Porsche 718 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So is the proverbial cat out of the bag with these words? “But for the 718 I think that it would be a very good step for the future and it would be on a completely new platform that we can discuss and share with other brands,” Link.

I just have to wonder why not just introduce a new line such as they did with the Taycan? Why mess with a lineage that has not only been successful, but can be credited with saving a manufacturer? After all, these new renditions would only be Boxster and Caymans in name. The Boxster name is derived from the engine and body style. That would no longer be the case. IDK, maybe thinking this way just reflects my age.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
The Boxster and Cayman didn't save the brand. The Cayenne and the Macan saved the brand.
Porsche was on the verge of bankruptcy when two things saved them: A visit from a Mazda executive that showed them how to produce cars using a fleet-wide parts strategy, and using that strategy to introduce the Boxster. This was way before the Macan.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
Porsche was on the verge of bankruptcy when two things saved them: A visit from a Mazda executive that showed them how to produce cars using a fleet-wide parts strategy, and using that strategy to introduce the Boxster. This was way before the Macan.
But to @phroenips 's point: Without the SUVs, there would be no 718 (and, likely, no Porsche now) ...

... and to the OP's point: While the Taycan is a new model, the 'line' goes beyond Porsche because there are equivalent products for other marques -- namely, the Audi eTron. All SUV models have at least one cross-marque equivalent, too -- and, some would argue that the Panamera and S-series Audi sedans (not to mention the VW Phaeton, etc.) share a lot of DNA.

There's been talk for years in VWLand about how to graft the DNA of Porsche's sports cars into other VW marques. I believe this is likely to happen with the next-gen Boxster/Cayman because it's the only financially viable way the model will survive. What model will it share DNA with? The TT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
But to @phroenips 's point: Without the SUVs, there would be no 718 (and, likely, no Porsche now) ...
All well and good, but I disagree with characterizing an overall shift in direction with the adoption of an SUV as saving the company. If that's the case, then every innovation since the 356 has "saved the company". Turbos, 6-cylinders, radial tires, 4-wheel drive, PDK...all have kept the company moving forward from the original F4 356, not just the SUV. By contrast, the Boxster marked a watershed turning point, where failure was at the doorstep. The advent of the SUV into the lineup could be considered the result of lessons learned from saving the company, but not the genesis of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
One thing I find interesting is that Porsche designed and built a new engine (718 4 turbo) for such a small number of cars. They must have had plans for this major investment that we don't know about. Toyota was reluctant to make a new engine for their new Supra and instead borrowed an engine from BMW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
The turbo four is essentially the twin turbo six scaled down. Building variations of the same engine at little incremental cost is a trend in the industry right now. That's different from designing and tooling for a new engine like nothing else in your lineup.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
All well and good, but I disagree with characterizing an overall shift in direction with the adoption of an SUV as saving the company. If that's the case, then every innovation since the 356 has "saved the company". Turbos, 6-cylinders, radial tires, 4-wheel drive, PDK...all have kept the company moving forward from the original F4 356, not just the SUV. By contrast, the Boxster marked a watershed turning point, where failure was at the doorstep. The advent of the SUV into the lineup could be considered the result of lessons learned from saving the company, but not the genesis of them.
All fair points. But let's be honest:
  • Porsche was at failure's doorstep in the early 1990s for many, many more reasons than manufacturing inefficiencies. That the Miata's success and Japanese manufacturing theory inspired a model and shift that kept Porsche in business is only notable because that's just one time, of several that occurred before then and since then, that Porsche needed saving by something.
  • Sales, and profits from those sales, are what keep a company not only operating, but making 'niche' products that wouldn't support the company on their own. Our 718s are niche models. SUV sales are the only reason we can buy them -- and it's been that way for well more than a decade now.
It's really not a chicken-or-egg question, this. It's evolutionary, with several generations in the consideration. Did the Miata save Porsche? Yes, indirectly. Did SUVs? Unassailably. Did the deprecation of Porsche family members and the establishment of a board of directors save it in the early 1970s? Probably. Did Herr Furmann's ouster in the early 1980s save it? Almost certainly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
I’m sorry but even if it’s lightning fast, I will not accept driving around in a car that makes only tire noise or sounds like George Jetson’s vehicle. Fossil fuel cars rule!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I’m sorry but even if it’s lightning fast, I will not accept driving around in a car that makes only tire noise or sounds like George Jetson’s vehicle. Fossil fuel cars rule!
I won't take George's funny sounding car, but I may take his sexy wife Jane! But on a serious note, I'll take an electric slot car for the street. The battery will be mounted so low that CG has to be better than ANY road going Porsche.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
We all have opinions and we all have ...... . With that old and true adage in mind I have an opinion and that opinion is that an electric Boxster is a very bad idea, at least with respect to maintaining as large a market as the Boxster currently has. I suspect an electric Boxster, with the very high torque available from electric motors and the very low center of gravity due to the location of the heavy battery, will make an outstanding performance vehicle. However, I suspect most buyers like myself, do not buy their Boxster for competition. My Boxster is my daily driver and I want all the convenience, range, and reliably of finding fuel that is part and parcel of the current infrastructure associated with gasoline (and not yet even close with availability of charging stations and time required to "fill up").

I just don't think electric cars are fully ready for prime time and are not suited for long trips, especially those that are not leisure drives. A recent event illustrated this. Due to a disabled family member my family drove to Atlanta in my SUV when it looked like we might get whacked with a Cat 4+ hurricane. The circumstances and timing required meant they could not have made the ~600 miles trip as needed if my SUV was electric. I planned to follow them in my Boxster later but certainly could not have done that on the clogged highways I would have then encountered if my Boxster was electric.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
What I find somewhat odd in the whole Porsche move to EV news is how the press are eager to support and promulgate the idea. All they were concerned with during the introduction of the 718 was the loss of two cylinders and what they considered to be a poor sound emanating from the rear of the car. Now there will be no sound at all and no cylinders to produce any. There's no mention of the abandonment of the heritage and lineage at all. Not even any disbelieving comments have been made of whether or not the change is a positive development or even a loss in some way.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
466 Posts
I spent a (not very long, just 20 years) career in the oil business, working mostly for the largest oil major, a company that is very well run, hires very highly talented and qualified people and is squarely into producing oil for energy, not alternative energy sources. I have stayed in contact with a lot of my former colleagues active and retired, as my separation with the company was my own decision (to pursue other interests) and very amicable.

Here are some of the prevailing points of view:

- ICE is dead. It is a question of time before the obituary is published (Some say as early as 2035, some as late as 2040-2050. Shell and BP have said as much in company White Papers.

- The proper use of oil/hydrocarbons is for chemical feedstock (not only plastics). Due to the company size, this is whispered privately, because it would mean significant downsizing of the company, which is actually happening quietly. Put bluntly, it is a crime towards future generations, to send future feedstock up the tailpipe, just because we want to.

- Private sampling (mine): Many of the retirees (I'd say higher than the national average) buy EVs. I recognize that are many motives and circumstances:

* Company retirees are very well off
* Company retirees are well educated and finally free to not toe the company line
* Most employees and retirees are more technology oriented than the average Joe
* Some (!) may have environmentally related conscience pangs
* Most have a second car if they need something that the EV doesn't offer
* Some don't like paying for gas...
* All agree that the 718 is a great car! As they walk to their Ford behemoth in the parking lot...

- Personally, I struggled with my conscience for 5 seconds, when I realized that I should ditch the Mustang GT for a better performance car. Tesla Model S or Porsche 911? 65 years of pent up dreams took over in 5 seconds and I blurted to my wife:

"For my 65th birthday I want a Porsche..."

"Good" she said, "let's go test driving..." :LOL:

Then 46 years of technology involvement took over and the 718 CS won over the 911 Carrera 4S!!!...:eek:

...and the rest is history.

I think for my wife's 65th an EV is in order (not on order). Must check the Tesla Model Y when it comes out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
... There's no mention of the abandonment of the heritage and lineage at all. ...
I completely agree! It is no longer a Boxster if it does not have a Boxer engine which accounts for half the Boxster name. In addition, speaking of naming, I find it very disingenuous and misleading to call an electric car a "turbo" when there is no turbocharger. There is a Taycan Turbo and I believe the Taycan is all electric so it does not have a turbocharger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
390 Posts
It is refreshing to hear from a former oil insider re: the future of petroleum based fuels. We all know that oil/natural gas is a finite resource. A multi-billion dollar oil/gas business is planning decades in the future for when that resource is either unrecoverable or too expensive to harvest. The big petrol companies know what is coming, most of the public is not willing to accept it. EV technology and infrastructure is in its infancy, but inevitable. We are now in the "build it they will come" phase of EV evolution, but the "they will come" (infrastructure) has not arrived. Problem is what fuel to use to generate the electricity needed in the future.

