Cayman and Boxster 718-6?
- Thread starter ralphmusic
- Start date
Brian_Innes
Member
Quite so.
We are all individuals and like different things. May I say I also enjoy the sound of the n/a flat-6 engines. I still look back fondly on my in-car track videos of my F6 Caymans. Glorious is the word to describe the engine sounds.
Porsche clearly took heed of the chorus of dissent both from the motoring press and the Porsche community about the F4t engines. The Cayman and Boxster 4.0 GTS models introduction has responded to the wishes of the majority, and Porsche should be congratulated for that. Whether or not I share that view is a moot point.
My main point is that a minority of track day enthusiasts and modifiers will surely relish the F4t models coming out of warranty so that the full potential of this remarkable 2.5t engine can be unleashed. The 718 Cayman 2.5t GTS is already a brilliant performer dynamically. Great strides were made on the track handling performance compared to the 981 GTS. For example, 4 dynamic engine and transmission mounts, thicker anti-roll bars, wider track, and beefed-up rear subframe and suspension mountings.
All that the modifiers will need to do to a 718 Cayman GTS is hand the car over to one of the proprietary German tuners for a remap and exhaust, fit a set of 4 PASM compatible KW coil-overs and lower the chassis a further 10mm from the already low -20mm, fit 9mm wheel spacers all round, and a set of Cup 2's. Job done.
The resulting pure driving enjoyment this small minority of Porsche owners will revel in, is the fact that they now have a GT4 beater on the track for a fraction of the cost. Such minority owners don't care about lacking the sound of the atmosphere F6, its all about speed, precision, and lap times. Otherwise, why modify at all?
Brian
We are all individuals and like different things. May I say I also enjoy the sound of the n/a flat-6 engines. I still look back fondly on my in-car track videos of my F6 Caymans. Glorious is the word to describe the engine sounds.
Porsche clearly took heed of the chorus of dissent both from the motoring press and the Porsche community about the F4t engines. The Cayman and Boxster 4.0 GTS models introduction has responded to the wishes of the majority, and Porsche should be congratulated for that. Whether or not I share that view is a moot point.
My main point is that a minority of track day enthusiasts and modifiers will surely relish the F4t models coming out of warranty so that the full potential of this remarkable 2.5t engine can be unleashed. The 718 Cayman 2.5t GTS is already a brilliant performer dynamically. Great strides were made on the track handling performance compared to the 981 GTS. For example, 4 dynamic engine and transmission mounts, thicker anti-roll bars, wider track, and beefed-up rear subframe and suspension mountings.
All that the modifiers will need to do to a 718 Cayman GTS is hand the car over to one of the proprietary German tuners for a remap and exhaust, fit a set of 4 PASM compatible KW coil-overs and lower the chassis a further 10mm from the already low -20mm, fit 9mm wheel spacers all round, and a set of Cup 2's. Job done.
The resulting pure driving enjoyment this small minority of Porsche owners will revel in, is the fact that they now have a GT4 beater on the track for a fraction of the cost. Such minority owners don't care about lacking the sound of the atmosphere F6, its all about speed, precision, and lap times. Otherwise, why modify at all?
Brian
I too would agree with your comments Brian. I think it's an established fact that it's much easier (and much cheaper too!) to extract more power and torque from a smaller capacity turbo engine than it's naturally aspirated counterpart. Incidentally, you do have to wonder if there would have been such a fuss and commotion if somehow the Porsche engineers had managed to fit the 911's F-6T in the mid-engined cars.
As an aside, I was looking at the DIN weights for a Cayman S, GTS 4.0 and the GT4:
S - 1,355kg
GTS 4.0 - 1,405kg
GT4 - 1,420kg
So despite the additional weight of the turbocharger, intercooler and associated "plumbing" the 4-cylinder engined car is 50kg lighter than its 6-cylinder counterpart, although I believe that the former has only one particulate filter whereas the latter requires two which would account in part for the difference. The 15kg difference between the GT4 and GTS is most probably down to the additional aerodynamic aids on the latter.
Jeff
As an aside, I was looking at the DIN weights for a Cayman S, GTS 4.0 and the GT4:
S - 1,355kg
GTS 4.0 - 1,405kg
GT4 - 1,420kg
So despite the additional weight of the turbocharger, intercooler and associated "plumbing" the 4-cylinder engined car is 50kg lighter than its 6-cylinder counterpart, although I believe that the former has only one particulate filter whereas the latter requires two which would account in part for the difference. The 15kg difference between the GT4 and GTS is most probably down to the additional aerodynamic aids on the latter.
