I *know* we've got to stop 718 bashing, but.... - Page 4 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

....while you still can, go on to the configurator and listen to the 718 Boxster S engine noise, then the Boxster GTS engine noise. Start here with the 718.... http://cc.porsche.com/icc_euro/ccCall.do?rt=145392... ....then hover over "Model" on the top left and select Boxster GTS and listen again. Even my 6 wk old daughter thinks the 2.5 4 pot sounds naff, I played both and she only cried during the 718+++ +++= test may not be entirely scientific

Reminds me of a souped up Beetle....which is what it is i suppose. :-)

Sounds ok but versus the six, no contest. One is reminiscent of many race and rally cars over the years, the other like a four-banger with added histrionics (and yes the six has some of those but more charm besides). The four, whilst standing out from other contemporary stuff as not utterly hideous in terms of aural impact, lacks complexity, depth, distinctiveness by comparison. That said, modern pork seems to have stupidly whizz-bang "LOOK AT ME!" pipes these days. Infantile (and thus not incapable of being enjoyed, for around 10 minutes). Spyder looks tasty. Wish I'd got an order in for a GT4 before getting a mortgage!

Hold on a minute...£50k for a four cyclinder car, Porsche really are taking the pish this time.

Klippie said: Hold on a minute...£50k for a four cyclinder car, Porsche really are taking the pish this time. Plus £10k of options. You know, for resale....

Tbh though what's really taking piss is paying an additional 32k for a 911,

But at least it still has a flat6 albeit turbo

You have to hand it to them though. I mean the company is selling cars and making money no matter which way you look at it (even if from a relatively lowly and cynical position such as mine it does look suspiciously like OPCs exist to purely slide the bar of soap into your toes, so that Porsche AG can get nice and intimate with your hind quarters). I'm not for bending personally, but it's all relative I guess... enough cash and I could be tempted, albeit not for a 718. Regular, picky little hussy, me

Wow - after listening to those sound clips I'm so happy I took a calculated risk and opted for a new BGTS last year (rather than wait for the 718) - the sound seems pretty accurate to me so reckon the 718 will sound that bad!

718 sounds way better* to me than the 718 S - must be the VTG or rather lack thereof? by way better i mean "less than a farting vacuum cleaner"

Wonder if this abortion of a car will do anything to old boxster sales? The new 911 for example is a superb car but it is huge and is built for people with big wallets and not much else. Thinking the 997 could be a good buy soon.

Innowaybored said: Thinking the 997 could be a good buy soon. If you think this its already too late.........

I can say for certain I wont be upgrading to the 718 platform. Its going to make upgrading a whole lot harder now, as it looks like i'm going to be sticking with my CGTS for a long while to come now. Edited by AndyCGTS on Thursday 28th January 21:13

CBA to look is it flat 4 or inline/v4?

lemmingjames said: CBA to look is it flat 4 or inline/v4? It's a flat 4.

AndyCGTS said: I can say for certain I wont be upgrading to the 718 platform. Its going to make upgrading a whole lot harder now, as it looks like i'm going to be sticking with my CGTS for a long while to come now. Edited by AndyCGTS on Thursday 28th January 21:13 Have you noticed how many CGTS and BGTS have been sold from Porsche UK over the last few days? I would say at least 10 have gone. I have been watching the BGTS and its gone from 12 to 7.

Boggle73 said: Have you noticed how many CGTS and BGTS have been sold from Porsche UK over the last few days? I would say at least 10 have gone. I have been watching the BGTS and its gone from 12 to 7. I've not been keeping a eye on it to be honest.

Someone who sells these things for a living told me the other week that they are s tting themselves about the 4 cylinder boxter/caymans... Also, that the 991.2 non-S is selling better than the S...

Oh jesus, just listened to the sound compared to the Cayman 6cyl... Lost it's specialness, sounds just like a standard 4 cyl with some exhaust crackle... Actually a bit like a golf or something of that ilk

and what the f k have they done with that weird black spoiler on the back!!! Looks like a Halfords add on...

Sure, I wouldn't have a 718 if I could have a 981 GTS, though I would say that. What I do find particularly charming is the price level of the new 718 S is almost up with the old GTS.

