Is anyone looking forward to the 981.2 Caysters? - Page 3 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

I know we're a bit niche here compared to the general public, but is anyone here looking forward to the 981.2? And when I say looking forward, I mean with half an eye on possibly buying one, turbo 4-pot and all. At the mo I personally have no interest esp after reading the 991.2 passenger review that got posted up the other day. If Porsche have managed to crucify the 911's flat-6 character with turbos, god knows what they've done to the Cayster Although that said I can imagine that if it was your first Porsche drive and entry to the marque from say BMW you wouldn't care as you don't miss what you don't know

Personally, I wasn't against the principle of a 4 pot turbo, but if the stories of old hat single fixed vane turbo are true then things don't look good.

Not really looking forward to it. I think due to the emissions targets etc we are at the point where perhaps the most exciting cars based on N/A combustion engines have now been made. Take the Ferrari 488 for example, faster than the 458 it may be, but I feel the main reason to buy one over the 458 speciale aperta is purely because it has a new shape and some new tech. Even my 360 is too fast for UK roads. I've not seen any reviews say they prefer the fact that the engine is turbo-charged, more that they are impressed that it doesn't feel too turbo charged! I think we are at a "take your pick" moment - ie this is what's left of the n/a combustion engined cars, make your choice. There will be new and exciting cars in the future, but perhaps this is a period of consolidation where electric / hybrid / turbo cars take time to get really interesting. Electric cars will have their charms too once batteries get lighter and we can enjoy incredible handling. Happy to have a flat-six powered Boxster on order, and the death of the V8 makes me feel even more happy to have a V8-engined Ferrari in the garage as well.

I'm not anti-turbo. They have their place and their own appeal. Certainly old-school turbos with lag and then a BIG kick in the back when they spool up. What I'm not keen on is trying to make turbo's feel like n/a. They'll never have the throttle response and it dials down that crude slug of power that I actually want from a turbo charged car. The sad thing is that any 4-pot turbo anyone makes now is going to be trying to behave like n/a, which you simply can't do better than n/a. Instead of emphasising what can make turbos fun. So no, not interested unless Porsche decide to go old school with it. Which they won't. Much like Ferrari should have taken lessons from the F40 for their turbo model rather than trying to disguise the fact that it's turbocharged. More power is all it offers and as someone else has already rightly pointed out, we don't really need any more power.

juansolo said: I'm not anti-turbo. They have their place and their own appeal. Certainly old-school turbos with lag and then a BIG kick in the back when they spool up. What I'm not keen on is trying to make turbo's feel like n/a. They'll never have the throttle response and it dials down that crude slug of power that I actually want from a turbo charged car. The sad thing is that any 4-pot turbo anyone makes now is going to be trying to behave like n/a, which you simply can't do better than n/a. Instead of emphasising what can make turbos fun. So no, not interested unless Porsche decide to go old school with it. Which they won't. Much like Ferrari should have taken lessons from the F40 for their turbo model rather than trying to disguise the fact that it's turbocharged. More power is all it offers and as someone else has already rightly pointed out, we don't really need any more power. That's funny, I'm almost the exact opposite If Porsche has to go turbo, I wanted then to make the engine feel as NA as possible to retain its character even if it'd never feel exactly like a NA motor. I'd rather they used forced induction to lower emissions and decrease engine size, but still make you rev it for the power rather then giving the now completely standard and generic max torque from <2K rpm to >5K rpm. It would have been soooo much better if they'd just engineered a lovely linear increase in torque from 2K to 5.5K. Unfortunately it seems that they've succumbed to the torque wars whereby every car has to go like a stabbed rat from just over tickover

I would purchase an F Type before a four pot Porsche. I don't have too much of an issue with forced induction, but I like my sports cars to be multi-cylindered. Had they stuck with a flat six of reduced capacity and then fitted a turbo, that would have been an acceptable compromise for me. I compete in a 4 pot turbo (Evo) and although it's damn quick and the slug of power puts a smile on your face, I wouldn't want the characteristics of this type of engine as a daily driver. Edited by Trev450 on Tuesday 11th August 11:35

Mario149] said: go like a stabbed rat from just over tickover You just made me laugh out loud at my desk. Great analogy.

