Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Your Motor
Chip Butty

350 bhp ?

Focus RS - 350 bhp, 350 lbs ft, manual box but awd

http://www.caranddriver.com/revie...in-pilot-sport-cup-2-tires-review

Cayman S - 350 bhp, 309 lbs ft, pdk box, rwd

http://www.caranddriver.com/revie...sche-718-cayman-s-pdk-test-review

Focus is 100 kilos heavier and has the slower gearbox - but how on earth can the Porsche turn in those numbers ??

Amercian Magazines numbers always appear to be overly generous, but in this instance, the cars are figured by the same magazine, so they are comparable.

Incidentally, the RS figured is no quicker from 60 to 100 mph than a standard ST.
Frank Bullitt

Mid engined and 350bhp probably means traction isn't an issue for the Cayman S, negating the real benefit the Focus RS has over much of the competition - from that point on its smart-arsed PDK and 100kg lighter v the weight and the manual change.

One day I'd like to try a Boxster or Cayman.
franki68

American mags test one up ,and car and driver is notorious for adjusting figures,they apply math formulae to compensate for things like altitude.
I remember they figured an sl65 at 0-60 in 3 seconds ,which is impossible because you spend 3 seconds lighting the tyres up .
On top of which Porsche bhp > anyone else's bhp of course....never understood why.
Chip Butty

Given VAG's recent history of playing fast and loose with calibration - do we really think the press Caymans have the stated 300 and 350 bhp ?.

Based on the numbers tumbling from the ticker tape - I call BS.

The Focus RS, on the other hand, is globally disappointing once you get it above 60 mph. It's a 12.5 - 13 second car to 100 mph. So it's either got weird gearing in 3rd and 4th, or it weighs a lot more than quoted, or Ford have not tuned the goolies off the press cars.
Twelfth Monkey

I'm pretty sure evo does one-up, low fuel as well.  Most manufacturers' acceleration figures used to be conservative, but I'm not sure that's the case any more.  Most of the newer crop of Porsches have not quite hit their marks when figured by Autocar (two-up plus fuel).

EDIT- 0-60 in 3.6?  I find that very hard to believe indeed.  Looking it up, Autocar got 4.8 to 60 and 10.5 to 100, all of three months ago.
Nice Guy Eddie

Very impressive, it'll be a huge leap over my Cayman if those really are the performance figures. I was thinking that a late model 981 Cayman GTS could be my next car but the prices are up at £65k for a used one. Kind of makes the 718 s a bargain. Except Porsche being Porsche you can't actually buy a 718 if the chat on Pistonheads is to be believed. Each dealer is only getting one Cayman per month so waiting lists are already nearly a year.
franki68

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
I'm pretty sure evo does one-up, low fuel as well.  Most manufacturers' acceleration figures used to be conservative, but I'm not sure that's the case any more.  Most of the newer crop of Porsches have not quite hit their marks when figured by Autocar (two-up plus fuel).

EDIT- 0-60 in 3.6?  I find that very hard to believe indeed.  Looking it up, Autocar got 4.8 to 60 and 10.5 to 100, all of three months ago.


Was that a manual ?
Twelfth Monkey

Don't know, that's just from the summary at the back.  But the 'box isn't worth 1.2s to 60, no matter who's sat in it.
Alf McQueef

Because there have been so many variants I have not got time to find the figures for the comparable NA Cayman, but at first sight those figures seem very optimistic.

Standing start traction of 2WD cars has been hugely improved in recent years, which - along with gearbox improvements - is making 0-60 figures ever less relevant to me. Full bore standing starts are almost never done in the real world, whereas full throttle acceleration when underway is far more common. Something like the 60-100 figure through the gears is likely to be a good indication of how cars actually feel to drive.

But it also looks like Porsche are following others in using the easy tuneability of forced induction to mess up the figures...
Martin

Just under 5 secs to 60 and a 10 sec 0-100 time seems about right to me, I can't see how it would get under 4 seconds to 60.

