Re: I agree

On the Canadian website, they still have the configurator and tech specs listed for both the 2016 Boxsters and the new 718 Boxster.

Here's how they stack up.

2016 Boxster gets 7.9 l/100 km = 29.8 mpg highway and 11.5 l/100 km = 20.5 mpg city
2917 Boxster gets 8.3 l/100 km = 28.3 mpg highway and 11.0 l/100 km = 21.4 mpg city

2016 Boxster S gets 8.6 l/100 km = 27.3 mpg highway and 11.9 l/100 km = 19.8 mpg city
2917 Boxster S gets 9.0 l/100 km = 26.1 mpg highway and 12.1 l/100 km = 19.4 mpg city

Unless there's a mistake on the website info, it shows the 718 getting worse mileage on the highway and slightly better mileage around town.

For the 718 S, it's worse mileage both around town and on the highway. It could be that Canada uses a different test cycle. But in this instance, there's certainly no advantage that I can see from an environmental stand point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2016 10:16AM by Guenter in Ontario. (view changes)

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

My point was that all these changes were made to improve fuel economy. Maybe the Canadian test cycle is more real world than some of the others. But I've always maintained that if you drive both cars like sports cars, there wouldn't be anything gained with the new setup. Drive it like a comatose Camry driver. Yes. the 4 cylinder should get better mileage. But, as soon as you bring the turbo into play, the fuel economy goes out the window.

I read somewhere that the turbo was supposed to be better for the European test cycle.

Porsche has repeatedly said that its move to turbo engines was a result of increasingly demanding fuel consumption limits.

I guess Porsche really needed to generate 'better' EU mpg numbers in the laboratory setting.

I've wondered whether Porsche also felt that, in the ongoing industry-wide battle of ever-stronger power and 0-60 numbers, it had to move to a turbo (as, for instance, BMW, Audi and Merc have done). But wasn't Porsche able to extract about 380 h.p from its most expensive NA 981.1?. (Mind, that was with a 3.8, I think, which may be more thirsty than the 3.4.)

On paper, all that torque, available at low rev's, seems desirable (I was going to type 'sounds desirable', but I'll stay away from that, this time. ). Many of us can recall the impressive low rev torque of the old GM 350 4 barrel.

But, watch this road test of the Ferrari California, especially from 1:50 onward. Ferrari actually decreased the amount of torque available at lower r.p.m.'s in the first few gears, so that the owner can still experience the thrill (aural and otherwise) of winding-out the engine - 'giving it to 'er', as we used to say in my youth.

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Guenter in Ontario
On the Canadian website, they still have the configurator and tech specs listed for both the 2016 Boxsters and the new 718 Boxster.

Here's how they stack up.

2016 Boxster gets 7.9 l/100 km = 29.8 mpg highway and 11.5 l/100 km = 20.5 mpg city
2917 Boxster gets 8.3 l/100 km = 28.3 mpg highway and 11.0 l/100 km = 21.4 mpg city

2016 Boxster S gets 8.6 l/100 km = 27.3 mpg highway and 11.9 l/100 km = 19.8 mpg city
2917 Boxster S gets 9.0 l/100 km = 26.1 mpg highway and 12.1 l/100 km = 19.4 mpg city

Unless there's a mistake on the website info, it shows the 718 getting worse mileage on the highway and slightly better mileage around town.

For the 718 S, it's worse mileage both around town and on the highway. It could be that Canada uses a different test cycle. But in this instance, there's certainly no advantage that I can see from an environmental stand point.

From R&T
[www.roadandtrack.com]

it's all about emissions and beating the test.

That has been my point all along. Yes, the 4 cylinder turbo will give you better fuel economy as long as you don't drive it hard enough for the turbo to come into play.

"For the entire history of the marque, Ferrari's engines have delivered urgency and drama in lockstep with revs, creating a festival of sound and fury as they raced toward a stratospheric redline."

The same is true of NA Porsche engines. I have said before, when you're driving the Boxster with the boxer 6. Drive it enthusiastically (doesn't even need to be under track conditions) and the sound emits a sense of urgency. Drive the turbo 4 under the same conditions and it just sounds "OK"

Porsche could keep the whole world happy (except maybe the Europeans) if they sold the turbo 4 in Europe to meet their test cycle. And, sell the NA flat six to the rest of the world for real emissions and fuel economy improvement, not to mention the other benefits.

Just ,my 2 cents worth.

Quote
Guenter in Ontario
That has been my point all along. Yes, the 4 cylinder turbo will give you better fuel economy as long as you don't drive it hard enough for the turbo to come into play.

"For the entire history of the marque, Ferrari's engines have delivered urgency and drama in lockstep with revs, creating a festival of sound and fury as they raced toward a stratospheric redline."

The same is true of NA Porsche engines. I have said before, when you're driving the Boxster with the boxer 6. Drive it enthusiastically (doesn't even need to be under track conditions) and the sound emits a sense of urgency. Drive the turbo 4 under the same conditions and it just sounds "OK"

Porsche could keep the whole world happy (except maybe the Europeans) if they sold the turbo 4 in Europe to meet their test cycle. And, sell the NA flat six to the rest of the world for real emissions and fuel economy improvement, not to mention the other benefits.

Just ,my 2 cents worth.

After seeing so many articles explaining why lower emissions were one of the reasons that turbo motors were the way forward for car makers, I started thinking the use of a turbo must have some benefit to enhance the combustion process in the engine lessen the emissions.

This article would suggest that none of that happens. The lower emissions would seem to to be a result of less gas being burned--relative to NA motors-- when you're not on the throttle much. When you put your foot in it, you're dumping gas into the engine--power/emissions go up, the mileage obviously goes down. You're essentially back to where you were with the benefit of more TQ, depending on the tune, but not much in the sound dept..

Now that's progress....

Did you see this part? (I'm sure you did):

Engines with turbos big enough to provide boost throughout their operating range produce peak torque at low revs and then gradually run out of steam, like turbodiesels do. To combat that, gas-powertrain engineers artificially create broad torque plateaus by limiting boost at lower engine speeds. That electronic trickery helps the engine more closely emulate a naturally aspirated one, but even that isn't enough for Ferrari. The California T's computer also looks at gear position and limits max boost in lower gears to encourage its driver to revel in the revs

So that drivers can experience something akin to the NA experience of increasing power with rising rev's (as Guenter would aptly say, the 'urgency and drama') Ferrari actually reduces the turbo boost in the lower gears. Ferrari deliberately chose driving sensation over stark numbers.

Take away the sound and you've taken away a good chunk of that 'urgency and drama' in which the driver revels.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2016 08:35PM by Roger987. (view changes)

Other possible reasons for Ferrari to reduce the boost in lower gears:
-- Limit torque out of the transmission to protect the transmission or other parts of the driveline.
-- Limit torque to the rear tires to protect the driver, as is done by some modern sport bikes via softer engine maps in lower gears to help riders maintain control.

Those are both reasonable possibilities (though in the youtube video above, Ferrari is reported to have said it's not out of concern for the transmission. But, Ferrari may be reluctant to suggest their drivetrain isn't up to the task.).

I hadn't realized that bike manufacturers do this, too. It makes some sense, though, in terms of possible law suits, and trying to lower the risk to drivers and the motoring and pedestrian public.

Some here may remember the Kawasaki 750 triple, two-stroke. When that engine hit the powerband, the front wheel often became instantly airborne.