'Speeding fine' asked in another thread why I'd never posted much about my Cayman R. I'm not sure why really as it's the best all-round sports car I've ever had or probably ever will have. I've had it for a glorious year and will keep it for another two, but after that I don't know what I'll do as Porsche seem hell bent on deserting their traditional customer base for people who want quality family transport and luxury two-seaters stuffed full of gimmicks. (Anyone for electric steering, hand brakes, stop-start and an extra portion of girth to thread through ever smaller gaps in the traffic?).

In the £30-50k ish price range Porsches have chosen themselves for me over the last 12 years - this is my 5th and easily my favourite. It's reasonably compact, powerful enough without ever intimidating, everyday practical if you want it to be, but special enough for every journey to be memorable. It's a period of my motoring life that I never want to end but I know it will in a couple of years. (I like new car reliability, manufacturers warranties, shiney things and the smell of new interiors. Yes I'm shallow but honest!).

The thing is that at 58 I'm probably too old to go back to real sports cars like Sevens, of which I've had four in the past, but although they'd like to think I'm within their demographic I don't think I'll ever be old enough for Jags, Mercs, BMW's or Audi's so called sports models. I hope, in the distant future, they make some manual gearbox Hearses as I don't want to be seen dead in an auto!

For now I'll have two more blissful years motoring in the Porsche, but what should I do next? I even found myself stopping to check out the GT86 recently. Maybe in a couple of years they'll have relented to the demand and produced a quicker one, as I must say that it fits like a glove, and I could live with the low rent interior as all of the contact points seem so well resolved. Any other suggestions?

--

PaulJ

I thought the Jax X-Type might be a decent competitor, but looking at it at the Lord Mayor's Show on Saturday it appeared to be more of an SLK competitor than a Boxster beater.

The GT86 reputedly puts out about 140bhp at the wheels (~170bhp at the flywheel) from the factory so you'd need a faster version just to get to where it's supposed to be already

--

[OO=[|]=OO]

That's naughty if found to be the case in other examples, but it would explain the 0-60 time claimed.

--

PaulJ

Jobbo said...

The GT86 reputedly puts out about 140bhp at the wheels (~170bhp at the flywheel) from the factory so you'd need a faster version just to get to where it's supposed to be already

Who tested it at 140 wbhp ?

173 wbhp according to insideline Clicky

Just viewed the dyno link. The car looks so much better without that rear spoiler. Is it a delete option?

--

PaulJ

N said...

Jobbo said...

The GT86 reputedly puts out about 140bhp at the wheels (~170bhp at the flywheel) from the factory so you'd need a faster version just to get to where it's supposed to be already

Who tested it at 140 wbhp ?

173 wbhp according to insideline Clicky

Iain Litchfield.

Updated November 12, 2012 at 3:31 PM

--

[OO=[|]=OO]

Jobbo said...

N said...

Jobbo said...

The GT86 reputedly puts out about 140bhp at the wheels (~170bhp at the flywheel) from the factory so you'd need a faster version just to get to where it's supposed to be already

Who tested it at 140 wbhp ?

173 wbhp according to insideline Clicky

Iain Litchfield.

Interesting torque "curve".

--

All retch and no vomit

Its no wonder they havent seemed all that quick .. As its effectively a subaru boxer engine is there still the 1000 mile oil change?

What's going on there?

Mind, nowt wrong with 140bhp

--

139.0001BHP on supermarket UL, glovebox open, hood down, seats reclined at a jaunty angle.
My mats are blank.

Jobbo said...

N said...

Jobbo said...

The GT86 reputedly puts out about 140bhp at the wheels (~170bhp at the flywheel) from the factory so you'd need a faster version just to get to where it's supposed to be already

Who tested it at 140 wbhp ?

173 wbhp according to insideline Clicky

Iain Litchfield.

There's nothing on that graph to indicate whether it's wheel or flywheel horsepower that's being displayed.

Given that others are getting ~170 whp and Litchfield's graph shows 177 hp, it's certainly possible that it's showing whp and not bhp.

--

Hosting | Colocation | Connectivity | Network Security | VoIP

That graph isn't where I got the info - apparently he's testing plenty of cars, the 170-ish bhp is at the flywheel and the power at the wheels is ~140bhp. Struggling to find the link now though.

--

[OO=[|]=OO]

What's really interesting about that graph is the massive hole in the torque curve that the mapping and exhaust can't dial out. In fact, even with the remap it hardly gains anything at the lowest point of the dip. Wonder what's causing that?

--

Hosting | Colocation | Connectivity | Network Security | VoIP

Jobbo said...

That graph isn't where I got the info - apparently he's testing plenty of cars, the 170-ish bhp is at the flywheel and the power at the wheels is ~140bhp. Struggling to find the link now though.

I had a quick look through their blog and couldn't see where it was measuring from.

--

Hosting | Colocation | Connectivity | Network Security | VoIP

I have found it - Charlie Wright of Surrey Rolling Road has measured one. I quote:

Charlie Wright: They only make 175bhp on the dyno lol, I had to ring Ian Litchfield when i did one to make sure it was't broken, he was like.. oh thats all they make!
8 November at 18:49 · Like

LS: Power through the wheels I'm guessing. If so then that sounds about right.
8 November at 18:53 · Like

Charlie Wright: Nope, 140 at the wheels!

--

[OO=[|]=OO]

Not convinced. Looking at the site for Litchfields dyno manufacturer, it's a US market model and they nearly always measure whp as standard. In fact "estimated flywheel hp" isn't even standard on most of their dynos looking through the tech sheets.

Chances are, that conversation was the result of talking in different figures.

--

Hosting | Colocation | Connectivity | Network Security | VoIP

Surrey Rolling Road are quite well known and respected - Mr Yu has been there and mentioned it in his long term reports: Clicky. And it's pretty clear that the measurement is 175bhp at the flywheel because Charlie confirms it. He corroborates it with Litchfield. Seems pretty conclusive to me; two independent and respected UK dyno places agreeing.

Updated November 12, 2012 at 4:58 PM

--

[OO=[|]=OO]

I don't believe either figure until I've seen both graphs with confirmation from the operators whether they're wheel or estimated flywheel numbers.

It's not outside the realms of possibility that Ian Litchfield thought Charlie was talking wheel horsepower when he said "it only makes 175hp".

140hp is pretty poor for a modern 2 litre, especially one with variable valve timing, direct injection etc. I could get that out of a 30 year Ford 2.0 Pinto motor with a pair of Weber carbs on it

--

Hosting | Colocation | Connectivity | Network Security | VoIP

You don't have to believe it. I do believe it; Litchfield's graph above almost certainly shows flywheel power since he's in the market to sell a tuning kit and needs the headline figure. The measured performance figures seem consistent with 175bhp.

However, I've found the graphs and the owner's confirmation after some googling:
Clicky

Updated November 12, 2012 at 5:13 PM

--

[OO=[|]=OO]

Not if you compare to other dyno operators that are seeing ~170 at the wheels.

Just because you choose to believe that dyno chart is measured at the flywheel doesn't make it so.

For example 163 whp:

--

Hosting | Colocation | Connectivity | Network Security | VoIP

I seem to recall someone coming on here and saying Cayman R had a lethal dip in power at low revs and high gears?

He got shot down for the most part but do you notice or have you ever noticed such a phenomenon?

Lovely looking car, you really should add a few photos to this thread!

--

What would Daddy Pig do?