[DC-T]

Anyone here driven it? Impressions?


http://www.evo.co.uk/porsche/boxster...-t-always-turn

[mremg]

Mark Wan of Autozine also panned it. I've never seen him dislike a Porsche before. Probably the first time a P-Car got less than 5 stars.

http://autozine.org/Archive/Porsche/new/718_2016.html

Some highlights from the review. Things started out well

The relegation from 6 to 4-cylinder might raise some eyebrows, but to me it seems to be a rational movement to add further breathing space to the 911. In fact, traditionally the smaller Porsches (924, 944 and 968, also the majority of 914) were powered by 4-cylinder engines to keep cost down. Wendelin Wiedeking decided to equip the original Boxster with flat-six just because he had a tight budget to develop both the Boxster and 996. From this perspective, the reversion to 4-cylinder engine is also a correction

But then..

If it was not a horizontally-opposed engine, you might think the base 2.0-liter turbo comes from Volkswagen Golf R (after all, Macan employs mostly Volkswagen and Audi engines), since it offers identical power and torque: 300 horsepower and 280 pound-foot. Yes, the Porsche flat-four is no superior to VW’s inline-four! Nor its delivery more flexible. Its maximum torque is delivered from 1950 to 4500 rpm, completely overshadowed by the Volkswagen’s 1800-5500 rpm. The only thing to applause is its 7500 rpm redline, which is quite high for a turbocharged motor, but then you are unlikely to visit it often, since peak power arrives at 6500 rpm.

...

From engineering point of view, the flat-four turbo is not as perfect as the 911’s flat-six turbo. While the 911 engine employs a pair of small turbos, one for each bank in a straightforward layout, the flat-four employs a single turbocharger located at the front of the engine, practically taking the space left by the deleted cylinders. Why not twin-turbo? Because the firing order of flat-four is 1-3-2-4, which means the 2 cylinders in each bank fire in succession, then rest for some time and fire in succession again. If they were connected to the same turbo, the uneven exhaust pulse train would seriously reduce the efficiency of turbo. The only solution is to connect all 4 cylinders to a single turbo, then it will get evenly spaced exhaust pulses, one every 180 degrees of crank revolution

...

More worrying, the longer exhaust manifolds result in more turbo lag. Moreover, the fresh air pumped out from the single turbo also needs longer pipes to reach the cylinders, which causes further turbo lag and delay of throttle response. Therefore, the flat-four turbo is not going to be as responsive as the 911’s flat-six twin-turbo. Neither can it match the straight-4 turbo engines commonly found on the market, unfortunately. This explains the aformentioned comparison with Golf R engine. In fact, the only other engine with a similar layout, Subaru's flat-4 turbo, is also notorious for turbo lag.

...

Press the start button, the 2.5-liter four-cylinder boxer fires up with a subdued noise. It is rougher, bassier and much less dramatic than the spine-tingling bark of the last naturally aspirated flat-six. Yes, it sounds more Subaru Impreza than a Porsche. The disappointment grows further once you engage 1st and ask the engine to deliver. Our technical analysis is unfortunately true. Below 2000 rpm, the engine shows considerable turbo lag – not to the extent of 944 Turbo, of course, but noticeably more than most modern turbocharged engines we saw in the last couple of years. Give it 3000 rpm, however, the turbine is fully spooled up and the throttle response is crisped. Yet the sound quality doesn’t improve. As rev rises, the Subaru off-beat burbles morph into a smooth drone, which is hardly engaging.

...

The base 2.0-liter engine has a smoother power delivery while its exhaust is less gruff, but it is similarly characterless.

In conclusion..

Unfortunately, while the 718 is certainly faster, a great deal of emotion and sense of engagement has been lost in the new turbocharged flat-four. Had we been born in the new turbocharged era, we might be easier to appreciate it. Once you have tasted the immense thrill of the old motor, there is no way not to be disappointed with the new one, especially when it is not quite as accomplished as its 911 brother. Let’s hope the next Spyder and GT4 to keep the atmospheric flat-6.

Ouch..

[DC-T]

Originally Posted by mremg

Mark Wan of Autozine also panned it. I've never seen him dislike a Porsche before. Probably the first time a P-Car got less than 5 stars.

http://autozine.org/Archive/Porsche/new/718_2016.html

Some highlights from the review. Things started out well

But then..

