Yes, sound does play an important part in the overall driving experience, but so does the power and the handling, and there doesn't seem to be any doubt that this car moves. So maybe the sound isn't as good as it was - Porsche has upped the anti when it comes to handling and performance, making this a fantastic drivers car.
Besides, I would argue Porsches have never been built to be LOUD - they save that for all those American muscle cars that end up in a tree when they try to take a corner.

Years ago when a few enthusiasts started replacing dead M96 engines with turbo Subaru engines, the purists sneered. Obviously Porsche themselves did not. Great credit to those amateurs who dared to out-think Porsche !

I wouldn't pass any judgement until you hear the car in person. A lot of these "car" journalists are morons and just go along with the hype ... Omg 4 cylinder turbo it's a subbie

Recommendation - until each of us have actually heard and ideally driven the 718 there is really no point in discussing further the sound the engine makes. We all just don't really know how it truely sounds yet. :dance:

Motortrend got a hold of the car today and reved a yellow S.

The cars looks are growing on me for sure, I think it looks better then the 981 or 987.1 aside from spyder. The sound isn't terrible and i trust Porsche on driving dynamics. It's the end of an era, but not of everything, I think most of y'all are right, the review posted sucks not the car.

That all being said, I still feel that there is likely an alternative to a flat 4 and sadly it was bagged due to threatening the 911. A NA smaller 6 with cylinder deactivation sounds great to me.

Porsche9

The same thing happen to me after hearing the new F1 turbo engines on TV, but when I heard them in person (Austin) I was walking back to the parking lot wishing my car sounded like those engines ...LOL

Porschephiles would be upset if there was nothing to gripe about
 

in the new car....there has to be at least something wrong with the car so they can justify not purchasing it and feeling their older version is superior to some extent. So many people have already sold it off because it has a 4, no sound, turbo's, etc. without even seeing one in the flesh much less driving it.

+1

Yep, seems like they're inclined to say anything that justifies hanging onto their earlier versions and claiming that they're better than the newer Boxsters.

To me Porsche is more than stats and numbers...is about emotions.

Sound and look just don't match in my head. I do like the look, but when I watch the video, I always think the sound was dubbed. Even the Boxster S sounds like a lawn mower. It does not touch me emotionally, I won't buy one of these ever, no matter how many people try to pin point numbers and stats....i need emotions.

So I got over it, no 718 for me.

Agree.

We're seeing devolution.

I believe Porsche/Volkswagen/Audi is following the "if they want junk, we give them junk" school of profit. It will take a big error to change their thinking. There will have to be a model that sells way under projections to make them realize what they've done.

"To learn to fill the cup, first you pour too much, and then you pour too little". Lao Tzu

If Porsche and Audi continue to set sales records as they have been, that doesn't seem like devolution to me - I'd argue that they must be doing something right (Volkswagen sales, on the other hand, are being negatively impacted by the diesel scandal).

I do, however, lament the near disappearance of stick shift cars. I believe I read that 7% of new car sales are now manuals. One might call this particular development "devolution" to be sure.

I heard that 718 has auto rev match always turned on, this doesn't really bother me though. I'm just happy it comes in a manual at all lol.

Well, to me that means the value of my undervalued 986s will raise. :D

And a Porsche without a flat 6 doesn't sound like a typical Porsche to me. Just that easy.

https://youtu.be/cbOe2adpHFc

Regards, Markus

If we truly want to get picky ;), we can really pin the devolution with the advent of the waterboxer. I'll readily admit that my M96-powered Boxster doesn't sound nearly as good as my M64-powered 911 does. The 911's aircooled mill just has the visceral sound that the classic Porsches are known for, and which my Boxster does not have. However, mom's 987 (w/o Sport Exhaust) does sound better than my 986 but not up to the 964, IMO.

Time marches on. Which gives us plenty of choices. A flat 4 Turbo just doesn't excite me as much as a straight flat 6. You could go out and get a cherry 986 roller, put in one of Jake Raby's engines and still be way under the cost of a new Boxster, if that is what you want. I still love the look of the 986, the curves are perfect IMO. The idea of a Raby engine grows on me more and more.

Several thoughts on this from somebody who has the perspective of years.