Trotmant said: Mario149] said: go like a stabbed rat from just over tickover You just made me laugh out loud at my desk. Great analogy. I'm here all week!

anonymous said: [redacted] True I reckon. My mate and his wife have a 996 and both of them are interested in cars and quite knowledgeable. The first thing she said when I showed her the 991 article (haven't shown it to him yet) was that it'll make it an easier DD...! anonymous said: [redacted] If you switch PSE off in a 981 (I think it's rather fun but appreciate that not everyone likes shouty zorsts) there is actually a nice mechanical noise behind it all - only problem is that the valve still opens at 4.5K rpm or so (at least on mine GTS it does) so you can't hear it anymore. Would be good if you could actually switch PSE *off* off for when you fancy it anonymous said: [redacted] People can neg out all they want, it's just whether they manage to do it in a way that doesn't deliberately piss on people's chips and come across badly No one here may have driven a 991.2, but constant torque from 1.8k to 5k rpm is pretty a strong argument I would suggest. Many people will have driven/passengered in motors with exactly the same torque delivery (if not power) so will know what it's like. I'll defer my personal final judgement, and pray that I'm wrong, until I get in a 991.2 and find that it still delivers like a NA motor and the marketing spiel was b ks, or others on here do. Porsche may (hopefully) have done clever things with turbo lag, but the lack of increasing thrust after 1.8K that ends in a crescendo will be very obvious. All that said, I may be a bit stuck in the past and still think of 911s as more of a sportscar in the grand scheme of things rather than a GT. Maybe I'll just have to recalibrate my head and it'll be fine

It is tempting to get into a convoluted discussion about this, but the bottom line is really very simple: turbo 4 pots are extremely likely to be horrid engines for anything pretending to be a driver's car. A rough-and-ready test for whether or not a turbo engine will feel tolerable is this: would the engine still be broadly appropriate to the application without the FI? If it wouldn't, it will be relying heavily on boost and will feel like it: flat torque curve, dull sound, no point revving it out, etc. A 4 cyl 2.0 petrol engine with a low rev limit is not a sensible engine for a 1400kg sports car, so a turbo flat four will be insipid. You cannot compare a FI V8 to a 2 litre 4 pot. Different worlds. A 4 litre engine with a bit of turbo assistance is (potentially) tolerable, but an emissions-special 4 cyl is an abomination in the face of the Lord. I also agree with Cmoose that there is already a lot wrong with the 9x1 cars, but this is of a different order of magnitude. As I have said to plenty of salesmen at OPCs (and been met with sad faces), to the buyers that actually care, the best thing about Porsche is the flat 6s. I would be utterly amazed if the new engines are not horrible, and I would be equally amazed if it hurts sales much. I bet people who care about throttle response, induction noise and primary control weights and feedback are about 10% of the Porsche-buying demographic. 300lb/ft of torque from 1800 revs will actually appeal to a lot of buyers. Even car journos care more about pops and farts from the exhaust than steering feel (which is absent, pretty much, from the 981).

I spent a while contemplating if the turbo would be better for my daily drive and in the end ordered a "981.1" last week. The Cayman will likely get slightly cheaper, expect more safety systems, better nav and a few visual tweaks as well. It came down to the fact I test drove the Golf R, Leon Cupra, A45 and TT and all were a pretty boring engine experience compared to even the base Cayman.

Trev450 said: I would purchase an F Type before a four pot Porsche. Interesting comment. I agree that the F-type looks a serious sportscar from about £60k. However, unless you get carried away in the options list Boxster/Cayman should work out waaay cheaper. Entry Porsches are selling against stuff like BMW Z4 and I doubt there will be any difficulties there.

My guess would be a refreshed Z hard top chassis with the 35/40I engine would be a serious challenge to the 981.2 (35I engine is rather good IMHO). Current Z4 model is a bad chassis though.

anonymous said: [redacted]

Here's the bit that I struggle with - why would you buy a Porsche with a merely capable engine? You would have so many other, one or more of which is almost bound to be right for any particular punter:- (1) Second-hand Porsches with proper engines. (2) (Perhaps)less exciting but prestigious 6 and 8 cylinder FI cars from Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Jag etc. There are still plenty of these around. Nice badges and big engines are still available as a package. (3) Dynamically inferior but far more practical cars with equally dull but effective 4 cylinder engines. Turbo shopping cars aren't actually all that bad to drive... (4) Cars with equally crap engines but a more involving driving experience - Lotus, Caterham, etc etc. I would fall into category 1 or 4. A lot of people would fall into 2 or 3. But surely not many buyers fall into none of these categories?

