Entry-level Porsche (identical to Boxster but cheaper) put on hold

[blue2000s]

Originally Posted by Ghostrider 310

Perfectlap said what I wanted to say but said a little too harshly, my apologies. Regarding the introduction of the e steering, it's for mileage too, Hyundai is going that route and others too. As for more Spyder facts, here's the topgear track board, lots of fast cars under the spyder. Backs up perfectlap's commentary on it's vacancy in the next generation lineup. Note the much discussed assumed lighter Lotus cars are slower.


1:24.9 Porsche Boxster Spyder
1:24.9 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG
1:25.0 Noble M12 GTO-3R
1:25.0 BMW 1 Series M Coupe (damp)
1:25.0 Caterham R400
1:25.1 Lotus Exige S
1:25.3 Porsche Panamera turbo
1:25.3 BMW M3 (E90 Saloon)
1:25.7 Lotus Evora
1:25.7 Audi RS4[5]
1:25.7 Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder
1:25.8 Lamborghini Gallardo (wet)
1:25.9 Morgan Aero 8 GTN
1:26.0 Mercedes-Benz CLK 63 AMG Black series
1:26.0 BMW Z4 M roadster (E85)
1:26.0 Noble M400 (Shown on Top Gear Revved Up DVD)
1:26.0 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII MR FQ320
1:26.2 BMW M5 (E60)
1:26.2 Porsche 911 Carrera S (997) (damp)
1:26.2 Brabus S Biturbo Roadster
1:26.3 Vauxhall VXR8 Bathurst S
1:26.4 Lotus Exige (mildly moist)
1:26.5 BMW M3 E92 Competition Pack (moist)
1:26.7 Porsche Cayman S[5]
1:26.7 Jaguar XFR
1:26.8 Chevrolet Corvette C6 LS2
1:26.8 Aston Martin V12 Vantage (Not Shown on TV)[4]
1:26.8 Ferrari 575M Maranello GTC
1:26.9 Lexus IS-F
1:26.9 Mercedes-Benz CLS55 AMG
1:27:0 BMW M5 E39
1:27:0 KTM X-Bow (Driven by new Stig)
1:27.1 Aston Martin Vanquish S
1:27.1 Aston Martin DB9
1:27.1 HSV Maloo
1:27.2 Porsche 911 GT3 RS (996) (very wet)
1:27.2 Tesla Roadster (mildly moist)
1:27.3 Spyker C8 Spyder
1:27.4 Aston Martin DBS (wet)
1:27.5 Audi RS5 (moist)
1:27.5 Nissan 370Z GT
1:27.5 TVR T350C
1:27.7 Cosworth Impreza STI CS400 (wet)
1:27.9 Wiesmann MF 3
1:27.9 Chevrolet Camaro SS
1:28.0 Roush Mustang
1:28.0 BMW M3 CSL (E46) (wet)[6]
1:28.1 Renault Mégane R26.R
1:28.2 BMW Z4 sDrive35i (E89)
1:28.2 BMW X5 M (E70) (wet)
1:28.2 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X FQ-300

Sorry, I can't resist. The E63. is that a sports car?

[Ghostrider 310]

They run everything on their own track, it's part of their show, below these are some everyday coupes and sedans. I noticed you could resist admitting it spanks some formidable competitors but hey I know you think the newer units are lame, so be it.

[blue2000s]

Originally Posted by Ghostrider 310

They run everything on their own track, it's part of their show, below these are some everyday coupes and sedans. I noticed you could resist admitting it spanks some formidable competitors but hey I know you think the newer units are lame, so be it.

You keep trying to put words in my mouth. If you can find that I said that the newer units are lame, I'll paypal you $1000.

Again, for like the 3rd time in this thread, a fast car does not make a sports car. I couldn't care less what a car's time is around a track. Even when I'm on the track. I care about how much the steering and chassis talk to me and how attainable and manageable the chassis limits are. These are the things that make a sports car fun at every speed. Not just track speed.

[Ghostrider 310]

Originally Posted by blue2000s

You keep trying to put words in my mouth. If you can find that I said that the newer units are lame, I'll paypal you $1000.

Again, for like the 3rd time in this thread, a fast car does not make a sports car.

These are the impressions I get from reading your words and between your words, posts are an imperfect medium for effective communications. Fact remains, the 65 lbs you claimed I'm spotting you is moot, you do remember the 65 lbs, right? No need for paypal sideshow stuff...

PS Better yet, does beating a 997 at laguna make it a sports car?

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by blue2000s

Sorry, I can't resist. The E63. is that a sports car?

just add M or AMG to any bloated car and it will get you whatever N-ring lap time you wish for the next brochure.

[blue2000s]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

just add M or AMG to any bloated car and it will get you whatever N-ring lap time you wish for the next brochure.

No doubt. Lot's of power and sticky tires can do wonders for anything.

[Ghostrider 310]

You can title it a station wagon for all I care, it's a silly argument.

[blue2000s]

Originally Posted by Ghostrider 310

I'll bet being your manager is a dream job. You can title it a station wagon for all I care, it's a silly argument.

You'll never get it...

POTHOLE and Perfectlap do though.

[Ghostrider 310]

I'll never care, I have a Fiat 124 Spider just wondering, is that a sports car? Or do I have to don motoring goggles, repair a race wreck and fly like Dick Van Dyke?

PS A car that's just a "fast car" IMO would be the Camaro and Mustang offerings

[Ghostrider 310]

You'll never get it...

POTHOLE and Perfectlap do though.



I guess you didn't truly digest perfectlap's commentary about the Spyder, and please no wagering.

[southernstar]

I'm with nogasbiker on this one. The 2.5 engine in the original 986 was lacking in flexibility (especially torque range) compared to the 2.7 in the base 2000 and the 3.2 in the new S. How does that detract from either being a 'sports car', especially since the there were also suspension improvements on both to reduce bumpsteer and, of course, even greater improvements in the suspension and brakes in the S.? As I recall, the wieght difference was marginal from the 99 2.5's, if at all on the 2000 base car (mine is still about 2760 lbs approx).

Cupholders? They add virtually no weight and although the required movement of the HVAC controls behind the shifter and the loss of the cubby hole that was originally there creates an ergonomic downgrade in the later 986's, so what? It seems ergonomics are not part of the definition of sports car to those who are attacking the later Boxsters in this thread.

Glass rear windows in the post 2002 986's? Yes, this does add some weight (and relatively high up in the car), so I can understand the criticism that may be levied by some 'purists'. Still, the ability to put down the top without damaging the window in cooler temperatures greatly increases the opportunities for top-down motoring for those of us who live in cooler climates. And isn't the ability to drive an open-air car a significant part of the 'sports car' experience? By the same token, air conditioning (which adds weight and robs power) also adds to the enjoyment of driving in very hot weather, with both the top up and down. Why aren't the owners of early 986's critical of the fact that all were equipped with air conditioning? Or power brakes? Or power steering? Or power locks? Or reclining seats (instead of light-weight buckets as in the original Speedsters)? Heck, we should also criticize the use of glass side windows, if we are going to criticize a glass rear window in the top, should we not? If any luxury/convenience item is inappropriate in a sports car, then the last true Porsche sports car was proably the 1958 Speedster (the 1959 Convertible D had glass side windows - perish the thought)!

So far as I am concerned, the driving dynamics, sound and performance make ALL Boxsters sports cars. So far as I can see, many of the criticisms of later (or earlier) cars occur because we all tend to "love the one you're with".

As to a new budget Porsche? I would be shocked if it turns out to be a stripped down car. The vast majority of people today want power steering, power brakes, air conditioning, glass windows, stereos, etc. and it would make little sense for Porsche to engineer (except perhaps as a limited edition spinoff) a car devoid of these features. I can't understand the resistance of many in this thread to the notion of another Porsche sports car. Remember, the 986 itself was created as an entry-level Porsche. With the improvements in technology and production over the last decade and a half, I could well forsee a lighter, faster and better handling car than the original 986, that is still reasonably well equipped and that is priced at less than the original Boxster. Certainly less in real dollar terms, consdering inflation. It may prove to be the same kind of breakthrough that the Boxster was in 1996.


Brad

[Overdrive]

Why do people seem to think cupholders were brought up as a matter of weight addition? Take the time to read things. Goodness, there's no need for people to get that bent out of shape over this stuff, either. If you want to talk ergonomics for a sports car, the only things I think should matter there is the driver's position to the important things. That is, the controls that actually affect the motion of the vehicle, like pedals, steering, shifting, and the view out of the glass (and the necessary street stuff like signals and wipers, etc., too of course), and give the driver some adjustability to set themselves up comfortably to work it all and see.


By no means did I try to say the 2.5 is the best thing since sliced bread and curly fries...come on, now. I didn't just focus on one particular aspect like the engine, I'm talking overall how an early 986 is compared to where we are now with the latest in the 981, and the idea of making something apparently lower in tier than the Boxster for an entry-level car, which I think we can all expect is not going to be a well-performing sports car with the corners that will have to be cut and compromises made to net a low price to attract people. Look at all the compromises (and restrictions) that have been made and done to make the Boxster cost what it does and perform where it does in the current vehicle range. Do we really want to go even further than that?

I am talking about the car altogether, not just the engine, or just the looks, or just the suspension, or just putting in unnecessary items for a sports car, so look at it that way instead of just picking one thing out of all said and trying to find some way to trump it. Sure, you're not going to get quite the same weight out of the car when you're adding in a larger engine like the 3.2, but it also has power to offset that and doesn't throw off the car's dynamics overall because the engine's still in the same place, and the car was optimized to run with that extra grunt behind it...brakes, suspension, all of that. The car could have remained very unchanged otherwise, though, and it would only be better than it already is. I feel the S should have been what the Boxster base debuted as, and then create something Spyder-like as the S model, perhaps while still making it something that's not strictly an open top, fair weather only car. Again, just my opinion, but I don't think many would disagree with that, as plenty have said the 250hp and other tweaks that the S came with was just enough of a boost to put the car where it should have been from the start, and I think that makes sense.

Yes, I want the car to be fast, but I also want to really enjoy the experience of having it go fast and reach its limits. No, my little 200hp (on a good day 15 years ago) car isn't going to strip the paint off of a Carrera as I fly by , but I will have all sorts of fun trying to keep up with someone in one of those to see what the car, and I, can really do at such a disadvantage.

And of course, I want it to look good, too. And for all the hatred the fried-egg lights receive, I still feel that the 986 does carry the more timeless parts of the Porsche design language better than the later generations do. I don't want a midget Carrera GT or an overgrown last-gen MR2, I'd like a car that looks like a modern classic.

:dance:

[Perfectlap]

well top speed or laptime is not critical in determing a sport's car authenticity but these days with minivans packing power like what one used to find in an M3 as recently as the late 90's, then how great is your sporsts car if it can't overtake a soccer mom in the fast lane? A sports car has to be quick relative to its peers on road in the real world too. I'll be damned if I have to wait for that Soccer Mom so I can merge!

[fatmike]

Porsche doesn't make a new car today that I'd want to buy.




/

[Snowman]

How in the world did a discussion about a car that Porsche might make a few years from now - turn into a **** size contest?

A **** size contest, by the way, between people who for all intents and purposes drive the same car.

I've been on motorcycle boards for a decade at least and it's the same damn ****. "I took off my passenger pegs and my lap times increased". Please. I've been trained at track schools, I know better.

Same with cars. Back window material and cup holders don't mean **** where speed and agility are concerned. Yet we have folks on here trying to claim those are deciding factors between a real car and a poser? Good God almighty.

I expected better out of a car forum. Guess I was wrong.

[Ghostrider 310]

I don't think you were wrong this forum has saved people countless thousands and every dollar we save feels like a victory. However, to your point, we are splitting hairs on peg weights and cup holders when most of us could simply trim 10 - 15 right off ourselves. I've never seen a driver in the winner's circle who looked like Michael Moore; you don't see too many Derby winners built like sumo wrestlers either. Oh and for the record, all these cars are fast, agile and sports cars, sure some may be a bit faster than others but in truth if following the law, how far back is a 944 on curves? Even the Fiat will corner till the Kumhos cry out, they are all cool cars in my opinion, maybe for different reasons but still all cool in their own right.