Thats because the 718 Boxster and Cayman are 'role reversed' so the Boxster cab is rightfully now dearer than the Cayman coupe......more profitable for Porsche selling many more of the to date more popular car.

Klippie said: Hold on a minute...£50k for a four cyclinder car, Porsche really are taking the pish this time. Yeah it's not like 4 cylinder Porsches have any heritage (racing or otherwise) whatsoever, whatever can they be thinking, oh the blasphemy................ Edited by Upnorthgt3 on Thursday 28th January 22:49

Upnorthgt3 said: Yeah it's not like 4 cylinder Porsches have any heritage (racing or otherwise) whatsoever, whatever can they be thinking, oh the blasphemy................ Edited by Upnorthgt3 on Thursday 28th January 22:49 It can have as much heritage as it likes, but if it sounds s te, isn't a pleasure to rev out and reduces the 718 engine to the level of that in a generic hot hatch, it's a bit pants. Suspect it'll be thought of like the Toyota unit in the Exige S: effective at its job of making the car go fast etc, but nothing more.

Mario149 said: It can have as much heritage as it likes, but if it sounds s te, isn't a pleasure to rev out and reduces the 718 engine to the level of that in a generic hot hatch, it's a bit pants. Suspect it'll be thought of like the Toyota unit in the Exige S: effective at its job of making the car go fast etc, but nothing more. Agreed, except I think the 2GRFE sounds much more interesting than the 718 powerplant. And the former is technically a truck engine!

Mario149 said: It can have as much heritage as it likes, but if it sounds s te, isn't a pleasure to rev out and reduces the 718 engine to the level of that in a generic hot hatch, it's a bit pants. Suspect it'll be thought of like the Toyota unit in the Exige S: effective at its job of making the car go fast etc, but nothing more. Lets be honest here, the heritage angle is utter b ks. 718? This car is nothing like that 718, the link is pure marketing and a vehicle to deliver acceptance for a 4 cylinder engine.

We're a hard to please lot, aren't we? It's a mid engined, rear wheel drive car with a lot of torque in the low to mid range. I might be too busy enjoying the handling and the power to fret about the sound. As an empiricist I am going to wait and see.

Lots to still like: boxer layout, low centre of gravity, compact, faster. The variable vane turbocharger is important - it will sound less whooshy than 991.2 and be more responsive. Could be a master stroke. I had a loan of a 991.2 Carrera S last week and it was epic. Certainly not equivalent to the old car but very much its equal. So I'll learn from that experience and reserve judgement on the 917 until I get a shot. I actually think the new Boxster sounds OK on the video. Certainly very different to the old car. But not bad. I still think the 986 Boxster sounds best of all of them. Times change. We should be glad it's not electric.

pete.g said: We're a hard to please lot, aren't we? It's a mid engined, rear wheel drive car with a lot of torque in the low to mid range. I might be too busy enjoying the handling and the power to fret about the sound. As an empiricist I am going to wait and see. Agreed. There are lots on here who have decided it's a turbo and a flat 4 so it must be crap. Like you I'll give it a try with a genuinely open mind and judge on its merits.

I am looking forward to test driving it, i like the sound of the base 2l, it does have a kind of beetle/air cooled edge to it, but final judgement will be made after a test drive, the base at 158 co2 of the pdk makes me think i might even consider as a company car, i will wait for the cayman though.

The engine won't make much difference to sales volumes. It will bring co2 down so making it a more palletable BIK proposition. I would suspect the vast majority of Boxster buyers won't know the ins and outs of what the engine is. Cayman will be an interesting one as I think Cayman buyers are generally a bit more pistonheady and the turbocharging more of an issue. It's a good time to picking up 987/981s for sure.