2 ponderings: Cayman going 4-cyl turbo and sub-boxster will be good for the Lotus Evora - Cayman loses the vital engine advantage and the price gap widens, so they become less comparable. Evora will do better being seen as a cheaper 911 rival (but will have negligible effect on Porsche, so not something for Porsche to worry about). Lots of low-down turbo torque on these new engines - is this the new bore score crisis on its way?

Ozzie Osmond said: Trev450 said: I would purchase an F Type before a four pot Porsche. Interesting comment. I agree that the F-type looks a serious sportscar from about £60k. However, unless you get carried away in the options list Boxster/Cayman should work out waaay cheaper. Entry Porsches are selling against stuff like BMW Z4 and I doubt there will be any difficulties there. I was actually trying to make the point (albeit not very well) that, for me at least, a sports car needs to be multi-cylindered and I used the F-Type as an example. A good used Vantage V8 or AMG would equally be preferable to any four pot Porsche.

braddo said: 2 ponderings: Cayman going 4-cyl turbo and sub-boxster will be good for the Lotus Evora - Cayman loses the vital engine advantage and the price gap widens, so they become less comparable. Evora will do better being seen as a cheaper 911 rival (but will have negligible effect on Porsche, so not something for Porsche to worry about). Lots of low-down turbo torque on these new engines - is this the new bore score crisis on its way? Yep. I would definitely choose an Evora over a 4 cyl Porsche. A really good point. But it will only apply to people who would consider a Lotus at all (which must be a tiny proportion of Porsche buyers). Porsche will probably not be hurt by any of this, as brand cache is hard to gain and very hard to lose. But, looking at it objectively, a Porsche with a dull engine is not much of a value proposition. I would be surprised if people at Porsche aren't quite worried about relying so heavily on brand image while losing what makes the brand special. Imagine an argument with someone who puts forward some competitor car as better than a Cayman - the answe is always 'engine'. What will it be now? Porsches are fairly slow, handle very well but not impeccably, aren't terribly focussed, have average interiors, no longer have much steering feel, have powerful but not feelsome brakes, etc etc.

The new 4-cylinder engine could be anything from a disaster ( single turbo with lots of turbo lag, no top end power, farty sound) to a very nice engine indeed (variable geometry turbocharger paired with an electric turbo or rather supercharger). The latter is very unlikely to happen because it requires a 48V electric system which not even the 991.2 has. My expectations are not very high and I can't say I am looking forward to it. Part of me wishes Porsche would skip the 4-cylinder turbos and go straight for the small 3-cylinder n/a + hybrid approach. Recently heard a i8 drive by and was pleasantly surprised by the sound it generated (not the one through the speakers ).

anonymous said: [redacted] But look at the pricing and margins. All those brands have won volume at the expense of prices and profits. Not a game Porsche needs to play. The answer to the cars that can compete at all as driver's cars is 'engine', but you're right that 'handling' is what sees off the more mainstream alternatives (although the Porsche also has the better engine there too unless you love power numbers on a page).

anonymous said: [redacted] IMO Porsche has got the proper, modern, mid-engine sportscar market sewn up so tight no-one else has a prayer of being able to compete. Some people say, "Ah yes, but a Boxster/Cayman really costs £65k which is the same as Evora". But I'd bet cash money that most Boxster/Cayman are leaving the dealers for between £40k and £55k. I doubt Mr Porsche makes a bean of profit on the handful of cars which leave the showroom for £40k but I don't suppose he cares a jot.

anonymous said: [redacted]

The problem I have with most of the cars competing with Box/Cay/911s, engines aside, is that they tend to be front engined. Rightly or wrongly, front engined means GT in my mind. Which is great as I love a V12 GT. There's nothing wrong with them, but in sportscar terms the nose always feels heavier than I like.

