[ANGST]

I very much wanted to like the car. I took it for a quick test drive, not too many curves . It was used and from a Honda dealer . The sales guy knew zero about Porsche and I wasn't really comfortable wringing car out with him , since I am sure he's used to CR-V drivers.

Super basic on the options
https://vinanalytics.com/car/WP0AA2A84JK260148/

The car handled well , but just seemed a bit underpowered . I am hoping to try out a Cayman S . The HP/weight on a Cayman S is pretty close to my Mustang GT .

I have also test drove a BMW M2 manual and really liked it . Took out a GT350 as well , nice , but the clutch on them is SUPER weird and light.

 

[Semitone]

I took a BMW X3 out for a test drive. Didn't like it. Used to own a 2004 model and loved it. Bought a Macan GTS instead.

Whew...glad I got that off my chest...LOL

 

[KEN OB]

I moved from an auto BMW M2 to an auto base Cayman.
I tested a base Cayman, which felt if not exactly slow, maybe leisurely.
I immediately drove a Cayman S which felt a lot better.
The feel of the base Cayman confused and disappointed me so i went away to think.( The S wasn't available to order new at the time due to emissions )
After looking at the performance figures i had been expecting the base Cayman to feel really good.
A week later i arranged a test drive in a different base Cayman ( same dealer ) and hey presto it felt great.
I now own a base Cayman. So i don't know if there was a problem with the first car i drove or if it was my driving style - probably both.
I have owned the Cayman for 4 months now and have only recently clocked up 2000 miles so i am still learning how to exploit those 300 bhp.
It seems to need to be driven differently to any other performance car i have owned, presumably because its a turbo ?
I love accelerating from 0 to 60 as fast as possible - where legal - so maybe this is just me.

 

[718]

I took a BMW X3 out for a test drive. Didn't like it. Used to own a 2004 model and loved it. Bought a Macan GTS instead.

Whew...glad I got that off my chest...LOL

?

 

[lajoiedp]

I own a base 718C, and if you drove it without being in Sport mode I can understand why you would be disappointed. That being said, it doesn't have "pin you in your seat" power that many of the "muscle" cars have. The handling is what sets the Cayman apart from most other sports cars. It all depends on what your needs are.

 

[Porsche2018]

I test drove a base 981 & 982 Cayman, and then test drove the 718 CS and there was no looking back.

 

[DriveInHouston]

I traded in my 2014 Mustang GT 6spd for my 718 Cayman S PDK screaming with joy all the way. The Mustang may be faster (as in 0-60) by 2/10" but the 718 is quicker, nimbler, faster in the turns as a sportscar should.

If you test-drove the car in normal mode, you didn't actually test-drive the car.

 

[KEN OB]

I traded in my 2014 Mustang GT 6spd for my 718 Cayman S PDK screaming with joy all the way. The Mustang may be faster (as in 0-60) by 2/10" but the 718 is quicker, nimbler, faster in the turns as a sportscar should.

If you test-drove the car in normal mode, you didn't actually test-drive the car.

Yes I agree, this was probably my biggest mistake.

 

[wriggly]

I very much wanted to like the car. I took it for a quick test drive, not too many curves . It was used and from a Honda dealer . The sales guy knew zero about Porsche and I wasn't really comfortable wringing car out with him , since I am sure he's used to CR-V drivers.

Super basic on the options
https://vinanalytics.com/car/WP0AA2A84JK260148/

The car handled well , but just seemed a bit underpowered . I am hoping to try out a Cayman S . The HP/weight on a Cayman S is pretty close to my Mustang GT .

I have also test drove a BMW M2 manual and really liked it . Took out a GT350 as well , nice , but the clutch on them is SUPER weird and light.