...

...

...

...

In conclusion..

Ouch..

I'm just at a loss of why change the engine. is it cost? Weight? Moving with the the times? I've got the Golf R. And why would I want to pay thousands more just for a rebadged car...

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by DC-T

I'm just at a loss of why change the engine. is it cost? Weight? Moving with the the times? I've got the Golf R. And why would I want to pay thousands more just for a rebadged car...

It's been discussed. Just because Porsche is a performance car manufacturer doesn't mean it's exempt from ever-tightening EU emissions laws. Frankly, I'm surprised that this hasn't happened sooner than this at Porsche, considering the, um, chaperones it has ... and considering its history:

The first pull quote about the fours in the 924/944/968 is very observant and sage -- the partially errant 914 inclusion notwithstanding. (Porsche and VW developed the 914 chassis intending to sell it as a VW with a four in it and as a Porsche with a six in it. VW reneged because of a leadership change.) Fact is that entry-level Porsches have almost always had a four in them, from the 356 and the 912 (the 911 was developed as the more powerful version of the 901 chassis) to the 914, 924, and onward.

That ended with the Boxster not because Porsche never intended to put a four in that car -- but because at the time, Porsche was so cash strapped it didn't have the budget to develop a proper four for the platform.

We've been spoiled by the Boxster and Cayman. That ends with this model, which is what Porsche actually originally intended the platform to be.

[Beartato]

I'd still drive one. Looks nice.

[mremg]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

It's been discussed. Just because Porsche is a performance car manufacturer doesn't mean it's exempt from ever-tightening EU emissions laws. Frankly, I'm surprised that this hasn't happened sooner than this at Porsche, considering the, um, chaperones it has ... and considering its history:

The first pull quote about the fours in the 924/944/968 is very observant and sage -- the partially errant 914 inclusion notwithstanding. (Porsche and VW developed the 914 chassis intending to sell it as a VW with a four in it and as a Porsche with a six in it. VW reneged because of a leadership change.) Fact is that entry-level Porsches have almost always had a four in them, from the 356 and the 912 (the 911 was developed as the more powerful version of the 901 chassis) to the 914, 924, and onward.

That ended with the Boxster not because Porsche never intended to put a four in that car -- but because at the time, Porsche was so cash strapped it didn't have the budget to develop a proper four for the platform.

We've been spoiled by the Boxster and Cayman. That ends with this model, which is what Porsche actually originally intended the platform to be.

I think it's a matter of time for any car manufacturer to downsize displacement. But looks like they botched the engine though. Reviews complained about lack of decent exhaust note and more importantly terrible turbo lag and unimpressive power delivery.

It's damning if VW I-4 is a better engine than Porsche H-4 considering Porsche spent significant resources to develop it with a plan to repurpose it among other VAG brands. So in essence, they spent all this money to develop an engine that's inferior to what they already had. If it's not for the 'Porsche' brand image the Boxster would be better off with VW I-4 2.0T.

[DC-T]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

It's been discussed. Just because Porsche is a performance car manufacturer doesn't mean it's exempt from ever-tightening EU emissions laws. Frankly, I'm surprised that this hasn't happened sooner than this at Porsche, considering the, um, chaperones it has ... and considering its history:

The first pull quote about the fours in the 924/944/968 is very observant and sage -- the partially errant 914 inclusion notwithstanding. (Porsche and VW developed the 914 chassis intending to sell it as a VW with a four in it and as a Porsche with a six in it. VW reneged because of a leadership change.) Fact is that entry-level Porsches have almost always had a four in them, from the 356 and the 912 (the 911 was developed as the more powerful version of the 901 chassis) to the 914, 924, and onward.

That ended with the Boxster not because Porsche never intended to put a four in that car -- but because at the time, Porsche was so cash strapped it didn't have the budget to develop a proper four for the platform.

We've been spoiled by the Boxster and Cayman. That ends with this model, which is what Porsche actually originally intended the platform to be.

I've always struggled with turbos. I've accepted them because that's where the ride was going and I didn't mind them in GTIs and so on. When Ferrari joined I became uncomfortable - but now with what you've just explained it makes a lot of sense.

