981 Cayman on its way
- Thread starter chrisH
- Start date
Yes, some good shots there Chris. I'm really surprised that Porsche didn't take the opportunity on the 981s and 991s to make the door handles flush - they don't really integrate particularly well with the 981's scoop cut-line. Looks a bit clumsy to me as does that seam line between the rear wing and the intake panel, presumably to allow part commonality with the Boxster. I believe that the fuel gauge is integrated into the right hand TFT display but what about the temperature gauge? Is there now only the ubiquitous warning light? Not overwhelmed by the P O R S C H E badging on the rear hatch. I think that deletion of the Cayman S is the only option available. Jeff
I totally agree with Jeff's comments on the badging, door handles and joint line above the intakes, the latter being particularly ugly. I'd also add to the list that there now appears to be no provision for a roof transport system ( useful for bikes and skis ) and still no grills to reduce the possibility of stone damage/leaf ingestion into the intakes and I'm sure that such items designed into the car rather than added later would be preferable to such grills as supplied by Zunsport or others. Not that I disapprove of those being used, they make good sense but Porsche should make and fit their own. They would be much greater value than the PORSCHE Badge on the rear! Otherwise the car looks terrific but having seen the big-arse Boxster I'm left wondering how it will be when we actually see it in March. On it's performance, overall drag will be increased due to a slight increase in frontal area but very little, weight changes slightly, power has increased slightly. Having sat in a new model Boxster the ergonomics seem very good and I felt at home straight away so I'm sure the drive will be superb.
Yes Kevan, I'd noticed the lack of those provisions too. I'm sure that some sort of roof transport system will be made available across the 981/991 ranges but presumably it'll mean a different clamping mechanism from that available currently. So, more expense for those who have the current system.! As you say, a missed opportunity not to incorporate intake grills on the new cars. But being cynical, their omission provides the PCs and others with plenty of work replacing corroded/damaged radiators. Jeff
Some reports of the rumour. http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1080815_porsche-to-debut-4-cylinder-cayman-turbo-at-the-2013-frankfurt-auto-show http://www.topspeed.com/cars/porsche/2014-porsche-cayman-turbo-ar139178.html http://www.egmcartech.com/2012/12/04/2014-porsche-cayman-turbo-to-get-350-hp-from-4-cylinder-engine/
This is one of the quotes from the links flat6 refers to: Well, that was fast! Days after Porsche unveiled its new Cayman and Cayman S, we now have rumors of a Cayman Turbo that is expected to debut at the IAA-Frankfurt 2013. Any Porsche enthusiast knows that the “Turbo” badge signifies more power and a bigger price tag. Yes, there’s more power but with a catch. Unlike the 6-cylinder, boxer configuration of the Cayman S, the Turbo variant is expected to be powered by a smaller, turbocharged 4-cylinder boxer engine that is expected to produce more than 350 horsepower. We don’t think Porsche purists would be happy with this move as it will lose the iconic sound that is instantly recognizable as Porsche sports car, but at least the power is there. With the downsizing trend becoming popular among top brands, the main aim is to bring more power while improving fuel efficiency, thanks to the rising fuel prices and concern for carbon emission. Looks like Porsche is expected to join that bandwagon with the Cayman Turbo and the Macan. If this is true, it’s going to be funny trying to reason with a Cayman S owner why the Turbo is better. For now, this is all we’ve got on the flagship Cayman. We’ll keep an eye out on this while we wait for its expected unveiling at the 2013 Frankfurt Motor Show. My personal opinion is this won't happen yet a while anyway. Chris
I think you may be right ChrisH. All the rumours seem to point back to one Italian magazine. I can't see why a Boxer engine would end up in the Macan. I also cannot see why they would produce a 4 pot that is more powerful than the 3.4 because they most certainly won't be letting a 4 pot anywhere near the 911, or letting a 4 pot out-gun a 911 engine in power and torque. Purely speculation on my part but something doesn't add up. Maybe it's an entry level engine rather than top end. Possibly there's some truth in the rumour of a 4 pot turbo being developed and the rest is just dreamt up rumour as to how it will be used.