bcr5784 said: pete.g said: We're a hard to please lot, aren't we? It's a mid engined, rear wheel drive car with a lot of torque in the low to mid range. I might be too busy enjoying the handling and the power to fret about the sound. As an empiricist I am going to wait and see. Agreed. There are lots on here who have decided it's a turbo and a flat 4 so it must be crap. Like you I'll give it a try with a genuinely open mind and judge on its merits. +1 Jeepers it's simple, if you don't like turbo engines don't buy it, if you think it lacks noise and zing ring sharkwerks in 3 months and they'll have an exhaust for it The heritage comment is entirely appropriate as Porsche has had lots of success (sales and racing) with 4 cyclinder engines (and even if turbo engines don't sound as good as normally aspirated engines, although that's subjective as a 935 sounds great). Historically trying new technology to gain an edge has been the whole point of the company and ironically turbo engines form a massive part of that, although in this instance it's not about an edge, it's about being forced to comply with legislation. If PH were around in the 60s would you have seen loads of comments from 356 and 550 owners about this new 911 thing with 6 cyclinders......"it'll be too heavy, it'll handle like a pig, too tail happy blah blah.....," As for the 718 title - absolutely it's marketing frippery and a bit (lot) tosh to try tie these cars together but that's how it goes nowadays, no point getting in a lather about it, especially when it's not even been seen in the flesh yet - who knows, it might actually be okay, just different Christ on a bike Edited by Upnorthgt3 on Friday 29th January 07:17 Edited by Upnorthgt3 on Friday 29th January 08:04

AndyCGTS said: I can say for certain I wont be downgrading to the 718 platform. Its going to make upgrading a whole lot harder now, as it looks like i'm going to be sticking with my CGTS for a long while to come now. Edited by AndyCGTS on Thursday 28th January 21:13 Fixed that one for you

Jim909 said: I am looking forward to test driving it, i like the sound of the base 2l, it does have a kind of beetle/air cooled edge to it, but final judgement will be made after a test drive, the base at 158 co2 of the pdk makes me think i might even consider as a company car, i will wait for the cayman though. Given that the 2 litre has more torque than the old S - and at lower revs - its real-world performance is going to be better than a NA S at a much lower cost. While I can't see myself changing my Cayman S, if I was in the market for a 718 the base model would look like the better buy. The old 2.7, in particular, struggles with the high gears it is lumbered with - new 2 litre should cope much better. The new S only has 10% more torque and 17% more power (rather than the 25% you might hope for from the capacity increase) so looks a bit expensive. But lag may be more of an issue with the smaller engine which (presumably) has more boost and doesn't have a variable vane turbo. Edited by bcr5784 on Friday 29th January 09:41

The thing is, it'll still sell plenty. Apart from the F type all the competition is 4 cylinder - Audio TT etc So from a drivers point of few I'm sure it'll be the best option. Sad that's how it is now.

The base 718 with Pdk imo will make a great daily it is as fast if not faster than a. CaymanR ! It most likely do 30 mpg round town and easy 40 mpg on a run, it's still a porsche so I am sure it will be fun to drive with right spec,but just specd one up to £53k ouch! I am a na flat6 fan but I am sure as time moves on and emissions get tougher some of us die hards might get to like it I mean what will be the alternative in a new car! Its the styling that's the bigger problem! Porsche started out as flat 4s in the 356 so you could say it's closer to the original cars than a flat6 I just think we all need time to get our heads around it!

I've noticed a few threads recently, which contradict each other. On one hand, people are saying that Porsche need to stick to naturally aspirated because it the 'driver's' choice. Meanwhile, we celebrate a Turbo S for being faster round a track than GT3. Yet, there is no distinguishment between better, just [i]faster[/]. Are those the messages we want to be sending to Porsche HQ - that we don't care as long as it's faster? That, after all, is why the new 911 is turbocharged. I specifically remember in an interview it was because the competition has forced them too. The reality is a 991.1 goes like a Micra next to the new BMW M3, so Porsche were pressured into following suit because most owners are more concerned about being embarrassed off the lights than they are about a distinctive engine note. I therefore can't see how we can moan about the Boxster/Cayman, because frankly, not as many people cared to begin with. I've seen diesel SLKs for a few years now, so hardly seems a big step for Porsche to downsize.

hondansx said: Are those the messages we want to be sending to Porsche HQ - that we don't care as long as it's faster? That, after all, is why the new 911 is turbocharged. Its nothing to do with performance, its emissions and CO2 ratings. The turbos enable them to use a smaller capacity engine that is more efficient but still have the mid range power that buyers seek. All of the manufacturers are doing it, The Ford 1.0 Ecoboost engine for example.

