine feels and sounds like, and the manual gear indicator and PDK both allow the engine to labour a lot. I would be amazed if it is not damaging, especially as the main weaknesses of these engines manifest in low rev / high load situations (e.g. the Tip box used to shag engines by pulling off in 2nd). I don't allow my engine to spend much time below 2,000 revs, as it sounds a bit iffy below that and like it is labouring below about 1750 with any load at all (i.e. it is fine going downhill or with very minimal throttle, but I certainly wouldn't accelerate at all at those revs). I'm pretty sure that isn't the case regarding economy. As I understand it the testing cycle mandates the gears used at the various parts of the cycle - nothing to do with what the indicator might say. That's probably the main reason why the manual has such long gears. Obviously the auto is allowed to do its own thing - and uses higher gears as a result, and in the case of Porsche gets better official economy figures. Regarding labouring - as I say it does use higher gears than I would, and I sometimes knock it down a gear as a result. But it sounds like your engine seems unhappier than mine at low revs. Mine sounds fine at 1500 revs (with the amount of throttle the auto will allow) even in 7th - and with fewer revs in lower gears. Mine does (or would if I let it) grumble briefly on occasion in 7th when the auto allows it to get down to 1200 rpm before knocking down to 6th. But all that said I've never spotted the upshift indicator telling me to shift up when to do so would cause the engine to labour (not that I take much notice of it - but I find it interesting to see what it "thinks" on occasion). As I say it would be rather foolish of Porsche - particularly with their history - to advise you to do something that would might cause a warranty claim, but they may have got it wrong. Edited by bcr5784 on Thursday 18th June 13:38

I don't take any car below 2k revs it's just not nice for it. labouring an engine is bad driving and very stressfull on the engine parts esp as you also might have very low oil pressure at those revs, so bye bye bearings etc 1.2k revs screw that!

ORD said: Porsche couldnt care less about what happens 5 years down the line. I am ( I thought) as cynical as anyone about Porsche's customer care - but I would have thought that self interest would have made them care - or at be concerned about possible consequences of another bore scoring or IMS type event. Porsche's reputation is significantly based upon the perception that, unlike Ferrari, Lotus, Maserati etc they make durable everyday drivers. Lose that reputation and they would be in real trouble.

PorscheGT4 said: I don't take any car below 2k revs it's just not nice for it. labouring an engine is bad driving and very stressfull on the engine parts esp as you also might have very low oil pressure at those revs, so bye bye bearings etc 1.2k revs screw that! I agree wholeheartedly that labouring is bad driving and as I said I choose to override the autos choices quite often, and use more revs than it would when driving manually . But to suggests 2000 as a blanket limit is simplistic - many modern turbos (petrols that is - all diesels do) develop peak torque from below 2000, which would be crackers if that caused the engine to labour. In any case an auto (unlike a manual) limits the throttle you can apply at low revs - the question is whether it limits it enough. Oil pressure isn't low at those revs on my Porsche - check on your display (and if it is on yours get it fixed!) It uses an electric pump so revs shouldn't enter into it. Engines can be made to run smoothly at almost any revs - in days of yore some engines would pull quite happily down to a 1000 rpm or less. It's just a matter of designing it to do so. Given the current focus on economy there is doubtless a great deal of design focus on making engines run well at low revs - and any car with a gear change indicator will have you using less than 2000 revs frequently in gentle driving. Porsche may of may not have got it wrong - but I don't think ALL car manufacturers have. Edited by bcr5784 on Thursday 18th June 14:56

bcr5784 said: I am ( I thought) as cynical as anyone about Porsche's customer care - but I would have thought that self interest would have made them care - or at be concerned about possible consequences of another bore scoring or IMS type event. Porsche's reputation is significantly based upon the perception that, unlike Ferrari, Lotus, Maserati etc they make durable everyday drivers. Lose that reputation and they would be in real trouble. It didnt stop them making the troublesome M96/97 engine for 10 years! They could have fixed it properly at any point. They chose not to.

mollytherocker said: bcr5784 said: I am ( I thought) as cynical as anyone about Porsche's customer care - but I would have thought that self interest would have made them care - or at be concerned about possible consequences of another bore scoring or IMS type event. Porsche's reputation is significantly based upon the perception that, unlike Ferrari, Lotus, Maserati etc they make durable everyday drivers. Lose that reputation and they would be in real trouble. It didnt stop them making the troublesome M96/97 engine for 10 years! They could have fixed it properly at any point. They chose not to. The long-term reliability of a current Porsche (or indeed any current premium car) is way, way, way down the list of priorities. Look at all the highly complex and fairly highly stressed engines kicking about - a recipe for repairs that will exceed the value of the car within a few years. The fairly high-profile (for these things) problems with the 996/997 barely registered at all with the general public. The Times is hardly going to run a front page saying "Porsches turn out to be a bit unreliable after 5 years". Porsche will also think "In 5 or 10 years time, the reliability of the next gen of powerplants will be irrelevant because there will be a whole new wave of tech". Porsche will not be making 4 cyl turbos in 2025.