I owned a GT350 and the stock clutch is weird. They have an assist spring on the pedal assembly that is responsible for it. Steeda makes a very light spring to replace the stock spring and really improves it, removal of the stock spring literally takes 10 seconds without tools and makes the clutch action perfect. I ran mine like that and have a buddy with a 16 with over 30,000 miles and took his out shortly after getting the car.
For what it’s worth, Cayman S is actually faster in the quarter and top speed than a GT350.

I agree with your assessment of a base Cayman. When I went to test drive Caymans, I hadn’t researched them for a few years and wasn’t aware of the change to the four pot. When I started it I told the salesman it sounded like a Subaru. >

I hated it and was ready to just leave but the salesman talked me into testing an S. I ended up with a GTS.

 

[4802]

I agree with your assessment of a base Cayman. I hated it and was ready to just leave but the salesman talked me into testing an S. I ended up with a GTS.

Me too I'm afraid, I absolutely detest the 2.0 litre engine (certainly in a PDK) & it was only when I drove a 2.5 that I elected to change out of a 981. If that's upsetting to some then I'm sorry, but it's also the truth.

 

[Viffermike]

I own a 718 Cayman base. I've owned a long line of small turbocharged engines. I test drove a 718 base, a 981 S, and a 991.1 Carrera back-to-back-to-back, and I have since driven a 718 Boxster S.

The base has PLENTY of power, to the point that I wear my rear tires far more than the fronts. The base is capable of a sub-4-second 0-60 time in the right hands. The thing is, it delivers that power in a far different way than large-displacement engines.

OP, I'm not saying that you don't understand this. What I AM am saying is that you admitted to babying the car during your test drive. Trust me (and others on this board) -- babying it was the wrong thing to do for a first impression. And, having driven the S now as well, I can definitively say that the difference between base and S is not large -- and published performance numbers back this up because the one big advantage the S has over the base is about 50HP, which one simply can't use much on public roads.

Ultimately, car choice is personal, and part of that personal choice is how you will drive it. If I tracked my car a lot, I'd want an S at least. If I drove regularly at near-triple-digit speeds, I'd probably prefer an S. Otherwise, like I said -- the base is plenty fast.

 

[4802]

I own a 718 Cayman base. I've owned a long line of small turbocharged engines. I test drove a 718 base, a 981 S, and a 991.1 Carrera back-to-back-to-back, and I have since driven a 718 Boxster S.

The base has PLENTY of power, to the point that I wear my rear tires far more than the fronts. The base is capable of a sub-4-second 0-60 time in the right hands. The thing is, it delivers that power in a far different way than large-displacement engines.

OP, I'm not saying that you don't understand this. What I AM am saying is that you admitted to babying the car during your test drive. Trust me (and others on this board) -- babying it was the wrong thing to do for a first impression. And, having driven the S now as well, I can definitively say that the difference between base and S is not large -- and published performance numbers back this up because the one big advantage the S has over the base is about 50HP, which one simply can't use much on public roads.

Ultimately, car choice is personal, and part of that personal choice is how you will drive it. If I tracked my car a lot, I'd want an S at least. If I drove regularly at near-triple-digit speeds, I'd probably prefer an S. Otherwise, like I said -- the base is plenty fast.

No one said the base isn't fast enough, but I simply disliked the 2.0 litre lump & find the 2.5 altogether a far superior engine. I didn't baby it either & to suggest that anyone did simply because their opinion doesn't align with your own is rather pompous. Quoting performance figures is a total irrelevance to someone if they don't like the engine, which I do not & I personally wouldn't have cared if it was faster or slower. If you or other owners are happy with it then good for you, but if the 2.0 had been the only choice then I'd either still be in a 981 or driving a different car entirely. You don't have to agree with me & I know I'm a little forthright with my opinions but I'm being honest when I said I dislike it. I did the first time I drove one & having driven another it was clear it wasn't just a one off example & that I still do.