Mario149 said: The problem I have with most of the cars competing with Box/Cay/911s, engines aside, is that they tend to be front engined. Rightly or wrongly, front engined means GT in my mind. Which is great as I love a V12 GT. There's nothing wrong with them, but in sportscar terms the nose always feels heavier than I like. There are a lot of FE-RWD cars that are more focussed and less 'GT' than a Cayman. But they tend to have horrid engines. Again, for me it's the combination of good handling and a nice engine that is special. I wouldn't touch a GT86, for example, because it has a pretty uninspiring engine.

ORD said: There are a lot of FE-RWD cars that are more focussed and less 'GT' than a Cayman. But engines aside, handling can be great, I'm just not a fan of the heavy nose feeling. Actually, it's more the feeling of inertia. But, I'd prefer that and a nice engine to a ME 4 pot 981.2

If the 981.2 Cayman/Boxster is more affordable they'll sell a lot more because 99% of the public don't care about if it's a 4, 6, 8, 12 cylinder. They care it's a Porsche, it's quick(ish), reasonable MPG.

Personally I just love the feel of proper mid-engine handling, whether on the lowliest MR2, an Elise, a Boxster/Cayman or a Ferrari. There's something very special about the way these cars drive and you don't need concrete suspension to make that experience "sporty".

I have read this thread and all of you make some very valid points but I feel you are over thinking it and/or giving 'the Porsche enthusiast' too much credit. I say this because I know of two people who own 911's, one has a 997 and the other has a 991 - neither of them can tell me the capacity or cylinder layout of their engines and neither of them have ever opened the engine cover to check the oil level. They bought the 911...... because its a 911! The end is nigh

V8KSN said: I say this because I know of two people who own 911's, one has a 997 and the other has a 991 - neither of them can tell me the capacity or cylinder layout of their engines and neither of them have ever opened the engine cover to check the oil level. They bought the 911...... because its a 911! The end is nigh oil level check is electronic now ! but true people buy a 911 because it a 911 and more expensive and would NOT even look at a Cayman even if it were faster.

anonymous said: [redacted] I think my next purchase would be an lotus exige s once you can no longer get a F6 2seater from porsche. Think the lotus looks and sounds epic.

Trotmant said: I think my next purchase would be an lotus exige s once you can no longer get a F6 2seater from porsche. Think the lotus looks and sounds epic. Have you tried getting into an Exige yet? I tried one and decided it was a trackday rocket-sled for midgets. So drove to the Porsche shop and ordered a sportscar for humans.

Ozzie Osmond said: Trotmant said: I think my next purchase would be an lotus exige s once you can no longer get a F6 2seater from porsche. Think the lotus looks and sounds epic. Have you tried getting into an Exige yet? I tried one and decided it was a trackday rocket-sled for midgets. So drove to the Porsche shop and ordered a sportscar for humans. Ha i've sat in one (not driven personally but been drive around) and I'm 6"1. Wont deny they are tight! If I'm honest I didnt see it any harder to get in and out of than buckets on a porsche with a lower supsension (i.e. 20mm). I liked it.

Ozzie Osmond said: Have you tried getting into an Exige yet? I tried one and decided it was a trackday rocket-sled for midgets. So drove to the Porsche shop and ordered a sportscar for humans. I don't necessarily agree, but that made me chuckle

Trotmant said: I think my next purchase would be an lotus exige s once you can no longer get a F6 2seater from porsche. Think the lotus looks and sounds epic. I can't really see an Exige being a real alternative to a F6 Porsche for many - it's much more focussed (or impractical depending on your point of view). The Evora perhaps... I do see rather more than a niche market opening up for Lotus between Atoms and Caterhams and more "consumer" sports cars. There is precious little in that space. The 4C seems very disappointing, the new Alpine might be better. Whether Lotus will get their act together after so long in the doldrums remains to be seen -though the Evora 400 does seem like a step forward.

