Planet-9 Porsche Forum banner
  • Hello Everyone! Let us know what you would spend a $50 Amazon gift card on, HERE For a chance to win a $50 Amazon Gift Card!
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Warning... this topic has prolly been beaten to death, but I'm new to this and didn't see many other threads. So... here goes!

Car and Driver published data sheets of their testing of the Base and S MT boxsters and I've (hopefully) attached them below. The acceleration numbers are strikingly similar. I.e.

Base 0-30: 1.5 s
S 0-30: 1.7s

Base 0-60: 4.4s
S 0-60: 4.3s

Base 0-80: 7.3s
S 0-80: 6.8s

The base is actually quicker to 30 and 40 (not shown). I realize it’s two different drivers, which may affect the numbers. But still...

The only big difference I see is “top gear” 30-50 where the base takes 9.6 to the S 7.8. Not sure who goes 30-50 in “top gear” and given the other figures I wouldn’t be surprised if the numbers were similar if a lower gear was chosen.

Also, if you look at the braking data:

Base 70-0: 145 ft
S 70-0: 144 ft

Also very close.

So, given all this, it seems like unless you are tracking your car at high speeds or going 30-50 in top gear a lot that the base model will be pretty much indistinguishable from the S.

But… I’m wondering if I'm missing something….is there something else going on? Like throttle response perhaps. Is the S more responsive but the base catches up with greater boost? Searching a bit, I did see this little snippet in Car and Driver as well:

"The engines’ variances are surprisingly subtle and only detectable at the ragged edges of the powerband." (Feb 2016)

So... is the S worth the extra $ in MT if you are not racing?

I’m hoping to try both base and S tomorrow and maybe I’ll be able to see.

What do others think?

Fliz





View attachment 2017-porsche-boxster-718-manual-tested-review-car-and-driverporsche718boxster2017 (1).pdf View attachment 2017-porsche-boxster-s-manual-test-review-car-and-driverporsche718boxsters2017.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
I queried exactly the same things with my dealer and his advice was that unless I "had to have" the extra power (for track or 'status') that I would hardly notice the upgrade to the S.

My Boxster arrived last evening and I think I have whiplash from stomping my foot at 30 kph in Sport Mode (PDK).

I also got the standard exhaust and it's nice and quiet and "burble-y" until you put your foot down and then it growls menacingly.

Greg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
344 Posts
I had the same dilemma when looking between a base and an S. While stand still acceleration times are helpful, I would suggest you test a base and an S back to back and do a standing acceleration (i.e. traffic pass) starting around 30 or 40 mph at 2K RPM. I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity at my local dealer and this is what made me go with an S over the base. We experienced a lot more lag in the base when simulating a normal traffic roll on pass than on the S.

That said, it was a close decision for me as you could always downshift the base to help offset lag. Save for a canyon road pass where I would always downshift, I really didn't want to have to downshift when filtering through normal traffic situations on 4 lane highways while commuting.

Also, worth noting, I do plan on tracking the car so the S decision become more easy for me.

Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fliz and RickH

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
It is telling to look at horsepower and torque curves for the two engines. They track very close up to 2500 RPM, and one could say they don't really diverge until 4500 RPM. In first gear the vehicle is doing about 16MPH at 2500 RPM and 30MPH at 4500 RPM. I am surprised but I believe the base and S have the same gear ratios. I would say throttle response is the same but turbo spool time is not because of the VTG in the S.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,473 Posts
Even on track, many experienced drivers can find 10 seconds in a new to them Porsche. Inexperienced drivers about 30 seconds. The S is like 1-2 seconds faster. You ain't gonna need it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: fliz and R Doug

