Porsche 718 Forum banner

21 - 40 of 40 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
466 Posts
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.
I am all for twin turbo 911s. Just to keep the dream alive!...:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
@DriveInHouston I meant no commentary from the talking heads of the automobile universe about the fact that any EV Porsche will not be the same Porsche they extolled while simultaneously deriding the F4. Their articles and commentary were fraught with concern for the legacy of the Boxster/Cayman line because of the demise of the F6 in those vehicles. Now those criticisms seem even more silly when looking forward to the EV generation of Porsches.

Thanks for the "long" explanation. ;) Really. It's always better to have more information than less.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
466 Posts
Here is an even longer article. Although I am not 100% certain that it is 100% accurate, it is a good view of what the rest of the world is thinking. Sort of like Energy Future 101.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
It's really not a chicken-or-egg question, this.
Awesome discussion btw, this is good stuff!

I wholly agree with you on that quoted statement. So let's go back to the OP. He wrote, "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."

Of note, "credited with saving a manufacturer". To which phroenips replied, "The Boxster and Cayman didn't save the brand. The Cayenne and the Macan saved the brand."

There is a difference between an act that saves something, and one that perpetuates it. There is no question the move into successful SUVs has perpetuated Porsche (though one could argue that the Macan, not the Cayenne, is the reason for this).

I searched the terms "the car that saved Porsche". The top result was an article from Road & Track, March 2016, titled A Look Back at the Car that Saved Porsche: 20 Years of the Boxster. I then added "Cayenne" to the string, and after two youtube results (both by amateur dudes with an iphone or something) came Road & Track once again, July 2017, with The Cayenne Didn't Save Porsche, with a subheading referring to the Boxster.

To borrow a line from Caddyshack, "So I have that going for me, which is nice."

OP was remarking over the use of a historically significant name, cleverly derived from Boxer and Roadster, as applied to an electric car. There is no Boxer in an all-electric car, regardless of whether an electric car perpetuates the brand or not. It's a legacy thing, and this is why I commented in the first place, in support of the OP's point about the meaning of the name to the marque.

And FWIW, it isn't merely that the 718s are a niche model, Porsche in it's entirety is a niche product. In its last full year of production, the Corvette had U.S. sales of 25,079. Buy contrast, the largest selling Porsche, the Macan, had U.S. sales that year of 21,429. Porsche's sales leader was outsold by a 2-seater, in a dying form no less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
Although I am not 100% certain that it is 100% accurate
There are quite a bit of unsubstantiated claims in that article. I followed some of the links which were used as reference and they too have no supporting documentation. The energy debate from both sides has become fanatical and akin to religion, based on beliefs and desires rather than sound principles. Well in my opinion anyway :) But thanks for sharing it. There's always something to be learned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
Here is an even longer article. Although I am not 100% certain that it is 100% accurate, it is a good view of what the rest of the world is thinking. Sort of like Energy Future 101.

Thanks for posting that. It was an interesting read.

However...

I spent quite some time in marketing, and have a pretty good nose for a sales pitch. That article is a sales pitch. I would not be surprised in the least if the author is heavily invested in so-called renewable energy (a term chosen more for its appeal than accuracy in describing what it names - sustainable is much more accurate, but does not sell as well).

I followed his link to the pumped-hydro storage article. Like most of these treatises, it conveniently omits the energy consumption factors of the devices themselves from the dissertation. It's always a free lunch with many of these folks.

Regarding an earlier post of yours, where you wrote that your colleagues believed the ICE is dead, I agree, or at least I agree that one day it will be as far as fossil fuels are concerned. That fact was true the moment it was invented. If for no other reason, there is only so much to be pumped from the ground. Just like the Ogallala Aquifer, which is being emptied at a catastrophic rate to feed the green dream of renewable energy known as corn ethanol (a process so immediately adverse to the planet it's unthinkable that people get away with claiming it's to save it). If only the resources being wasted on such things were being used more constructively, we might actually be achieving truly successful alternatives.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
466 Posts
Here is an even longer article. Although I am not 100% certain that it is 100% accurate, it is a good view of what the rest of the world is thinking. Sort of like Energy Future 101.
Thanks for posting that. It was an interesting read.

