Porsche 718 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Although I didn't order this fuel tank option, I'm happy it's on the car. My earlier Boxster's did not have it. Just back from 400+ mile, 2 day fun drive on windy mountain roads, with much fuel left to spare. Does anyone else have the extended range fuel tank? If so, are you as pleased as I am with mine?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Yes, mine is an S which apparently gets the larger tank by default. We're on a longer trip right now about 1400 miles from home, and the driving range well over 400 miles on a tank has been handy. Washington->Colorado preferring non-freeway routes, 29.4 mpg average.

What has been puzzling me is why there is a smaller tank at all... and why would anyone prefer that? Perhaps there is some sort of trade-off/disadvantage to the larger tank, such as making the front luggage space smaller...

Doug
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
I didn't order the larger tank because I didn't think I would need it. My 2012 Boxster had the standard tank as well. Went on several long trips (1000-2000 miles) with other Porsches and never felt I was close to running out gas before the other Porsches. However, different people have different needs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
Hi Sonny... Sure, different needs. But how would one need or prefer a smaller gas tank? Is there an advantage? Of course there is the cost of this option, somewhere around $200 if I recall correctly, as a drawback. I expect the tanks are equal in terms of cost of manufacture, so the option is a profit point for Porsche, counteracted by the cost of making and stocking two parts rather than one. My dealer said that all 718s they order in for stock have the larger tank.

Doug
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,266 Posts
What has been puzzling me is why there is a smaller tank at all... and why would anyone prefer that? Perhaps there is some sort of trade-off/disadvantage to the larger tank, such as making the front luggage space smaller...

Doug
My guess(!!) is that it is due to the economy calculations which specify a %age of fuel load. Getting the overall consumption under 7 litres/100 Km makes huge tax differences in a number of countries. (It saved me almost $4000.)

Greg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Cinnamon,

Cost, weight (with gas) and space. Even without the larger tank, the 718 has a slightly smaller front truck than my 2012 Boxster. The larger tank just didn't mean that much to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
The tank is not different, the tank is only limited to less gas.
The main reason is the lower curb weight they can write in the brochure and the extra money they can charge for people who want it. Maybe although to have something else the S has more than the Non-S, but I dont think that was really a reason.

Mercedes is doing the same. Really small tank in the C class, but bigger tank as option.
 

·
Guest
Joined
·
892 Posts
I wasn't previously aware of it, but it's the same with cars sold in the U.K. The fifty four litre tank is the standard fitment for the base car with the option to upgrade to the sixty four litre tank at the current cost of £84.00 (U.S $110.87). The larger capacity sixty four litre tank is the standard fitment for S models. For U.K residents that are intending to buy a base car it can hardly be considered an expensive upgrade & I'd imagine most people would opt for it. At that price you'd have to be a bit daft not to, especially when you take into account that the cost of actually filling it with premium fuel is almost the same (roughly £80.00 locally or U.S $105.00 converted) & tank capacity has absolutely no bearing on luggage space. As "Acky" suggested it does rather smack of Porsche trying to squeeze a little bit of extra money from their customers. After all the smaller capacity tank probably costs Porsche roughly the same to produce & stock as the large one. But there will inevitably be extra costs to Porsche just because they have & need to stock two different tank sizes. Given that I'm rather surprised they don't just fit the larger tank, adjust the price of the base if need be & have done with it. They'd probably make more money out of that approach & no one ever made their decision to buy an S over a base purely because it came standard with a larger fuel tank.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
You can't add a larger tank without taking up space somewhere. Adding a larger fuel tank is a personal decision, even Porsche thinks so or they would not have that option.
 

·
Guest
Joined
·
892 Posts
You can't add a larger tank without taking up space somewhere. Adding a larger fuel tank is a personal decision, even Porsche thinks so or they would not have that option.
All I can tell you is that whatever size tank you have makes no difference to your luggage space, so whatever space it takes up it isn't that space. If it's not simply an attempt to squeeze more money from people who choose the base model then how is it that they don't offer a smaller tank on the more expensive S models? After all the difference in mpg is so close as to be almost negligible & therefore if what you stated was true they surely would do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
We can only guess why Porsche does the things they do, but my guess is they have to justify the rather hefty price increase for the S model.
 

