[roundtail]

Another Porsche-centric discussion of the new 4.0 GTS that spends a lot of time avoiding talking about the new F6 engine, it's only raison d'etre.

With many publications, the headlines are not written by the author. You will notice that the author never even mentions the sound from the engine. He doesn't mention a whole lot about the engine at all. So I suspect the editor decided to remedy this "oversight" and ram it down your throat for good measure.

What I'm gathering is that this new variant does not improve the car over the previous 2.5 version (and there's a hint that in some sense it may not even be as good owing to the gearing). The first 718 GTS was a spectacular vehicle. So there really isn't anything else to talk about for the 4.0, but because it's new, it has to get press. And that's about the only thing it seems to have achieved over the previous one so far.

Page Not Found | Porsche Club of America

Page Not Found | Porsche Club of America

www.pca.org

 

[4ftw]

With many publications, the headlines are not written by the author.

I guess PCA is convinced their readers won’t notice? Or they’ve simply disregarded the current T4 owners, like the rest of the auto journalism world. OR, as you allude to, there’s simply not enough new material to come up with anything else that’s attention grabbing, so they’ve got to use the go-to “sound” factor.

What I'm gathering is that this new variant does not improve the car over the previous 2.5 version (and there's a hint that in some sense it may not even be as good owing to the gearing).

That was my take as well. Impressions on braking, handling, and throttle response didn’t sound unique...they could be applied to current T4 owners.

This is why I disregard pretty much all GTS 4.0 reviews. Not because I’m a current GTS owner who regrets my decision. Quite the opposite is true actually, the 2.5 GTS is amazing and the more I drive it the more I fall in love with it. I disregard the reviews because the content/perspective/angle is a joke. Like this one.

 

[4ftw]

To the future 4.0 owners, please don’t take the above as being unwelcoming. It’s an objective response to the article and a general response to the world we T4 owners live in and the feedback/criticism the auto journalism world has given us. I think the 4.0 will be a fantastic car. No reason to believe otherwise. What I’m looking forward to more than just 4.0 reviews are 2.5 turbo vs NA 4.0 head to head comparisons - for objectivity’s sake. Can’t take the subjectivity completely away, which is good...the car that’s right for me won’t necessarily be the one that’s right for you. But hopefully it’ll force just an ounce more objectivity into the discussion.

 

[Tryptobphan]

I "only" own a base 718 Cayman, so it's nowhere near as capable and powerful as the 718 Cayman GTS 2.5 models. I was also one of the first in northern California to get a 718 Cayman, so I had to weather out the whole "4 cyclinder engines sound terrible" criticism that the 718 got longer than most other owners. It's not shocking since... that's really the only thing anyone could possibly complain about with a car as well rounded as these. So it was an easy target to focus on. No one likes reading a perfect review, it's too boring so they add drama by constantly harping on the sound.

Anyways, I think there's something to be said about how a 4 cylinder engine such as the ones in the 718 Cayman/Boxster GTS 2.5 can be so capable and powerful. It's amazing engineering. All of the accomplishments with track times and handling are simply unique. If I could have owned a 718 Cayman/Boxster GTS 2.5, I'd be proud of what I have. I've always respected the fact that Porsche 911's 6 cylinders can punch way above its weight against cars with far more horse powerful. The same goes for the 718's 4 cylinder engines punching way above their weight as well.

Drive in good health and enjoy your cars.

 

[aeronca65tl]

To be honest, the most interesting part of that article to me was the part about the Piaggio Ape. I have a good friend who has several of them and I haven't seen one with the fabric doors like the one in the photo (I have several friends with micro-cars...….in fact I rode in an Isetta just last weekend).

As for the 718: they are all great cars. I'm postive that the new 4.0 GTS is a real hoot. No question.
But if you want an engine upgrade, in either 4 or 6 cylinder, you pay for it. And you have to decide if the cost is worth it in a street car.
The apparent price difference between my base car and the new 4.0 GTS would buy me a base car plus a new Miata. Everyone has to decide what they see as value here. To me, the base car is a steal.
And so far, I haven't felt my base 300 hp Cayman is too slow here in the streets of New Jersey. Maybe if I lived in Germany where some roads have no speed limits, I might feel different.

