24 Hours With A Cayman - Page 2

450knotOffice · 450knotOffice's Garage

My wife's car is a beautiful Cobalt Blue colored base Cayman. It's true that you have to wind this car out to get good acceleration, but that doesn't bother me. If I want some zing, I just keep the revs above about 4500 and then the car feels great. Interestingly, after about 1,000 or so miles, the car really seemed to loosen up and come alive. I don't know how else to describe it, but this car feels much stronger in terms of acceleration now than it did for the first few months we owned it. It was as if the engine was tight somehow and had absolutely zero punch below about 1,800 RPM. That feeling is gone now. The official acceleration numbers, while only OK in today’s world of new cars, are still pretty good, with 0-60 in about 5.8 seconds and a top speed of 161 mph. The acceleration numbers are about even with Porsche's numbers for my '84 Carrera, and I'd have to say I agree - the cars feel evenly matched. However, the one thing I am not impressed with is the exhaust note, but that could easily be fixed with an aftermarket sport exhaust system.

However, in terms of driving performance, the Cayman's balance, agility, poise, and steering precision are second to none. I had a chance to drive that car quickly over Mulholland with a bunch of fellow Pelicans a few months ago and I have to tell you the car felt perfect. Perfect. It was so easy to drive and so fun (whoever says you can't have fun in a car that's easy to drive fast is full of it - it's tons of fun, actually

)

I offer this up because I've had the chance to experience ownership of this car for about eight months now. The car certainly got better with some break-in and is an absolute joy to drive - as is my '84 Carrera (lightened, rebuilt and modded suspension, SW chip, euro pre-muff, yada, yada), and my 996. I'm smitten by all three really.

CJFusco · CJFusco's Garage

Hmm 5.8 sec. to 60 doesn't sound that bad to me at all. About the same as a stock 951 or 3.2 Carrera. Perhaps JTO's car wasn't completely broken in? Or maybe he just doesn't like having to wring HP out of the engine at high RPM?

Obviously I would like to drive one to see for myself.

JTO · 08-20-2007, 07:20 PM

No, I wrung (wrang?) the crap out of it.

I am obviously very spoiled by my 3.6 in a 2500 lb 911, I guess.

The chassis was great. The steering terrific. Maybe the car I drove with 3500 miles on it was still tight. Regardless, I was not impressed with the lack of power both in terms of torque and top end. It was flat everywhere (except for that previously mentioned surge at 5500 RPM that ended at fuel cutoff at 7000 RPM).

That's why there are several different makes and models; there are several different takes on what is good and not so good.

I hope I haven't offeneded anyone. That was not my goal.
Troy

speeder · speeder's Garage

Ya know, maybe it's just the 911T of the line-up. That was an awesome-handling car, (if you ordered the "S" suspension), but not terribly fast. Many Porsche customers, then and now, do not like to exceed speed limits and don't know that there is a thing called a track where you can go and legally drive like your ass is on fire.

Some people just think that a Porsche is a beautiful object and like to own it like a piece of art on wheels. Plus, for those people it's a fast car compared to anything else they've ever driven.

the · 08-20-2007, 07:49 PM

0-60 times aren't really that meaningful for most street drivers.

What most people really feel, and perceive as "fast," is torque between 2000 and 4000 rpm. Because that's where they are driving 90% of the time.

livi · 08-20-2007, 11:14 PM

This is a real heads up! Very different experience from what most car magazines report. Secretly, I must admit it brings a bit of joy knowing that I am possibly having as much fun in my payed for old 3.2 as a car with a price tag I will never afford.

Sort of good news then. Thanks!

On the other hand, many of us are probably very biased toward the hard core, raw driving experience. That is why we are here I suppose. That and the jolly good company!

JTO · 08-21-2007, 09:03 AM

Well, to wrap up this discussion, maybe I will find a Cayman S to drive and relate my experience here.

Thanks for everyone's comments.
Troy

450knotOffice · 450knotOffice's Garage

You're welcome. I'd say that you certainly are coming from a different perspective, power-wise, when you compare your 3.6 powered 2,500 pound car to one that weighs probably 550 pounds more and has less HP and TQ.