I am guilty also of buying low MPG vehicles and an ICE sports car - it is hard to not want to enjoy it while you have it. My green conscience has not totally overtaken me, yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
@DriveInHouston I can't and won't argue with your expertise. I definitely don't have the foundation to do so. I'm just scratching my head at how there is no commentary at all about Porsche's headlong dive into the EV market and what may become a total abandonment of their ICE heritage, when all they could say positive about the 718 was it had a nicer interior than the 981, all the while bashing the deletion of two cylinders. My guess is much of the EV support has a politically correct bent. So be it I guess.

By the way, wasn't peak oil already supposed to have happened? It seems production has increased year over year. Hubbert's peak was passed decades ago and shale hasn't been the reason for the increase, from what I can tell.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
466 Posts
@DriveInHouston I'm just scratching my head at how there is no commentary at all about Porsche's headlong dive into the EV market and what may become a total abandonment of their ICE heritage, when all they could say positive about the 718 was it had a nicer interior than the 981, all the while bashing the deletion of two cylinders. My guess is much of the EV support has a politically correct bent. So be it I guess.
You bring up many good points, I will try to answer one at a time :)

You say 'there is no commentary'

from who? Me? I definitely have opinions, I will follow-up with a post strictly on this. From someone else?

@DriveInHouston
By the way, wasn't peak oil already supposed to have happened? It seems production has increased year over year. Hubbert's peak was passed decades ago and shale hasn't been the reason for the increase, from what I can tell.
Oil exploration/production has a long history and a lot of historical technology.

In rough numbers, primary recovery is oil production based on gravity, reservoir pressure and mechanical pumping to get the stuff out. Depending on the formation, you can extract maybe 30-40% and you leave the rest in the ground.

In the 60s to the 80s that was the major game in town, while in the 70s they started research on secondary recovery. So, roughly until the mid eighties the game was to produce what you found and seek new fields to replace produced volumes (an exploration high risk game). My specialty was in design of Offshore Structures, offshore being the last frontier. Expensive, risky but rewarding. For instance, it took forever for Exxon to get to Angola, but when they did about 1/5 of the company production came from the Kizomba fields.

They are still finding elephant fields, but they are a few and far between. Mostly offshore, the final frontier... On the up-cycle it was amazing to see the concepts we developed and the technology employed in unthinkable water depths. In the downcycles, our projects were the first to be cut due to expense and risk.

On the average, we were successful to move the peak further into the future, but not by much... Recovery technology improved by using water pressure in the field boundaries and chemicals to maintain pressure on the reservoirs and facilitate the flow of oil (secondary/tertiary recovery). That recovers another 15-20% of the original amount of oil, (so 40% is left in the ground, beyond reach).

And then... something happened on the way to the forum! Some clever engineers figured out that they can facilitate the flow of oil even further by fracturing the oil bearing rock creating not paths but avenues for the oil to reach the wellbore and be produced. The best feature was that the fields were well known, reservoir properties were well known, how much oil was there was well know and practically you could put a spreadsheet together telling you how much money you had to throw at a specific field to have it throw at you a multiple of that back as profits...

FRACKING ELIMINATES THE EXPLORATION RISK!

Music to the ears of production folks!

The rest of us lost our jobs because of the paradigm shift.

The frontier is now fracking and it is purely a resource management game.

The oil company managers are not stupid... They will use fracking to produce oil in prodigious amounts NOW (the US is the top producer in the world NOW) because the next paradigm shift is already here and is called EVs and Alternative Energy Sources.

Sorry I got a bit long... :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
The turbo four is essentially the twin turbo six scaled down. Building variations of the same engine at little incremental cost is a trend in the industry right now. That's different from designing and tooling for a new engine like nothing else in your lineup.
But what about all the smog testing for the US market. Are they able to use the six to gain approval of the 718 4 cylinder?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
But what about all the smog testing for the US market. Are they able to use the six to gain approval of the 718 4 cylinder?
I don't know the details of smog testing (or whatever its actually called), or if there's some kind of "family" strategy that can be used. In any event, I think that would be tiny compared to the R&D and tooling.

My point is that Porsche didn't develop a pair of turbo fours as a one off for the 718s. They developed an engine family that could cover from at least 2.0L single turbo fours up to at least 3.75L (2.5 * 1.5) twin turbo sixes. Productizing a variant incurs some incremental cost, but the overall cost of all this should be considered spread across 718s and 911s.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top