[Ghostrider 310]

Check it, this car isn't my favorite but it was one of my dad's and I can appreciate why even though I'll never have one.

[southernstar]

Overdrive, I'm not criticizing your preference for the earlier 986 - they are great cars and indeed, great sports cars. Frankly, I even share your preference for the original look - including the more interesting (or at least, less generic) dash and interior design. Having said that, I'm sure you'll agree that appearance has little, if anything, to do with what makes a car a 'sports car'.

Unlike many here, and while acknowledging that I haven't driven one, I quite like the new Boxster. Sure, I find the interior design rather dull and I am not crazy about the tail light dividing, chrome-tipped spoiler. However, while it does not draw upon past elements of historic Porsches in the same way the original did (and it doesn't have to), it nevertheless is an aggressive, but clean design. Performance? There in spades - and quite frankly, the improvements in fuel economy despite the increase in size, weight and horsepower are also very impressive.

I think that Porsche is also deserving of credit for replacing various body parts that were originally steel with aluminum. Doesn't that still sound like a company that is interested in engineering sports cars? Yes, it is larger, but the increased size also allows the car to comfortably accomodate larger drivers than the original 986 and the longer wheelbase actually improves vehicle dynamics by reducing dive and squat. The electric power steering? We'll see, although I can recall similar criticisms when Porsche went from manual steering to hydraulic assist.

In the final analysis, the car is a testimonial to Porsche's improved production efficiences as it is actually cheaper, considering inflation, that the original 986. To me the foregoing all suggest that there is reason for optimism about a new entry-level, mid-engined Porsche. That a down-sized, less luxurious, lighter and more simple car produced by Porsche in this day and age could prove to be a real winner - and probably a lot closer to your idea of what makes a real sports car.

Brad

[papasmurf]

have talked about how the 981 is a step in the wrong direction and is bloated, GT, too complex, etc...it hasn't even hit the streets yet....let me remind you "YOU HAVE NEVER DRIVEN ONE" so how can you assume so confidently how it is going to be a failure and pail in comparison to the 986. As far as the baby boxster....I think it has the possiblity to be an amazing car....probably more like the "pure drivers porsches" of years past that everyone complains are gone than anything they have built in quite a while. If they sell well and you see one every day on your way to work does it really diminish the driving enjoyment you get from your car, or does it really just make you seem a little more ordinary as you are only driving a 986. Bring on the baby boxster!

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Having said that, I'm sure you'll agree that appearance has little, if anything, to do with what makes a car a 'sports car'.

Agreed that it has little to do with how the car performs (unless they shape it like a brick ), but it does have an emotional significance, I'm sure you'll understand and agree with that, and clearly people can be very emotional when it comes to cars (*cough* this thread *cough* ). It doesn't make the car faster or slower, but it does factor into people's decisions at times of whether or not to get a car, whether it performs or not ("Miata = chick car, therefore I will not buy it, fun as it can be" type of mentality, know what I mean?). So while I can appreciate what the new Boxster can do perfomance-wise, I'm just not really feeling the design anymore. Yes, it's new and shiny, but it doesn't stir me like the 986/996 design language and the more classic examples of 911s does. Maybe it'll grow on me, but right now I don't care for it, and it disappoints me that when I look at it I think Carrera GT wannabe and MR-2-looking...I'm not supposed to think those things with a car like this. And that's just me. Clearly others enjoyed the 987 update, and enjoy the 981 look of now. It won't stop me from test driving one so I can see/feel it for myself, but it's not making me want one...I just want its mechanical bits so I can put them in the 986. Whether any car is fast and well-performing or not, I want it to look good, and most car enthusiasts desire that, too. It's not the only thing, but it is an important thing. A 500 Abarth doesn't exude sports car when you look at it, even if it does act like a chubby go-kart when you turn the wheel and plant your foot. You know what it can do, but it still looks like a jelly bean.