 

[lajoiedp]

No one said the base isn't fast enough, but I simply disliked the 2.0 litre lump & find the 2.5 altogether a far superior engine. I didn't baby it either & to suggest that anyone did simply because their opinion doesn't align with your own is rather pompous. Quoting performance figures is a total irrelevance to someone if they don't like the engine, which I do not & I personally wouldn't have cared if it was faster or slower. If you or other owners are happy with it then good for you, but if the 2.0 had been the only choice then I'd either still be in a 981 or driving a different car entirely. You don't have to agree with me & I know I'm a little forthright with my opinions but I'm being honest when I said I dislike it. I did the first time I drove one & having driven another it was clear it wasn't just a one off example & that I still do.

Wow, someone needs to take a Chilli pill. I don't think Viffermike was even responding to your comment but rather to the OP.

 

[4802]

Wow, someone needs to take a Chilli pill. I don't think Viffermike was even responding to your comment but rather to the OP.

I don't need to take a Chilli pill at at all thanks, but you need to realise that some of us simply do not like the 2.0 litre engine & I'm one of them. I've reigned back from expressing my true feelings about this unit so as not to offend anyone, but I was simply being polite & the truth is I really hate it. I won't ever try to deny you expressing your opinions, so please don't try to deny me expressing mine. If you dislike my response then tough luck. I know I'm not everyones cup of tea, but seeing as I'm a coffee drinker anyway then I really don't care.

 

[Viffermike]

Wow, someone needs to take a Chilli pill. I don't think Viffermike was even responding to your comment but rather to the OP.

@Chilli: @ANGST is the OP. The response was to him, in support of several others.

YMMV -- which is why I contextualized my feelings and opinions about the engines, having now driven both. No one is right, and no one is wrong. Or: Everyone is right, and everyone is wrong. In any case, arguments can be made in favor of either engine, using numbers (and other empirical evidence such as tire wear) and personal feelings.

Do I feel a need to defend mine? Of course I do, because I feel it was a logical, experiential, and spiritual decision to choose the 2.0 over the 2.5 -- in my case only. Several others have expressed similar reasonings -- all individually and uniquely informed. I dare say that yours are informed that way, as well. But yours are no more absolute than mine are. That's why we have discussions about things like this on a forum like this.

I'm sorry if my response sounded 'pompous'. It wasn't, isn't, and as anyone who knows me can attest, pomposity is not part of my DNA. I don't know why you felt the need to respond the way you did, and I'm not going to speculate other than to say that debate should ideally be constructive, considerate, and contextual.

Thank you for reading.

 

[4802]

@Chilli: @ANGST is the OP. The response was to him, in support of several others.

YMMV -- which is why I contextualized my feelings and opinions about the engines, having now driven both. No one is right, and no one is wrong. Or: Everyone is right, and everyone is wrong. In any case, arguments can be made in favor of either engine, using numbers (and other empirical evidence such as tire wear) and personal feelings.

Do I feel a need to defend mine? Of course I do, because I feel it was a logical, experiential, and spiritual decision to choose the 2.0 over the 2.5 -- in my case only. Several others have expressed similar reasonings -- all individually and uniquely informed. I dare say that yours are informed that way, as well. But yours are no more absolute than mine are. That's why we have discussions about things like this on a forum like this.

I'm sorry if my response sounded 'pompous'. It wasn't, isn't, and as anyone who knows me can attest, pomposity is not part of my DNA. I don't know why you felt the need to respond the way you did, and I'm not going to speculate other than to say that debate should ideally be constructive and contextual.

Thank you for reading.

Yes Mike I appreciate that your response was to the OP, but just because he didn't wring it doesn't mean he babied it either. I certainly didn't baby the 2.0 that I originally drove, or the later loaner either, but I still didn't like it. For some of us it's not all about ultimate performance & I'm one of them. In terms of outright speed & acceleration I personally find the 2.0 perfectly ample, it still doesn't alter the fact that I don't like it.

 

[lajoiedp]

@Chilli: @ANGST is the OP. The response was to him, in support of several others.