I thought they were developing a 'flat four' to go in that little entry level 2 seater (the one that VW said they were going to do about 6 yrs ago ,the BlueSport).....but then they announced that it wouldn't happen as it would steal Boxster sales...........ooh Porsche you do keep us all on our toes! [
]
]
Not long ago it was rumoured that the expected Baby Boxster/Baby Cayman was to have a 2.5 flat four with twin turbos and there was a prospective higher power version to replace the 3.4 this engine was said to be modular in pairs of cylinders with a bolt in 3/4 cylinder section to make a flat six block. Taking a four pot at 2.5 that would give a six at 3.75 possibly to go into the 911. Simply by adding the centre pair and a change of crank. Of course the capacities can easily be changed, say 2.4 and 3.6 with turbo capability varied according to the model and engine map. The permutations are tantalising......[]
]
Agreed Kevan. After all we've seen engine capacities ranging from 2.5L for the original Boxster through to 3.8L for the current 911S and Turbo on what is ostensibly the same engine, so a range of bores and strokes are possible. And provided the cylinder centres are the same, both 4 and 6-cylinder engines could be built on the same assembly line, essential from the production standpoint. It might be unpalatable to Porsche purists but a turbocharged flat-four has enormous potential. The boxer engine has a low centre of gravity, good balance (no requirement for a 2nd-order balancer shaft as in an in-line four), lighter (less metal and coolant) and turbocharger technology has moved on significantly with the introduction of variable geometry turbines and twin-scroll turbines. Porsche has significant experience in the turbocharging field too and remember also that F1 will be moving to turbocharged V6 engines in 2014 which could assist Porsche marketing people to sell a "turbo four" image. Now that Porsche is part of VAG, corporate fuel economy requirements are perhaps less critical but manufacturers are always anxious to make their engines cleaner and more economical. A clean, economical, high specific output, high torque flat-four would fit very neatly into Porsche's much vaunted strive for "efficiency". With the strained relationship between the 911 and the Cayman, a 350hp Cayman could provide an ideal platform on which to experiment without impinging upon the core 911 business. Just my thoughts on this. Jeff
And then, when the 901 was announced not only were Peugeot uptight about the use of the 0 in the middle of the naming since they had the copyright on that feature of the numbering system for car models and threatened legal action hence the change to 911 but also the Porsche Purists were against the change from a flat four to flat six! But with the current line up it makes me wonder about the marketing, for open top sports cars there are the Boxsters, they're good with good weather gear ( apart from the Spyder which has a tent for a roof and it's own appeal ) for closed coupes the Caymans a car that would make a great endurance racer if developed for the task, plus it's only just moving out of the first incarnation. It's remit could expand anywhere from long range GT ( great luggage capacity for long distance touring ) to hard core racer. Really both Boxster, now in it's third incarnation and the Cayman, about to begin it's second, both have a lot of potential development ahead if not shackled by Porsche clinging to the 911 is the only Porsche attitude which is clearly antiquated. 911's have been the only Porsche to some since the early 60's, a fantastic car but it's only a four seater because Papa Porsche came back from being incarcerated by the french to find his son Ferry had built the 356 as a mid engined car and he thought the rear engine allowing a rear seat would help the sales. Constant development has allowed it to keep ahead of the opposition to the point it is now the benchmark but they then brought in the Cayenne and the Panamera so those who wanted a Porsche but wanted the four seats are satisfied with them. All of this makes me wonder, if some who may have gone for a 911 have gone for the hotter Boxsters and Caymans for the handling etc and others who may otherwise have gone for a 911 have gone instead for the Panamera has Porsches market share expanded or in particular are sales of the 911 effected. Some of the Boxster and Cayman are directly related to the 911 so effectively some of the expense of development is offset when the second and third strings come on line but the Cayenne and Panamera are a separate development though they should be bringing people to Porsche ownership who otherwise would be in Range Rovers and BMWs. Hence their volume production. Ferry's statement of "At Porsche We only Build Sports Cars" has now gone by the board as we're told that the sales of the Cayenne are so high so it is self supporting, the Panamera probably sells well in some markets although I've seen few on the roads and only one at a club meet.
