Cayman GT4: Where are we up to now?

[ralphmusic]

Isn't it going to be a GTS with a 3.8L engine, X73 suspension, 991S brakes and some aero and some delete options? They can really get the weight out by following the BMW model for a GT4 competitor and get rid of c 200kg (easily)...doors are 50lbs each.. - Race bodyshell with welded safety roll cage - Carbon doors - Aero package with Carbon Frontsplitter, Rear Spoiler and Gurney - Macrolon side and rear windows - 100 l FT3 safety fuel tank - Single mass flywheel and 3-disc sinter clutch - Final drive (ratio i = 4,44) with lamella limited slip and oil cooling - Exhaust system weight optimized with racing catalyst - Optimized suspension with adjustable shock absorbers - Racing brake system FA 6-piston 378 mm, RA 4-piston 355 mm - ABS with special race mapping - BBS rims FA 9,5x18“, RA 10x18“ with Dunlop racing tyres - Racing seat RECARO with HANS-system - Steering wheel with quick release - Airjack system - Display with laptimer - Crashpad, door foam and door net

 

[Motorhead]

Yes, for a race car that's true Ralph, where anything goes within the regs. I was pondering what they might do on the showroom production car just for starters. Jeff

 

[ralphmusic]

Jeff, I doubt there will be serious weight saving, just the delete options, buckets at extra cost sir and door pulls. GTS Manual is 1,345kg, Manual S is 1,340kg both DIN, my guess 1,320kg. I don't believe it will have carbon doors, less sound deadening, Lexan® windows etc If 380hp, it will have 40hp extra over GTS but more importantly >50Nm more torque. It has been reported that it was too fast and had to be detuned - suggest this is market positioning. Ralph

 

[fbr]

ORIGINAL: ralphmusic Jeff, I doubt there will be serious weight saving, just the delete options, buckets at extra cost sir and door pulls. GTS Manual is 1,345kg, Manual S is 1,340kg both DIN, my guess 1,320kg. I don't believe it will have carbon doors, less sound deadening, Lexan® windows etc If 380hp, it will have 40hp extra over GTS but more importantly >50Nm more torque. It has been reported that it was too fast and had to be detuned - suggest this is market positioning. Ralph

It's odd that only the Porsche UK website gives 1340kg for the 981S manual DIN weights. The cars handbook quotes 1320kg. along with the Porsche hardback specification booklets they send out from Porsche UK. Even US model gives DIN figures of 2,910 lbs, which is as close to 1320kg as makes no difference. See attached useful comparison clipped from Porsche AG. Note they all agree on the GTS manual DIN weight as 1345kg. Hence my assumption of a 25kg difference. Genuine enquiry. Can anybody shed any light on this? FBR PS Ralph I liked the glittery mocked up Porsche, it had very convincing proportions. Hope you weren't suggesting that the analog folk should do a Norman Tebbit?

 

[ralphmusic]

Frank, I think one can blame Porsche documentation department for some of the variances as they do not seem to check accuracy or formats for consistency. For example, the model comparisons feature has inconsistent levels of detail making comparisons unhelpful at times; the power/torque graphs on the USA site show line plots that do not seem accurate in relation to axis values. Perhaps a clue to the differences is the comment on your table about standard German equipment, maybe they have territory specific equipment weights in one document and a typical region equipment level in another? Ralph

 

[flat6]

ORIGINAL: Andy Fagan

ORIGINAL: MrDemon

ORIGINAL: ralphmusic And the Boxster GTS in a brilliant video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1LhUzL3qdU

that forced exhaust note is very annoying and a shame, lets hope the GT4 is not got a forced over run engine map. Again fun on the 30 minute test drive, fake and annoying after that.

Totally agree with that... sounds awful and fake

Me too. And I wouldn't want to attracting attention from that noise that make people expect to turn around and see a home built hot rod not a well engineered Porsche which has no real reason to be making those sorts of noises all the time. It's a real paradigm shift for Porsche that used to mainly stick to functional i.e. what the engineering dictates. Their brilliant flat sixes just do not sound like an Italian flat plane crank V8 but there's nothing wrong with that IMHO and that's not.to say that Italian V8's haven't been to the tuning studio to sound the way they do but that's to be expected from the exotics. Still, it's an option for those who like it. But if they make it standard fitment on a car they'll antagonise a lot of people.

 

[daro911]

ORIGINAL: flat6

ORIGINAL: Andy Fagan

ORIGINAL: MrDemon

ORIGINAL: ralphmusic And the Boxster GTS in a brilliant video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1LhUzL3qdU

that forced exhaust note is very annoying and a shame, lets hope the GT4 is not got a forced over run engine map. Again fun on the 30 minute test drive, fake and annoying after that.

Totally agree with that... sounds awful and fake

Me too. And I wouldn't want to attracting attention from that noise that make people expect to turn around and see a home built hot rod not a well engineered Porsche which has no real reason to be making those sorts of noises all the time. It's a real paradigm shift for Porsche that used to mainly stick to functional i.e. what the engineering dictates. Their brilliant flat sixes just do not sound like an Italian flat plane crank V8 but there's nothing wrong with that IMHO and that's not.to say that Italian V8's haven't been to the tuning studio to sound the way they do but that's to be expected from the exotics. Still, it's an option for those who like it. But if they make it standard fitment on a car they'll antagonise a lot of people.