Originally Posted by southernstar

Unlike many here, and while acknowledging that I haven't driven one, I quite like the new Boxster. Sure, I find the interior design rather dull and I am not crazy about the tail light dividing, chrome-tipped spoiler. However, while it does not draw upon past elements of historic Porsches in the same way the original did (and it doesn't have to), it nevertheless is an aggressive, but clean design. Performance? There in spades - and quite frankly, the improvements in fuel economy despite the increase in size, weight and horsepower are also very impressive.

I think that Porsche is also deserving of credit for replacing various body parts that were originally steel with aluminum. Doesn't that still sound like a company that is interested in engineering sports cars? Yes, it is larger, but the increased size also allows the car to comfortably accomodate larger drivers than the original 986 and the longer wheelbase actually improves vehicle dynamics by reducing dive and squat. The electric power steering? We'll see, although I can recall similar criticisms when Porsche went from manual steering to hydraulic assist.

Again, I'll agree that it looks more aggressive and has clean, straight lines...maybe that's what bugs me about it, that it seems almost too cleaned up. True that it doesn't have to pull from previous design language, but for a company that's very much into its heritage, why wouldn't you? Technically they are doing so by going al Carrera GT with it, but that's not exactly the car I feel a Boxster is following in the footsteps of.

No disputes on performance. As I said, base cars now are sitting on early S model power, and that's not a bad thing. Yes, going with things like aluminum and axing the clamshell attempting to optimize weight and mechanics does sound like a car company that is interested in engineering sports cars, but for me the end product does not come off that way.

As for larger drivers, and not meant to offend anyone, but not every car is going to fit everybody, or every body. Me, I say get over it/deal, because I run into the same problem with cars like Corvettes, Camaros, and most any decent size American car that seems to be made for no one below 6 feet tall or without two sets of knees. I find myself sliding the seat up too uncomfortably close to the steering wheel just to be able to send the clutch pedal to the floorboard and hoping that there's a height adjustment for the seat so I'm not staring at the stitching on the steering wheel when I tilt the seatback away to give myself some room between the wheel and myself. It might just mean that I won't be able to buy one of them despite desiring one...so be it.

Originally Posted by southernstar

In the final analysis, the car is a testimonial to Porsche's improved production efficiences as it is actually cheaper, considering inflation, that the original 986. To me the foregoing all suggest that there is reason for optimism about a new entry-level, mid-engined Porsche. That a down-sized, less luxurious, lighter and more simple car produced by Porsche in this day and age could prove to be a real winner - and probably a lot closer to your idea of what makes a real sports car.

Brad

I think an increase of $10k in starting price over a decade and a half is commendable for this caliber of car, and I've said so. It also is just expensive enough that people won't be coming in droves to buy one, and I think that's ok. Porsche should too. I don't think they should be trying to land a Porsche in every driveway, at least not by trying to make a car model for every type of person out there. I fully hope that Porsche proves my skepticism to be false and does it right if they do decide to make this smaller, cheaper entry-level car. Until such time, I'll hang onto my concerns about the VAG influence on the company now that they have a full grip on it. VW put forth an effort to drop the cost on the Jetta, and the result came off very cheap in quality and compromising on things just to make a cost goal. Perhaps that was the tactic in the end, to make the base so unappealing that most people avoided it and went for a higher model of the Jetta, with only the cheapest of the cheap, or those just looking for a car to do the point-a-to-point-b thing, to get the base.

I fear that the same sort of thing would happen with an entry-level Porsche, though. You come to expect certain things from a company that makes premium cars, and cost-cutting tactics tend to diminish that, as we saw even with some of the complaints that came with the Boxster and how it was able to ring in where it did on the price scale for so long. Granted, this was usually coming from people who were expecting a "911 lite" out of the Boxster, but is that not what we're expecting when we're calling this new car the "baby Boxster"?

Things like the Cayenne and Panamera do not appeal to me, and while they're not anything entry-level by any means, I maintain that they shouldn't exist. Seeing as those are two of the more recent things to emerge from Porsches engineering, it makes me concerned about them making something that's supposed to be small, efficient, cheap, hopefully sporty, and a good-looking vehicle. I really do hope they beat my odds and prove me wrong, because it's a case where I don't want to be right.