bcr5784 said: I can't really see an Exige being a real alternative to a F6 Porsche for many - it's much more focussed (or impractical depending on your point of view). The Evora perhaps... I do see rather more than a niche market opening up for Lotus between Atoms and Caterhams and more "consumer" sports cars. There is precious little in that space. The 4C seems very disappointing, the new Alpine might be better. Whether Lotus will get their act together after so long in the doldrums remains to be seen -though the Evora 400 does seem like a step forward. Conceptually, there is a gaping big whole in the market. Porsche has moved more towards GT/Audi territory over time, and there is pretty much nothing left at a sane price that is involving to drive without being very compromised for daily use (i.e. track-focussed cars). BUT that great big conceptual space is probably tiny in terms of numbers of potential buyers. How many people have £50-70k to spend and want something other than a posh badge, lots of impressive numbers and some pretty interior details? This is why Lotus is f ked no matter how well it does at producing excellent cars.

ORD said: Conceptually, there is a gaping big whole in the market. Porsche has moved more towards GT/Audi territory over time, and there is pretty much nothing left at a sane price that is involving to drive without being very compromised for daily use (i.e. track-focussed cars). BUT that great big conceptual space is probably tiny in terms of numbers of potential buyers. How many people have £50-70k to spend and want something other than a posh badge, lots of impressive numbers and some pretty interior details? This is why Lotus is f ked no matter how well it does at producing excellent cars. While I understand where you are coming from, I'm not convinced. It's just that cars "occupying" that space are pretty naff - neither appealing to the purist as more accomplished DDs than "focussed" cars NOR sufficiently more sporting than the "near GTs". The original Elan DID occupy that space 40 years ago - it had a decent amount of sound proofing, air vents (read 1970s aircon) bling - wood rim wheel, genuine wood dashboard and gearknob. And a decent boot. Very mainstream. It also outhandled pretty much everything and had very good ride. Its ride handling compromise is STILL outstanding (blows the MX5 copy out of the water even today and in a straight line too) (And yes I know the electrics were naff, leaked oil etc etc) BUT there is middle ground if someone designs a good enough car, with decent practicality and reliability. Edited by bcr5784 on Wednesday 12th August 19:58

anonymous said: [redacted] I'd agree at 70k for sure - at say 40k not so sure. An Elise S replacement with a decent boot, a decent hood (even if manual) and more refinement would find quite a lot of buyers - me for one.

anonymous said: [redacted] Probably not that far off. OPCs are always very confused when I cross-shop between new and second-hand. I think most buyers either want a new car or don't. I doubt there is much competition between, say, a new £80k Carrera and a £65k 997 GTS. If there was, the GTS price might even come up a bit. Comparing new and used is frowned upon on PH generally, too. If you say 'Why would I spend £40k on that when I could get a used 997?' people freak out and say it's not a valid comparison. Of f king course it is! If you are someone who makes those comparisons, a 4-pot 981.2 for £40k alongside a lightly used flat-six 981.1 is going look terrible value! 'So it has a worse engine and is slower? But it's much more expensive?'. Usually OPCs can point to supposed advances in the new model, but here all they will have is 'It has lower emissions (in theory)' By the way, spending a lot of time in OPCs recently, they do seem to have mixed feedback on the 9x1 from punters, and it seems to have shaken them a bit. I doubt it has had any effect on sales (because sales lost to enthusiasts are won from badge w es and interior lickers), but there was a lot of 'Yes. I know. A few people have complained about that' when I have said why I am not interested in a 981 and why I was cross-shopping the 991 and 997.

anonymous said: [redacted] By whom?

anonymous said: [redacted] I have no doubt at all that is right. I think some of the salesmen are actually car enthusiasts though (albeit a minority), and a few are a bit uncomfortable trying to tell us that a 7-speed manual is a good idea or that EPAS is excellent. It's pretty sad when you get the feeling that not even the salesmen can fake enthusiasm (at least not when faced with someone who has a clue).

anonymous said: [redacted] But they have lost their way. The Elise was very successful when it came out, but they've barely improved it over the years - and some might argue they have gone backwards. If, instead of trying to develop loads of different models on an inadequate budget they had focussed on a more modern (read mainstream) version of the Elise they wouldn't be in the mess they are. As I say 40 years ago they did it with the Elan with commercial success - which was positioned between the MGBs and E-Types of the day, and relative to them, much more mainstream/refined than the Elise is today relative to its competition. An Elise S is a similar price to a base Cayman, but few would really regard them as rivals. Neither would many consider the MX5 or Elise as alternatives. That wasn't the case with the Elan and (say) TR6. Indeed the Elan felt more "sophisticated" than the mainstream alternatives. I see no fundamental reason why the new Alpine couldn't occupy that space - particularly as Renault have a huge parts bin to choose from. All the machinations with Caterham don't bode well though.