My advice - get whatever isn't turbo now and keep it for your kids. Think I'll call that guy who was offering that E60 M5 after all.

[W///]

Originally Posted by mremg

I think it's a matter of time for any car manufacturer to downsize displacement. But looks like they botched the engine though. Reviews complained about lack of decent exhaust note and more importantly terrible turbo lag and unimpressive power delivery.

It's damning if VW I-4 is a better engine than Porsche H-4 considering Porsche spent significant resources to develop it with a plan to repurpose it among other VAG brands. So in essence, they spent all this money to develop an engine that's inferior to what they already had. If it's not for the 'Porsche' brand image the Boxster would be better off with VW I-4 2.0T.

What's so interesting is that Porsche aren't exactly noobs when it comes to turbocharging. It's like Chris Harris said in one of his posts. M3/4, 488 and 991.2 all went from NA to FI, and the 991.2 was the worst transition out of the 3.

I know AP was saying that the GT cars will remain NA, but I really have a hard time believing that. Especially now with VW embroiled with the diesels, something tells me those cars will go FI as well. I just hope they do a better job than the 718.

If I could afford it, I'd pick up a Spyder now. GT4's are already not possible for me

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by W///

What's so interesting is that Porsche aren't exactly noobs when it comes to turbocharging. It's like Chris Harris said in one of his posts. M3/4, 488 and 991.2 all went from NA to FI, and the 991.2 was the worst transition out of the 3.

I know AP was saying that the GT cars will remain NA, but I really have a hard time believing that. Especially now with VW embroiled with the diesels, something tells me those cars will go FI as well. I just hope they do a better job than the 718.

If I could afford it, I'd pick up a Spyder now. GT4's are already not possible for me

Exactly. The 944 Turbo -- then pretty much considered the best-handling car on the planet within the reach of non-millionaires -- was partially developed to maximize the fuel efficiency of the four. As I'm sure most of you over age 40 remember, the first 'wave' of turbos were developed as a response to the first oil-supply crisis in the 1980s. Power was a side benefit -- though because of the beast that was the 1975 930 Turbo, it had a perceived (and, partially real) technical advantage over similar manufacturers in terms of implementing turbo tech to the four it was already using.

Thing is, first-gen turbos behaved much differently then they do now because they weren't managed by ECUs. You had to rev them to build boost, and the lag was unavoidable. This wasn't a big issue on the 930 Turbo because it was already a very temperamental car -- and it was accepted on the 944 Turbo because of that pedigree.

Now, computerized boost management makes small engines into torquey beasts -- BMW's N20 is a prime example -- and VW has been at the forefront of that approach. But even those engines aren't going to behave like an NA one. Not even a Porsche.

[dragonsi]

Hmm that's interesting, the reviews on the S model have been very good...

[Motorsportenterprise]

Originally Posted by W///

What's so interesting is that Porsche aren't exactly noobs when it comes to turbocharging. It's like Chris Harris said in one of his posts. M3/4, 488 and 991.2 all went from NA to FI, and the 991.2 was the worst transition out of the 3.

I know AP was saying that the GT cars will remain NA, but I really have a hard time believing that. Especially now with VW embroiled with the diesels, something tells me those cars will go FI as well. I just hope they do a better job than the 718.

If I could afford it, I'd pick up a Spyder now. GT4's are already not possible for me

While Chris Harris may have his opinion, it's nothing more than an opinion (and means no more or less than any other) and is at odds with what everyone else has been saying regarding the 991.2. Not to mention the motors in the new 991.2 are probably the most technologically advanced of any turbo motor and after driving it myself, it's fantastic and would say it's going to be hard for people to accept who are die hard NA flat 6 fans just like those who were NA v8 fans. Overall though, it's transition was probably better than the other two mentioned given the 911 turbo has been turbo for decades and easily is the best of them. Not to mention neither the M3/4 or 488 have not gotten the best reviews particularly the M3/4 (though I've driven the m4 plenty) and the 488 seem mostly positive, but always wonder how much is influenced by Ferraris insecurity about anything bad being said of their cars. That's my stance and opinion.
I own a 991.1S myself and can't say there was anything other than not sounding quite as good (still liked it though) was anything but a leap forward. The 991.2S running 7:30 on the Ring is quite a statement of its performance.
I've not driven the 718 but it looks to be a great car. Light, sharp handling and quick.