However...

I spent quite some time in marketing, and have a pretty good nose for a sales pitch. That article is a sales pitch. I would not be surprised in the least if the author is heavily invested in so-called renewable energy (a term chosen more for its appeal than accuracy in describing what it names - sustainable is much more accurate, but does not sell as well).
Well, from my introduction you understand that I didn't put the article on an altar to worship it five times a day either.

Seeking Alpha is an investment advice website. Most of the authors are investment advisors/managers, not directly affiliated with the website. The article IS a sales pitch.

Wants the reader to short Exxonmobil.

However, some of his arguments against Exxonmobil's CEO are valid and worth reviewing/discussing. It is not like this CEO is an impartial observer of the future of ICE... :p

I wholeheartedly agree that there is plenty of subtle marketing, especially in the Internet today, sometimes obfuscating the facts.

I was amused with myself pondering the 'synthetic fuels'/'carbon neutral' concept:

What is worse for the environment?

- An ICE gasoline burning vehicle

- A hybrid (like the Prius)

- An EV powered with electricity derived from coal fired power plants

- An ICE engine powered with synthetic fuels (carbon neutral because you harvest carbon from existing CO2, make gasoline, and convert the harvested CO2 back to CO2)

- An EV charged with electricity derived by non-fossil fuel power plants

As you can see, I have already put them in the order I perceive it to be the right order, with the possible exception of the synthetic fuel powered ICE.

While the idea of neutral carbon footprint is attractive (because no 'new' CO2 is introduced in the atmosphere, just the one being recycled) the energy required to make synthetic fuels is substantial and has to come from somewhere. The example is Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa producing synthetic fuels. They did, but not economically. They wasted ample power producing synthetic fuels because they need hydrocarbon fuels to power their panzers and the SA transportation needs and dmn the expense! Germany had electric power from hydro, it just didn't have energy where the panzers were...

If we use 'renewable' energy sources to provide the energy, we might as well run EVs and let the trees take care of the CO2. Porsche can spend its money improving the Soundaktor in the Taycan... :p

Again went long, but this discussion interests me... :geek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
Again went long, but this discussion interests me.
And it is worthy of that interest. One thing we can all agree on is that something has to give sooner or later. I often look at the traffic and say to myself, “How much longer can this go on?” and try not to worry about it.

But I’m at that age where I can see a time will come when I won’t have to worry about it, so in the meantime, I enjoy my Cayman while I can :cool:

Good discussion!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
I love my 19BS. It's as close to perfect (for me) as I could hope for in a car.
An electric Boxster is about the only thing I could imagine that would have me eager to swap it out for.
Instant and crushing torque, low CG, well balanced, low polar moment.... I just can't wait.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
466 Posts
I wish that Porsche does not continue the tacky practice of naming their future EVs after their gas counterparts (like Taycan Turbo, when there is no turbo in sight....). 911 EV or 718 EV GTS do not bother me, but Boxster (a synthesis of BOXer engine and roadSTER style, stick a bit on my craw). 718 Cayman EV GT4 sounds perfect ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
I wish that Porsche does not continue the tacky practice of naming their future EVs after their gas counterparts (like Taycan Turbo, when there is no turbo in sight....).
That caught my eye too. I never heard of that title until the actual launch, and it strikes me as very odd. It's as though some preproduction market testing indicated the need to normalize the concept. I don't like it either. The car should stand on its own merits.

What's next, a 356 Taycan Spyder?

(Edit) I went to the Porsche website to make sure this is the official name (it is). I also found they are marketing the car as having “overboost”. That’s even stranger than adding Turbo to the name, as the two terms are related in a negative way in an actual turbocharged engine.

Here we have a company built on engineering excellence selling its new car with common terms that are incongruent with each other in the context used, as well as with the car itself. Very strange. It’s as if they don’t care what words they use, as long as the prospective buyer (the status type?) thinks “fast”.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
466 Posts
Overboost I buy. They talk about it as 'party mode' in F1. I can accept boosted performance, as the verb 'to boost' means to elevate in the everyday lingo.