You've made some very interesting and valid points there Kevan with which I find myself in total agreement. I've always considered as very suspect Porsche's marketing of the 911 as a four seater, and know from experience that those two rear seats are only for very young children (or legless dwarfs?) and even then aren't really suitable for very long journeys. Now that the Panamera is available, that claim becomes even more suspect and it will be interesting to see how Porsche update the Panamera's looks in the mark two version (something closer to the Pamamera Sport Turismo concept is, I think, the way to go). Incidentally, in a previous post here I noted that: "Last year in Europe just under 2,000 [Caymans] found homes, compared to 3,000 for the Boxster, 11,500 for the 911 and 18,000 for the Cayenne. It was also trounced by the Panamera at 7,500 sold." So there are quite a few Panameras about even if we don't see many of them here. Another area in which Porsche could find themselves in trouble in the future is their continued use of the boxer engine layout. I'm a great fan of flat-fours and flat-sixes but despite their many advantages they are more costly to produce than their in-line counterparts due to the higher parts count (two sets of blocks, heads, camgear and drives, exhausts) and I although I don't have any figures, I suspect that they are also heavier. With the extensive R&D capabilty and large parts bin now availble via the VAG, I wonder how long Porsche will be able to resist pressure to adopt in-house offerings as has happened already with the Cayenne which was developed in tandem with the VW Touareg? Jeff
Well Jeff, maybe the lessons learned from the VAG/Porsche small sports car project will bear later fruit. The idea of the modular 4 and 6 pot engine could be adapted to V or inline although using a modular pattern for the castings would mean less prospective joints and so that may be what was intended although looking at both Porsche and VAG past engines they weren't concerned about the number of seals and joints. The reason for using a boxer or V configuration ( both of which in OHC config use duplicate valvegear ) is to allow a shorter, stiffer crank assembly plus of course getting the advantage of an engine which is shorter overall so needs less length in the engine bay, for instance, to fit a straight 6 in a 911 ( already a triumph of development over basic original design ) would move the rear bumper back somewhat and increase the weight overhang, in the Cayman or Boxster it would lengthen the wheelbase and overall length. The fact that in building an inline engine is that there are less parts and so cost reduction ( VAG would be pleased ) and of course the 2.5 8 valve turbo in the 944 turbo has been made to develop 400BHP so what could a corporate engine of say 2.5 16 valve variable boost turbo etc give regarding tuning for performance and economy? Modern engine management systems can be made to "play the tunes" regarding both. Almost one size fits all and some engine manufacturers in the past have say two or three basic engines in several different states of tune for different purposes. Another point, what is the market for the same models in the states and the rest of the world?
Agreed Kevan, I'd certainly rank boxer engine packaging and stiffer crank as distinct advantages. Unfortunately this configuration has particularly poor exterior sound quality at idle due to the large radiating surface close to the ground. Sound from this surface (crankcase, blocks and heads as well as the transmissoin) gets reflect off the ground and out the sides without any attenuation. Standing next to the Cayman at tick-over sounds like the proverbial bag of nails as you can hear all the rattles, taps and clicks. On an in-line engine, barriers and absorption can be provided on four surfaces (bonnet, bulkhead and wheel arches) since the engine is partially encased. VAG have been very successful producing a range of outputs from their basic 2.0L turbo in-line 4. Unless it's tranversely mounted, a 2.0L - 2.5L turbo in-line 4 would create packaging problems for a mid-engined car but a turbocharged flat-4 probably has more development potential than a normally aspirated flat-6. With what is now a truly global market for their cars, I'm sure that your last question is exercising many minds at Porsche..! Jeff
Actually Jeff, as I said earlier an inline 4 pot is about the same length as a V6 or Flat 6 and there have been some notable cars with that configuration such as Lotus Esprit. But I'd rather have a Porsche inline 4 than any other make, I've had 3 four pot Porsches and am certain that all of them could easily be redeveloped to provide more power than previous. A redesigned 4 could easily be in excess of 400 BHP. On the point of the sound of a flat 4 echoing off the floor etc I'm sure that a Porsche flat 4 could be partially encased to reduce this and even if open would still sound better than other flat fours we hear around, in fact better then a lot of inline engines too.