There is an "off" button still [] The choice of 2 evils old boring politically correct Porsche exhausts systems dull as ditch water or the new hear what you pay for and have some fun [] I know which I would pick every day of the week

 

[flat6]

ORIGINAL: Motorhead

ORIGINAL: daro911

ORIGINAL: Motorhead

ORIGINAL: daro911 GT4 - All Ali zero steel F Type R exciting days ahead for sure[] http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/best-cars-2014-%E2%80%93-jaguar-f-type-coup%C3%A9

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. Jeff

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]

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. Jeff

Dimensions aside, I do remember reading an article (might have been Chris Harris but don't recall) that was astounded that Jag could make an all Ali car weigh so much. Seems to imply that no one else could get close to getting a all Ali car to way that much. I'm not expert myself on how to translate / compare the Cayman's dimensions.

 

[ralphmusic]

I am not sure what we are saying here. The (switchable) Sports Exhaust is er, switchable and there is a lot of comment going from how boring modern Porsches sound and on to what aftermarket exhaust sounds best. I agree the current generation sounds a bit boy racerish but on a track day, aside from a Ferrari Corse 430/458 it does sound up there with the best. Anyway my point with the post was about the video as a piece of 'cinema' I thought it was brilliantly shot in spectacular scenery with a guy enjoying a car.

 

[flat6]

There seems to be two patterns to Porsche's development of performance cars. One is to focus on saving weight, refining the chassis and not adding much power and showng how effective those changes can be. That was brilliantly executed in the Spyder and R which were significantly different to the S. For that these cars also got the RS treatment with fabric door pulls and bucket seats and even got the aluminium doors which no other 987 received (not saying GT3 doesn't have aluminium doors). Then you have the cars that have horsepower level such as the GT3 and they talk about how the car is engineered for the track but they don't talk as much about saving weight to achieve it. They don't talk about radio and AC delete being a key factor. I don't even think you get fabric door pulls on a GT3. No plexiglass. Fabric door pulls, bucket seats, lightweight flywheel an RS feature? So based on the above patterns, a car that doesn't get much extra power gets more focus on weight saving (whether marketing gimmick or not the end product is well executed and after owning a Spyder the GTS doesn't seem to me enough differentiated from the S like a Spyder or R to justify upgrading if you already have an S). Or, a car that gets a significantly more powerful engine (and chassis development, like a GT3) doesn't get an extreme weight saving make over (implying that it's a bit gimmicky to go all out in on weight saving in a general purpose vehicle that has enough performance for such differences to be immeasurable. My point is, with the GT4 looking to get a significantly more powerful and torquey engine, will Porsche play up the weight saving angle which was more akin to how they developed the classic 911 Speedsters (not the 997 Speedster) and the Spyder and R of today. If you get the stonking engine and you get 'R' type weight savings then that is a real treat from Porsche because not even the GT3 gets that until RS. I have a good feeling about the car given rumours that it's been deemed too fast and they are detuning it. Though it might not be to avoid the 911, it might be too fast for what might require other modifications such as if it'd need a wider track to be stable but they're not prepared to develop new bodywork to keep the cost down. Front wings can cheaply get extensions but they don't do extensions on the rear, they revise the whole rear.

 

[ralphmusic]

ORIGINAL: flat6 If you get the stonking engine and you get 'R' type weight savings then that is a real treat from Porsche because not even the GT3 gets that until RS. I have a good feeling about the car given rumours that it's been deemed too fast and they are detuning it. Though it might not be to avoid the 911, it might be too fast for what might require other modifications such as if it'd need a wider track to be stable but they're not prepared to develop new bodywork to keep the cost down. Front wings can cheaply get extensions but they don't do extensions on the rear, they revise the whole rear.

I don't discount the "too fast for suspension" point given comments about the RuF 3800S' handling but BGB in Florida have been putting 3.8L engines (with and without Power Packs) into 987 and 981 Boxsters and Cayman road/trackday focussed cars without much in the way of suspension changes beyond what might be done anyway to improve the standard set up. It's another interesting aspect to the specification given (I think) we've settled on engine and power.

 

[flat6]

ORIGINAL: ralphmusic I am not sure what we are saying here. The (switchable) Sports Exhaust is er, switchable and there is a lot of comment going from how boring modern Porsches sound and on to what aftermarket exhaust sounds best. I agree the current generation sounds a bit boy racerish but on a track day, aside from a Ferrari Corse 430/458 it does sound up there with the best. Anyway my point with the post was about the video as a piece of 'cinema' I thought it was brilliantly shot in spectacular scenery with a guy enjoying a car.

My point is some do find the [natural] sound of a Porsche boring and for those, yes the new sports exhaust is up there with the best. Just some of us sharing our opinion that being up there with the best sounds too contrived. For me if I knew they engine / exhaust had to make that noise on the overrun I would enjoymemechanics of what I am listening to. But because I know it is fake I don't get any enjoyment from it. That's just me. BMW went one further and plays a pre-recorded noise through the speakers. Fair play to them. If you're going to enhance the sound experience, do whatever it takes, but I would rather hear what's actually going on when I thrash my car even if that it very little. To me that's a sound of engineering, whatever the sound ends up as. But that's just my personal taste.

 

[fbr]

ORIGINAL: ralphmusic Frank, I think one can blame Porsche documentation department for some of the variances as they do not seem to check accuracy or formats for consistency. For example, the model comparisons feature has inconsistent levels of detail making comparisons unhelpful at times; the power/torque graphs on the USA site show line plots that do not seem accurate in relation to axis values. Perhaps a clue to the differences is the comment on your table about standard German equipment, maybe they have territory specific equipment weights in one document and a typical region equipment level in another? Ralph

Thanks for that Ralph. Curious then that they agree on all the other models apart from the "lardy" 981S. It seems that the UK web site is the only one that differs. FBR PS It's still dark up here! Good news is that the snow is retreating, so shouldn't be too bad uphill. Don't you guys ever sleep? Keep up the good work!

 

[flat6]

ORIGINAL: ralphmusic

ORIGINAL: flat6 If you get the stonking engine and you get 'R' type weight savings then that is a real treat from Porsche because not even the GT3 gets that until RS. I have a good feeling about the car given rumours that it's been deemed too fast and they are detuning it. Though it might not be to avoid the 911, it might be too fast for what might require other modifications such as if it'd need a wider track to be stable but they're not prepared to develop new bodywork to keep the cost down. Front wings can cheaply get extensions but they don't do extensions on the rear, they revise the whole rear.

I don't discount the "too fast for suspension" point given comments about the RuF 3800S' handling but BGB in Florida have been putting 3.8L engines (with and without Power Packs) into 987 and 981 Boxsters and Cayman road/trackday focussed cars without much in the way of suspension changes beyond what might be done anyway to improve the standard set up. It's another interesting aspect to the specification given (I think) we've settled on engine and power.

Point taken. I don't know anything about the US tuners and what they're achieving with the current car.. But do they care as much as Porsche about the all round package and handling? But it is reassuring though.

 

[ralphmusic]

ORIGINAL: fbr Thanks for that Ralph. Curious then that they agree on all the other models apart from the "lardy" 981S. It seems that the UK web site is the only one that differs.

What do you mean lardy? [] I've lost 7 kgs recently to help out

ORIGINAL: fbr PS It's still dark up here! Good news is that the snow is retreating, so shouldn't be too bad uphill. Don't you guys ever sleep? Keep up the good work!

Got to get up early for a run on the beach and water the palm tree, what's snow?

 

[ralphmusic]

ORIGINAL: flat6 Point taken. I don't know anything about the US tuners and what they're achieving with the current car.. But do they care as much as Porsche about the all round package and handling? But it is reassuring though.

A customer's story http://rennlist.com/forums/987-981-forum/779407-impressions-of-my-981-boxster-w-bgb-3-8l-991s-conversion.html BTW they usually quote hp as rear wheel (rwhp), not crank

 

[Motorhead]

Sounds like an excellent conversion Ralph and bodes well for the GT4, despite its rumoured ~20hp detune. Always interesting to note our American cousins' approach to car tuning - just go for it..! On the exhaust sound front, I'm always surprised that no-one seems to mention the contribution from the intake which is equally important, especially in coupe versions although perhaps less so in the roadsters with the top down [and when driving through tunnels with the windows open.!]. This is being recognised by all manufacturers, Porsche included - as witnessed by the 991's "Sound Symposer": Electronically synthesized noise is not a Porsche solution, so the engineers developed a new Sound Symposer that is standard on both versions of the car. An acoustic channel picks up intake vibrations between the throttle valve and air filter and a membrane incorporated in the channel reinforces the vibrations and transmits them as an engine sound into the cabin. The system is driver activated or deactivated via a “Sport” button that controls a valve ahead of the membrane. Jeff

 

[flat6]

ORIGINAL: ralphmusic

ORIGINAL: flat6 Point taken. I don't know anything about the US tuners and what they're achieving with the current car.. But do they care as much as Porsche about the all round package and handling? But it is reassuring though.

A customer's story http://rennlist.com/forums/987-981-forum/779407-impressions-of-my-981-boxster-w-bgb-3-8l-991s-conversion.html BTW they usually quote hp as rear wheel (rwhp), not crank

Thanks Frank. Sounds like the 991 3.8 with 991 brakes and x73 sports suspension is a good combination.

 

[fbr]

ORIGINAL: ralphmusic Got to get up early for a run on the beach and water the palm tree, what's snow?

With our very short day length at this time of the year I tend to go for the mid-day saunter. This was my lunchtime view today. Sorry it's not a glossy car image but at least it's seasonal. Christmas Greetings Frank

 

[fbr]

ORIGINAL: flat6 Thanks Frank. Sounds like the 991 3.8 with 991 brakes and x73 sports suspension is a good combination.

Cecil What combination would you suggest for this? As young Ralph would have it "Say hello to ABS" . Traffic is a bit heavy at this time of the year. Merry Christmas Frank