I'd rather it was slower and sounded better, especially as it's a sports car, not a quick version of a hatchback/saloon,

I'd have an old model even if it was at a Premium.
Twelfth Monkey

Yep.
Tim

I've always been a little sceptical of the magazine figures for a lot of German stuff.

Often the weirdest ones appear among things like SUVs.
A choice of Cayenne/Q7/ML, all with the same power might be quoted at, say, 7s to 60 and 140mph while a similarly powerful Range Rover (claimed at a similar weight) might do 8.5s and 120.

Golf GTIs have always had suspiciously high top speeds compared with significantly more powerful competitors.

As above though standing start and top speed are just not relevant any more.
franki68

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
Don't know, that's just from the summary at the back.  But the 'box isn't worth 1.2s to 60, no matter who's sat in it.


Sport chrono+pdk+c&d testing one up could,plus weather conditions..turbos especially are prone to temp& altitude factors.

C&d produce the most optimistic figures constantly and autocar the most pessimistic constantly .

Also from experience the new turbo engines put the cars in a different performance bracket,the non s I tested was substantially faster than the 981 generation cars .Even the non s cars are seriously rapid now.
Twelfth Monkey

Don't buy that, personally.
JohnC

There is a new Boxster which regularly gives it the beans away from the petrol station next to the office and whilst it doesn't make me jump to look out like the two C63's, 991 and brace of new RS4's which do similar things on a weekly basis, I think it sounds OK. It's not the same as the flat 6 but I think the criticism is a bit severe. The flat 4 still sounds good to me and by the way the Boxster sits down and flies, I think there could be a lot of fun had behind the wheel.
franki68

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
Don't buy that, personally.


Which part ?
Tim

franki68 wrote:
Also from experience the new turbo engines put the cars in a different performance bracket,the non s I tested was substantially faster than the 981 generation cars .Even the non s cars are seriously rapid now.


What are the outright power figures between the 981 and new cars because I would only expect the new cars to be 'substantially faster' either if they have a lot more power or you are talking about normal driving.
Flat out, as per the OP,  then there should be little/no difference if each model had 350BHP?
JohnC

Tim wrote:
Flat out, as per the OP,  then there should be little/no difference if each model had 350BHP?


But the torque of the turbo 4 will fill out the middle range in a way that the naturally aspirated engine can't so everyday driving would be much more rapid in the turbo for instant overtakes etc, with less need to change down.
Tim

JohnC wrote:
Tim wrote:
Flat out, as per the OP,  then there should be little/no difference if each model had 350BHP?


But the torque of the turbo 4 will fill out the middle range in a way that the naturally aspirated engine can't so everyday driving would be much more rapid in the turbo for instant overtakes etc, with less need to change down.


I agree but the OP was about 0-60, etc.

I had a clear example of the difference between N/A and Turbo when I had my Alfa GT. The headline performance figures were the same as the Coupe but for mid-range performance the Coupe was noticeably faster.
That's why we ended up with the M5  
franki68

pdk and sports chrono give the car a 0.4 second advantage over the manual according to porsche figures.0-100 in 9.7 seconds officially .
Its virtually identical to the gt4 and you can go on autocar and watch their video of a focus rs trying to keep up with a gt4,based on that its not hard to see the 981s being timed much quicker than the focus rs,still doubt a mid 3 sec 0-60 though.
Grampa

Did you notice the American Fiesta ST is a 5 door?
cbeaks1

Grampa wrote:
Did you notice the American Fiesta ST is a 5 door?


You can get 5 Door Fiesta ST here now too.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

Chip Butty wrote:
The Focus RS, on the other hand, is globally disappointing once you get it above 60 mph. It's a 12.5 - 13 second car to 100 mph. So it's either got weird gearing in 3rd and 4th, or it weighs a lot more than quoted, or Ford have not tuned the goolies off the press cars.

This is something I've been wondering for a while - why the RS's acceleration seems to die above about 70-80 mph, and why several magazines have said it doesn't feel any quicker than the Golf R. These possibilities occur:

- it doesn't really have 350 bhp
- it's as heavy as a small moon
- it's as aerodynamic as a barn door
- the clever 4wd transmission eats power
Blarno

All of the above?

       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Your Motor
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum