Re: I suspect the whole thing was a scam to obtain consumer data....

[www.automobilemag.com]

2001 Base, purchased in 2004, replaced engine at 130K+, RIP 2017

Porsche has been moving up market in with all of their newer models so the notion of a mini-Boxster didn't follow the trend that has been in place.

What I do think, though, is that the 4 cyl. turbo that has been mentioned as a motor for the 718 before seems likely to end up in the Boxster models. I say that because I think Porsche will continue to want to differentiate between the Boxster & 911; the 4 cyl. in the Boxster and the 6 in the 911 would be one way of doing that.
Add to at, better CAFE numbers and probably lower manufacturing costs mean that there's a lot of incentive to go down that road--especially on an entry level car .

There are only so many Roadster buyers. Low end goes to Mazda anyway as I can't see Porsche shortening/lightening a Boxster (but only by 200 pounds), doing a new set of engines (even based on existing) and selling for much less than a base Boxster now sells for.

... what would have been my next car
I really liked the idea of a pure sports car with a manual top and lighter than the curent Boxster.
I may start to look at the Alfa a little more.
Happy ________
Pedro

Pedro Bonilla
1998 Boxster 986 - 314,000+ miles: [www.PedrosGarage.com]
PCA National Club Racing Scrutineer - PCA National HPDE Instructor - PCA Technical Committee (Boxster/Cayman)

---

Racecar spelled backwards is Racecar

"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting" ... Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney in "LeMans"

"If you wait, all that happens is that you get older"... Mario Andretti

"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose" ... Ayrton Senna

It's all about positioning, right?

I was at the dealer yesterday and they had a sweet looking Macan Turbo. I was making small talk and asked how sales were going (totally sold out) and who the target audience was, wondering if it was geared toward buyers that wanted something a little smaller than the Cayenne. The sales guy says something to the effect of...

"The positioning from Porsche is not to look at the Macan as the little brother of the Cayenne, but rather as the big brother of the 911."

I rolled my eyes at first, thinking that was total marketing-speak and trying to imagine someone that had been dreaming of a 911 their whole life and then deciding to go with a "mini SUV" instead, but hey... it's certainly priced like a 911 ($99,000), it's about as fast as a base 911 (0-60 in 4.4 seconds), and can actually fit 2 real humans in the back seat (or a couple of dogs), so you never know.

"A mile of highway will take you one mile. A mile of runway will take you anywhere."

Sounds like nonsense to me; I think your instinct was right, if you want a 911, you're not going for an SUV -- if all you're talking about is speed, you're as likely to go for a BMW, Mustang, Camaro or any one of several other cars.

I think the prospective 714 buyers will either stick with the Boxster or to to with something like a Mazda or Alfa. It's hard to argue with a Mazda -- aside from prestige, the most appealing thing about a Boxster over a Mazda, I gather, is ride quality and that looked like it would decline in the 714, so, maybe Porsche figured they couldn't out-Mazda Mazda.

And the Alfa doesn't sound like an every day car.

And its price point is totally different than the Miata's. Dealer availability and service availability would be different too. (I owned several newly introduced foreign cars (including 2 Alfas) in the '60s and, when you have only one dealer and there is a new car introduction, getting parts and service can be a nightmare. Where the Miata is more conventional and has a much bigger dealer network.)

For an almost every day car, the Miata and the Base Boxster with a big $$ gap in between that Porsche just didn't want the 714 to bridge for fear of cannibalization. VW could bring out the same car and it wouldn't have the same impact on the Porsche aura of exclusivity. A classic brand management question.

Perhap they will offer a Boxster "Club Sport" or "Spyder" instead.

How about that for conspiracy theory!!!

That car was a Boxster..... they were way too similar to be positioned next to each other. I think they were just market testing the next Boxster with a smaller engine. Acceptance of a four cylinder engine... etc. Pedro, your excitement just confirmed acceptance of the smaller engine. Gone is the six.

Peace
Bruce in Philly

Bruce, you may well be right, that a 4 turbo will eventually replace the 6 entirely, in the Boxster.

For now, BMW's inline 6 co-exists with their turbo 4 in the 3 series, but for how long?

If Porsche can get 350HP out of a turbo 4 banger, I'd expect BMW to have the same capability and use it in many of their vehicles.
In the past years, BMW has used 3 series drivetrains in the 5 series, so what eventually ends up in the new 2/3/4 series will probably go the same route in the larger cars.

Ford is going the same route with ecoboost, and Audi with their DFI/Turbo 2.0 in large cars (A6, A7).

There's no question that a hgih compression, turbo, DFI motor will provide significantly better fuel economy than a similarly powerful NA motor, and i suspect its cheaper to make too, at least compared to a complex multi-cam motor.

Now, as much as i like the current motors, so long as they make the new ones fairly linear, I'm ok with this. They should be lighter and more compact, which is good.

And let's face it, the days of the internal combustion motor are numbered. Its only time for either battery or fuel cell technology to deal with the range issue and simpler, torquier, cleaner electric vehicles will the wave of the future. One moving part? No transmission? Count me in (as a reliable, DD appliance anyway)

Now 100% torque at zero rpms? Count in every drag racers on earth.

Grant

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com

Quote
grant
Ford is going the same route with ecoboost, and Audi with their DFI/Turbo 2.0 in large cars (A6, A7).

There's no question that a hgih compression, turbo, DFI motor will provide significantly better fuel economy than a similarly powerful NA motor, and i suspect its cheaper to make too, at least compared to a complex multi-cam motor.

Now, as much as i like the current motors, so long as they make the new ones fairly linear, I'm ok with this. They should be lighter and more compact, which is good.

And let's face it, the days of the internal combustion motor are numbered. Its only time for either battery or fuel cell technology to deal with the range issue and simpler, torquier, cleaner electric vehicles will the wave of the future. One moving part? No transmission? Count me in (as a reliable, DD appliance anyway)

Now 100% torque at zero rpms? Count in every drag racers on earth.

Grant

In the very long term, I think you're correct about the IC motor's future. There are a lot of forces at work in the market place to bring new technology from the concept car to actual production, so I see the small displacement/high HP engines now being planned as the bridge to something similar to what you've mentioned in typically cars of the future.

Alternative fuels are still only for a few ....

You have lots and lots of $$, a Tesla D at $120k.

You have a house and invest in a charger system (or your rental provides a charging station), drive a short distance to a train or workplace or shop, then an electric car.

Are advantaged to drive in some sort of restricted access road ...

Your state gives a big rebate ...

Have a few extra coin to invest in a hybrid Prius, Volt, etc. Anything beyond a hybrid costs serious extra coin many don't have.

But where does that put the 80% or more who don't fit those categories?

Every time I think of alternative fuel vehicles I think of where I will refuel, how long it will take me to refuel and how far that refuel will take me. It isn't every day I make a trip an alternative fuel vehicle couldn't take on a practical basis, but it is often enough that a hybrid is as far as I was willing to go. 42MPG over 67 fill-ups with regular gas available every ~30 miles in a station wagon configuration makes sense when the real world says you have to dispose of a Xmas tree, take 5 bags to the dump, or haul grandkids 50 miles, 30 miles, 30 miles and 50 miles and 50 miles with bags and bikes and stuffed animals all without refueling like I did this weekend in a hybrid. Three weeks ago it was 300 miles to the beach with 4 in the car plus rafts, beach chairs, luggage, umbrella, etc.

I ran the spreadsheet before I bought to see how long it would take to recover the hybrid investment.

I'm an early adapter for lots and lots of things, but they have to make my life simpler, not more complex.

Now in 10 years the equation maybe be different but for the next few years ....

(Checked your gas prices today? Mine dropped 8 cents today.)

You skate to where the puck is going, not where it is.

Porsche and everyone else are planning for that transition. I expect full completion could take 40 years, but it will happen, and its trend and ultimate completion date may even be predicted using Fisher-Pry methods, once we have 10% substitution which might happen before 2020.

in the interim we will have both series (my preferred tech) and parallel hybrids (more common), or both. we will also have more efficient motors, such as the combination ( both needed) of turbocharging & DFI, in a smaller displacement, lighter package, with fewer frictional and pumping losses, but also the high static compression needed for efficiency ( allowed by the cooling effect of DFI).

