Couple questions about Porsche...

[Ronzi]

Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist

1) 2.7l on the Boxster. Porsche is still managing to squeeze out power from this relatively small engine, but why not increase displacement a little? It's amazing they are holding their own in this class while still having barely more displacement than a Honda s2000.


2.9-3.0l would be great for increasing torque, power, and keeping up with the competition. So why is it that Porsche maintains the smaller displacement for all these years?


Thanks and any insight will be appreciated :-)

Porsche has a history, as far back as you care to look, of dribbling out little performance improvements over a period of years to make the new model just a teensy bit better than the last one. This plainly is a marketing strategy intended to keep the product line fresh and to extract the last dollar from an adoring public.
To an extent this is "good", if that's the word, for us as buyers of their product, since it takes a while for the old model to get too much outdistanced, performancewise, by the new models.
As an example, the 356 went from 1100cc, to 1200, 1300, 1500, and finally 1600cc.
The air-cooled 911 was intro'd at 2000cc, then 2.4, 2.7, 3.0, 3.2, 3.4, and finally the 3.6 and 3.8 engines. I think that was about the limit the air-cooled sixes could handle without a major re-design.
The Boxster is probably going to remain a couple of steps behind wherever the 911 is at. As the 911 engine steps up in size and power, the Box will too, but always a little bit behind.

PS - I think I missed one; I think there was a 2.2 liter 911, too.

[porsche986spyder]

Not to highjack your thread here, but is it safe to say that the New Cayman and New Boxster are basically the same car except for the body/rear end and built on hard top? I've looked at both cars and even the "S" models came out at the same time. Same car? Different shell? Looks like it. Even the interiors are the same.

[jwilson95]

Good points Ronzi. I agree with that all the way. They are an evolution company in all aspects of design/performance.

I remember reading why Porsche went with 3.6L vs. 3.8L in GT3 and I think it was because of the split case version of the motor as well as dry sump lubrication if my memory serves, but not certain so you guys don't hammer me if I'm wrong!

Not sure about the RPM deal, but the horizontally opposed motors make good torque throughout the rev range vs. most V or inline motors that you are comparing redlines to the Porsche motors.

Have you driven an S2000? If you can get/stay in the 7-9k range on the tach, you are ok, otherwise you are having your lunch eaten. Not as fun to drive, period. I compared them to 986 when I was looking and to me, no contest.

Jeff

[Bavarian Motorist]

I don't think that's so much because it's an inline motor...



Look at a BMW Z4 si. 3.0l i-6, just as smooth as a flat-6 and a naturally balanced configuration (like a flat-6)


Good torque throughout :-)



The problem with the S2k is that there just isn't enough displacement to make more torque. You can only get so much force out of it...

[Perfectlap]

I don't understand why Porsche had to make the Boxster a different car to the Carrera at all.
With the cars being nearly the same from the seats forward, they could have simply called the Boxster the Carrera Roadster alla the Carrea Cabriolet or maybe even called it the Carrera MR and Carrera MR-S.
This way they could have avoided the whole 'putting a smaller engine' in the Boxster issue and simply stuck a 3.6 or 3.8 into the roadster.
The flood of Boxster sales that came in could have been spent to drive down the cost of Carrera engines and increase profits EVEN MORE. Why go through all the trouble of having to engineer an all new Boxer engine with all its expense and the added expense of having to revamp the engines in 2000? No doubt building an aditional 100,000 (already designed) Carrera engines would have made more money and made allot of Boxster customers happy. Two birds with one stone...
Did producing 2.5 and 2.7 engines really cost that much less than the 3.6 and 3.8? We aren't talking huge power differences here...

If I were in charge I would have every Porsche made running on the GT1 Race Block found only in the GT3 and TT, true dry sump. If you're going to build expensive sports cars...build expensive sports cars.

[Ronzi]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

I don't understand why Porsche had to make the Boxster a different car to the Carrera at all.
With the cars being nearly the same from the seats forward, they could have simply called the Boxster the Carrera Roadster alla the Carrea Cabriolet or maybe even called it the Carrera MR and Carrera MR-S.
This way they could have avoided the whole 'putting a smaller engine' in the Boxster issue and simply stuck a 3.6 or 3.8 into the roadster.
The flood of Boxster sales that came in could have been spent to drive down the cost of Carrera engines and increase profits EVEN MORE. Why go through all the trouble of having to engineer an all new Boxer engine with all its expense and the added expense of having to revamp the engines in 2000? No doubt building an aditional 100,000 (already designed) Carrera engines would have made more money and made allot of Boxster customers happy. Two birds with one stone...
Did producing 2.5 and 2.7 engines really cost that much less than the 3.6 and 3.8? We aren't talking huge power differences here...

If I were in charge I would have every Porsche made running on the GT1 Race Block found only in the GT3 and TT, true dry sump. If you're going to build expensive sports cars...build expensive sports cars.

Porsche already had the Cabriolet available for the wind-in-the-hair 911 folks, and sold that at something like a $10k PREMIUM over the price of the 911 coupe.
How could they possibly justify the price of a 911 Cab if they sold a Box with the same engine and the same, or better, performance at a price $20k LESS than the 911 coupe? They would have destroyed the market for the Cab, a model which accounts for over half the 911 sales in the US. Big, big loss in sales dollars.
The obvious answer is to hobble the bottom-of-the-line Boxster with an undersized (2.5 liter), underpowered (201hp at intro.) engine so that it would be no threat to the 911.
Their only mistake, marketing-wise, was that they made the early Boxster and the first-gen 996 Carrera TOO similar. From the front the only difference was the narrow air intake slit in the middle of the 996 bumper. It really ticked-off the 911 folks to have their $80k Carrera Cab mistaken for a $45k Boxster.

[racer_d]

Product line decisions are made YEARS in advance. By 1991, Porsche new that the door was closing on the 968 and 928 leaving Porsche with just a 911.

Also, in 1991-1993 were severely POOR economic years. Global recessions, high build costs, labor etc were killing porsche. Thoughts of Merecedes or VW buying Porsche were a very real possiblity.

The only way to expand their model line ups was to make parts common to both. To the detriment of 911 fans, this meant that the 911 (996) and Boxster (986) were to look alike. Even more detrimental to 996 fans, was that the 986 came out first. The sucess of Porsche's 993 (911) allowed them the luxury to NOT rush the 996 to market. Ideally both cars would have come out at the same time, not a couple years apart.

The Boxster was has widly succeeded in expanding Porsche's model line up (not many manufacturers can be sucessful with only one product) and their bottom line.


As for the other, original questions,

1) Economy of scale is part of it. That's why they got rid of the 3.2 in the 987S. Simplify product line up. One base motor.

I would also wager that the "next" base boxster will enjoy another diplacement boost, perhaps to a 3.0L as you mention.

The original 986 had a 2.5l with 201hp. Then a 2.7 with 217.. then with 228, and in the 987 with 240 and now 245, 10 years later, the base motor has nearly 45 more hp. Thats a nice way of improving the breed without completely outdating the previous version. Heck, the next base Boxster might have a 3.0l with 260hp... you never know

2) I don't think Porsche is conservative with redlines. My 3.0L 911 redline was 6250. My 2.7 Boxster redline is 7200. 7200 is a pretty high rev limit in my opinion.