 

[roundtail]

To the future 4.0 owners, please don’t take the above as being unwelcoming. It’s an objective response to the article and a general response to the world we T4 owners live in and the feedback/criticism the auto journalism world has given us. I think the 4.0 will be a fantastic car. No reason to believe otherwise. What I’m looking forward to more than just 4.0 reviews are 2.5 turbo vs NA 4.0 head to head comparisons - for objectivity’s sake. Can’t take the subjectivity completely away, which is good...the car that’s right for me won’t necessarily be the one that’s right for you. But hopefully it’ll force just an ounce more objectivity into the discussion.

As the saying goes, variety is the spice of life. With this chassis, there is no doubt the 4.0 will be as good to its owners as the F4t has been to the rest of us. My focus is more about the article than the engine, but the two are part-and-parcel, so discussing one necessarily means discussing the other.

I found this phrase, tucked neatly into the 4th paragraph, to be telling: “...I remain a fan of the four-cylinder turbo 718...”. That’s probably why he made no reference to the sound in his piece, prompting his editor to carry the water for Mother Porsche instead.

I would love to pick the author’s brain on his thoughts about the timing of the engine’s introduction into the lineup. Articles like this one seem to beg the question, “Why now?” At this price point, the 4.0 is not going to restore 98x sales anywhere near the historical highs. For that matter, it may barely move the needle. And it doesn’t move the model forward, it just makes it different. An awful lot of production expense that seems out of place in the unit’s lifecycle.

My theory is that this powerplant was developed as part of the upcoming hybrid systems, and its relatively abrupt insertion into the GTS was done out of need for publicity to keep the current line moving until the next version is ready to replace it. Hybrid drive for strong low speed acceleration means the NA reduction in low-end torque versus the F4t doesn’t matter, and stop-start/cylinder deactivation would work well for generator mode in city driving. So the completed powertrain will move the design forward. In other words, the 4.0 GTS could be featuring only half of its eventual powertrain, which might explain why, take away the exhaust, there isn’t much left to talk about. The cake might be only half-baked, though a fine cake it may be.

 

[DriveInHouston]

Wow! It almost reaches levels of conspiracy theory!

 

[Baka1969]

We all know journalists are the biggest hypocrites. Most are the same ones drooling over the Tycan or Tesla. You know, with no sound.

 

[roundtail]

Wow! It almost reaches levels of conspiracy theory!

Practice makes perfect. Keep up the good work!?

 

[Viffermike]

We all know journalists are the biggest hypocrites. Most are the same ones drooling over the Tycan or Tesla. You know, with no sound.

As a former journalist and entertainment critic, I can unequivocally say that you're totally wrong ... and I'm a bit offended at the blanket stereotype you just threw out because, well, it's easy (and journalists are damned easy targets).

Journalists are paid to ask questions, both in person and in print, and to contextualize. Some do it far better than others. In fact, more do it badly these days because the profession has been decimated so much, and comparative amateurs now play in the same sandbox and have basically turned it into a mud pit. Most are not the same ones drooling over EVs because most would do their utmost to consider EVs in the same light as any other vehicle.

I'm not defending the PCA article because there's plainly headline bias and topical censorship going on -- any organizational mouthpiece that depends heavily on the producer of its topic will have a certain amount of that. I'm defending the profession, and the ignorance of how it actually works that creates statements such as the one above. It pisses me off, and it's cost those that practice it, and it's cost the free world an important societal function.

Good journalists are basically expert devil's advocates. If that's your definition of being a hypocrite, you don't understand what good journalism is or how it works ... which is understandable since it's an endangered species these days anyway.

 

[Baka1969]

As a former journalist and entertainment critic, I can unequivocally say that you're totally wrong ... and I'm a bit offended at the blanket stereotype you just threw out because, well, it's easy (and journalists are damned easy targets).

Journalists are paid to ask questions, both in person and in print, and to contextualize. Some do it far better than others. In fact, more do it badly these days because the profession has been decimated so much, and comparative amateurs now play in the same sandbox and have basically turned it into a mud pit. Most are not the same ones drooling over EVs because most would do their utmost to consider EVs in the same light as any other vehicle.

I'm not defending the PCA article because there's plainly headline bias and topical censorship going on -- any organizational mouthpiece that depends heavily on the producer of its topic will have a certain amount of that. I'm defending the profession, and the ignorance of how it actually works that creates statements such as the one above. It pisses me off, and it's cost those that practice it, and it's cost the free world an important societal function.