·
Guest
Joined
·
892 Posts
We can only guess why Porsche does the things they do, but my guess is they have to justify the rather hefty price increase for the S model.
Possibly that might be required for some but in my case they needn't have bothered as the different engine alone would have been more than sufficient. Simply put, if the 2.5 S didn't exist I'd still be driving around in a 981.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,266 Posts
All I can tell you is that whatever size tank you have makes no difference to your luggage space, so whatever space it takes up it isn't that space. If it's not simply an attempt to squeeze more money from people who choose the base model then how is it that they don't offer a smaller tank on the more expensive S models? After all the difference in mpg is so close as to be almost negligible & therefore if what you stated was true they surely would do.
Yes, and sometimes those small differences are significant. The tax advantages (in Australia at least) due to petrol economy kick in below 7.0 litres/100 km and the testing (DIN specs) is done on the standard vehicle (without options) with a mandatory fuel load. With the smaller tank, on the 2.0 engine, the consumption is 6.9 (PDK), very close to the cut-off. On the S the consumption is 7.3 and may not change enough with the lower vehicle weight to make it under the limit.

I suspect that the economy limits are also responsible for the stop/start to work at 5 kph rather than at full stop as my previous two vehicles. I can't imagine that an engine at idle for the short time span between 5 kph and stop makes much difference on economy figures either.

Greg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
When I looked at the option for a larger tank it seemed like a fairly inexpensive option. I agree with Atebit--a tank of gas seems to last a long time. If the extended tank option is a sales gimmick--I guess I fell for it.;)
 

·
Guest
Joined
·
892 Posts
When I looked at the option for a larger tank it seemed like a fairly inexpensive option. I agree with Atebit--a tank of gas seems to last a long time. If the extended tank option is a sales gimmick--I guess I fell for it.;)
In fairness whichever model you picked be it base or S the tank range is extraordinarily good for such high performance vehicles. On a long run & if I leave my S in normal I can reasonably easily achieve mid 30's mpg (imperial). I didn't buy it with economy in mind but it's still a bonus I'm delighted with. Obviously that's by not being too heavy on the throttle & braking fairly gently but still not exactly hanging about. Although I always re-fill well before necessary that gives me a theoretical full to empty tank range of around 290 miles with the 64 litre tank. As I said in an earlier comment I wasn't even previously aware of the two tank sizes as it isn't an option on the S, but it's so cheap in the U.K to fit the larger tank to a base that it's altogether a bit of a no brainer (£84). I have a friend who's in the process of finalising an order for a 2.0 litre PDK Cayman (He likes the 2.0 PDK combination just fine even though I couldn't personally get on with it.) I'll have to check to make sure he's picked up on the fact the car is only fitted with a 54 litre tank as standard. Even though he's on a limited budget I have absolutely no doubt he'll opt for the larger tank..........On a slightly different note, it'll be nice to actually see a 718 Cayman on the road. Despite the fact that nationally they appear to be selling, I've not even seen one out on the road yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Chilli,

Now I am am confused. I can get 350 miles with my small tank. That's about 75% highway at 75-80 mph with twice a day highway entree/exit ramps at 90-100 mph. Either your roads are different than mine or the S is getting less mileage.
 

·
Guest
Joined
·
892 Posts
that gives me a theoretical full to empty tank range of around 290 miles with the 64 litre tank.
Chilli,

Now I am am confused. I can get 350 miles with my small tank. That's about 75% highway at 75-80 mph with twice a day highway entree/exit ramps at 90-100 mph. Either your roads are different than mine or the S is getting less mileage.
Yes & I'm not surprised you're confused, but good catch. It was actually a simple typo & some omissions that would have both clarified what I was trying to relay & highlighted that a simple error was all it was. However as I commented elsewhere it's too late to rectify anything if you neither spot it or are told about it immediately. However allow me to clear it up. If my miles are clocked up purely locally then I get roughly around 26 mpg or so, sometimes a little more & sometimes a little less. On a long run I can get considerably more, especially once the roads improve, such as dual carriageways & motorway driving (though the nearest motorway is some 75 miles away, so yes our roads sound considerably different). Once on a motorway & if I'm really trying I can achieve mid 30's mpg & even saw over 35mpg on one run. But 32 is more the norm on those kind of roads. Taking a mix of driving into account & because the majority is primarily local then I tend to average 27-28mpg. If I had access to the straighter less twisty roads more of the time then my theoretical tank range would be higher but I'll never see that. I was trying to be realistic on what I would achieve on a complete tank of fuel if I ran it full to empty. Unfortunately I was anything but because I typed 2 instead of 3 & the 290 miles should actually have read 390miles. Thanks for pointing out my error. :D
 

·
Guest
Joined
·
892 Posts
By the way, not only do the fuel tanks not affect luggage space, but to anyone thinking of changing from a 981 to a 982 the Porsche luggage space liners from the 981 Boxster fit the 982/718 Boxster exactly, so don't make the mistake of ordering new ones & just keep what you have. They will perfectly fit whichever model you order because there is absolutely no difference whatsoever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
It is good to hear that the larger fuel tank does not further reduce the front trunk size on the 718, however, the 718 front trunk is definitely not as deep as the 987.2.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top