24 Hours With A Cayman

[JTO]

I drove a regular Cayman over the weekend. I won a 24 hour rental through my local chapter of the PCA.

Heidi and I celebrated our 17th wedding anniversary in Bend where the Porsche dealer was located (Carrera Motors donated the prize-thanks Tom Anderson!).

I did the math and knew that a 3100 lb. car with 245 HP would not perform all that well. The acceleration experience was a chore! Plant your right foot and shift at redline and except for a brief burst of power when the variable cam came on at 5500 RPM, at 7000 fuel shut off kicked in and killed any joy. So, there was a "power band" from 5500 to 7000.

The chassis was great with wonderful steering and response. I loved the transitional response which was instantaneous. The car features were nice in theory (climate control, computer, PSM, etc). I couldn't see the LCD readout for the climate control while driving due to their dimness in sunlight. I had to ask Heidi to run it until I figured out the buttoms.

I realized that I want my sports cars hard core, rough, loud, fast. This car was none of that. I would have rather been in a Lexus if I wanted comfort, silence, and gadgets.

Fuel economy was excellent at 21 mpg even with the super hard driving (zinging to redline every time I accelerated).

Heidi drove the car hard and came away with the feeling that you had to drive at full throttle to get any kind of sensation of acceleration. She did like the very secure handling and felt comfortable driving at speeds she says she wouldn't do in the 911.

The body structure was nothing great. The 20-year old 911 feels much more solid. All you have to do is sit in both cars and slam the doors. The 911 is a vault, the Cayman feels like a Honda (with no disrespect to Honda, who makes a nice car but Porsches should be something special and feel that way).

So, all in all, I would rather spend $50K on a really nice 993 (or hot rodded 911!) than on a Cayman. This is crazy to say, but after dropping off the Cayman, I found myself glad to get back into my '99 Ford Expedition! Weird? Yep. But, the Expedition does exactly what you expect, with loads of room, comfort, and great visibility. The Cayman has little room, OK comfort, and terrible rear quarter visibility.

My $0.02

Troy

[frogger]

Thanks for sharing your perspective with us. I was wondering what the Cayman would be like to drive.

[legion]

This was the 2.7 and not the 3.4, correct?

[GO DAWG GO]

Troy,

I wonder if the Porsche dealership will eventually read this thread and decide not to let any other PCA fellas borrow thier cars. "Redline it in every gear". Buy Hey.. a Porsche driver/owner has expectations and if there not delivered it doesnt deserve the price tag? Right?

What was the sticker price?

Thanks

Bob

[Rearden]

Perhaps the altitude played a factor?

[azasadny]

Troy,
Thanks for the info!

[kach22i]

JTO, my wife let me in on what the women riding along in a PCA event do. They ask each other who brought the ibuprofen this time.

Ibuprofen?

Yes, that's right, what us male drivers call "driver feed-back" is just the road beating up the female body.

Porsche designed the Boxster and Caymen with women drivers in mind (and passengers I guess), and it shows.

Bring on the ibuprofen!

[89911]

Good honest review! I always thought the car was heavy, especially with the smaller engine in it. As far as isolated from the road, that is my biggest gripe with new cars.

[JTO]

This was a standard Cayman, not the S. The S has something like fifty more HP. I expect that would be more fun. But, Bob, as you know our mutual friend Andrew drove a Cayman S and wasn't impressed either.

The elevation had some affect. I have driven my 911 on the same roads and felt some effect but not to the point where my fast car became slow. You can't argue with the power to weight ratio of the Cayman: 12.5 to 1! Not so good.

The sticker was $55K.

[JTO]

I hear you George, but my wife is different. She hoped in the driver's seat and proceeded to bump the rev-limiter in the first two gears trying to find some performance. She said in a crossed way, " that's it?"

They are Porshes for people who don't know Porsches or have had no previous expereince with them.

[legion]

Originally Posted by JTO

Plant your right foot and shift at redline and except for a brief burst of power when the variable cam came on at 5500 RPM, at 7000 fuel shut off kicked in and killed any joy.

