718 sales numbers ? What do you think ?

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by Flieger

The ironic thing is that the tests I've read the new car gets worse fuel economy. This is logical because it has more area under the power curve, but the whole reason for them switching to the turbo 4 was to get better EPA numbers. And I think the EPA numbers aren't all that much better than the 6. Plus the turbo 4 is bigger/heavier than the naturally aspirated 6.

how are EPA numbers done?
probably not under load, but simply a fixed test routine where lower revs are needed.
eg the flat 4's lower displacement, at low boost comes out better then a bigger displacement.


Basically they use the Turbo as dial a yield.
leave it in standard mode, not much revs, = just the pollution of a 2 liter flat 4


I bet it can be driven very economical, much more economical then a 6er that has the same or even less power.

But obviously nobody drives like that, it's tedious and boring.
I've done it just to try how far i could push my BMW 1 series.
I got 1150 km out of a 50 liter tank of diesel, 65mpg

But it really means driving 90kph on the high way, drafting trucks, coasting , anticipating, avoiding short distance driving, etc etc.

I'm pretty sure if i really pushed it, checked tire pressure, emptied the trunk, did only highway, No cold starts, i could have gotten 68+mpg out of it..

But the real mpg of that car with me driving it was far from those numbers
Normal driving, 45mpg
Spirited driving, 35 or less


The NA flat 6 vs the Turbo'ed flat 4...
I'm pretty sure the 4 will be more thirsty as boost does it's thing. No avoiding that.
But when grannying around in it, i'm equally sure it will drink less then the 6'er

[SeanPizzle]

I would love on off lease three year old Cayman with the turbo engine. I know that Cobb and others are looking at tuning these. It wouldn't be unreasonable to get a 350 foot pound version with some suspension and brake upgrades that would smoke a GT4

[McLovin]

I saw the numbers in the latest pano.

Surprisingly low. Like averaging around 175 units per month sold in the entire US.

[KNS]

Originally Posted by McLovin

I saw the numbers in the latest pano.

Surprisingly low. Like averaging around 175 units per month sold in the entire US.

Does that mean Porsche is headed the way of BMW? Lots of SUVs and sedans offered but just a token sports car like the Z4? Or, with Porsche, 10 different variants of a Z4.

[RANDY P]

I want a new Cayman GT4, or an S. Those are just, bad ass.

rjp

[Flieger]

Originally Posted by svandamme

how are EPA numbers done?
probably not under load, but simply a fixed test routine where lower revs are needed.
eg the flat 4's lower displacement, at low boost comes out better then a bigger displacement.


Basically they use the Turbo as dial a yield.
leave it in standard mode, not much revs, = just the pollution of a 2 liter flat 4


I bet it can be driven very economical, much more economical then a 6er that has the same or even less power.

But obviously nobody drives like that, it's tedious and boring.
I've done it just to try how far i could push my BMW 1 series.
I got 1150 km out of a 50 liter tank of diesel, 65mpg

But it really means driving 90kph on the high way, drafting trucks, coasting , anticipating, avoiding short distance driving, etc etc.

I'm pretty sure if i really pushed it, checked tire pressure, emptied the trunk, did only highway, No cold starts, i could have gotten 68+mpg out of it..

But the real mpg of that car with me driving it was far from those numbers
Normal driving, 45mpg
Spirited driving, 35 or less


The NA flat 6 vs the Turbo'ed flat 4...
I'm pretty sure the 4 will be more thirsty as boost does it's thing. No avoiding that.
But when grannying around in it, i'm equally sure it will drink less then the 6'er

OK, so I looked up the EPA numbers for the Boxster S PDK (they didn't have the 2017 Cayman yet and the PDK gets better mpg than the manual)

Compare Side-by-Side

2016 Boxster S PDK = 21 city, 29 highway, 24 combined
2017 Boxster S PDK = 21 city, 28 highway, 24 combined

So even in the EPA tests (which are actually more realistic than they used to be) the new car doesn't get any better fuel economy.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Flieger

The ironic thing is that the tests I've read the new car gets worse fuel economy. This is logical because it has more area under the power curve, but the whole reason for them switching to the turbo 4 was to get better EPA numbers. And I think the EPA numbers aren't all that much better than the 6. Plus the turbo 4 is bigger/heavier than the naturally aspirated 6.

I've read the same. If you stay out of the boost a turbo 4 should get better MPG. If you live in the boost it could be worse. It's a sports car, I know where I drive my RX-7.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by KNS

Does that mean Porsche is headed the way of BMW? Lots of SUVs and sedans offered but just a token sports car like the Z4? Or, with Porsche, 10 different variants of a Z4.

For the last reported month in Pano (October 2016), porsche US sales were roughly:

50% Macans
25% Cayennes
25% All other models combined

So yea, by volume they are 75% an SUV maker.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by McLovin

For the last reported month in Pano (October 2016), porsche US sales were roughly:

50% Macans
25% Cayennes
25% All other models combined

So yea, by volume they are 75% an SUV maker.

Of course, there are a million 911s, Boxsters and Caymans already on the road. If you want one of those, you've probably already got one. Cayenne, yeah, those have been around a while. Macans are fairly new, so folks are grabbing those until the market is saturated with them, then I suspect the numbers will even out a bit.