[W///]

Originally Posted by Motorsportenterprise

While Chris Harris may have his opinion, it's nothing more than an opinion (and means no more or less than any other) and is at odds with what everyone else has been saying regarding the 991.2. Not to mention the motors in the new 991.2 are probably the most technologically advanced of any turbo motor and after driving it myself, it's fantastic and would say it's going to be hard for people to accept who are die hard NA flat 6 fans just like those who were NA v8 fans. Overall though, it's transition was probably better than the other two mentioned given the 911 turbo has been turbo for decades and easily is the best of them. Not to mention neither the M3/4 or 488 have not gotten the best reviews particularly the M3/4 (though I've driven the m4 plenty) and the 488 seem mostly positive, but always wonder how much is influenced by Ferraris insecurity about anything bad being said of their cars. That's my stance and opinion.
I own a 991.1S myself and can't say there was anything other than not sounding quite as good (still liked it though) was anything but a leap forward. The 991.2S running 7:30 on the Ring is quite a statement of its performance.
I've not driven the 718 but it looks to be a great car. Light, sharp handling and quick.

We'll agree to disagree. The lap times for me means nothing if there's noticeable lag. I'm not out there setting lap times.

And CH is not the only person that says that about the 991.2. Now there are already multiple reviews saying there's lag on the 718. As I said in another thread, I usually take everything with a grain of salt, but I usually trust EVO.

I will definitely try to test drive them once the dust settles down and the dealerships have more of them in stock.

[DC-T]

Originally Posted by W///

We'll agree to disagree. The lap times for me means nothing if there's noticeable lag. I'm not out there setting lap times.

And CH is not the only person that says that about the 991.2. Now there are already multiple reviews saying there's lag on the 718. As I said in another thread, I usually take everything with a grain of salt, but I usually trust EVO.

I will definitely try to test drive them once the dust settles down and the dealerships have more of them in stock.

Please post an in depth review when you have-seems the allocation for here is filled so don't see any demos coming in. Would like to hear a neutral opinion.

By the way, EVO has never given me reason to doubt either!

[Motorsportenterprise]

Originally Posted by W///

We'll agree to disagree. The lap times for me means nothing if there's noticeable lag. I'm not out there setting lap times.

And CH is not the only person that says that about the 991.2. Now there are already multiple reviews saying there's lag on the 718. As I said in another thread, I usually take everything with a grain of salt, but I usually trust EVO.

I will definitely try to test drive them once the dust settles down and the dealerships have more of them in stock.

We certainly can. I've driven the car though and didn't notice lag. It was better than the m4 My buddy owns who I've spent a week with. Not to me to mention was stronger up top where the m4 seems to fall flat after 5600 rpm. The 991.2 took what was still a world class car (in any facet) to another level yet again. While I agree on lap times, it shows potential, and the fact that it on a street tire is nearly faster than some manufacturer BEST cars on cup tires says a lot about how dynamic and good it is (as they always are). And again, also coming from a current 991S owner with a highly specced car that is perfect and walked away supremely impressed. It felt like a slightly less powerful rwd version of the 911 turbo, and that's saying quite a lot.
So when EVO called the m3/4 "the biggest dissapointment" did you take that as gospel? BTW top gear also said it suffers from lag. Any turbo car will have some...no matter what they use to combat it or who it is.
EVO did give the 991.2 5/5 stars and only had great things to say and said no lag noticed.
Interestingly enough, Car UK does say there isn't detectable lag in the 718S. The VTG and anti lag tech Porsche is using is something unique and quite responsive for response and not laggy at all.