Jeff
Ah yes - the cast iron versus PCCBs debate always seems to spark controversy Dave. Although I haven't looked for a few days, I presume it's still in progress on PH, hijacking the main topic - yet again.!
Although Porsche make them reasonably affordable, for what it's worth I reckon you've made the right decision sticking with the standard brakes on your GT4. Incidentally, I notice that on the Macan and Cayenne the Porsche Surface Coated Brake (PSCB) is an option which uses tungsten-carbide coated brake discs giving: improved response, fading stability and a significant reduction in brake dust formation. Another advantage is the corrosion resistance of the brake disc. The option's less than half the price of PCCBs and I wonder why it's not yet available on the 718 and 911? Maybe because the SUVs are VW/Audi spin-offs?
Jeff
Although Porsche make them reasonably affordable, for what it's worth I reckon you've made the right decision sticking with the standard brakes on your GT4. Incidentally, I notice that on the Macan and Cayenne the Porsche Surface Coated Brake (PSCB) is an option which uses tungsten-carbide coated brake discs giving: improved response, fading stability and a significant reduction in brake dust formation. Another advantage is the corrosion resistance of the brake disc. The option's less than half the price of PCCBs and I wonder why it's not yet available on the 718 and 911? Maybe because the SUVs are VW/Audi spin-offs?
Jeff
Technetium
New member
One of the theories in the PH 'footnote' article (link on previous page) was that used Flat 4 GTS prices might take a bit of a hit with the launch of the new GTS 4.0.AndrewCS said:Agreed Brian … further supported by the impressive lap times of both the F4T CS / GTS vs. their NA GT counterparts
Have even found myself researching used F4T CS prices
Early days, I know, but absolutely no sign of this happening yet.
I have been watching a couple over the last few weeks and they have not moved one pound.
Also a few nearly-new (i.e. < 50 miles) 2019 cars (good spec, but not fully loaded) still advertised for well over the basic list price of the GTS 4.0 (which is £64,088).
Be interesting to see what happens over the next month or so.
I think prospective buyers will be expecting prices to drop, so maybe a Mexican standoff?
In the end, dealers have to sell cars.
Brian_Innes
Member
I shall also swerve the PCCB debate. My position on the advantages of these brakes is already well known elsewhere. I have also noted the Macan ceramic-tungsten coated brake option. However, I'm not sure whether the lighter weight advantages apply here. For example are the hubs still in cast iron?
I am also watching the residual pricing impact upon Cayman F4t GTS models. My car is the last incarnation of this model with all the resulting ECU tweaks after the GPF fitment, of which there are quite a few. So far, values seem to be holding thankfully. A possible change of vehicle for me is in the air later this year so I am hoping values continue to hold for a while yet.
One final point on the respective GTS, GTS 4.0, and GT4 4.0 weights. It's not just all about weight on the scales. The lighter mass of the F4t engine block compared to the F6, in concert with the considerably reduced internal frictional losses, results in a very sweet free-revving unit. Once run-in, this 2.5t engine is an absolute gem. A feature that will no doubt be recognised by modifiers in the future who are both fortunate enough to obtain a 4t GTS, and smart enough to recognise the latent potential that lies therein.
Brian
I am also watching the residual pricing impact upon Cayman F4t GTS models. My car is the last incarnation of this model with all the resulting ECU tweaks after the GPF fitment, of which there are quite a few. So far, values seem to be holding thankfully. A possible change of vehicle for me is in the air later this year so I am hoping values continue to hold for a while yet.
One final point on the respective GTS, GTS 4.0, and GT4 4.0 weights. It's not just all about weight on the scales. The lighter mass of the F4t engine block compared to the F6, in concert with the considerably reduced internal frictional losses, results in a very sweet free-revving unit. Once run-in, this 2.5t engine is an absolute gem. A feature that will no doubt be recognised by modifiers in the future who are both fortunate enough to obtain a 4t GTS, and smart enough to recognise the latent potential that lies therein.
Brian
Brian, you always seem to be remarkably informed so perhaps you can enlighten me about the internal arrangements of the flat four engine.
For years I have always believed that one of the great virtues of a flat six boxer engine was that that configuration was in perfect balance and therefore did not need heavy crankshaft weights or secondary balancing shafts in order to be smooth, and as a result have less inertia and that this is what has given flat six boxers their fabled high revving and vibration free characteristics. It's been one of the satisfying aspects of driving a flat six, just knowing that it is such an inherently good design.