ORD said: The long-term reliability of a current Porsche (or indeed any current premium car) is way, way, way down the list of priorities. Look at all the highly complex and fairly highly stressed engines kicking about - a recipe for repairs that will exceed the value of the car within a few years. The fairly high-profile (for these things) problems with the 996/997 barely registered at all with the general public. The Times is hardly going to run a front page saying "Porsches turn out to be a bit unreliable after 5 years". Porsche will also think "In 5 or 10 years time, the reliability of the next gen of powerplants will be irrelevant because there will be a whole new wave of tech". Porsche will not be making 4 cyl turbos in 2025. In the short term you may well be right - but it has taken Jaguar a long time (20 + years?) to recover its brand image after producing (and then crucifying) what was arguably the most iconic sportscar of its era - the E-Type - because of their insensitivity to reliability issues. We will see....

philnotts said: Hello. Just to confirm, as long as i have Sports Chrono, the rev matching blips on downshift will happen in the 2.7, 3.4 and GTS manual Cayman? Thanks, Phil Yes, but the real point is that if you have PDK you will only use Sport Plus if you take the car on track. Otherwise the car is undriveable because it is always at max rpm in the lowest available gear. If on the other hand you have a manual, you can use Sport Plus all the time. I have driven a new Boxster GTS manual which has, obviously, Sport Plus, and it is a superb, intuitive experience. Another reason to go manual.

cardigankid said: Yes, but the real point is that if you have PDK you will only use Sport Plus if you take the car on track. Otherwise the car is undriveable because it is always at max rpm in the lowest available gear. If on the other hand you have a manual, you can use Sport Plus all the time. I have driven a new Boxster GTS manual which has, obviously, Sport Plus, and it is a superb, intuitive experience. Another reason to go manual. Not sure why that is an argument against PDK. Sure it's an argument against the use of PDK and Sport+ except on the track - but you can use Sport or Normal or manual with PDK.

No idea what you're on about. Sports + in a manual does the square root of f k all!

bcr5784 said: cardigankid said: Yes, but the real point is that if you have PDK you will only use Sport Plus if you take the car on track. Otherwise the car is undriveable because it is always at max rpm in the lowest available gear. If on the other hand you have a manual, you can use Sport Plus all the time. I have driven a new Boxster GTS manual which has, obviously, Sport Plus, and it is a superb, intuitive experience. Another reason to go manual. Not sure why that is an argument against PDK. Sure it's an argument against the use of PDK and Sport+ except on the track - but you can use Sport or Normal or manual with PDK. This is nonsense. I drive my gts in pdk manual with sport plus on EVERY time I drive the car. I like the additional punch of the gears and enjoy not having to use a clutch and get lighting shifts perfectly timed every time. There is no relationship between only using sport plus on the track.. Granted if you only drive the car in auto it will do as you have described, but unless I'm in London traffic I never use auto mode. Much more fun pulling the paddles and controlling the Rev damage yourself.

Trotmant said: This is nonsense. I drive my gts in pdk manual with sport plus on EVERY time I drive the car. I like the additional punch of the gears and enjoy not having to use a clutch and get lighting shifts perfectly timed every time. There is no relationship between only using sport plus on the track.. Granted if you only drive the car in auto it will do as you have described, but unless I'm in London traffic I never use auto mode. Much more fun pulling the paddles and controlling the Rev damage yourself. He was talking about auto. Personally I'm not keen on Sport let alone Sport + in manual - the over-exaggerated blips on down changes are a bit too boy-racer for me.

bcr5784 said: Personally I'm not keen on Sport let alone Sport + in manual - the over-exaggerated blips on down changes are a bit too boy-racer for me. This is exactly why I love it

Does anyone know of an aftermarket conversion which will equip my OH with rev-matching?

Ozzie Osmond said: Does anyone know of an aftermarket conversion which will equip my OH with rev-matching? You are joking, right?