[DC-T]

Originally Posted by Motorsportenterprise

We certainly can. I've driven the car though and didn't notice lag. It was better than the m4 My buddy owns who I've spent a week with. Not to me to mention was stronger up top where the m4 seems to fall flat after 5600 rpm. The 991.2 took what was still a world class car (in any facet) to another level yet again. While I agree on lap times, it shows potential, and the fact that it on a street tire is nearly faster than some manufacturer BEST cars on cup tires says a lot about how dynamic and good it is (as they always are). And again, also coming from a current 991S owner with a highly specced car that is perfect and walked away supremely impressed. It felt like a slightly less powerful rwd version of the 911 turbo, and that's saying quite a lot.
So when EVO called the m3/4 "the biggest dissapointment" did you take that as gospel? BTW top gear also said it suffers from lag. Any turbo car will have some...no matter what they use to combat it or who it is.
EVO did give the 991.2 5/5 stars and only had great things to say and said no lag noticed.
Interestingly enough, Car UK does say there isn't detectable lag in the 718S. The VTG and anti lag tech Porsche is using is something unique and quite responsive for response and not laggy at all.

So when EVO called the m3/4 "the biggest dissapointment" did you take that as gospel? BTW top gear also said it suffers from lag. Any turbo car will have some...no matter what they use to combat it or who it is.

Ok you do have us here a little. In their defence, I think they were comparative to the E9X V8 motor and that wasn't a comparison which was fair. I also hesitated quite a bit because I really wasn't comfortable with the sound I initially but it grew on me.

You liked the 718 then? Have you driven a Golf R? Is there any comparison at all.

[Ali Shiralian]

And that's exactly why I cancelled my order. Poor sound, underwhelming power but great looks aren't for me. Lost 2K in deposit but I feel ok about it....

[Motorsportenterprise]

Originally Posted by DC-T

So when EVO called the m3/4 "the biggest dissapointment" did you take that as gospel? BTW top gear also said it suffers from lag. Any turbo car will have some...no matter what they use to combat it or who it is.

Ok you do have us here a little. In their defence, I think they were comparative to the E9X V8 motor and that wasn't a comparison which was fair. I also hesitated quite a bit because I really wasn't comfortable with the sound I initially but it grew on me.

You liked the 718 then? Have you driven a Golf R? Is there any comparison at all.

I don't think that was said in comparison to the E9x M3 at all. They just didn't like it.
I totally acknowledge that people have preferences and each may like something slightly different or entirely different. Just like Steve Sutcliffe, another well respected journalist hates the f8x m3/4.
I have not driven the 718 or the gold R yet. The 718 from the clips, still sounds pretty good, especially considering it's a 4 cylinder. Matt Farah's review said he loved the car, the feedback and how it sounded and pulled, particularly at the top of the rev range. Sounds overall like the car is going to continue the boxster/Cayman legacy forward but turned up a bit.

[991GT3]

Originally Posted by Ali Shiralian

And that's exactly why I cancelled my order. Poor sound, underwhelming power but great looks aren't for me. Lost 2K in deposit but I feel ok about it....

You lost a deposit? I have never heard of that. I would demand to get the money back.

[PrematureApex]

Originally Posted by mremg

Mark Wan of Autozine also panned it. I've never seen him dislike a Porsche before. Probably the first time a P-Car got less than 5 stars.

http://autozine.org/Archive/Porsche/new/718_2016.html

Some highlights from the review. Things started out well



But then..


...

...

...

...


In conclusion..


Ouch..

Didn't find any of that harsh or unexpected. No one should be surprised that people preferred an N/A engine. No one should be surprised there's some turbo lag.

No one should be surprised the turbo 4 isn't as good as the turbo 6 in a 150k car.

In fact, those "points" seems completely obvious.

[mremg]

Originally Posted by PrematureApex

Didn't find any of that harsh or unexpected. No one should be surprised that people preferred an N/A engine. No one should be surprised there's some turbo lag.

No one should be surprised the turbo 4 isn't as good as the turbo 6 in a 150k car.

In fact, those "points" seems completely obvious.

The point is that VW's I4 could've been better for turbo than the Boxer 4 according to that review.

In otherwords Porsche probably botched this engine and could've done better. That's whats surprising.

[3GFX]

Very interesting....bloody shame there's no Z4 or Z5 in the mix of competitor comparisons.

[Ali Shiralian]

Originally Posted by 991GT3

You lost a deposit? I have never heard of that. I would demand to get the money back.

They said the only way I'd get the deposit back is if they sold it for the same price I had agreed to buy. The car still sitting in their lots though...