YMMV -- which is why I contextualized my feelings and opinions about the engines, having now driven both. No one is right, and no one is wrong. Or: Everyone is right, and everyone is wrong. In any case, arguments can be made in favor of either engine, using numbers (and other empirical evidence such as tire wear) and personal feelings.

Do I feel a need to defend mine? Of course I do, because I feel it was a logical, experiential, and spiritual decision to choose the 2.0 over the 2.5 -- in my case only. Several others have expressed similar reasonings -- all individually and uniquely informed. I dare say that yours are informed that way, as well. But yours are no more absolute than mine are. That's why we have discussions about things like this on a forum like this.

I'm sorry if my response sounded 'pompous'. It wasn't, isn't, and as anyone who knows me can attest, pomposity is not part of my DNA. I don't know why you felt the need to respond the way you did, and I'm not going to speculate other than to say that debate should ideally be constructive and contextual.

Thank you for reading.

Yes Mike I appreciate that your response was to the OP, but just because he didn't wring it doesn't mean he babied it either. I certainly didn't baby the 2.0 that I originally drove, or the later loaner either, but I still didn't like it. For some of us it's not all about ultimate performance & I'm one of them. In terms of outright speed & acceleration I personally find the 2.0 perfectly ample, it still doesn't alter the fact that I don't like it.

I think we all get it. You don’t like the 2.0 engine.

All the OP was pointing out was that he thought the base Cayman engine was underpowered, when competed to his Mustang GT. One could certainly understand how he could come to that assessment.

Personally, the base engine has all the Performance I need and spending an extra $8k for the S wasn’t worth it. But hey, that’s just me. If I had unlimited funds I probably would have went with the S... but I don’t.

 

[Baka1969]

Hey Mike, I'd like to see the data where the stock 2.0 can get sub 4 second 0-100 km times. The fastest i've seen was 4.2 seconds 0-60 from Edmonds.

Also, with the PDK, Sport Chrono and launch control, driver skill is pretty much taken out of the equation. It's really a matter of brake/accelerator/release. The variables would be road conditions, the weather and (to some extent) altitude.

I've seen published times where the S and GTS will get under the 4 second mark. I just haven't seen the base model do it. It would be terrific if it could.

I was just curious where you got your figures.

 

[4802]

I think we all get it. You don’t like the 2.0 engine.

All the OP was pointing out was that he thought the base Cayman engine was underpowered, when competed to his Mustang GT. One could certainly understand how he could come to that assessment.

Personally, the base engine has all the Performance I need and spending an extra $8k for the S wasn’t worth it. But hey, that’s just me. If I had unlimited funds I probably would have went with the S... but I don’t.

Perhaps I didn't make the point clear enough because you're rather missing it. He may possibly find whenever he drives one that the 2.5 doesn't fulfil his requirements either & if he does that's fine, it's his decision. But there's no point in telling someone the reason they found something underpowered is because they didn't drive it in a certain manner. He'll have to drive it all of the time & if he finds it lacking in power then he finds it lacking in power. Someone telling him otherwise & spouting acceleration times at him isn't going to alter his opinion one iota. Mike is right in that the vehicle delivers its power in a different way to a large bore engine, but if he doesn't like the way that unit delivers its power then he doesn't like it, end of story. I can't just like something because someone else does & I doubt he can either, that's just not the way things work. Accept it at face value & move on.

 

[BlueNorther]

Some might find the Car and Driver review of the 2017 base Boxster 718 with manual trans worth a read.

"The $10,400 Question
While Porsche claims that half a second separates the base Boxster from the S in the run to 60 mph, this car’s time trailed that of the 2.5-liter S manual by a mere 0.1 second"
"PDK-equipped 718s do remain consistently quicker than their manual counterparts, but with the 2.0-liter turbo four, the gap has closed somewhat. Only 0.4 second separates human-shifted 718 Boxsters and Caymans from their automatic counterparts."

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15095872/2017-porsche-boxster-718-manual-tested-review/