Porsche 718 Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've read many reviews by journalists who should know what they're talking about and even some posts here refer to two negatives in their experience of 718 S power delivery, relative to the previous 3.4 n/a flat-six:
1) some low-end lag (always attributed to 'turbo lag')
2) a noticeable 'drop-off' or flattening of power around (or just beyond) peak

I've studied the attached chart (from Car & Driver) -- and to me it does not appear to support the points above.

Perhaps the subjective sensation of power delivery on the road differs dramatically from the reality of power as captured on the dyno. Perhaps C&D was less-than-rigorous in superimposing Porsche's own power charts wrt to scale or smoothing, resulting in a misleading graphic. Perhaps subconscious confirmation bias is skewing the perceptions of these reviewers.

I'm curious if anyone else here has wondered about this, or has a theory explaining what's going on.
 

Attachments

· Registered
Joined
·
717 Posts
I've never noticed any lag in my 718 CS or any drop off at top RPMs. The pickup from stand still is insane - and blows away the 981. And it revs out and keeps pulling all the way to redline.


I think they are just jealous!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
Me myself can feel the drop of of power above 6500 and dyno charts confirm it.
If you have the SC package, do a launch Control and the pdk in auto mode and you will feel it.
And i dont really care about it, i shift at 6500rpm and i do so with a big smile :)


A pdk in manual mode and normal driving mode the turbo kicks in around 2500rpm.
So if your in third gear and under 2000rpm and your floor the gas nothing really happens at first.
But thats not the way to drive sport car anyways......


In sport/sport+ you dont notice it as much. since the ecu maps the turbo in a different way.
(sport have a different mapping on the gas pedal that can be mistaken for turbo lag)
In sport+ the turbo always have a smal boost


So it depends how you drive it, treat it like a sports car and there is no lag if you ask me.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
Maybe my understanding differs and maybe someone will correct me.


It seems to me that there is a difference between the lack of power at low RPM and Turbo lag.


As you know, many engines, even naturaly aspirated , have a lack of power at low RPMs. On the other hand, Turbo lag is simply the time that the tubine takes to reach its full speed.


My understanding is that at low RPM (less than 2500 RPM) my 718CGTS simply has less power. I don't thik it has someting to do with Turbo lag.


And then, those who express the opinion that the engines of the 718 have little power below 2500 RPM, do not know to what extend nothing happens below 4500 RPM when driving a 981 (base, S or GTS).


Today, I drove a friend's M2 and he drove my 718. He could not believe the absence of Turbo lag on my car. Personally, I find that above 3000 RPM my 718 feels like a naturaly aspirated engine.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,799 Posts
I've read many reviews by journalists who should know what they're talking about and even some posts here refer to two negatives in their experience of 718 S power delivery, relative to the previous 3.4 n/a flat-six:
1) some low-end lag (always attributed to 'turbo lag')
2) a noticeable 'drop-off' or flattening of power around (or just beyond) peak

I've studied the attached chart (from Car & Driver) -- and to me it does not appear to support the points above.

Perhaps the subjective sensation of power delivery on the road differs dramatically from the reality of power as captured on the dyno. Perhaps C&D was less-than-rigorous in superimposing Porsche's own power charts wrt to scale or smoothing, resulting in a misleading graphic. Perhaps subconscious confirmation bias is skewing the perceptions of these reviewers.

I'm curious if anyone else here has wondered about this, or has a theory explaining what's going on.
My take is that there is no value in revving beyond 4500 rpms until higher speeds, where hp is needed to push through the air resistance. Shifting any gear at 4500 rpms keeps the engine above 2000 rpms in the next higher gear. This is the max torque range. If you go above 4500, torque drops off and therefore maximum acceleration is not achieved. I haven't yet fully incorporated wind resistance into my calculations but will post if I get that far.
Thoughts?
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,537 Posts
<snips>I've read many reviews by journalists who should know what they're talking about

I'm curious if anyone else here has wondered about this, or has a theory explaining what's going on.
I think the basic explanation is two-fold.

