Porsche developing 4cyl turbo for Cayman/Boxster
 

Specifics have yet to be learned, but reports say the engine is a derivative of the current 3.8-liter six found under the rear decklid of the Carrera S, yet with two fewer cylinders. Fitted with a turbocharger, direct-injection and the automaker's VarioCam Plus, the new all-aluminum 2.5-liter flat-four will likely develop upwards of 350 horsepower and 360 pound-feet of torque. Redline should be about 7,500 rpm.

Sounds good to me! The bore stroke is 102mm/77.5mm on the Carrera S.

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/04/10/p...lat-four-boxe/

Engine swap? LOL

^ exactly what I was thinking as soon as I saw the title

FI F4 < NA F6.

I still think the 86/BRZ engine should have been a 2.5 liter...

Anyway, even though they may offer a 4 cylinder finally, it'll still be overpriced like over $40k.

Porsche 718 Boxster and Cayman
 

http://jalopnik.com/2017-porsche-718...-it-1755317137

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...cz6inbnw2h.jpg

"Believe it or not, the 2017 Porsche Boxster is an all new design, and instead of a flat-six, both the peasant-spec and fancier Boxster S will run with completely new turbocharged flat-four cylinders."

Hmmm... Will it fit our engine Bay?

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk

718 2.0-litre: 296bhp, 280lb-ft, and 40.9mpg

WRX 2.0-litre: 268bhp, 258lb-ft, and 27mpg

718S 2.5-litre: 345bhp, 310lb-ft, and 38.7mpg

STI 2.5-litre: 305bhp, 290lb-ft, and 23mpg


How did they get such good fuel economy?

Porsche 718 Boxster unveiled with turbocharged four-cylinder engines [video]
 

Probably some long ass gear ratios

drivetrain losses and the porsche is likely more refined.

Forgot about the drivetrain losses. I think you're right.

no

Well, they are part of the Volkswagen conglomerate you know.

Why not? That was one of the criticisms of the GT4 that you could do most tracks in 2 gears instead of the typical 3 for momentum cars.

No matter how they did it 40mpg out of a ~300hp engine is wizardry. Even if they're sandbagging the numbers because EU test cycle is bunk that should be well into the 30's mpg. Time will tell if it falls to like EcoBoost levels for U.S. release.

Why bother? That engine is probably well into $20k+ to buy off the shelf, not to mention figuring out all the wiring and ECU and sensor stuff, bolt on FI and a custom tune gets the FA20 to similar numbers for under $7k really reliably. Unless it's got a godly engine sound or has insane overhead (that won't be proven until 2-3 years after release) that swap won't make sense for 20 years until someone is looking at an 86 with a blown engine and a Porsche that went headlong into a wall sitting side by side for chump change.

The Boxster is 2944 lbs vs the WRX at 3450. The WRX has more driveline drag given AWD. The WRX is shaped like a brick.

Just pick a taller gear and that difference is negated. There are so many other things that affect MPG.
It's hardly fair to compare the engine of a $25,000 Subaru to that of a Porsche at three times the price. Just stating the displacement, horsepower and torque figures ignores a huge number of other determining factors for vehicle efficiency. Especially in boosted cars of differing weights, designs and drivetrain layouts.

And yet gearing is a primary component in how the AT 86 gets an extra 10% mpg over the MT 86...

I'm not saying Porsche copped out or that's the only factor, but it IS a factor and it IS a common trait their modern cars have.

And you can't pick a taller gear on the freeway when you're already in top gear, MT 86 cruises at ~3k rpm and the AT is several hundred rpm lower.

Edit: reread the article:

:lol: True.


Yeah all the above stuff is true. It is a huge assortment of things.

40mpg is still pretty nice for a sports car that goes 0-60 in less than 5 seconds though.

We get 30mpg and our 0-60 is, well, more.

Dafaq is a virtual gear...

...and well, our car also cost like $50000 less.

get an frs... $25k. dealer installed edelbrock $7k... total $32k w/ 250whp (like 300hp crank) with waranty. this would still be way more bang for buck, get 30mpg and probably do 0-60 in 5.2 sec. pretty good imo. and still be able to haul people and cargo if you need to.

Blown FR-S is a better value, but a Porsche is well, a Porsche. I'm sure the Porsche turbo 4 will last forever, and with just an aftermarket tune it'll be good for another 40-50 whp on stock internals. I love the 86 platform to death, but if I had to choose a $40k 86 or a $50-$55k Porsche there wouldn't be much hesitating before I bought the Boxster. Lucky for me, I have a budget, so my $33k modded FR-S gets me all the fun I can manage and leaves $20k for hookers and blow. :D

Yeah that's pretty good too.

