Quote:
Originally Posted by southernstar
Pothole, I thought we were talking about comparisons as between 986 Boxsters, not with respect to the 981. I tend to agree about some features on the new 981(such as electric steering and stop/start technology), as being primarily for the purpose of improved fuel consumption rather than performance. As to fuel efficiency in the 986, I checked the brochures that I have at home for the 1999 2.5 and the 2000 2.7 and 3.2 and nowhere is improved fuel efficiency mentioned, whereas the improved performance is. I agree that high-reving 'peaky' engines should be geared so as to have their engines typically running at higher revs; however, the 2.7 was actually less peaky than the 2.5 - i.e., the torque curve was more flat in the sense that it had a greater percentage of peak torque available down low in the rev range than the 2.5. Of course, this is exactly what you would expect with the increase in stroke in the 2.7 over the 2.5. This is all part of matching the engine to the gear ratios and, while I have no doubt that the gear ratios in the 2.5 are ideal for that engine, I also believe that the same is true for the 2.7 and 3.2 engines.
The higher rev limit does contribute to higher speeds in each gear - increases that are greater than one would expect from gear ratios alone. As I have already said, that is a real boon in the cut and thrust of driving around town as well as for autocross, where one need not shift out of second gear (unless the maximum speed on the course exceeds 65 MPH, which is pretty rare in my experience).
Brad
|
Dude, what on earth are you talking about? Where did I mention the 981 in my last post? I was talking about swapping gearboxes over, you can't possibly think I meant putting an early 986 box in a 981, can you?!
Forget the marketing bumpf. The taller gearing in the 2.7 was for refinement and efficiency, not to make the car better for enthusiast drivers. The end.
Companies put all kinds of "sporty" bull**************** in material for all kinds of cars, most of which aren't even 1/100th as sporty as a Boxster. But they still make efficiency a priority. Blame human psychology. When people are reading the marketing bull****************, they want to read about sportiness. Then they look at the MPG numbers and gag on them if they're too high. So they have to engineer in better MPG within reason. That's life.
As for the gearing helping in "cut and thrust driving in town," sorry but gimme a break. And finally autocross? Sorry again, but **************** that. OK, if you care about autocross it may be a benefit. So that's great. For everyone else, it's utterly irrelevant.
The gearing in ALL of these cars is a compromise balancing off several factors, some of which you will care about others you won't. I'm not that bothered about MPG, so up to a point I'd want lowering gearing. However, I wouldn't want it crazy low as that makes the car tiresome for long journeys.
Thus for a 2.7, I'd want the 2.5 gearing. To recap, there's no such thing as perfect gearing. It's always a compromise. And for my needs the 2.7 gearing is too compromised in favour of MPG and cruising refinement.
Boxster
2006 Porsche Boxster 987
Hybrid Mode