1. The emphasized line above contains that NASTY word "should". It's amazing how often "should" proves to be "don't".:eek:

2. The power delivery IS different from the previous models and seat-of-the-pants evaluations are rife with problems.

I have to keep reminding myself that motoring journalists are in the business of entertainment and selling advertisements, and what really matters is MY experience.0:)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
577 Posts
I haven’t done the 981 v 718 comparison but I have done the 987 v 718 because I still own both.

The 987 begs to be kept above 4000 rpm when you shift...thus you NEED to push the car up to >6000rpm before the down shift so you don’t get a drop off in torque. The 718 however can be shifted much lower down on the rpm range. Peak torque at 2000 rpms gives you the luxury of downshifting earlier. I do feel a bit of a drop off in my 718 above 6000 so I usually end up downshifting.

The other issue is the 987 having lower torque and being slower takes longer to climb in revs. The driver gets to enjoy the sound as it climbs. I find the 718 is so fast that, I am picking up rpms faster and shifting faster....no time to enjoy the symphony if I am strictly trying to pick up speed.

If the 981 graph is similar to the 987 then I would say it tells me what I feel.

I don’t feel any turbo lag. I also don’t spend a lot of time below 2000 rpms. It’s a sports car, not a family sedan.

( I am comparing my 987.1 Boxster S to my current 718 Cayman GTS)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
My take is that there is no value in revving beyond 4500 rpms until higher speeds, where hp is needed to push through the air resistance. Shifting any gear at 4500 rpms keeps the engine above 2000 rpms in the next higher gear. This is the max torque range. If you go above 4500, torque drops off and therefore maximum acceleration is not achieved. I haven't yet fully incorporated wind resistance into my calculations but will post if I get that far.
Thoughts?

I am with you on this and its how i usually do when i want to gain speed quickly when passing or just for the fun of it.
But that does not mean i dont dont rev it higher, it depends on how fast i want to gain speed.
If there is alot of curves i try to keep it in wider band.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
My take is that there is no value in revving beyond 4500 rpms until higher speeds, where hp is needed to push through the air resistance. Shifting any gear at 4500 rpms keeps the engine above 2000 rpms in the next higher gear. This is the max torque range. If you go above 4500, torque drops off and therefore maximum acceleration is not achieved. I haven't yet fully incorporated wind resistance into my calculations but will post if I get that far.
Thoughts?
I think you'd want to stay in the max horsepower range, not torque (unless pulling stumps). I don't know for sure but bet Vmax is achieved close to peak hp. F1 engines rev to 20,000 rpm to achieve horsepower, with relatively low torque.

Yes the 718 hp curve is steepest in the 1700-4700 rpm range corresponding to the peak torque plateau, true, but that describes only the rate at which the engine is building hp. You'd still get the fastest acceleration of the car (as per quarter-mile ET and trap) by maximizing horsepower. In a world of power transmitted to the wheels by fixed gearing, that means maximizing average horsepower by keeping revs in the narrowest power band possible leading to slightly beyond peak hp 6500 rpm. Ideally shifting slightly beyond peak depending on hp at the bottom of the band (in next higher gear) versus hp at the top of the band (in lower gear) somewhere between peak and redline. That point will be lower than peak in absolute hp as the curve is trending down, but still higher than the drop-down point in next gear. That's why it's useful (if somewhat counter-intuitive) to rev beyond peak even though the power curve is 'dropping off'. Overall acceleration of the car -- a function of average horsepower in the power band -- is not dropping off, at least not immediately after peak*. Does that make sense?

wrt other posts: my own impression, after 15 years of n/a flat-six engines (but not incl. the 981), is as follows. I think Porsche engineering had a design objective to make the 9A2 (in both Carreras and mid-engine cars) as nearly like their n/a engines as possible, insofar as responsiveness and free-revving to redline qualities. That was their big challenge since huge torque and with it, higher average horsepower, were already givens for turbocharging**. That they succeeded should not be a surprise, given what was at stake (not so much with the B4 but crucially with the B6 Carreras which *had* to feel as good as the n/a 3.8s they replaced) and their experience with racing turbos and also the 911 Turbos and GT2, and given who (on the engineering side) we are talking about.