1) In the late 60s, American muscle cars were in a competition to outdo each other with cid and hp. As their displacement and ho grew, the mpg dropped, but who cared? Gas was 22c a gallon! Then the 1973 oil embargo hit, people waited in line at the gas station for hours to get a few gallons, and the government intervened to mandate increased fuel efficiency.

2) The result of this was an annihilation of power for the sake of fuel efficiency. Ford came out with the Mustang II that had no V8 available it's first two years. In 1975 with the V8, it clocked with R&T 0 to 60 mph in 10.5 sizzling seconds! The V8 had 140 hp.

3) Engineering and technology advancements in response to government interference has led to significant performance increases with improved fuel economy and emissions reductions to meet consumer demand.

4) Turbocharging became an option in the 1980s to meet the compromise of government fuel efficiency requirements and power/speed consumer demands.

5) Improvements in engineering and technology allowed V6 and V8 engines to achieve in the 1990s and 200s what previously was only possible with turbo 4s

What we are seeing now is more government intervention to demand further fuel efficiency and reduced CO2 emissions. That is forcing EVERY car maker to adjust, including Porsche.

You want the flat 6? Vote Republican always. You okay with the turbo 4? Keep voting Democrat. You choose the latter, and within 20 years you won't be driving at all. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sports-car-serious-trouble-162722691.html

Specifically the high-minded statement, "Will the sports car die? Of course. Eventually, the only people shredding tires and burning dead dinosaurs will be the small group of hobbyists on private tracks, where they are dropped off by the fleet of anodyne robot cars the rest of us commute in. But that day is still a long way off."

That is the agenda of the Democrats. I don't mean everybody who votes for Democrats, but those who are in the apparatus of the mainstream media and national stage (including B.S. {is that a coincidence or fate?}).

DBear

The two party system oversimplifies the issue, you have to consider auto bailouts and protectionist vs globalization policy as well.

In this election both trump and Bernie would be terrible for the auto industry considering their protectionist agenda, whilst we also would not have GM today depending on who was in office a few years ago.

I agree that it's best to vote right for the sake of the automobile as they tend to stand up stronger for the individual, corporate option, capitalism, and less gov intervention in the natural business cycle.

However, it is more complex then being simply two party. At the end of the day individuals need to start standing up for their individual liberties to speak with their dollar and not they're vote. If the consumer would like to go electric they're welcome to joint the 200k line at tesla which Spurs innovation across the board elsewhere.

Anyways at the very least this is an example of the ill affects of a blanket law, whilst millions of silverados f150s and jeeps are sold everywhere giving less emissions then before however still with further room to sacrafice, Porsche and other smaller boutique manufactures are screwed having to drop fleet emissions. I'm not saying remove the laws all together but maybe they should place a basis on the tightness of the requirement based on the sales and average miles driven of the cars usually, or better yet simply introduce a carbon tax based on miles driven and gallons of fuel burned, I don't like the idea of a carbon tax but if it means that companies can produce what they want and I can buy what I want it's a reasonable trade off since non of us drive our Boxsters that often anyways.

I also think that in most any occasion of the government wanting to force change it should be translated to the buyer and free market. Rather then to ban anything it could simply be fixed with a label, catagorize cars on a color scale from red to green for emissions and make people sign off that they understand the vehicle they are buying is bad for the environment, then companies are welcome to decide what is best in this case, to produce a red car that's true to the companies Morals or to produce a green car instead. This would help companies like Porsche still be incentivized to make mission E type cars and cayanne e hybrids, all whilst still having room for not only a GT3 but also a 718 flat 6.

Does a turbo really lower emissons or is it much fuel efficient in a sports car?

I don't think so.

Maybe if you drive the car in a real unsporty way. But if you drive it the way it was intended to you will get surprised by the results, because than you have a gas guzzler.

Just my 2 cents
Regards, Markus

I don't think the purpose of the turbo is to lower emissions, the purpose is to provide performance gains despite a lower engine displacement which is where emissions are made better. I guess we are lucky that they can increase performance while meeting emissions regulations. We could end up with cars that struggle to go 0 to 60 in 6 seconds in 2016.

Yeah, look no further than the Ford ecoboost engines. Way less mileage than advertised. I own an escape with a 2 liter turbo. Advertised an average of 26 I think, lucky to get 20.