3) The GT3 motor is NOT the same motor as the regular 996/997. It uses the same architecture as the GT2 (turbo) and regular Twin Turbo. This motor harkens back to the GT1 motor of the late 1990s.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by Ronzi

Porsche already had the Cabriolet available for the wind-in-the-hair 911 folks, and sold that at something like a $10k PREMIUM over the price of the 911 coupe.
How could they possibly justify the price of a 911 Cab if they sold a Box with the same engine and the same, or better, performance at a price $20k LESS than the 911 coupe? They would have destroyed the market for the Cab, a model which accounts for over half the 911 sales in the US. Big, big loss in sales dollars.
The obvious answer is to hobble the bottom-of-the-line Boxster with an undersized (2.5 liter), underpowered (201hp at intro.) engine so that it would be no threat to the 911.
Their only mistake, marketing-wise, was that they made the early Boxster and the first-gen 996 Carrera TOO similar. From the front the only difference was the narrow air intake slit in the middle of the 996 bumper. It really ticked-off the 911 folks to have their $80k Carrera Cab mistaken for a $45k Boxster.

who said the Cab and the Boxster had to poised against each other? This is narrow minded marketing. Porsche needed to think outside the "box".

This coming up with a new name is the pivotal point that I think was a mistake. The price of Boxster is significantly higher than anything else in its class. Was true back then and still is today. With the splash that the Boxster made at the 1993 Auto shows, those well off enough to pay above MSRP Boxster back in 1997 and 1996 weren't buying Boxsters because they were less expensive! They were buying them because of the "gotta have it factor' of the roadster styling. See below





Porsche could have unveiled a futurisitc Carrera Roadster instead of unveiling a "Boxster". And to sweeten the deal they could have offered smaller engines in the Carrera Roadster for the more economically minded much like the Cayenne has a base model with a completely different/less powerful engine. The first Boxsters weren't hitting the pavement until 1996 in Europe, and the revamped 911 996's weren't unveiled until 1999. Some six years after the Boxster concept!! This in normal in the auto industry but Porsche as a company was in the dumps...six years for a kick in the 911 pants was too long.
Had they introduced the Carrera Roadster the 911 resurgence coulld have taken place much sooner.
Cayenne sales have been absolutely stellar, having a cheap option with this car didn't hurt sales. It brought in more buyers without the need to come with an "X3 type" SUV. Porsche compared to BMW is a boutique car maker and their average New car buyer has an income well into the six figure territory. This number has not come down in any signifcant way in all the time the 'cheap' Boxster has been sold.

Now to address the Cab vs. Boxster inter-brand competition delimmea in the sales department, Porsche could have made the price range wider for Carreras to include a Carrera Roadster at low end like the base Cayenne and a plush GT with the all important backseat like the Cab at the high end and in doing so preserved that $20K mark up for Cabs you alluded to. Like the Cayenne ranging from $50K to $120K the Carrera roadsters could have done the same with Roadster vs Cab. And like the Cayenne, greater Carrera sales OVERALL would have resulted in this type of marketing.

By putting a different name on the Carrera roadster in the form of "Boxster", it put Porsche in a situation where they HAD to design an all new less powerful engine and could NEVER put in equal Carrera power, even after a decade! This was absolutely unecessary.... And notably a mid engined Carrera Roadster could have solved a long simmering problem in the racing department by subltly opening the door for a mid engined hard top Carrera, which is something the GT2/GT3 performance driving crowd have always wanted and are willing to pay dollar$ for. And that would have only benefited Porsche racing who may get beaten by the mid engined F430's this year in FIA GT now that the series have gone to an all sprint race schedule with the exception of LeMans. The 911 have always done well in endurance races over Ferrari because of enine reliability. Now that the FIA GT races are short, engine placement is going to a much bigger factor. If a change in the engine Placement of Carreras occurs, it will be *after* they got beat. Instead they could have been pre-emptive without much fan fare since a mid engine Carrera (begun with our Carrera Roadster) was already long part of the product line up...theoretically.

[Ronzi]

I frankly don't understand how having two Carrera lines, one rear-engine and one mid-engine would have done anything but cannibalize sales from the 911.
The whole point of the Boxster exercise was to expand the product line into a market for which they had no existing product and thus gain new customers, not to split sales between two models.
I do, however, agree with you that the Cayman is Porsche's ace-in-the-hole in GT racing. You could also be right that any Cayman-derived racer might show up as some kind of 911 variant, just to keep the 911 on the top of the heap.