BMW looks to be going in ther same direction, with significantly less HP for now..

Sounds like it may show up in the the new entry level car first and then a bit later on in the new 3rd generation Boxster.

[www.autoweek.com]

Goodbye symphony in flat six, Hello 4 part harmony???............Nah

Quote
Alcantera
Goodbye symphony in flat six, Hello 4 part harmony???............Nah

You're right, Dave. I'll take a full symphony orchestra over a quartette any day.

Guenter
2014 Boxster S
GT Silver, 6 Speed Manual, Bi-Xenons, Sports Suspension (lowers car 20mm), Porsche Sports Exhaust, Porsche Torque Vectoring, Auto Climate control, heated and vented seats, 20" Carrera S Wheels, Pedro's TechNoWind, Sport Design steering wheel, Roll bars in GT Silver
[www.cyberdesignconcepts.com]

380 HP at what RPM though? No good if it's only at 9k.
And what about torque?

--
MY 2000 S, Ocean Blue, Metropol Blue, Savanah Beige.
Bought June 2000 - Sold May 2010

A 380 hp Boxster - sign me up. Although with all the discussion here over the years of Porsche's strategy to keep the Boxster/Cayman below the power levels of the 911 flagship, it seems unlikely. The new 911 is in at 350 hp, so it seems unlikely we will see a 380 Boxster (and slightly higher powered Cayman).

As for getting the power at high rpms, I knew that would be the down fall of the Honda 2000. A great little car, but not for every day drivers. I drove a friend's and he just about s--t when I took 2nd up to 4k before shifting. He shifted at 2,500! I think that is typical of folks who don't understand these cars, and then are disappointed that the car has no power. In my Box, I generally shift between 3,500 - 4,000, don't drive under 2,500 (higher rpms uphill), and when I need power (or just want a little fun , it starts at 4k and ends at 6.9 - just below redline. A 4 banger Box with 380 kicking in and holding between 5 and 8k (or something like that) - I'm all for it. But, my guess it won't happen because of the 911 power ceiling.

1999 Arctic Sivler/black/black (sold)
2008s Silver/black/black - so predictable
2011 Outback
8/24/2011 first Grandson

Quote
Bobtesa
As for getting the power at high rpms, I knew that would be the down fall of the Honda 2000. A great little car, but not for every day drivers. I drove a friend's and he just about s--t when I took 2nd up to 4k before shifting. He shifted at 2,500!

I know so many people like that. I was in an old VW bug once, four people in the car, and the driver had it in THIRD GEAR going up a parking lot ramp at maybe 10 MPH!!!

--
MY 2000 S, Ocean Blue, Metropol Blue, Savanah Beige.
Bought June 2000 - Sold May 2010

OMG, that reminds me of the kid who bought my 9yo '97 Prelude SH when I swapped it for my first Boxster. The 'Lude was a 5-speed 200hp 4-banger... about six months after selling him the car, I got a call from the guy; he asked if I could recommend anyone to do some engine work because the car "didn't seem to have the power it was supposed to have".

I asked for more information, and he told me that it really had trouble going up hills. After a few minutes, I thought to ask what gear he was in, thinking that perhaps if he's trying to go up a hill in 4th he ought to consider downshifting...and he told me he was going up hills in 5th.

Doh...I think red-line was 8400rpm in that baby, and you really needed it up in VTEC-land above 5K to get the kind of power needed to cruise up a hill. What boggles the mind is that this call came six months after he bought the car... shouldn't he have managed to figure that out in about six days?

VWAG is quite good at torquey turbo motors - witness the 2.7t, the 3.0t (ok, supercharged) etc.

The Honda is a horse of a different feather, being a normally aspirated high specific power motor. But a sweet one.

The near future -- across the board from GM to Ford to VWAG to... is a combination of smaller displacement, DFI and forced induction. It results in lower pumping losses, lower friction, and much higher compression/expansion - the net being high efficiency.