As I said, I don't mind an old designation (356, 911, 718 even 956 or 908, please leave the 917 retired) with the EV designation, and all the L and S and GT and RS designations. Just when the reference/designation is purely for a gasoline engine (turbo, i for injection, Boxster, Boxer for the engine, turbo 4, turbo 6, turbo S) just refrain from stupidity Porsche!

What would be wrong with Taycan S, GTS, GT, GT2, GT3, GT4, GTX. Did it have to be Taycan Turbo S for chrissakes?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
Overboost I buy. They talk about it as 'party mode' in F1. I can accept boosted performance, as the verb 'to boost' means to elevate in the everyday lingo.

As I said, I don't mind an old designation (356, 911, 718 even 956 or 908, please leave the 917 retired) with the EV designation, and all the L and S and GT and RS designations. Just when the reference/designation is purely for a gasoline engine (turbo, i for injection, Boxster, Boxer for the engine, turbo 4, turbo 6, turbo S) just refrain from stupidity Porsche!

What would be wrong with Taycan S, GTS, GT, GT2, GT3, GT4, GTX. Did it have to be Taycan Turbo S for chrissakes?
Having been in marketing, I object to the laziness and outright lack of creativity. This car is supposed to be The Next Big Thing. It deserves to have some fresh ideas, not recycled misnomers from the past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
(Edit) I went to the Porsche website to make sure this is the official name (it is). I also found they are marketing the car as having “overboost”. That’s even stranger than adding Turbo to the name, as the two terms are related in a negative way in an actual turbocharged engine.

Here we have a company built on engineering excellence selling its new car with common terms that are incongruent with each other in the context used, as well as with the car itself. Very strange. It’s as if they don’t care what words they use, as long as the prospective buyer (the status type?) thinks “fast”.
I am pretty sure that the Turbo and Turbo S in the model names are in homage of Quintus Marcius Turbo and not related to the fact that all Turbo and Turbo S models (until the Taycan) has been equipped with turbochargers :ROFLMAO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcius_Turbo
Other than that the word turbo has been thrown on all type of stuff to indicate that it is somehow better than the other options.
I was particularly fond of the turbo button on my first PC and who can forget the "Gillette Mach 3 Turbo" which incidently also does not come equipped with a turbocharger.

What the Turbo and Turbo S moniker does for the Taycan is to offer a bit of familiarity for those accustomed to Porsche terminology.
If they instead had named them Taycan Flux and Taycan Flux S how would a prospective buyer know how many steps up the performance ladder the given model was placed?
I bet most buyers of a Taycan Flux S would be pretty disappointed if Porsche soon after released a much faster Taycan GigaFlux RS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
I am pretty sure that the Turbo and Turbo S in the model names are in homage of Quintus Marcius Turbo and not related to the fact that all Turbo and Turbo S models (until the Taycan) has been equipped with turbochargers :ROFLMAO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcius_Turbo
Other than that the word turbo has been thrown on all type of stuff to indicate that it is somehow better than the other options.
I was particularly fond of the turbo button on my first PC and who can forget the "Gillette Mach 3 Turbo" which incidently also does not come equipped with a turbocharger.

What the Turbo and Turbo S moniker does for the Taycan is to offer a bit of familiarity for those accustomed to Porsche terminology.
If they instead had named them Taycan Flux and Taycan Flux S how would a prospective buyer know how many steps up the performance ladder the given model was placed?
I bet most buyers of a Taycan Flux S would be pretty disappointed if Porsche soon after released a much faster Taycan GigaFlux RS.
Refer to my comment in post #36. I stand by that. I appreciate what you’re saying here. But the use of unrelated terms in PCs and razors is standard marketing overstatement. Everybody knows they don’t make cars. Porsche does not fall into that column. They live on turbo cars.

The moniker is way too pedestrian for leading-edge technology at this price point...unless that’s the intent, in which case we have a whole different discussion.
 
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
Top