Porsche Cayman vs 911
07-31-2006, 07:15 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Stack,Jul 29 2006, 03:04 PM
The main stumbling block for the Cayman is heat; it is very hard to pack a lot of power in the Cayman's engine bay and cool it effectively, without putting scoops and vents and everything everywhere.
The radiators are located right at the front of the car. The Boxster has zero heat management problems with it's engine and dozens of tuners tuners have been stuffing the larger 996 and more recently the 997 motors in there for years with no adverse effects (perhaps you've heard of a guy named Ruff??). I have flogged my Boxster in 100 degree temps at the track for almost an hour and have not experienced any temp problems.
As far as which "format" is superior, I'd say the following. I currently own a 986 and 996. In their stock configurations the 996 will crush the 986 at the track. However, if you put the 996 motor and brakes in the 986 (no other changes necessary) the 986 will put a hurt on the 996 IMHO. Finally, when I go to the track.....I take the 986. It's much more of a momentum car and it's got better balance at the limit. It doesn't have the quite the braking prowess and it's got a lot less grunt our of the corners, but it transisions much more quickly and has better balance. The mid-engine placement is a major reason for the superior dynamics, but some credit must also be given to the significantly longer wheelbase.
07-31-2006, 07:35 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dana Point, CA
Posts: 4,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ray S (Chicago),Jul 31 2006, 07:15 PM
Not true. Ever look behind the front bumper of a Boxster? How about a new 911?
The radiators are located right at the front of the car. The Boxster has zero heat management problems with it's engine and dozens of tuners tuners have been stuffing the larger 996 and more recently the 997 motors in there for years with no adverse effects (perhaps you've heard of a guy named Ruff??). I have flogged my Boxster in 100 degree temps at the track for almost an hour and have not experienced any temp problems.
As far as which "format" is superior, I'd say the following. I currently own a 986 and 996. In their stock configurations the 996 will crush the 986 at the track. However, if you put the 996 motor and brakes in the 986 (no other changes necessary) the 986 will put a hurt on the 996 IMHO. Finally, when I go to the track.....I take the 986. It's much more of a momentum car and it's got better balance at the limit. It doesn't have the quite the braking prowess and it's got a lot less grunt our of the corners, but it transisions much more quickly and has better balance. The mid-engine placement is a major reason for the superior dynamics, but some credit must also be given to the significantly longer wheelbase.
The radiators are located right at the front of the car. The Boxster has zero heat management problems with it's engine and dozens of tuners tuners have been stuffing the larger 996 and more recently the 997 motors in there for years with no adverse effects (perhaps you've heard of a guy named Ruff??). I have flogged my Boxster in 100 degree temps at the track for almost an hour and have not experienced any temp problems.
As far as which "format" is superior, I'd say the following. I currently own a 986 and 996. In their stock configurations the 996 will crush the 986 at the track. However, if you put the 996 motor and brakes in the 986 (no other changes necessary) the 986 will put a hurt on the 996 IMHO. Finally, when I go to the track.....I take the 986. It's much more of a momentum car and it's got better balance at the limit. It doesn't have the quite the braking prowess and it's got a lot less grunt our of the corners, but it transisions much more quickly and has better balance. The mid-engine placement is a major reason for the superior dynamics, but some credit must also be given to the significantly longer wheelbase.
07-31-2006, 07:43 PM
#25
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
11 Posts
Originally Posted by Da Hapa,Jul 31 2006, 11:35 PM
Actually... FWIW the current edition of Excellence Magazine (think Sports Car International but limited to P cars) has an article about an modified X51 3.8L in a Cayman S and about some of the modifications made to handle the necessary improvements to cooling.
It's not necessarily about the cooling system, but about shedding heat; the 911s all have that outlet on the engine cover, but there is little place for heat to go on the 987s. I think this is especially an issue with forcred induction.
07-31-2006, 09:20 PM
#26
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I named some of the similarities: engine layout, drivetrain configuration, front suspension, and the evolution of the rear suspension. Seems to me that 40-something years of development going from the 2.0L flat 6 to the current 3.6/3.8 of the same basic design might've produced a huge volume of knowledge on what works and what doesn't. Same thing applies to what types of suspension layouts and setups work well with a huge rear bias.
Again, all I did was point out that A) the 911 has tons of very relevant evolution and knowledge about its design whereas the Cayman does not, and B)
There are, but only in terms of acceleration and braking in a straight line.
07-31-2006, 09:56 PM
#27
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Posts: 3,668
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
11 Posts
Originally Posted by nugemark,Aug 1 2006, 01:20 AM
So, somehow because the engine is in the rear Porsche has much more knowledge about rear engined cars, but knows nothing about mid-engined cars in comparison. This demonstrates very well that you have no idea what you write about. Nevermind the 356 original design, various race cars, the 914 ...yes only rear engines.
See above. Build an argument on a shitty (and incorrect) foundation, and guess what, it is shitty and incorrect. I don't know shit about buckboard wagons and guess what, I don't write in threads regarding them.
And see above again, incorrect. Look, it is clear you don't know what you are pretending to know about. That's fine, own up and move on.
See above. Build an argument on a shitty (and incorrect) foundation, and guess what, it is shitty and incorrect. I don't know shit about buckboard wagons and guess what, I don't write in threads regarding them.
And see above again, incorrect. Look, it is clear you don't know what you are pretending to know about. That's fine, own up and move on.
Tell me what ELSE is the benefit of a rear engine configuration. Explain to me why if Porsche knows allll about mid-engine designs from the 914 in the 70s, that knowledge is applicable but the continuous development of the 911 is not. Explain to me why building a couple mid-engine cars 30 years ago makes them experts, but 40+ years of continuous 911 work isn't crap because the '66 911S has no relation to the '06 997S.
Typical steve c, lots of attempts to poke holes, no substantive argument of his own.
08-01-2006, 10:27 PM
#29
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, a big old steve c pile of shit, lots of tries at poking holes, but no actual support for his argument.
Explain to me why if Porsche knows allll about mid-engine designs from the 914 in the 70s, that knowledge is applicable but the continuous development of the 911 is not.
Explain to me why building a couple mid-engine cars 30 years ago makes them experts
Look, you pretended to know what you were writing about, probably from reading something years ago. You were called on it, live with it. Stick to stuff you know about in the future. Lesson learned. If you don't understand why an engine in the rear is a benefit, that is your own fault. I'm not your wet nurse regarding cars or Porsches, nobody is -- but when you pull stupid comments out of your ass why get so hostile when called to check on them.
08-02-2006, 08:13 AM
#30
Registered User
Why would history with rear or mid-engine design be a significant factor in designing a compotent platform?
Honda came out of the gate with the NSX as their first mid-engine candidate and the results of that chassis design were quite obvious.
Honda came out of the gate with the NSX as their first mid-engine candidate and the results of that chassis design were quite obvious.