I was actually thinking about the height rather than the length of an in-line 4 Kevan, which could limit the space available above the engine, so valuable in the Cayman for extra luggage. However, it could of course be canted at 45deg and, interestingly, I note that half the Porsche V8 capacity would be 2.4L although it would need to incorporate 2nd order balancer shafts for smoothness. You've had first hand experience of Porsche in-line 4's and like many on this forum are aware of the robustness of the design and the fact that owners are still developing the engine for road and track use is testament to the rightness of the original design. As you've pointed out already, the fact that the 8-valve 944 Turbo is capable of 400hp+ means that a modern 2.5L turbo-4 with variable valve timing and lift, the latest turbo technology and engine management, etc, could be made to develop a reliable 400hp with good fuel economy and low emissions. I like the exterior sound of the boxer engine when the car is accelerating away, when intake and exhaust sounds become dominant; I was merely commenting on what I consider to be the rather poor sound quality at idle when I'm standing by the car. Acoustic baffles can be applied but of course add weight and affect heat transfer from the engine. Jeff
It's not easy to interpret last year's sales figures because of when and how long the 987 was out of production, but here's some figures for 1 month of sales. http://www.porsche.com/uk/aboutporsche/pressreleases/pag/archive2011/quarter3/?pool=international-de&id=2011-07-12-01 I think the press, not you Jeff, focusses too much on how many of the Panamera and Cayenne are sold compared to the sports cars, whereas the sports car figures need only be compared between 911 & Boxster/Cayman. Porsche might sell more keyrings than Cayman[
] but it's all extra revenue. If Porsche didn't make the other cars, no doubt they would still profitably sell sports cars. The press don't seem to say that Mercedes makes vans, trucks and buses to the detriment of their AMG division[] Nor do they say that they 'had' to make vans, trucks and buses to fund their sports car development[] Porsche wanted to be a big company and succeeded (it was the multi-billion dollar strategy to take over VW that nearly crippled them). I expect that their commitment to motorsport is a very good sign of their sports car committment. Now, back to the posts about engine designs, which is teaching me a thing or two[]
I agree with your sentiments 6 but one of the problems is that Porsche, unlike MB, like to describe themselves as a sports car manufacturer - as in the press release you've referenced - and I suppose this is what allows the press to have a pop at them re Cayenne sales. And the forthcoming Macan is going to give them even more ammunition. Even PH are joining in: http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=26818 At least healthy Porsche sales and profits provide funding for the motorsport programmes, for which we should all be grateful. Unfortunately, the engine design discussion between myself and Kevan seems to have stalled at the moment but it is I think important to understand that introducing smaller capacity turbocharged engines isn't necessarily a retrograde step and could lead to some interesting and exciting tuning possibilities. Jeff
Due to popular demand back to the discussion and to follow the point that Porsche call themselves Sport Car Manufacturers takes me back to the statement made by Ferry Porsche of "at Porsche we only build Sports Cars" some now volume sellers would not have been made while he was around. As I've said before even on tick over I don't consider the engine sounds bad but then I first started driving pushrod engines so valve gear noise was horrendous, especially passing over one of those metal sided railway bridges, the way those things could echo! Yes anything after the engines produced by BMC and Fords of the 1970's is smooth and quiet. When I first came to driving Porsches my 924S had 150BHP and a friend who had a 944 turbo which had been chipped to 305BHP well the performance seemed incredible, now my Gen1 Cayman S has 295 or 291 depending what magazine you believe and the Gen2 S and R have more with better fuel economy but as various governments seem to be trying to force everyone down to driving a box with next to no fuel consumption Porsche will actually lead the way in cars which have performance within the dictated limitations. I think that we can expect not only smaller and more compact engines with more power and improved economy but now that with they have the electric drive in development I'm expecting that we can see the future way of transmissions. Much more promising than the awful Prius! As you've said Jeff the sound of a Porsche six won't come from either a flat or inline four but it's not so hard to improve the engine bay acoustics which could also be a part of a temperature/sound control package, insulation isn't heavy but maybe with an encased engine within a sandwich of moulded insulation and ducted cooling plus for the PSE fans a Bose system on the exhaust to enhance the "driving experience". But there are other things I'd like to see on future generations, variable aerodynamics with extending splitters, variable rear powered wings all to come into play on roads where there are no speed bumps, auto wipers and dimming mirrors as standard not an option amongst other things. So the Boxster outsells the Cayman, how many Boxsters are sold though because it's cheaper than the Cayman for a similar spec? That's a question that can only be answered by the Boxster owners who wanted a Cayman but chose to use the cost difference to up their spec', there are some nicely spec'd Boxster S's about.
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