anonymous said: [redacted] They sold several thousand a year in the early years of production - now it's only a couple of hundred. And it was never mainstream enough to sell in really decent numbers - that is my point, it could be more mainstream without losing much, if any, of its dynamic qualities. It certainly did and does need improvement. The boot is (needlessly) too small and the access to what little there is is bad. The hood is a mess. The rear suspension was always inclined to clonk spoiling what otherwise was a very good ride. The gearchange was vague and obstructive. The wind noise made use as a long distance car a pain. The original window winders were dreadful. There was little internal stowage. All of that is perfectly fixable without it becoming a gin palace. And they replaced the (albeit not the most reliable) K Series with the much less pleasant and heavier Toyota engine. Compare it with original Elan (or Europa) and the Elise is definite step backwards in terms of practicality, nearly 25 years later. I toured Europe two up with an (albeit small) tent in my Europa S2 - wouldn't have considered it in my Elise.

bcr5784 said: Compare it with original Elan (or Europa) and the Elise is definite step backwards in terms of practicality, nearly 25 years later. Elise is a massively bigger car than old Elan/Europa. Those things were tiny.

I think there is room for something between a Lotus and a Porsche, but it would be infinitely easier for Porsche to fill it than Lotus. (Porsche has of course no intention of filling the gap.)

Ozzie Osmond said: Elise is a massively bigger car than old Elan/Europa. Those things were tiny. The Elise is a lot wider than the old Elan - but only slightly longer. It's actually the same width but quite a lot SHORTER than the Europa

ORD said: I think there is room for something between a Lotus and a Porsche, but it would be infinitely easier for Porsche to fill it than Lotus. (Porsche has of course no intention of filling the gap.) I agree - but as I said before, it's perfectly possible for Renault to do it with the Alpine, because they have a lot of mainstream bits to do it with. That said Lotus could have made the Elise more mainstream and foolishly didn't. Indeed had the Caterham/Renault alliance survived Caterham could have done it too - because they would have had access to mainstream Renault bits. I don't think any small company could do it alone, but none actually try. If you have a good relationship with a manufacturer who has no inclination to occupy that market space then it can be done. There is a huge amount of cross manufacturer alliances going on - the new Smart is Renault Twingo underneath (the old ForFour was a Golf) Ka and Panda are the same platform, the Chrysler Crossfire was a Merc, VW and Merc vans and so on. Unfortunately Lotus have done a pretty crap job for over 10 years. The VX220 was an opportunity missed to make the Elise significantly more practical (whether that was Lotus or Vauxhall's fault I don't know)

anonymous said: [redacted] A new Elan clearly would do fine. (The MX5 is the best selling sportscar ever and it's an unashamed copy, and slower, heavier, with inferior handling) There is nothing in the market that even tries to occupy the space above the MX5 which lighter, faster and more focussed, - but still practical and reliable. So until something which is well regarded does then there is NO evidence to the contrary.

Not sure about that. Wouldn't the following sell reasonably well? Two seats. Lightweight - 1100k or so. Similar size to an MX-5. FE-RWD (cheaper than ME because it can share components with other cars more easily) Reasonable boot NA petrol engine of modest capacity (e.g. 2.5 5-pot so it sounds OK). Lotus suspension Not much sound deadening. Sensible size wheels - 16 inch, for example. Bugger all in the way of electric seats, etc and other pointless stuff. Actually, no...it wouldn't sell. I am basically re-making the GT86 and that has not done well!

anonymous said: [redacted] The logic is quite straightforward - an MX5 is NOT far more mainstream than the old Elan was - and is hugely successful. Drive an Elan, an MGB and an E-type and you simply could not conceivably make such a comment. Surely Lotus ought to be able do better 40 years on! An Elise today is NOT as mainstream or as genuinely practical or plush(!) as an Elan or Europa were - it has the same principle of lightness at it's core - but it has practicality removed NOT added. That is the problem. I agree you can't MODIFY the Elise to be a much bigger seller - but you can clearly design a REPLACEMENT which has more widespread appeal, because Lotus have already designed two such cars 40 years ago.