Long term though, the e-motor has many, many advantages, and one giant drawback. GIANT drawback. Did i mention its drawback?

But it will very likely be overcome. Of course, i also believe we will eventually get fusion right. Really.

The benefits of e-cars include lower weight (if and only if we solve the storage problem), one moving part, on transmission needed, 100% (practical) efficiency at nearly all motor speeds, zero maintenance, ability to package motors at every wheel, and vary torque infinitely...

Batteries need to make quantum improvements. Charging infra needs to be built. Charging methods need to speed up by 2X more. but big players are entering - not just tesla's offspring, but GE. When i play the alternative energy market, financially, i largely play GE - they are huge in a wide range of technologies and infra from batteries to charging to distribution (duh), to solar, to inverters, to metering....

So yea, it will take time, but trends like this are nearly unstoppable.

Grant

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com

I was down in Brazil about 5 years ago.... they run on nat gas. In the US, all the big trucking companies placed long-term orders for nat gas engines from Cummins and Ford. Stop in at any truck stop and they they have nat gas fueling either already installed or in the process. Since fracking took off, the price of gas as tumbled making the appeal even greater.

In Brazil, tax incentives drove simple conversion kits..... no need of a new car, charging stations, dirty storage.....Virtually any gasoline engine can be converted. The folks I talked to down there said one of the costs is loss in power... but that is for a converted engine. Give it some time and they will squeeze every calorie out of it.

It is nat gas........ electric cars are just a bizarre market aberration caused by our tax code.... written by pandering sleazes who will spend our money for their gain to gain votes from well-meaning ignorant voters. The move to nat gas by hauling companies is all being driven by the market... not govt and therefore will most likely work and work well.

Peace
Bruce in Philly

more complicated distribution an fueling ( pressurized)

lower power/l displacement

lower specific power density of fuel

But the existing designs more or less work

Grant

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com

You know what? Screw 'em. When I'm ready to switch I'll either buy another used Boxster or a used 911 from a private seller and Porsche won't get any more of my money until they get their heads on right.

Or maybe I'll buy a pearl white slab-sided Lincoln convertible and show everyone.

I looked long and hard to find my 987.2. I may buy another Boxster someday, but I am in no hurry. I would suggest anyone without the 9A1 engine do some serious thinking about selling their current vehicle and going after a 987.2 or later car until this whole thing settles out.

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com

With the past record of new Porsche engine reliability and possible lack of low end torque with a turbo 4, I meant looking at a Boxster with the upcoming power plant.

I see Porsche engine reliability getting better and better.

I can see some people simply wanting a NA motor.

Frankly, i'm more concerned about cars that don't let me drive - too many electronics i cant turn off.

Agree the FDI (9A1?) motors seem to be very good and desireable.

Grant

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com

One thing that I like about how Porsche brings new models/new technology to market is that--for example--when they brought out the 9A1 motor it was introduced on a largely existing platform--997.2/987.2.

With the engine all new and the chassis 4 years in, fewer things going wrong with the new model should have been expected and I think it has turned out that way. With the 981/991, it was a new car with a largely existing powerplant which I think contributed to another fairly trouble free new model.

Contrast that with the new C7 Corvette--brand new chassis (top-bottom) and new drivetrain. From the various Corvette forums I've read, there have been some issues with the new car--cooling at the track/paint quality/electronic gremlins and some motors going boom to name a few. Given the reports I've seen, it hasn't been a disaster, but the reliability doesn't seem to be at the level of the 991/981 models which I think are at the top.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2014 03:25PM by MikenOH. (view changes)

As an owner of a 2008 Corvette, I'm not surprised at your report, though I haven't been following the forum lately. It always takes GM a couple of years (at least) to get things right. The point of my original comment is that I think that we are now at a critical point for Porsche owners. The people on this board are not average Boxster owners. The true value of the 9A1 engine is not appreciated by Porsche owners at large, in my opinion.

They will not think beyond "porsche motor" regardless of whether its a M96, m96.2, 9A1, V-8 or Audi motor.

Maybe they will distinguish between air-cooled and water,..maybe

Grant

gee-lenahan-at-gee-mail-dot-com