Oso said: I still think the 986 Boxster sounds best of all of them. Times change. We should be glad it's not electric. I think this accolade goes to the new Spyder

Porsche fitted 4 cylinder engines (some turbo) into the 924 and 944 ..

Embrace technology boys and think of the possible new tuning options that we will have .. Beefy turbos and 500bhp?

F355spider said: Embrace technology boys and think of the possible new tuning options that we will have .. Beefy turbos and 500bhp? 500bhp from 4 cylinders? I doubt they will be putting internal parts in the engine to withstand that reliably.

SFO said: Porsche fitted 4 cylinder engines (some turbo) into the 924 and 944 .. They did - but the driving character was very different to a modern turbo 4. I had a lightly modded 944 turbo for a few years - upped from 250 to 300bhp with a few small modifications. This engine was docile below 3.5k, and mental from 3.5k to the redline. It encouraged you to rev it out, and rewarded you for doing so. I fear that the 718 is going to be the exact opposite, and will have plenty of pull at low revs but tail off rapidly above a point far short of the redline. I hope I'm wrong, and that Porsche will have made it reward revs, but I doubt it. First test drives will be the moment when we find out.

mollytherocker said: F355spider said: Embrace technology boys and think of the possible new tuning options that we will have .. Beefy turbos and 500bhp? 500bhp from 4 cylinders? I doubt they will be putting internal parts in the engine to withstand that reliably. 9e will have that sorted in no time Mark

DavidJG said: They did - but the driving character was very different to a modern turbo 4. I had a lightly modded 944 turbo for a few years - upped from 250 to 300bhp with a few small modifications. This engine was docile below 3.5k, and mental from 3.5k to the redline. It encouraged you to rev it out, and rewarded you for doing so. I fear that the 718 is going to be the exact opposite, and will have plenty of pull at low revs but tail off rapidly above a point far short of the redline. I hope I'm wrong, and that Porsche will have made it reward revs, but I doubt it. First test drives will be the moment when we find out. I've been trying to explain this on another thread but some are stubbornly ignoring it. Torque starts dropping on the new engine at only 60% of max revs (4.5k rpm). On the old 3.4 engine it was at 77% (6k rpm) and on the 2.7 you could wring it out getting increasing acceleration until it was at 87% (6.7k rpm). If you're the sort of person who enjoys driving in the mid range, the F4 turbo is a good engine, if you're the sort of person who gets their jollies from thrapping the car up to the redline, it's not.

F355spider said: mollytherocker said: F355spider said: Embrace technology boys and think of the possible new tuning options that we will have .. Beefy turbos and 500bhp? 500bhp from 4 cylinders? I doubt they will be putting internal parts in the engine to withstand that reliably. 9e will have that sorted in no time Mark Oh yes of course, anything is possible given the finances! My point is that it wont just be a chip and injectors! You will be talking £10k+.

anonymous said: [redacted] If only there was such a Boxster?

Mario149 said: If you're the sort of person who enjoys driving in the mid range, the F4 turbo is a good engine, if you're the sort of person who gets their jollies from thrapping the car up to the redline, it's not. I can sort of see sense with that as with the 6 cylinder engine and manual box using the top revs is only really possible in the first 2 gears due to the stupidly long gearing! in fact legally you cant rev it to about 6,800rpm in 2nd before braking the speed limit!