Good discussion. Markus, I think you'd like the Cayman, as long as you are comfortable with Carrera 3.2-like acceleration.

89911 · 08-22-2007, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJFusco

Interesting review. I remember hearing similar "underpowered for the chassis" ambivalent reviews when the original Boxster came out, and now THAT car is prized for its simplicity and balance. I think this is just how Porsche does it - tests the waters with an underpowered initial car (924, 944, Boxster, Cayman) and then brings out the big guns to knock our socks off (951, Boxster S, Cayman S). I suppose this doesn't apply to the 911 - even the "slow" version is plenty for me.

The only problem with this statement it they brought out the Cayman "S" version first, about a year before the lower powered base model. I guess they wanted to create some waves with the first car and hope everyone would jump at the chance to get into a cheaper, slower version.

legion · 08-22-2007, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

It is my opinion that both the Boxster and the hardtop Boxster (Cayman) are crippled with engines that are too low in HP. The Boxster S and Cayman S get very close, but still need a bit more. It's a shame that Porsche doesn't sell a Cayman with the 911 3.8.

-Wayne

Yes, and you haven't told us anything about how your Boxster 3.8 swap is going...

onewhippedpuppy · 08-22-2007, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

It is my opinion that both the Boxster and the hardtop Boxster (Cayman) are crippled with engines that are too low in HP. The Boxster S and Cayman S get very close, but still need a bit more. It's a shame that Porsche doesn't sell a Cayman with the 911 3.8.

-Wayne

Supercharger would help that issue.

JTO · 08-22-2007, 06:06 AM

I think all new Porsches have heavy, dual mass flywheels, correct? If so, then I felt it. The slow reving nature of the Cayman may have been partially due to the flywheel. On the flip side, it was super easy to drive in parking lots and at slow speeds. There was no driveline lash or "off/on" feel to the throttle. It was very progressive, unlike my 911 with its lighweight flywheel.

Troy

legion · 08-22-2007, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTO

On the flip side, it was super easy to drive in parking lots and at slow speeds. There was no driveline lash or "off/on" feel to the throttle. It was very progressive, unlike my 911 with its lighweight flywheel.

Troy

I wonder if a previous owner lightened the flywheel in my 951. It is very on/off and is kind of a pain in parking lots as it's only seems capable of traveling at two speeds: stopped and fast.

onewhippedpuppy · 08-22-2007, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by legion

I wonder if a previous owner lightened the flywheel in my 951. It is very on/off and is kind of a pain in parking lots as it's only seems capable of traveling at two speeds: stopped and fast.

Except for turbo lag, my 951 was easy to drive around town.

legion · 07:00 AM

See, I've taken care of the turbo lag for the most part (except when I try to accellerate in too high of a gear). There was this, um, this restriction in the exhaust that I, um, got rid of...

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTO

I think all new Porsches have heavy, dual mass flywheels, correct? If so, then I felt it. The slow reving nature of the Cayman may have been partially due to the flywheel. On the flip side, it was super easy to drive in parking lots and at slow speeds. There was no driveline lash or "off/on" feel to the throttle. It was very progressive, unlike my 911 with its lighweight flywheel.

Troy

I keep telling my wife the car (1977 911s) will only go so slow. Now I know why.

JTO · 08-22-2007, 09:17 AM

Well, I'm no authority but I believe 944, 964s and on use dual mass flywheel of substantial weight. Whether that has any bearing on anything (except the clutch disk- ba bing!) I don't know. I have reached the extent of my technical knowledge.
Troy

Plavan · Plavan's Garage

My goal was a Cayman S. But I have been pondering the idea of just buying a Cayman with the idea that I would be swapping the motor with a 3.8L later anyway.. I can save A BUNCH of money that way.

71T Targa · 08-22-2007, 10:09 AM

I'm sorry, but I can't help looking at this and reading '24 hours with a gay man'

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by phred68

I'm sorry, but I can't help looking at this and reading '24 hours with a gay man'

Are you trying to tell us something?