Cayman GT4: Where are we up to now?
- Thread starter Motorhead
- Start date
You'd like to think that bucket seats will be standard 6, and it would be in keeping with the lightweight ethos, but I didn't realise that they were extra on the GT3, so perhaps the GT4 will follow suit. And it would help swell the Porsche coffers too. A GT4 RS? That would be good, but I think Porsche will wait and see how things develop; they appear to be just testing the water with the limited production run. If the GT4 really is successful commercially and [more critically perhaps] in racing, then that might happen. Jeff
Thanks Jeff. I know what you mean Chris but it seems to be the Porsche way which is can get very confusing for me as a potential customer. People rush out to buy the halo car, the best you can get, then a few months after taking delivery there's talk of an RS model that incorporates the rest of what was on the designer's table. Still, they changed with the 991 turbo and introduced the turbo and turbo S together. Still confused me though, was as if the only reason not to go for the turbo S is if you were over-stretching yourself. Sometimes better not to think about what's coming next! Hopefully as it is a limited edition there'll only be one GT4 flavour or if there's an RS it's the next special edition with a decent gap in between. The Cayman GTS is a bit confusing because the brilliant interior isn't included in the price like the 997 GTS and the performance figures compared to an S are very close. Why buy an S? I can't cope!! Lol!
fbr
New member
The 981 basic platform is indeed very weight efficient. You could make some body work savings on the all steel non stressed wings and smaller fuel tank would be easy. However isn't the 981 GTS is already a surprising 25kg heavier than the 981S equivalent? If your proposed GT4 is based on the 3.8l engine that will add about another 15kg for the engine, brakes and wheels etc. That's slightly more for a manual than the current 981 PDK weight penalty of 30kg. Agreed carbon fibre replacements unlikely, but I suspect more through development time than ultimate cost. Look at the innovative carbon tub on the BMW i3. Its lightweight interior (complete with door handles) is not too shabby either. Can't be long for Porsche to join that mass production party. FBR
Porsche's website shows only a 5kg difference. Though there's a long list of items with an asterisk listed against the GTS which are optional and no doubt contribute to the 5kg because the GTS is only different by engine tune and most options are available on the S? The extra power of the 3.8 engine will pull more than it adds weight. Weight loss isn't everything if the added power and torque is there. Weight loss can be felt in the Spyder because they didn't add much power plus it'll aid handling. But I'm not so transfixed on weight loss since switching to a fat boy that just doesn't play up to its obesity. Power to weight ratio and torque to weight ratio are also key. Hopefully Porsche gives the GT4 an engine that'll make no difference whether you opt for the radio and sports seats (it didn't in the Spyder but generated pages of debate even though they don't delete the radio on the GT3.) If Porsche felt the need to save every ounce of weight (as fabric door pulls would suggest) then I'd happily lose electric window motors too etc. I just accept that they make great cars and even fully loaded they don't become turds[
] The base car weight and structure I think defines the performance and the options for the most part are pretty negligible because you could be a large or small driver in combination with your options. Take for instance the new targa. The performance is blunted by the huge motorised glass masterpiece. Options won't make much additional different. A tad slower than a cabriolet in a straight line but it's added structural rigidty might give it an advantage around corners. But if it only had 200bhp then maybe 50kg of weight saving might make a difference.
] The base car weight and structure I think defines the performance and the options for the most part are pretty negligible because you could be a large or small driver in combination with your options. Take for instance the new targa. The performance is blunted by the huge motorised glass masterpiece. Options won't make much additional different. A tad slower than a cabriolet in a straight line but it's added structural rigidty might give it an advantage around corners. But if it only had 200bhp then maybe 50kg of weight saving might make a difference.
And the Boxster GTS in a brilliant video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1LhUzL3qdU
It may be "zero steel" Rob, but in comparison with the Cayman it's rather lardy. The lightest [manual] F-Type is a weighty 1567kg according to Jaguar's website and the S auto tips the scales at whopping 1594kg. JeffORIGINAL: daro911 GT4 - All Ali zero steel F Type R exciting days ahead for sure[
the F type was a fail imo, it comes last in every review vs cars it should beat. The inside build is plastic fantastic, it looks cheap and the tacky, options on the wheels is tacky. It's like they wanted to build a sports car for the 60 year old who still has gold taps at home. the design is poor, the weight , well I could go on and on about the weight issue this car has, When Jag stated it was going to build a lightweight all alloy sports car !!!. And last the luggage space is dire. To drive it has no traction what so ever, no wonder it comes last in every road test.
Totally agree with you Jeff but how much would a similar dimension Cayman weigh .. The Jag is quite considerably longer & wider F Type Coupe "S" 4470mm x 1923mm 1584 kg manual v Cayman GTS 4404mm x 1801mm 1345kg manual[&o]ORIGINAL: MotorheadIt may be "zero steel" Rob, but in comparison with the Cayman it's rather lardy. The lightest [manual] F-Type is a weighty 1567kg according to Jaguar's website and the S auto tips the scales at whopping 1594kg. JeffORIGINAL: daro911 GT4 - All Ali zero steel F Type R exciting days ahead for sure[
Totally agree with that... sounds awful and fake
Right on both counts MrD, although the Jag does sound good from outside [in my opinion] and I know from experience that their refinement group work very hard to achieve good sound quality. And that GTS exhaust cackle is very annoying. 60-year olds; gold taps..? I'll get me coat..! Jeff
Haha!! And me too [
]
That's true Rob - I hadn't appreciated the dimensional differences and the 981 somehow looks much bigger to me than my 987. Whether or not the Jag's large exterior translates to its interior is open to question, and I seem to recall the F-type Roadster getting a panning from the press for its miniscule boot [addressed to some extent by the Coupe], a criticism which can't be levelled at both 981 versions. JeffORIGINAL: daro911Totally agree with you Jeff but how much would a similar dimension Cayman weigh .. The Jag is quite considerably longer & wider F Type Coupe "S" 4470mm x 1923mm 1584 kg manual v Cayman GTS 4404mm x 1801mm 1345kg manual[&o]ORIGINAL: MotorheadIt may be "zero steel" Rob, but in comparison with the Cayman it's rather lardy. The lightest [manual] F-Type is a weighty 1567kg according to Jaguar's website and the S auto tips the scales at whopping 1594kg. JeffORIGINAL: daro911 GT4 - All Ali zero steel F Type R exciting days ahead for sure[
Yes Chris, certainly a rather expensive improvement over the rather drab black standard fitments. Back on the subject of removing weight [or rather mass, just to be pedantic], I'm still struggling to see where the Porsche engineers can achieve this in the GT4. The lightweight bucket seats will help, of course, as well as the optional deletion of the radio [including speakers, power amps, etc.] and aircon [pump, condensers, etc.] and they could strip something out of the fascia [those heavy cup holders, for instance.!] and have lighter door-pulls too. If they were really brave they could sustitute manual window winders and thinner glass all-round, but that's probably taking things too far for comfort. Jeff
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