Good journalists are basically expert devil's advocates. If that's your definition of being a hypocrite, you don't understand what good journalism is or how it works ... which is understandable since it's an endangered species these days anyway.

Sorry Mike. I'm sure you're a decent guy and were a good journalist. I, however, believe what I wrote and will stand by everything I said. To a degree, you admit to it yourself. The mainstream media has done it to themselves. They are their own worst enemy. Journalism is nowhere near what it used to be. I'll end by saying the profession isn't as nobel as it once was.

 

[Chris NZ]

Headlines are "sound-bites" designed to get someone to read an article and often don't reflect the exact tone of the article (which I have to say in this case is bland and very much in keeping with brand specific publications who are unlikely to offer any serious opinions, especially criticism, of a product by the company who is their sole reason for existence). Hence I tend to give more credence to reviews by independent publications.

Firstly, let me say that I believe the introduction of the new GTS 4.0 has little to do with the the new C8. Secondly, the article clearly states the engine doesn't need further elaboration as it was already discussed in an article on the GT4/Spyder a few months ago (although even that article was little more than a "puff piece"). Thirdly, the gearbox ratio criticism is a consistent one for all Porsche sports cars, especially the manual transmission Boxster and Cayman irrespective of era, and nothing new. So I don't see this as a problem or criticism unique to the GTS 4.0. I also didn't find any specific or actual contempt/criticism of the F4T, which is unsurprising for reasons given in paragraph one.

As far as the prospect of 2.5 T vs 4.0 NA power train comparisons is concerned I don't think they will be earth-shattering either way. The engines will have different characteristics (sound, torque, linearity etc.) but ultimately deliver similar results.

With reference to the phrase @roundtail found tucked neatly into paragraph four - “...I remain a fan of the four-cylinder turbo 718...” - I think it is worth placing the phrase in the context of the complete sentence:

"And while I remain a fan of the four-cylinder turbo 718, it’s really tough not to succumb to the charms of the naturally aspirated 4.0-liter six."

As far as the reason the engine was developed and introduced is concerned, I have been told that it has something to do with Porsche wanting to redefine the GTS brand across it's sports car range including the 911. The GTS brand has become synonymous with bundling a plethora of performance and aesthetic cost options into one package with a slight power bump, at a price that makes it a desirable package. My understanding is that Porsche want to reposition the GTS as more of a pure, enthusiast based vehicle that is clearly different from it's base and S siblings (something that has already been done in the Macan, Cayenne and Panamera). The new 718 GTS is the first step, if my source is correct we should see the 992 911 follow suit.

I'll end with another quote from the article that, to my mind at least, shows that the author thinks the combination of 718 chassis and NA6 engine might well be the best chassis and NA engine combination offered by Porsche:

"Not surprisingly, it’s a brilliant engine and chassis combination, but one that pushes the 718 even further upmarket. In exchange, the buyer gets what might be the best combination of performance, handling, and daily drivability that Porsche currently offers with a naturally aspirated flat six."

Considering the alternatives - 718 GT4, 718 Spyder, GT3, GT3 RS, and Speedster - this is high praise indeed.

 

[jimmuller]

I've been having a tough time coalescing any response to that article in particular and this thread in general. Regardless of the headline, the article was not superb journalism. What ever happened to the priniciple of starting on-topic? Why the extended C8 discussion up front? It looks like the F6 GTS will be a fine car, but I think we could have guessed that. Just how it will be different from the rest of the 718 line in non-track use isn't clear and wasn't made clear by that article.

As for journalism itself, the "digital revolution" has made traditional journalism less relevant to most people. Anyone with a keyboard can "publish" without the benefit of proofreading or second-thought analysis or the competition for column space to bring out the good and leave the less good unprinted. Bytes are cheap.

We pay an unseen price for that. I know two good ex-journalists forced into semi-retirement by the contraction or closing of local newspapers. Our still-printed "mainstream" newspapers have more illogical or non-sequitur content, bad grammar, and misspellings than I remember from, say, ten years ago. (I confess too occasional mispeling or leaving word out when I'm tpying quickly or on my sellphone. Maybe that should be selfphone, I dunno'. Can "coalesce" be a transitive verb?)