JeffC said: I can sort of see sense with that as with the 6 cylinder engine and manual box using the top revs is only really possible in the first 2 gears due to the stupidly long gearing! in fact legally you cant rev it to about 6,800rpm in 2nd before braking the speed limit! I think many who prefer an NA 6 would also prefer gearing more appropriate to spirited driving than motorway cruising / economy. My own car has slightly compromised (very short) gearing but will happily reach it's maximum crank revolutions in top (5th) at a theoretical 138 mph (more than sufficient I would argue, for the majority of road cars). Concessions to usability and practicality are relative (a Box is hardly extreme in either regard) but it's horses for courses and I'm not betting on this particular donkey (the 718) being the sort of ride that will push my buttons personally One other observation - I find it crude to assume that one needs to have "experienced" something to have any opinion on it, much less needing to be in a financial position (Powerfully Built (TM) etc.) to experience or own it. Equally crudely - I haven't died yet (to my knowledge!) but that shouldn't deny me a right to feel one way another about it or its effects. I don't deny that experience might give a more informed opinion on the specific topic or thing in question, but I only need to drive vehicles with manual / auto / semi-auto transmissions to know which I am more likely to prefer, even if I haven't driven / can't afford the latest XYZ car with the some-such123 transmission. If no-one was permitted to have an opinion without "empirical" (which to my knowledge includes observation in all senses) experience and objective assessment of anything, the world and in the fact the whole human race would look very different indeed (and both poorer for it in my opinion, natch). Not the best example but hopefully not completely opaque! Edited by Diesel Meister on Friday 29th January 15:45

new boxster s engine torque at 4.5k - 420Nm at 6k - 390Nm at 7k - 330Nm whats the numbers for the old s engine at same revs?

logie1980 said: new boxster s engine torque at 4.5k - 420Nm at 6k - 390Nm at 7k - 330Nm whats the numbers for the old s engine at same revs? For the GTS it is: 4.5k - 370Nm 6k - ~367Nm 7K - 330Nm Over 2.5K rpm the 718S drops 22% of its torque, the 981 GTS drops 11%.

I really don't understand why so many people are bashing the 718... It's SO much better than its predecessor in every way, I think you just have to get out head around new technology, I bet you will all be complaining about when the 911 receives 4WD & Energy Recovery systems and electric motors, I guess what I'm saying is some people will complain about everything then come the new car they will say how good the car before was in comparison, seems people are scared of new technology...

Broda said: I really don't understand why so many people are bashing the 718... It's SO much better than its predecessor in every way, I think you just have to get out head around new technology, I bet you will all be complaining about when the 911 receives 4WD & Energy Recovery systems and electric motors, I guess what I'm saying is some people will complain about everything then come the new car they will say how good the car before was in comparison, seems people are scared of new technology... How do you know 'its better'?

It's not better if you'd rather have an NA six-pot than a turbo'd four...

Twinfan said: It's not better if you'd rather have an NA six-pot than a turbo'd four... You'd think this much was obvious but apparently some of us are speaking some utterly fictional and equally unintelligible language. The technology / novelty is not at issue, nor is the objective merit / interest in a new Porsche. The fact is that some are of the opinion that NA flat 6 configuration sounds nicer and is more likely to be to their taste overall than the turbo-charged 4 cylinder that is succeeding the former. Those that would prefer the new engine to have two more cylinders and no forced induction, among other attributes. I really can't see a compelling argument for such an opinion rendering those that hold it as fantasists, luddites or in any way as misguided misanthropes railing against the new for the sake of it. Rather, it is a value judgement based on the qualities and character of engine that they prefer (and nothing else). Any reference to this or that technological advance, X or Y commercial or regulatory imperative, much less the numbers attached to any of the foregoing misses the point so spectacularly as to be almost comical. This is particularly so in reference to a sports car, which to me is a car that's about the many pleasures and thrills of driving as much as if not more than the car as an engineering feat. Qualitatively speaking (which *is* the point), there is no debate from me regarding whether the 718 will be a good steer / decent sports car among the best in its class (if not *the* best). I'm sure it is a very nice car and will be hugely popular in sales terms. The only point I and many others have been trying to convey (evidently unsuccessfully) is that it is a not unreasonable opinion to hold that, from the point of view of the engine choice in the 718 lineup, the car is less appealing and less likely to be as thoroughly enjoyable than what went before (or might otherwise have been) as a result. IN. OUR (manifestly misguided and beyond baseless). OPINION. I'm not sure it can be stated more plainly than that, so you'll excuse my feeble intellect if that point remains obfuscated beyond all human powers of cognition. By contrast, I can live with it being disagreeable for others, even if no personal slight is intended by it!

I think you maybe got the wrong end of twinfan's stick (oo-er). I think he was agreeing with you on the flat 6 point....

