Re: 718 N/A 6 cylinders......sounds good! |  |  |
|
Buying through this link, gets PB a donation. |
Expect the best, and accept no substitute. |
 | |
Gary in SoFL - 5 years ago |
[www.automobilemag.com]
"A mile of highway will take you one mile. A mile of runway will take you anywhere."
"A mile of highway will take you one mile. A mile of runway will take you anywhere."
| Re: 718 N/A 6 cylinders......sounds good! db997S - 5 years ago |
| Re: 718 N/A 6 cylinders......sounds good! Guenter in Ontario - 5 years ago |
I guess Porsche has figured out what we've known all along. Take the soul out of the Boxster, and the people who want the car for what is was intended, aren't going to buy it. In Germany, 911 sales are up and Boxster / Cayman sales are way down since the introduction of the turbo fours.
| Re: 718 N/A 6 cylinders......sounds good! db997S - 5 years ago |
Yup. It's not like the 70s when sixes were replacing V-8s due to gas shortages and you saw much better gas mileage by dropping two cylinders. That has changed with technology. Gas mileage is way up today, but I just don't think that you are seeing the savings with the smaller turbo 4s. Don't they only get about 2 mpg better than a N/A 6?
It's my understanding that there is absolutely no real improvement in mileage with the turbo 4. The turbo allows the automakers to take advantage of the fact that the test protocol allows an artificially high mileage when the car is operated under very low acceleration which is unrealistic in actual use.
| Re: 718 N/A 6 cylinders......sounds good! Guenter in Ontario - 5 years ago |
It depends on the test cycle used. It could be that in the European test that the 718 got slightly better mileage.
It's a different story with the Canadian Test. I compared the consumption of the 981 and 718. On the Canadian test cycle, the 981 actually uses less gas. Here's the comparison in MPG.
]
What surprised me, was that the biggest drop in mileage was on the highway. I would have expected the 4 cylinder to do better there. But, those are the official Canadian test numbers.
It's a different story with the Canadian Test. I compared the consumption of the 981 and 718. On the Canadian test cycle, the 981 actually uses less gas. Here's the comparison in MPG.
]
What surprised me, was that the biggest drop in mileage was on the highway. I would have expected the 4 cylinder to do better there. But, those are the official Canadian test numbers.
MikenOH - 5 years ago |
Quote
Guenter in Ontario
It depends on the test cycle used. It could be that in the European test that the 718 got slightly better mileage.
It's a different story with the Canadian Test. I compared the consumption of the 981 and 718. On the Canadian test cycle, the 981 actually uses less gas. Here's the comparison in MPG.
]
What surprised me, was that the biggest drop in mileage was on the highway. I would have expected the 4 cylinder to do better there. But, those are the official Canadian test numbers.
Those numbers are very surprising. Our Mustang EB with a manual routinely gets 32-34mpg on the highway--in a 3500lb car. How a base 718 running the 2.0L motor can only 28 mpg--in a substantially lighter car--seems very strange. BTW, the 27 mpg from a 981S is very close to what I get.
| Re: 718 N/A 6 cylinders......sounds good! paulofto - 5 years ago |
| Re: 718 N/A 6 cylinders......sounds good! Guenter in Ontario - 5 years ago |
Quote
paulofto
Guenter, I'm assuming those are imperial gallons not US gallons?
No. They are US gallons. I took the Canadian numbers which are measured in liters/100km and converted it to US MPG. Canada went metric around 1980, so we haven't used imperial gallons since then.
If you go to the Porsche USA website, I believe the fuel economy numbers for the 718 are pretty close to the numbers that I have in that table, so the Canadian and US test cycle must be pretty similar.
| Re: 718 N/A 6 cylinders......sounds good! paulofto - 5 years ago |
| Re: 718 N/A 6 cylinders......sounds good! Guenter in Ontario - 5 years ago |
Quote
paulofto
Well that gives you an idea how old I am. I have an old 'L/100KM to MPG' (Imperial Gallons) conversion chart that the Canadian government gave out back in 1975 when we went metric. Somehow it stuck around in my desk. I really have to go through that desk!
While you're at it, might as well get rid of the 8-Track tapes, pet rocks and View Master disks.
But hang onto that Farrah Fawcett poster.
| Re: 718 N/A 6 cylinders......sounds good! paulofto - 5 years ago |
LOL. Truth be told I never had an 8 track (cassette man here) nor a pet rock nor a View Master. But I did have the famous Farrah Fawcett poster and its required mate, Linda Carter as Wonder Woman. Both were in my tricked out 1975 Dodge Van but sadly both are long gone along with the van Just so you don't think I was a total dork, I traded in the van for a 1978 FIAT X 1/9. I've been a mid engine guy ever since.
 Gary in SoFL - 5 years ago |
[www.carscoops.com] 
"A mile of highway will take you one mile. A mile of runway will take you anywhere."
"A mile of highway will take you one mile. A mile of runway will take you anywhere."
*NM*Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.