Anyway, that article didn't do much for me. All the talk of a "pure" sports car in just about every higher-end article that Google feeds my smarffone seems off target. The cars are all great. Some are better for an ordinary guy like myself, some are better for the track. Remember when the 914 came out? Then the 914-6? The complaints were that the 914 had too little power and the styling was too futuristic. But the 914-6 was found to be prone to spinning out. Which compromise do you choose? If I had the garage space and was willing to put up with the dirty exhaust of those older engines (which I'm not and is why I sold my two British cars), I'd love to have a 914 for fun now. Or an Aston-Martin DB5 or a Lotus JPS Special or a Morgan +4. You see where this is going. So I'll stick to my 718 Cayman.

 

[GTS18BGTS]

My understanding is that Porsche want to reposition the GTS as more of a pure, enthusiast based vehicle that is clearly different from it's base and S siblings (something that has already been done in the Macan, Cayenne and Panamera). The new 718 GTS is the first step, if my source is correct we should see the 992 911 follow suit.

I thought the T models filled that spot?

 

[cipher]

I really don’t understand the sound issue. Nevertheless, I would prefer to have a faster GTS 2.5 than a slower GTS 4.0. As for the C8, I am on the list for one and will be trading my C7 in for it. Porsche is going to have to lower the 718 price (highly doubtful) or really put some more something into the 718 For the prices they command. Chevrolet essentially called out all the mid engine manufacturers who have significantly overpriced their cars over the years. And for those who say Porsche doesn’t have the same market demand so can’t get component prices as cheap as Chevy, that’s BS since they source VW/Audi components.

 

[Viffermike]

Sorry Mike. I'm sure you're a decent guy and were a good journalist. I, however, believe what I wrote and will stand by everything I said. To a degree, you admit to it yourself. The mainstream media has done it to themselves. They are their own worst enemy. Journalism is nowhere near what it used to be. I'll end by saying the profession isn't as nobel as it once was.

Journalism was never noble on its face; that it ever was is another stereotype. (It can be, but it is not automatically so.) Nor is it romantic, as it is so often portrayed in entertainment and literature. It's among the most stressful occupations on the planet, actually -- right up there with air traffic controller and lawyer.

I endeavor you to consider what the definition of 'mainstream media' is these days. Then, think about what it was 15 years ago -- and 30 years ago. Then, think about how competent 'mainstream media' is, and where it gets its credibility, these days, then do the same for it 15 years ago, then 30 years ago. Know this: Competence and credibility are only as good as the business model that propels their manufacture because without resources, those two things can't be either built up above or defended against by those who would sabotage them. Most mainstream media's business models have been blown to bits -- and without resources, competence and credibility have followed suit.

You see, we're not our own worst enemy, as you claim. The public has been -- which is strange and intensely poetic, since the public is effectively who we aimed to serve by professional vow -- because the public is what decided that good, objective, properly presented journalism wasn't worth all that much to them. So, now, the public gets bad, biased, shoddy journalism for free. We didn't do that to ourselves. Why would we?

 

[Baka1969]

Journalism was never noble on its face; that it ever was is another stereotype. (It can be, but it is not automatically so.) Nor is it romantic, as it is so often portrayed in entertainment and literature. It's among the most stressful occupations on the planet, actually -- right up there with air traffic controller and lawyer.

I endeavor you to consider what the definition of 'mainstream media' is these days. Then, think about what it was 15 years ago -- and 30 years ago. Then, think about how competent 'mainstream media' is, and where it gets its credibility, these days, then do the same for it 15 years ago, then 30 years ago. Know this: Competence and credibility are only as good as the business model that propels their manufacture because without resources, those two things can't be either built up above or defended against by those who would sabotage them. Most mainstream media's business models have been blown to bits -- and without resources, competence and credibility have followed suit.

You see, we're not our own worst enemy, as you claim. The public has been -- which is strange and intensely poetic, since the public is effectively who we aimed to serve by professional vow -- because the public is what decided that good, objective, properly presented journalism wasn't worth all that much to them. So, now, the public gets bad, biased, shoddy journalism for free. We didn't do that to ourselves. Why would we?

I'm not sure this is the venue for a heated debate. We obviously have different viewpoints, different perspectives, and opposing opinions on this topic.

