987 2.7 vs 986 2.5 review

[southernstar]

Pothole, you are of course correct re: the transmission gear ratios. When I posted I was thinking of the differential/rear axle gear ratios, where a higher ratio of course means that the engine is revving higher at a given speed. I should also say that I agree that the gear ratios for both the 2.5 and the 2.7 were well-suited to the engines: my reference was to the suggestion that the gear ratios in the 2.5 would be ideal with a 2.7, something with which I disagree. The 2.5, with less torque and a narrower torque band than the 2.7, needed lower transmission ratios and more shifting than the 2.7.

I should also point out that there was virtually no weight increase as between the 1999 2.5 and the 2000 2.7 (about 20 lbs as I recall - although as I have the actual published curb weights for both from Porsche somewhere, I will check and report back if significantly higher). The subsequent base models did increase in weight with the addition of the padded top/cupholders etc. in 2001 and more significantly, the extra top bow, glasss rear window and glove box in 2003.

For the 2000 2.7, as I recall Porsche listed a 0-60 MPH time that was .3 seconds quicker than the 2.5 and the following site shows relative performance in both 0 - 60 and 1/4 mile times.

Porsche 0-60 Times & Porsche Quarter Mile Times | Porsche 911 Carrera 0-60, 944 Turbo, GT2, Boxster S, Cayman R, GT3 and Porsche Cayenne 0 to 60 stats!

This confirms that the 2000 2.7 is .3 seconds faster to 60 MPH and the time differential in the 1/4 mile is nearly 3/4 of a second: 14. 8 seconds for the 1999 2.5 and 14.1 for the 2000 2.7. Not huge, but significant IMO. What is more significant from a driving perspective, however, is the flatter torque curve and its impact on driveability. I'll try to dig up some tests of the 2.7 from back around 2000 by Porsche Excellence magazine, but as I recall the author of one of those tests was the owner of a 2.5. He indicated that, from his hands-on experience in both, the 2.7 seemed closer in performance to the 3.2 than the original 2.5.

The 2.5 is an incredible car, make no mistake about it. However, I believe that it is important that we don't try to get into revisionist history. The changes that Porsche made to the displacement, fuel injection and gear ratios in the 2.7 were done in order to improve both performance and flexibility and, in conjunction with the 3.2 'S' that was introduced in the same year, to answer some of the criticisms of the performance of the 2.5.

Brad

[pothole]

Originally Posted by southernstar

my reference was to the suggestion that the gear ratios in the 2.5 would be ideal with a 2.7, something with which I disagree. The 2.5, with less torque and a narrower torque band than the 2.7, needed lower transmission ratios and more shifting than the 2.7.

I should also point out that there was virtually no weight increase as between the 1999 2.5 and the 2000 2.7 (about 20 lbs as I recall - although as I have the actual published curb weights for both from Porsche somewhere, I will check and report back if significantly higher). The subsequent base models did increase in weight with the addition of the padded top/cupholders etc. in 2001 and more significantly, the extra top bow, glasss rear window and glove box in 2003.

For the 2000 2.7, as I recall Porsche listed a 0-60 MPH time that was .3 seconds quicker than the 2.5 and the following site shows relative performance in both 0 - 60 and 1/4 mile times.

Porsche 0-60 Times & Porsche Quarter Mile Times | Porsche 911 Carrera 0-60, 944 Turbo, GT2, Boxster S, Cayman R, GT3 and Porsche Cayenne 0 to 60 stats!

The 2.5 is an incredible car, make no mistake about it. However, I believe that it is important that we don't try to get into revisionist history. The changes that Porsche made to the displacement, fuel injection and gear ratios in the 2.7 were done in order to improve both performance and flexibility and, in conjunction with the 3.2 'S' that was introduced in the same year, to answer some of the criticisms of the performance of the 2.5.

Brad

Firstly, my point re using the 2.5 gearbox is that I reckon it would allow the advantages of the 2.7 (including higher rev range) to really shine through. One of the reasons for the taller ratios in the 2.7 is better mileage. And I couldn't care less about that. I also don't care whether I lose 5mph at the top. I'm not doing 150mph too often.

Re weight, the book weights only tell half the story. Apparently the early 2.5s are measurably lighter than later 2.5s, and the 2.7s a bit heavier again.

Also bear in mind that Porsche had planned to release more powerful versions of the Boxster earlier, but demand for the 2.5 was massive, so they held out and cashed in. Yes, some mags criticised it for lacking power, but so what?

I've driven pretty much all the 986/987/981 engine options and they're all fantastic. But are the more powerful cars more fun? Not really.

Anyway, the reality is that the performance difference between the 2.5, 2.7 and 2.9 isn't massive. The new 2.7 is a bit of a step up, but even that isn't in a completely different ballpark.

[southernstar]

Pothole we are almost in complete agreement - I have not driven a 981, but all of the 986's and 987's I have driven are a blast to drive. I found the early tiptronics to be a bit sluggish for my tastes, but then again, I vastly prefer a standard transmission in a sports car regardless of performance (and yes, if I were to buy a new 981 it would be a standard, even though it is actually marginally slower)! So yes, marginal performance improvements are only a marginal part of the story.

Yes, there were weight increases over the life of the 2.5's as a result of the addition of side air bags and the strengthening of the rear suspension mounting points. Probably not enough to be really noticeable, but likely in line with the differences in weight between a 1999 2.5 and 2000 2.7. So yes, I am pretty sure that a 1997 2.5 would be little quicker than a 1999 (lets face it, racers will spend a fortune to lose 20 pounds off the weight of a car)!

With respect to the gearing on the 2.7, I do however differ from you. As I recall, the fuel consumption for the 2.7 was only marginally better than the 2.5 ( only on the highway and possibly even worse in the city cycle?). Indeed, upon its introduction I don't recall that Porsche even advertised better fuel mileage (but I have original brochures for both the 1999 2.5 and the 2000 2.7, so I can check and report back if I am mistaken).

To me, the improvements due to the revised gearing on the 2.7 have virtually nothing to do with the increased top speed - as you rightly point out, when do we get a chance to take advantage of that? In conjunction with the improved torque curve, however, it does reduce the amount of shifting that is required to optimize performance in the cut and thrust of daily driving and allows one to attain speeds in excess of 100 kph in second gear. The latter can also be important for those who autocross their vehicles.

Cheers!

Brad