You're all now literally speaking in code. Good point about wanting a GOOD manual box, though - as I have said before, I would take PDK over a bad manual box with a s tty clutch. I don't think that's controversial. Most of us are ultimately fairly open-minded. If I didn't enjoy changing gear, and I wouldn't with a loose, long throw box and mushy delayed clutch pedal, then I might well go for a PDK. A bad manual set up is a really easy way to ruin a car (as is a bad auto box). The 981 box and clutch are good (barely), so I would still prefer a manual if buying a new Porsche. But if they got much worse, that plus the horrendous gearing would drive me into a PDK or an older manual Porker.

anonymous said: [redacted] No more redundant than you wittering on about the merits of a manual box which all of us (I think) have driven for many thousands of miles.

ORD said: that plus the horrendous gearing would drive me into a PDK or an older manual Porker. it did for me. Utterly pointless on a road sports car if you can't at least use 3 gears before losing your licence. Porsche crossed my line in the sand with 981 ratios, hence PDK for me. No pint in having a manual if it's more annoying/frustrating than enjoyable. Luckily I have the 993 for manual road kicks

anonymous said: [redacted] Must be your lack of comprehension, as I (and many others) have explicitly stated the opposite.

anonymous said: [redacted] I suggest you read all of my posts. As YOU have agreed it is a matter of personal choice and there is no right or wrong - but somehow I don't think you believe it. The fact is that many of us actually do appreciate the delights of a manual gearbox but prefer the delights, technical superiority and convenience of a pdk for the type of motoring we do. Most of us have not the slightest problem with you choosing manual and, unlike you, have no religeous mission to make you see the "error" of your ways.

anonymous said: [redacted] My opinion is as I've stated previously, despite your claims to the contrary. No idea why you continue to believe you understand my views better than I do. I've not tried to misrepresent your personal, highly subjective views... anonymous said: [redacted] Or perhaps your opinion isn't shared by a number of people who know their own opinions perfectly well and don't need you to tell them what they think (or would think, if only there were as 'educated' and 'experienced' as you)... Edited by sidicks on Friday 3rd July 11:13

bcr5784 said: I suggest you read all of my posts. As YOU have agreed it is a matter of personal choice and there is no right or wrong - but somehow I don't think you believe it. The fact is that many of us actually do appreciate the delights of a manual gearbox but prefer the delights, technical superiority and convenience of a pdk for the type of motoring we do. Most of us have not the slightest problem with you choosing manual and, unlike you, have no religeous mission to make you see the "error" of your ways. I wouldn't even say I necessarily preferred PDK-S over manual - I enjoy both and respect the advantages and disadvantages of each.

sidicks said: I wouldn't even say I necessarily preferred PDK-S over manual - I enjoy both and respect the advantages and disadvantages of each. I understand that - Moose simply never would (he'd say you didn't, couldn't possibly, really mean it).

anonymous said: [redacted] Do I not get manuals?!

Mario149 said: Do I not get manuals?! only if you think a dual clutch box (and only the very special and distinct pdk-s mind you) is like a manual....

anonymous said: [redacted] I've owned manuals in the past, currently own manual cars and will undoubtedly own manuals in the future. I also really enjoy using the PDK-S in my GT3. I've made that explicitly clear on numerous occasions. The fact that you continue to suggest otherwise is your problem, not mine. I'm sorry that my open-mindedness and ability to enjoy two different types of gearbox blows your mind and you don't have the intellectual capacity to comprehend how such a thing could be possible.

It seems we can add gearbox preference to politics and religion as topics, that are a total waste of time in discussing, if the end goal is to change the opinion of somebody else.

lsb said: It seems we can add gearbox preference to politics and religion as topics, that are a total waste of time in discussing, if the end goal is to change the opinion of somebody else. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What is pathetic is trying to tell someone else that their opinion is exactly the opposite to what they themselves have explicitly stated it to be!!

anonymous said: [redacted] As I said previously, I'm not responsible for your lack of comprehension.

lsb said: It seems we can add gearbox preference to politics and religion as topics, that are a total waste of time in discussing, if the end goal is to change the opinion of somebody else. It's not a waste of time as long as everyone understands that I am right, and that if they don't agree with me they are wrong. Simples!

lsb said: It seems we can add gearbox preference to politics and religion as topics, that are a total waste of time in discussing, if the end goal is to change the opinion of somebody else. I think the only person trying to change opinions is moose. Most of us are quite happy to attend "services" of all faiths and accept the validity of a wide diversity of religious beliefs.

Jesus Christ, how did religion come into the discussion?

anonymous said: [redacted] Have you any idea how stupid you two look?

[Image-only or quote-only post; no author-written text.] http://oneguyrambling.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/big-lebowski-Jesus.jpg

mollytherocker said: Jesus Christ, how did religion come into the discussion? Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

anonymous said: [redacted] I suspect so. But do carry on it's a most gratifying sight