Of course it wouldn't have the refinement of the Porsche, but if the goal is as simple as 0-60 in around 5 seconds and good mpg, then yeah that's fills the role with $20k to spare.

Yeah exactly!

Made me think of CVTs, with their simulated ratios... But I wondered about that too...

Am I the only one who has a pure hatred for the boxster? I mean I hardly even consider it a Porsche, It's like a high class Volks to me. FFS I used to floor them all the time with a damn almost stock is300, does not scream performance to me. The newer ones are better but still... whenever I see one my brain just goes oh look someone who didn't have enough to buy a real Porsche (don't get me wrong I don't have the budget for even a boxster), I'd take a 944 before a boxster.

Man those pictures look gorgeous. I'd still probably get the Cayman rather than the Boxster, but hopefully this is the car I'll be driving in ~10 years, with any luck. :thumbup: :thumbup:

I agree with what others have said. The 86 is an unreal value, but a Porsche is just so much more refined. Dream garage: 86 track machine, Cayman DD :party0030:

This is from a Car and Driver blog article on the 718:

I owned a 986. From the firewall forward it is a 996. Quite literally, you can see the part numbers stamped in the panels saying 996. The major difference is engine location and size. Drive one sometime. You'll change your tune. I've driven 944s, too, and they're no where near the car the Boxster is. The Boxster is much closer to a 911 of the same generation than a 944.
First-hand experience driving cars is much more useful than reading articles written by people that don't know cars.

??? Mid-engine/rear-drive is the same as front-engine/front-drive to you?!

I always wished the Boxster/Cayman were further from the 911 in terms of size and weight instead of being right at 3000 lb. +/-, barely less than a base 911. I thought they should have been less-expensive/lighter-weight/less-powerful 4-cylinder cars from the start, possibly with a turbo option.

Unfortunately the newer ones are physically bulkier than the previous models, to me they just look too BIG now.

I've driven one before, the first gen's though (986) and it didn't impress me that much. Don't get me wrong, they are decent cars but I just cannot get past the hate I feel inside whenever I see one... Guess it's just not my type of car!?


Well no in a traditional sense, the 944 isn't even a Porsche, it's a volks assembled by Porsche to show VW how it's done (after the horrid 928, yes I hate those too) but I somehow still prefer it to the boxster(probably because of the engine tranny configuration, doesn't make me think it's trying to be a full fledged Porsche?) I really don't know but my reaction to boxster's is visceral and I doubt I'll ever get over it.






Which is weird because I love Porsche normally, I mean the Carrera GT is my all time favorite car and I would kill just to sit in it... ok I'd kill just to lick its windshield covered in dust and dead bugs.

I mean, people hate Miatas too, :iono:
Lots of people like being wrong.

how the hell did you get that fuel economy?

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/01/26/2...ster-official/

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/8-t...e-718-boxster/

"Economy has increased significantly, as you’d expect, with the standard car up 5.1mpg to 40.9mpg, and the 2.5-litre in the S getting a 4.3mpg bump to 38.7mpg. Both figures are for the PDK auto models."

I believe these are the European cycle numbers which end up being much higher than the US test numbers.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Their math is so wrong.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...=3&pnref=story

http://link.porsche.com/718-boxster-fb1

6.9l/100km is around 34.3MPG.

-alex

It probably is the Euro numbers.

And

I guess math isn't their strong point lol.

I drove a 986 for 2 years before I traded it for a '15 BRZ. I would have never traded it if there weren't serious maintenance that I didn't have the time or money to fix, and I would go back in a heartbeat. It's easy to criticize numbers, but the car handled better and had more power with both bone stock. Porsche puts a lot more work into the car and doesn't cut corners on the performance ingredients that matter. A 10+ year old boxer has very noticeably better suspension and steering than the 86. Power just makes it more fun. It's disappointing to see the 718 will be a four cylinder, but also understandable they don't want to deliver a Boxster that will blow a 911 out of the water.

sent from my phone using black magic

The high mpg numbers must be miles per IMPERIAL gallon. Multiply by .83 to get miles per U.S. gallon. 40.9 mp(I)g is 34 mp(US)g

Pretty sure the mileage is from the gear ratio... don't they use a DCT 7 speed unit?...O___o With vitural gear or some fancy shit it's like 8 gears.

But i guess the real question is will it fit our engine...lol

The new turbo 4 probably generate great numbers on paper (fuel economy, midrange torque), but I still love Porsche's NA engines.

The throttle response and sound of the NA 3.4L flat 6 in my old Boxster S was incredible. One of my favorite parts of that car. I wish they had just shoe-horned the NA 3.8L 911 engine into the Cayman/Boxster and called it a day.