I also think that the car is now so 'digital' that PDK will probably become the best choice. I have a BGTS with manual, and I enjoy manual, but I am conscious even while driving it that a lot of little details are being automated. I think with the 718 we have reached the tipping point where the box is best automated too. The noise isn't great but it may be OK, I look forward to seeing it at Geneva, and I will certainly have a drive in one when the demonstrators hit the dealerships.

Mario149 said: I think you maybe got the wrong end of twinfan's stick (oo-er). I think he was agreeing with you on the flat 6 point.... Surely it's rather like the PDK vs Manual argument - on the basis of numbers one side is a clear winner, but enjoyment is a very subjective thing - and (unless bar bragging rights are your thing) - when it comes to subjective judgements there are NO rights and wrongs.

bcr5784 said: Surely it's rather like the PDK vs Manual argument - on the basis of numbers one side is a clear winner, but enjoyment is a very subjective thing - and (unless bar bragging rights are your thing) - when it comes to subjective judgements there are NO rights and wrongs. Yep, but pdk hasn't been imposed on anyone, whereas the F4 turbo has :/ would be very interesting to see the result if it was possible to do a poll of all potential 718 customers and offer them the choice of the 981 lump plus a few extra facelift ponies or the F4 turbo lump and and see what numbers went which way

Render

Diesel Meister said: JeffC said: One other observation - I find it crude to assume that one needs to have "experienced" something to have any opinion on it, much less needing to be in a financial position (Powerfully Built (TM) etc.) to experience or own it. Equally crudely - I haven't died yet (to my knowledge!) but that shouldn't deny me a right to feel one way another about it or its effects. I don't deny that experience might give a more informed opinion on the specific topic or thing in question, but I only need to drive vehicles with manual / auto / semi-auto transmissions to know which I am more likely to prefer, even if I haven't driven / can't afford the latest XYZ car with the some-such123 transmission. If no-one was permitted to have an opinion without "empirical" (which to my knowledge includes observation in all senses) experience and objective assessment of anything, the world and in the fact the whole human race would look very different indeed (and both poorer for it in my opinion, natch). Not the best example but hopefully not completely opaque! Edited by Diesel Meister on Friday 29th January 15:45 You are making the basic philosophical mistake of assuming that empiricists can not also use some rationality in their thinking and vice versa. Your argument is also flawed as you actually use experience: "I only need to drive vehicles with manual / auto / semi-auto transmissions to know which I am more likely to prefer", as the basis for your argument that you don't need experience. The facile death argument you raise is also based on experience - you know about it because of your empirical observations. I actually have owned a flat four turbocharged automatic car, but I am not going to allow what I learned from the Subaru Forester XT experience to prevent me from forming a separate judgement on the 718 PDK. I have driven a manual ride-on lawnmower; this hasn't changed my desire to try a manual 718. I don't consider this 'crude' nor did I mention wealth in my post on forming an empirical judgement.

Mario149 said: I think you maybe got the wrong end of twinfan's stick (oo-er). I think he was agreeing with you on the flat 6 point.... Not at all - I was actually agreeing with him very strongly (although perhaps with too much of a straight face at that point of the post, in hindsight!). Only the first line was any sort of direct response to the quoted text, the rest was me getting carried away as usual (call it enthusiasm for the subject!) BC summed it up more succinctly than my muddlesome morass of verbiage Edited by Diesel Meister on Friday 29th January 21:40

Pete - Ok, I'll bite I make no pretence to a superior set of reasoning but I think you may have misunderstood my point, as well as taken me far more seriously than I take myself. To whit, empirical experience of something in a given context is entirely valid in forming an opinion of something ostensibly comparable, albeit in another given context. Driving gives me some understanding of what I like / dislike in terms of that experience in other context (e.g. other cars). I hope that makes sense and am happy to be schooled if not. Better yet, opinions being subjective things, it would seem for the most part to be a fairly pointless endeavour trying to cut them down with logic, reason or any other conceptual scythe (let alone any other opinion). Debate is healthy though. The analogy related to death was similarly flippant (i.e. deliberately facile in order to illustrate my point ) - of course you don't need to (and to my knowledge cannot) experience expiring completely in order to form a view on it, because in a technical (denotative) sense, empirical experience simply does not require it, because like life, death is everywhere for you to observe at lesser degrees of proximity to the end of your own consciousness / existence. Before we forget we're on a car / driving enthusiast forum, why not give one another the benefit of the doubt and assume that whatever we may agree or disagree upon, whatever opinion(s) we may have (empirically if incompletely!) formed of each other, we have an interest in the subject in common - at the risk of red ragging anyone "no need to get shirty guv" Edited by Diesel Meister on Friday 29th January 21:59