I was heavily involved with politics and ran for public office several times. In many ways I have a unique perspective on politicians than most. Some negative. Some positive. An insider's view none the less. That means I'm both more objective and knowledgeable on one hand; and more biased on the other.

I don't blame outsiders for what ills our politicians. I blame those individuals inside politics that do give it a bad name.

I'd like to believe I did things that were good for my community. I can't say the same for everyone.

 

[4ftw]

the public is what decided that good, objective, properly presented journalism wasn't worth all that much to them.

Definitely a hard statement to argue against. The public votes with their wallet, and no matter how you slice it, the money just isn't in objective, verified reporting. I think this is what you were getting at with your comment on the mainstream business model? One could argue that the demand for that type of reporting is still there, but by the time it comes out, you're now competing with hundreds of other sources that beat you to the punch with possibly false-ish information. People seem to prefer the quick, un-proofread version instead. And how can they know who to trust? Not an easy question to answer these days.

 

[Viffermike]

I'm not sure this is the venue for a heated debate. We obviously have different viewpoints, different perspectives, and opposing opinions on this topic.

I was heavily involved with politics and ran for public office several times. In many ways I have a unique perspective on politicians than most. Some negative. Some positive. An insider's view none the less. That means I'm both more objective and knowledgeable on one hand; and more biased on the other.

I don't blame outsiders for what ills our politicians. I blame those individuals inside politics that do give it a bad name.

I'd like to believe I did things that were good for my community. I can't say the same for everyone.

No, this isn't the right venue, and I'll leave my defense of my former profession where it is, with two additions:

Both journalists and politicians are dependent on the general public for empowerment. A fundamental difference between the two: Journalism is a capitalistic business. Politics is not.

From my perspective (I have a MCL PoliSci degree, and had two papers published in academic journals as an undergrad in the 1990s): I do blame outsiders for today's politicians because, fundamentally, outsiders are who elect most of them. But that's been the case since representative democracy was born; it's nothing new. A major difference now: Those outsiders, for the first time in history, have the tools to disseminate information that can compete with the professional and the mainstream -- and, thus, the line between them becomes blurred.

 

[roundtail]

With reference to the phrase @roundtail found tucked neatly into paragraph four - “...I remain a fan of the four-cylinder turbo 718...” - I think it is worth placing the phrase in the context of the complete sentence:

"And while I remain a fan of the four-cylinder turbo 718, it’s really tough not to succumb to the charms of the naturally aspirated 4.0-liter six."

If that is context, then what are the charms? We are not told. What we are told, instead, is that the author did not pass a 3-wheeled Piaggo Ape with it.

"Not surprisingly, it’s a brilliant engine and chassis combination, but one that pushes the 718 even further upmarket. In exchange, the buyer gets what might be the best combination of performance, handling, and daily drivability that Porsche currently offers with a naturally aspirated flat six."

Considering the alternatives - 718 GT4, 718 Spyder, GT3, GT3 RS, and Speedster - this is high praise indeed.

"Upmarket" is not praise, it is a reference to a higher purchase price. And of your list of alternatives, which would you consider competing with the 4.0 GTS as a "daily driver"? One could argue that the 4.0 GTS is the only NA offering that fits that particular criteria.

Firstly, let me say that I believe the introduction of the new GTS 4.0 has little to do with the the new C8. Secondly, the article clearly states the engine doesn't need further elaboration as it was already discussed in an article on the GT4/Spyder a few months ago (although even that article was little more than a "puff piece"). Thirdly, the gearbox ratio criticism is a consistent one for all Porsche sports cars, especially the manual transmission Boxster and Cayman irrespective of era, and nothing new.

1) The author relates the threat of the C8 to the base 718s. He also doubts the 4.0 GTS is an attempt to compete with it, which begs the question, why mention it in the first place?
2) The article isn't about the new engine. It's about the engine in a new application. We don't get much of how the engine interacts with the GTS chassis, just general superlatives.
3) Where have you read that the gearboxes in the 2.0 and 2.5 MT cars suffer from too tall gearing? Car & Driver said, at the intro of the 718, their manual transmission "ought to be the model by which every other manual transmission is judged".

If you remove the discussion of the C8 and the Piaggo Ape, a piece discussing both a road test and a track test is a scant five paragraphs in length, and much of those are spent mentioning mechanical bits. Not much of a review for a car receiving so much publicity.