Now, and I accept I am no engineer, a flat four boxer is not inherently perfectly balanced and must need at least heavier crankshaft weights. Does it also need balancer shafts as well? I'm not imputing the quality of the the Porsche flat four turbo, which remains a very effective engine, because good engineering can compensate for theoretical disadvantages, but purely from an academic view point I'd be interested to know.
For years I have always believed that one of the great virtues of a flat six boxer engine was that that configuration was in perfect balance and therefore did not need heavy crankshaft weights or secondary balancing shafts in order to be smooth, and as a result have less inertia and that this is what has given flat six boxers their fabled high revving and vibration free characteristics. It's been one of the satisfying aspects of driving a flat six, just knowing that it is such an inherently good design.
Now, and I accept I am no engineer, a flat four boxer is not inherently perfectly balanced and must need at least heavier crankshaft weights. Does it also need balancer shafts as well? I'm not imputing the quality of the the Porsche flat four turbo, which remains a very effective engine, because good engineering can compensate for theoretical disadvantages, but purely from an academic view point I'd be interested to know.
Brian_Innes
Member
David,
My reasons for moving on my 718 GTS will become publicly known on my own thread in the fullness of time. As for the model, that is currently under wraps.
Graham,
I am not an engineer either. I've gained my mechanical knowledge through practical experience of rebuilding several engines in my time, together with reading a variety of books on the tuning of internal petrol combustion engines. The rest is through owning and driving a wide variety of engine configurations.
The 2.5 F4t engine as installed in my 718 GTS is as smooth a free-revving engine as any I've owned in my personal experience. Compared to the VW Beetle flat-4 engine for example, the comparison could not be more marked. Whether this is due to vastly improved steel and alloy components, more rigid cylinder blocks, infinitely more balanced reciprocating components, balancer shafts or whatever, all I can say is the engine is a supremely well designed example of the genre.
It's worth bearing in mind that in the early days of the Le Mans LMP1 hybrid race cars, Porsche encountered serious vibration and balancing issues with the fledgling V4 turbo power unit. This was eventually overcome by a painstakingly applied R&D programme, together with the remanufacturing of principal reciprocating components. The result was a successful victory for Porsche at Le Mans.
I can only assume that this Le Mans LMP1 V4 turbo experience was factored-in when designing and manufacturing the F4t engines for the 718 models.
Brian
My reasons for moving on my 718 GTS will become publicly known on my own thread in the fullness of time. As for the model, that is currently under wraps.
Graham,
I am not an engineer either. I've gained my mechanical knowledge through practical experience of rebuilding several engines in my time, together with reading a variety of books on the tuning of internal petrol combustion engines. The rest is through owning and driving a wide variety of engine configurations.
The 2.5 F4t engine as installed in my 718 GTS is as smooth a free-revving engine as any I've owned in my personal experience. Compared to the VW Beetle flat-4 engine for example, the comparison could not be more marked. Whether this is due to vastly improved steel and alloy components, more rigid cylinder blocks, infinitely more balanced reciprocating components, balancer shafts or whatever, all I can say is the engine is a supremely well designed example of the genre.
It's worth bearing in mind that in the early days of the Le Mans LMP1 hybrid race cars, Porsche encountered serious vibration and balancing issues with the fledgling V4 turbo power unit. This was eventually overcome by a painstakingly applied R&D programme, together with the remanufacturing of principal reciprocating components. The result was a successful victory for Porsche at Le Mans.
I can only assume that this Le Mans LMP1 V4 turbo experience was factored-in when designing and manufacturing the F4t engines for the 718 models.
Brian
Graham/Brian,
I'm not an expert in balancing the reciprocating masses in an ICE - and very it's a long time since I studied the subject as a student mechanical engineer - but my take on it is that boxer engines have an inherent primary and secondary force balance owing to the fact that the pistons are moving in-line opposite to one another. However, because the cylinder centre lines are offset there will be unbalanced rocking couples (force x distance) present. An obvious point to note is that the flat-4 engine has one significant advantage over its flat-6 cousin: a much shorter and therefore stiffer crankshaft. One-up for you there Brian! []
The popular I4 configuration has the advantage of compactness and stiffness, but although primary force (1/rev) and rocking couple balance can be achieved it's the secondary force unbalance (2/rev) which causes roughness and which requires a balancer shaft (sometimes two shafts are used) running at twice engine revs to achieve the smoothness we've come to expect in modern I4 engines. Clearly, a flat-4 engine (or a flat-6 engine for that matter) doesn't require a secondary balancer.
You'll appreciate that this is a very simplistic explanation of what is a very complex subject and that many other factors come into play for different multi-cylinder layouts, be they in-line, boxer or vee configurations. As you say Brian, even with Porsche's vast engine design and development knowledge and experience, initially they ran into serious vibration problems with the V-4 engine in the 919 Hybrid LMP1 car.