As for why so many journalists still identify turbo-lag and revving-strongly-to-peak as issues -- well these were the well-understood main drawbacks of turbos forever, just the immutable trade-off for gaining all that power. Thus the resulting perception-lag being hardest to overcome.

I suspect also that turbo-lag can be mistakenly associated with simply being in too high a gear or expecting that big low-end grunt to be felt all the way below 1500 rpm (indeed these are two sides of the same coin).

The perception of constrained free-revving up top is harder for me to nail down as despite 15 years of running n/a flat-sixes to redline, I'd need one in hand again to A/B this phenomenon. Since the turbo redline is 300 rpm lower than its predecessor, and peak 200 rpm lower, I guess the combined sensation could be one of peak power dropping off (slightly) sooner. Still the shape of the curves around peak look very much the same to me on the chart. Could something as simple as the more urgent soundtrack of the n/a at peak contribute to this perception?

*better to get another 10 milliseconds of 345 hp at 6700 rpm -- even though it's begun 'falling off' from peak [email protected] -- then to shift exactly at peak and spend that 10 milliseconds in next gear at 250 hp @ 4500 rpm (even though it's at max. torque and steepest part of the power curve). Indeed it may be best to go all the way to redline, but that depends on the gearing as well as the power curve.

** If I've gained one "aha!" insight in the past year of analyzing 718 performance, it's that high average-to-peak-hp ratio of the turbo power curve answers "how is this even possible" for 350 peak horsepower to accelerate like 385-400 peak horsepower in non-turbo PDK cars of similar weight.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
I've read many reviews by journalists who should know what they're talking about and even some posts here refer to two negatives in their experience of 718 S power delivery, relative to the previous 3.4 n/a flat-six:
1) some low-end lag (always attributed to 'turbo lag')
2) a noticeable 'drop-off' or flattening of power around (or just beyond) peak

I've studied the attached chart (from Car & Driver) -- and to me it does not appear to support the points above.

Perhaps the subjective sensation of power delivery on the road differs dramatically from the reality of power as captured on the dyno. Perhaps C&D was less-than-rigorous in superimposing Porsche's own power charts wrt to scale or smoothing, resulting in a misleading graphic. Perhaps subconscious confirmation bias is skewing the perceptions of these reviewers.

I'm curious if anyone else here has wondered about this, or has a theory explaining what's going on.

You can not see turbo lag on a dyno chart. Turbo lag is more how long it takes boost to build up when you press the throttle at a certain point in the revrange.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
577 Posts
Yup.

That would make me illegal at the top of 2nd gear!:D
This is so true. Two weeks a go I was out for a spirited back road drive. Ended up with a Carrera GT in front of me and a Ferrari 458 behind me. We are all doing 55-60 (speed limit 35) on a twisty and I'm just thinking. "Are those guys having more fun than me?"

Kind of makes it hard to have higher aspirations when we are all stuck in second gear. On the other hand, I will take the 718 to the track for a beating. Just not going to do that with most other "dream" cars.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,209 Posts
It might be a good idea to repost this pic, difference between the driving modes.
First posted by @Black718 from this thread https://www.718forum.com/forum/2017...m/5578-718s-versus-base-718-sport-chrono.html


The difference in max power (338.25/Normal, 340.08/Sport Plus+Sport Response, 339.46/Sport Plus) is insignificant. You can see that the torque lines keep crossing themselves so I don't see much difference once full boost is achieved at ~2700RPM.
Interesting that on this graf the drop above 6500rpm does not show....
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top