bloody hell I didnt say any of that, I dont even know what half those words mean pete.g said: Diesel Meister said: JeffC said: One other observation - I find it crude to assume that one needs to have "experienced" something to have any opinion on it, much less needing to be in a financial position (Powerfully Built (TM) etc.) to experience or own it. Equally crudely - I haven't died yet (to my knowledge!) but that shouldn't deny me a right to feel one way another about it or its effects. I don't deny that experience might give a more informed opinion on the specific topic or thing in question, but I only need to drive vehicles with manual / auto / semi-auto transmissions to know which I am more likely to prefer, even if I haven't driven / can't afford the latest XYZ car with the some-such123 transmission. If no-one was permitted to have an opinion without "empirical" (which to my knowledge includes observation in all senses) experience and objective assessment of anything, the world and in the fact the whole human race would look very different indeed (and both poorer for it in my opinion, natch). Not the best example but hopefully not completely opaque! Edited by Diesel Meister on Friday 29th January 15:45 You are making the basic philosophical mistake of assuming that empiricists can not also use some rationality in their thinking and vice versa. Your argument is also flawed as you actually use experience: "I only need to drive vehicles with manual / auto / semi-auto transmissions to know which I am more likely to prefer", as the basis for your argument that you don't need experience. The facile death argument you raise is also based on experience - you know about it because of your empirical observations. I actually have owned a flat four turbocharged automatic car, but I am not going to allow what I learned from the Subaru Forester XT experience to prevent me from forming a separate judgement on the 718 PDK. I have driven a manual ride-on lawnmower; this hasn't changed my desire to try a manual 718. I don't consider this 'crude' nor did I mention wealth in my post on forming an empirical judgement.

Diesel Meister said: Pete - Ok, I'll bite I make no pretence to a superior set of reasoning but I think you may have misunderstood my point, as well as taken me far more seriously than I take myself. To whit, empirical experience of something in a given context is entirely valid in forming an opinion of something ostensibly comparable, albeit in another given context. Driving gives me some understanding of what I like / dislike in terms of that experience in other context (e.g. other cars). I hope that makes sense and am happy to be schooled if not. Better yet, opinions being subjective things, it would seem for the most part to be a fairly pointless endeavour trying to cut them down with logic, reason or any other conceptual scythe (let alone any other opinion). Debate is healthy though. The analogy related to death was similarly flippant (i.e. deliberately facile in order to illustrate my point ) - of course you don't need to (and to my knowledge cannot) experience expiring completely in order to form a view on it, because in a technical (denotative) sense, empirical experience simply does not require it, because like life, death is everywhere for you to observe at lesser degrees of proximity to the end of your own consciousness / existence. Before we forget we're on a car / driving enthusiast forum, why not give one another the benefit of the doubt and assume that whatever we may agree or disagree upon, whatever opinion(s) we may have (empirically if incompletely!) formed of each other, we have an interest in the subject in common - at the risk of red ragging anyone "no need to get shirty guv" Edited by Diesel Meister on Friday 29th January 21:59 No problem - I'm a recovering pedant, every now and then I fall off the wagon and have a conceptual argument with a stranger.

pete.g said: No problem - I'm a recovering pedant, every now and then I fall off the wagon and have a conceptual argument with a stranger. No harm, no foul

Mario149 said: Yep, but pdk hasn't been imposed on anyone, whereas the F4 turbo has :/ would be very interesting to see the result if it was possible to do a poll of all potential 718 customers and offer them the choice of the 981 lump plus a few extra facelift ponies or the F4 turbo lump and and see what numbers went which way That's true - but we have also had inappropriately long gearing and (in the case of the NA 6) a hole in the torque curve between 2500 and 4000 revs "imposed" on us. But for those two things I think I'd prefer the NA 6. As it is I suspect it will be a case of swings and roundabouts. And which I prefer in the end will depend on how good a job Porsche have done with the 718.