Jeff
I'm not an expert in balancing the reciprocating masses in an ICE - and very it's a long time since I studied the subject as a student mechanical engineer - but my take on it is that boxer engines have an inherent primary and secondary force balance owing to the fact that the pistons are moving in-line opposite to one another. However, because the cylinder centre lines are offset there will be unbalanced rocking couples (force x distance) present. An obvious point to note is that the flat-4 engine has one significant advantage over its flat-6 cousin: a much shorter and therefore stiffer crankshaft. One-up for you there Brian! [
]The popular I4 configuration has the advantage of compactness and stiffness, but although primary force (1/rev) and rocking couple balance can be achieved it's the secondary force unbalance (2/rev) which causes roughness and which requires a balancer shaft (sometimes two shafts are used) running at twice engine revs to achieve the smoothness we've come to expect in modern I4 engines. Clearly, a flat-4 engine (or a flat-6 engine for that matter) doesn't require a secondary balancer.
You'll appreciate that this is a very simplistic explanation of what is a very complex subject and that many other factors come into play for different multi-cylinder layouts, be they in-line, boxer or vee configurations. As you say Brian, even with Porsche's vast engine design and development knowledge and experience, initially they ran into serious vibration problems with the V-4 engine in the 919 Hybrid LMP1 car.
Jeff
Twinfan said:
This is getting a bit like PH
Like you, thinking about possible change to a F4T GTS and am watching prices on the Porsche website.... But quick question would / should you consider buying only from Porsche or via a non Porsche dealer - any input on key benefits?Technetium said:One of the theories in the PH 'footnote' article (link on previous page) was that used Flat 4 GTS prices might take a bit of a hit with the launch of the new GTS 4.0.AndrewCS said:Agreed Brian … further supported by the impressive lap times of both the F4T CS / GTS vs. their NA GT counterparts
Have even found myself researching used F4T CS prices
Early days, I know, but absolutely no sign of this happening yet.
I have been watching a couple over the last few weeks and they have not moved one pound.
Also a few nearly-new (i.e. < 50 miles) 2019 cars (good spec, but not fully loaded) still advertised for well over the basic list price of the GTS 4.0 (which is £64,088).
Be interesting to see what happens over the next month or so.
I think prospective buyers will be expecting prices to drop, so maybe a Mexican standoff?
In the end, dealers have to sell cars.
Paul,
Although you'll pay top-price for buying a used car from a Porsche dealership their cars are always very well prepared - a 111-point check, and many will respray the front of the car and elsewhere if necessary - and the car will come with a very good 2-year extended warranty, which means that even if you blew an engine or transmission you'd be covered (£12k.?).
There are plenty of Porsche specialists who offer cars for sale (check-out Porsche Post and the mags) and they shouldn't be discounted, but at the end of the day it's your choice.
Gook luck with your search.!
Jeff
Although you'll pay top-price for buying a used car from a Porsche dealership their cars are always very well prepared - a 111-point check, and many will respray the front of the car and elsewhere if necessary - and the car will come with a very good 2-year extended warranty, which means that even if you blew an engine or transmission you'd be covered (£12k.?).
There are plenty of Porsche specialists who offer cars for sale (check-out Porsche Post and the mags) and they shouldn't be discounted, but at the end of the day it's your choice.
Gook luck with your search.!
Jeff
AndrewCS
Active member
PHB1969 said:Like you, thinking about possible change to a F4T GTS and am watching prices on the Porsche website.... But quick question would / should you consider buying only from Porsche or via a non Porsche dealer - any input on key benefits?Technetium said:One of the theories in the PH 'footnote' article (link on previous page) was that used Flat 4 GTS prices might take a bit of a hit with the launch of the new GTS 4.0.AndrewCS said:Agreed Brian … further supported by the impressive lap times of both the F4T CS / GTS vs. their NA GT counterparts
Have even found myself researching used F4T CS prices
Early days, I know, but absolutely no sign of this happening yet.
I have been watching a couple over the last few weeks and they have not moved one pound.
Also a few nearly-new (i.e. < 50 miles) 2019 cars (good spec, but not fully loaded) still advertised for well over the basic list price of the GTS 4.0 (which is £64,088).
Be interesting to see what happens over the next month or so.
I think prospective buyers will be expecting prices to drop, so maybe a Mexican standoff?
In the end, dealers have to sell cars.
I would only buy a 718 F4T if I intended to modify it, hence not bothered with warranty, they`ll need to drop a fair bit more though !
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