anonymous said: [redacted] You are just being silly. The MX5 is a completely steel bodied copy of an Elan, with similar degree of practicality and mainstream appeal - but because its nearly 50% heavier it's slower and not as agile. I can only assume you haven't driven let alone owned the cars I am talking about or you wouldn't miss the point.

bcr5784 said: ...That said Lotus could have made the Elise more mainstream and foolishly didn't... Yes they did, they tried - the Lotus Europa. The press didn't like it - it was still too hardcore because of entry/exit, but it was more refined and had a bigger boot. But it flopped. No-one wanted to pay what Lotus needed to charge. Modern legislative requirements make a new Elan (as you imagine one) unrealistic. It will be too heavy and too expensive. Anyway, weren't factory built Elans pretty damn expensive? The next generation Elise will be slightly bigger and have easier entry/exit thanks to lower sills. There is no room for a front engined model in the line-up.

anonymous said: [redacted] Rubbish. The weight of a car has no real bearing on its "mainstream" appeal it's issues of practicality and convenience that do. It is lack of mainstream appeal which I believe we agree limits Elise sales. In terms of practicality and convenience the MX5 is little different from the Elan. Which is the point I am repeatedly making but which you seem determined to misunderstand.

Anyway, who's going to put a deposit down on a 4 Pot 981?

Miopyk said: Anyway, who's going to put a deposit down on a 4 Pot 981?

Miopyk said: Anyway, who's going to put a deposit down on a 4 Pot 981? Not me for one, and our cousins over the pond appear to be of a similar frame of mind: http://www.planet-9.com/981-chat/110361-should-i-b...

anonymous said: [redacted] It seems to me that if you agree that a) Weight has no real effect on mainstream appeal b) That an "Elan" can and did have similar practical qualities - and therefore the mainstream appeal of an MX5 that c) Lotus (or someone else) could produce a sportscar with similar mainstream appeal to an MX5 but, because it was substantially lighter, was faster and dynamically more able - and therefore able to command a higher price and sell in substantial volume Which is exactly the sort of thing Lotus once did!

bcr5784 said: anonymous said: [redacted] It seems to me that if you agree that a) Weight has no real effect on mainstream appeal b) That an "Elan" can and did have similar practical qualities - and therefore the mainstream appeal of an MX5 that c) Lotus (or someone else) could produce a sportscar with similar mainstream appeal to an MX5 but, because it was substantially lighter, was faster and dynamically more able - and therefore able to command a higher price and sell in substantial volume Which is exactly the sort of thing Lotus once did! Come along now, chaps.....back to the original thread, hey?

braddo said: Yes they did, they tried - the Lotus Europa. The press didn't like it - it was still too hardcore because of entry/exit, but it was more refined and had a bigger boot. But it flopped. No-one wanted to pay what Lotus needed to charge. Modern legislative requirements make a new Elan (as you imagine one) unrealistic. It will be too heavy and too expensive. Anyway, weren't factory built Elans pretty damn expensive? The next generation Elise will be slightly bigger and have easier entry/exit thanks to lower sills. There is no room for a front engined model in the line-up. The (new) Europa was yet another half hearted attempt. Still much too unrefined and impractical. It was just another example of Lotus not really grasping the nettle.

Jeez, give it a rest.

Back on topic quickly, just had a thought: what do people think the chances are that porsche isn't putting a turbo four in the 981.2 but a smaller version of the 991.2's turbo 6 instead? And that their just yanking our chains to generate publicity/discussion? That way, they can then release the Cayster with the 6, the Porsche world will breathe a sigh of relief and be so grateful we'll mostly forget the turbo part.... I can't believe the turbo 4 would be thaaat much more efficient than the 6, and it means that they'll have to be manufacturing/tooling up/sourcing more parts at extra cost than they would if they just stuck to the current formula.

Autocar has had a ride in the new cars - has some comment on the new engines from the passenger seat... Says it's not all bad news...