Broda said: Render Is it just me, but does that look like a Panamera chopped short of 2 doors?

cardigankid said: I also think that the car is now so 'digital' that PDK will probably become the best choice. I have a BGTS with manual, and I enjoy manual, but I am conscious even while driving it that a lot of little details are being automated. I think with the 718 we have reached the tipping point where the box is best automated too. The noise isn't great but it may be OK, I look forward to seeing it at Geneva, and I will certainly have a drive in one when the demonstrators hit the dealerships. By contrast, the idea of specifying Tip on a 986 is frankly something a girl would have done. Ironically the manual box on the 981 is a quantum leap ahead of the old one in the 986.

I'll make the point that Porsche would not have turbocharged the 991.2 or 718 unless CO2 constraints were forced upon them. Because of regulation, Porsche had to change the formula to meet EU laws. In order to make the move palatable to the buying public (us) they had to go hard on power and torque to make the old NA F6 look like an asthmatic pensioner. This is easy to do on paper - 'oh mine Gott Hans, look at ze torque unt power!' May I humbly suggest plenty of people on here have already been sucked in by that piece of marketing BS. What Porsche can't quantify on paper and can't be reflected in numbers is the emotional experience of using that engine. Nor can you reflect how it sounds using numbers or graphs. Simply saying its 'better' coz it's got more power or torque is a crappy argument. Porsche would never have made this move unless the EU said they had to. The unquantifiable 'Porsche' sports car experience of a NA F6 is what owning and driving a Porsche is about (mostly - flipping and options are high on the list too) BMW's NA v8 in the E90 M3 is a masterpiece next to the more powerful, more torquey T/C S6 in the F80, but I would argue the E90 is a more satisfying car to own and drive - even if the F80 is 'better'. Same here. The 718 will feel faster and more powerful - but I doubt it will raise the hair on the back of your neck.

spareparts said: Broda said: Render Is it just me, but does that look like a Panamera chopped short of 2 doors? Shouldnt it? They all have the same design language.

JLZ78 said: BMW's NA v8 in the E90 M3 is a masterpiece next to the more powerful, more torquey T/C S6 in the F80, but I would argue the E90 is a more satisfying car to own and drive - even if the F80 is 'better'. Same here. The 718 will feel faster and more powerful - but I doubt it will raise the hair on the back of your neck. Taking this one stage further, whilst undoubtedly being slower and less torquey, many consider the E46 M3 to be the sweet spot in the M3 range despite the incredible abilities of the V8 E92 and especially the E90 for the most part being the ultimate Jekyll and Hyde 'family orientated street racer'...

Broda said: what I'm saying is some people will complain about everything Increasingly people like to complain.......we are rapidly becoming a nation of whingers such that it is almost a badge of honour amongst badly done to Brits.

Through the weaving tangential labyrinth of the Internet, I ended up on OPC Lebanon's sore, where I took this screen grab. Is the 718 actually code named 982? I would have thought that it, like the 991.2, would only be worth of an incremental name. Or is this well known and I've simply been out of it?

Slightly off topic! Can you remap new Porsche ECUs? Do you think the 718 will be easily accessible for tuning? After pressing the 20second boost button how long do you have to wait to turn it on again?

I suspect the rear of the new Cayman will look a lot like the 986/987, so more like a Boxster with a flowing hardtop than the 981. Press material mentioned that the 982 Boxster and Cayman share more body panels than before. That would make the 982 Cayman look more compact and less grown up than the 981 which for some people is apparently indistinguishable from a 911 at first sight. (like my uncle) Some people may like this, I personally wouldn't.

http://www.p-newsupdate.co.uk/2016-1/4/?dm_i=31V,3... This arrived yesterday --- see the new 718. It is what it is and for a high power cruiser a lag free turbo could be be fab ... And very tuneable --- heat dissipation accepted so short term power boost ?? But just look at the economy for the performance !!!!!!!

Can you access the ECUs for tuning?