Reminds me of my old 944S. Made all its power between 5500 and redline (which was near 7000). It did not have variocam.

My 951, which is turbocharged, pulls strong from 3000 to its redline around 6500. And it has much more low-end torque, so it is still very drivable below the power band.

[nostatic]

Haven't driven the regular one, but I can say that my experience with a Cayman S at the track is completely different.

[JTO]

I admit a Cayman S might be different. With the fantastic chassis, I imagine the Cayman S would be fun (on the track where you could maintain some momentum).
Troy

[speeder]

Thanks for the review, it's always nice to hear first-hand from a disinterested party. The newer generation of Porsches are nowhere near as fun to drive at semi-legal speeds on public roads, that's for sure. They are too smooth and isolated, and the chassis are so stiff and over-competent that it's hard to get squirrelly and have a little grin when no one is looking. At the track in competent hands, I think it's another story.

I was going to post this on my original 996 thread, but I have not been really driving my 1999 911 much here in MN. Part of it is because of work, (need truck), but also it is just not a big grin to drive slowly in. It's an OK city car, (turning circle is fantastic/unbelievable), but I've barely been able to get the tires to squeak w/o driving like a maniac.

That all changed in the last couple days w/ some steady rain. I've always loved limited-traction driving, (I learned to drive on a frozen lake), I honestly think that I could beat some *better drivers* from around here on a wet track. I've owned some phenomenal wet-driving cars, including an AWD Volvo V-70R, but I've never driven anything like this. It has Goodyear F1(?) tires w/ that "V" type rain tread, and I'm not kidding when I say that it is hard to get the ABS brakes to kick-in. You would need to stand on the pedal @ 60mph, and it might pulse once before you are stopped. You can drive at absolutely stupid speeds in that car in the wet, I had a grin that you could not wipe off. What a car! Can't wait to get it on a track, or at least a good canyon.

Ferry Porsche, when asked about the *not legal* performance capabilities of some of his road cars replied that a sports car should "be fun to drive around the block", (or something similar). If you think about it, the early 356s were probably the most fun to go around the block in, and everything since has been a steady progression away from this.

[JTO]

Hi Denis,
Yep. Too much capability delivered in too civilized a fashion may indeed be part of new Porsche's plague.

I remember fondly my drives in an early Golf we owned. It was a ten second to sixty car. It handled well enough. I used to rip along some great canyon roads at speeds little over the limit. But the sensation of speed was great and I probably was closer to the car's capabilities than I ever get in the 911. So, the overall feeling was that I was flying! The newer and more capable Porsches only really feel fast when being compared to other cars wheel to wheel. But that sounds like racing, doesn't it? I guess then that the the newer Porsches shine on the track but that capability isn't usually evident on the road due to the very high rate of speed that needs to be attained to show that capability.
Troy

[onewhippedpuppy]

While you may not win the drag race, I guarantee that the sensation of speed is greater in an older 911, etc. The incredible increase in capability of modern cars means that you cannot get anywhere near their limits on public roads, and never really feel like you are going fast. My 911T was slow as hell, but it sure felt fast. Better yet, it always put a smile on my face.

[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.

[Superman]

At least for myself, I know this with certainty. Rawness and tossability. The perfect 911 would be, essentially, a go-cart coupe with license plates. And a 3.6 or 3.8. My wimpy SC with basically stock 3L engine has a better power-to-weight ratio than this Cayman (non-S).

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by Superman

At least for myself, I know this with certainty. Rawness and tossability. The perfect 911 would be, essentially, a go-cart coupe with license plates. And a 3.6 or 3.8. My wimpy SC with basically stock 3L engine has a better power-to-weight ratio than this Cayman (non-S).

Perhaps I sold my old 911S too soon...Oh well, I had fun with Boxsters once or twice.

[JonT]

In one of the major car mags an editor picked the Cayman (not the S) as his favorite "pure" sports car for the exact reasons people claim to love the older Porsche 911's--well balanced, superb brakes, telepathic steering response, and a need to really work out the engine and shifter to make it go fast. It was his definition of a satisfying drive.