The most valid concern will be non-linear delivery and lag.

I've had many turbo cars, including one i more or less built. (ok, somewhat less). They have many advantages. I do prefer displacement, but the cost in weight and fuel is becoming untenable.

Grant

back in 2001 it had been decades since I had my 912, so the Porsche sentiment wasn't as great. I test drove an S2000, and although I thought the power range felt ok, I had to realize I was used to the hundred-odd horsepower in my CRX. The salesman turned me off with his BS that he drove that very car at 180 mph. BS in any case and he said he did it on Route 9 in a built up area of New Joisey.

Speaking of when to shift, when I took delivery of my CRX back in '88, I asked the salesman (different dealership from above) about the rpm limitations during break-in. I had in mind Porsche's recommendations so I asked if 3500 rpm was a good limit for the first thousand miles. He was astonished and said something like, "Oh, no! You never have to take this engine over 3500." I was flabbergasted and I think he had only dealt with people who were concerned with upholstery colors. I tried to explain what a torque curve meant and how the engine has a 6500 rpm redline, but quickly gave up on him.

Minus 40 degrees... Is that Fahrenheit or Celsius?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2011 11:43AM by Laz. (view changes)

My RX-8 had comparable HP, 250 IIRC, but only when you got close to the 8500 redline. Lots of fun when you were driving it hard, but it was a slug around town. I hope that isn't the case with these

My 2.5L STI was a BEAST, very little turbo lag, tons of torque, and a very flat power curve. I don't know why people think turbo cars are peaky? Once the turbo is at max spool, they are making close to full hp, wish I still had my dyno sheets from my STI...come to think of it, I wish I still had the STI!!!

Steve
Guards Red 1999
I'm not a race car driver, but I play one in 2nd and 3rd gear

I wonder if it runs on gasoline, maybe its some form of bluetek diesel. It seems that most of Europe runs diesel now. That would supply the torque for sure and with the rules regarding noise being so strict in Europe exhaust note will be inaudible.

[www.windingroad.com]

Turbo 4, 2.0L producing 240BHP and 260 Ft/Lbs of torque.

If I've read the article correctly, the normally aspirated 3.0L six is going away; too bad, since it loves to wind but is a bit bit low on TQ in the latest configuration (non-turbo).

From the performance figures quoted, this car is way slower than the current base 987.2: 0-100KPH in 6.9 sec.
Is there a dramatic difference in weight between these 2 cars?

I'm not so sure it's that easy. I had a Suzuki Ninja 500 and a Boulevard C50 (800 cc cruiser) and neither one would get even close to 54.5 mpg. I would get 35-40 mpg out of the Ninja 500 and maybe 45-50 mpg out of the Boulevard if I worked at it, but I know guys with the powerful sportbikes and if they get 30 mpg, they are doing well. If a motorcycle with an 800 cc engine can't get 54.5 mpg, why would a car with a larger engine be able to do so? It's going to take some new breakthrough technology or more likely, they will go to some kind of de-tuned, low-HP engine that is just designed for economy. Doesn't bode well for fun vehicles.

technological feasibility
economic practicality
effect of other standards on fuel economy
need of the nation to conserve energy

and the formula is designed to give the "highest feasible level" given these considerations.

[en.wikipedia.org]

the "weak link" is the subjective "need of the nation to conserve energy". That can mean whatever the person in charge want's it to.

Drill, baby, drill

The link provides an interesting historical link from where we were in the late 70's until today.
It's clear that little was done from roughly mid-80's until now, mostly because gas prices were low, in constant dollars, so there was no major groundswell for better mileage from the government or consumers.

I'm not sure I understood the relationship in the new numbers--CAFE vs. Mileage sticker; CAFE is the fleet total? Is that a combined highway/city figure? Same question on the Mileage sticker figure--combined figure?

I'm betting it would be as efficient and more fun to drive than a 911 hybrid hauling around 300 pounds of batteries and other hardware.