·
Registered
Joined
·
832 Posts
I test drove a 718 standard Boxster and found it's performance more than adequate. Although I did not end up with the 718 I am confident that it's performance would have been equal to my 981 CS. Only the sweat sound of that 6 is what drove me to my final choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
344 Posts
Even on track, many experienced drivers can find 10 seconds in a new to them Porsche. Inexperienced drivers about 30 seconds. The S is like 2 seconds faster. You ain't gonna need it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not everyone who attends a track day is looking at lap times. Sometimes, you simply want to roll on throttle and have a more instant response.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,563 Posts
Another point perhaps for consideration, over the long haul - The Base runs boost that is several pounds higher (19+ if memory servers) than the S to achieve its performance. I know/realize in this day and age that that may not be as problematic as years ago. But, considerably higher boost means higher temperatures in that confined space.. That represents more stress. Lest someone think that I am a strong supporter of S and more power is always better.............my first two Caymans had the 3.4 (08 and R), my last two have been 981 base.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
The point of this thread is 0-60 times and acceleration but I believe the purpose of the vehicle is being missed. Almost all vehicles with high horsepower will advertise 0-60 times. You can get an Audi RS3 with really good acceleration at a price equivalent to the Cayman/Boxster. Porsche put the engine in the middle of the vehicle and spent many, many hours, and days, developing a car with exquisite handling. The feel of this vehicle to the driver, and the handling is the whole point. Some of the best handling cars are not necessarily fast in a straight line. They provide a level of interaction, and handling, that cannot be replicated. I think it is amazing that a car in the mid $50k is compared to some of the best handling cars on the planet, because there aren't many of them. If you do your comparison in terms of speed the number of cars to compare is higher. It's higher because it is easier to go fast in a straight line than fast in a corner. Not trying to criticize any of the comments above but bring to the forefront what is sometimes lost in the quest of acceleration, and x to y speed times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Another point perhaps for consideration, over the long haul - The Base runs boost that is several pounds higher (19+ if memory servers) than the S to achieve its performance. I know/realize in this day and age that that may not be as problematic as years ago. But, considerably higher boost means higher temperatures in that confined space.. That represents more stress. Lest someone think that I am a strong supporter of S and more power is always better.............my first two Caymans had the 3.4 (08 and R), my last two have been 981 base.
I wondered about the same thing. Also wondering if the S model's VTG could be a weak point down the road. Then I remembered it's been used for over 10 yrs on the 911 Turbo so is prolly considered pretty dependable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
The point of this thread is 0-60 times and acceleration but I believe the purpose of the vehicle is being missed. Almost all vehicles with high horsepower will advertise 0-60 times. You can get an Audi RS3 with really good acceleration at a price equivalent to the Cayman/Boxster. Porsche put the engine in the middle of the vehicle and spent many, many hours, and days, developing a car with exquisite handling. The feel of this vehicle to the driver, and the handling is the whole point. Some of the best handling cars are not necessarily fast in a straight line. They provide a level of interaction, and handling, that cannot be replicated. I think it is amazing that a car in the mid $50k is compared to some of the best handling cars on the planet, because there aren't many of them. If you do your comparison in terms of speed the number of cars to compare is higher. It's higher because it is easier to go fast in a straight line than fast in a corner. Not trying to criticize any of the comments above but bring to the forefront what is sometimes lost in the quest of acceleration, and x to y speed times.
I don't think we're missing the purpose of the vehicle, just looking at one particular dimension of the whole package, which as you say, is amazing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
537 Posts
I don't own and haven't been looking at a 718. But I have owned three 987.1 cars. The first two were base models. Almost every time I got behind the wheel of the base model I wondered what I was missing by not owning an S. So finally I bought a 987.1S. Now I am no longer second guessing myself, no longer wondering if the grass is greener with an S, no longer feeling like a wimp for not spending a few more bucks to get the car Porsche meant to create.

Do yourself a favor... stop rationalizing, spend the extra money, and get the S. Of course this reasoning can be a slippery slope. If the S is worth the extra money why not get the 911. If the 911 is worth the extra money why not get the Audi R8 or a Ferrari?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,563 Posts
I would get the S for the reasons I cited earlier considerably less stress on the engine to produce the power. I had forgotten to mention too that it is a bigger engine in displacement (I am sure along with VTG how the power and drivablility can be achieved).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
Another point perhaps for consideration, over the long haul - The Base runs boost that is several pounds higher (19+ if memory servers) than the S to achieve its performance. I know/realize in this day and age that that may not be as problematic as years ago. But, considerably higher boost means higher temperatures in that confined space.. That represents more stress. Lest someone think that I am a strong supporter of S and more power is always better.............my first two Caymans had the 3.4 (08 and R), my last two have been 981 base.
This is my biggest question mark about the 718. I have yet to see one at any track event, but I am really curious about how they will fare in the summer temps presented by Road Atl., Barber, Roebling, etc.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
This is my biggest question mark about the 718. I have yet to see one at any track event, but I am really curious about how they will fare in the summer temps presented by Road Atl., Barber, Roebling, etc.
Hi, I just thought I would add in my experience of the 718. I have tracked mine around the full GP circuit at Yas Marina in Abu Dhabi on two occasions now, in temps above 40 degrees C, and the engine performed remarkably. Yesterday I drove up Jebel Jais, a nearly 2000m mountain in Ras Al Khaimah in teh UAE with a sweet twisty 26km road to the top. I was with a friend in a Maclaren MP4-12C, and temp in the valley was pushing 50 degrees C. The road was empty and we both pushed the cars to the limit - at the top the Maclaren was suffering from heat issues but my 718 was not troubled at all. So IMHO, the new engine is awesome - and coupled with the 982 platform I dont believe you could buy anything better at anywhere near the price point! Great work Porsche!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
The only time I drove in 50°C the car coped well but we didn't! We had no air-conditioning in that vehicle and discovered it was more comfortable with the windows closed.

I'm glad to see I won't have to repeat that experience.

Greg
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,563 Posts
Good to see heat is not an issue to this point. I am interested in long term with the heat soak impact. It may not be an issue. By the way, I will likely trade my 2016 981 in a couple or 3 years so my comments about long haul are not just rhetoric. It the 718 does well, there will be one or its derivative in my garage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,848 Posts
This is my biggest question mark about the 718. I have yet to see one at any track event, but I am really curious about how they will fare in the summer temps presented by Road Atl., Barber, Roebling, etc.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yep, high temperatures are a challenge for a turbocharger. The performance degradation however, is typically small with high end turbocharged cars because of efficient intercoolers and cold air intakes.
The aim of a turbocharger is to increase the density of the air inside each cylinder of the engine. By compressing the air, more oxygen enters into each cylinder, and proportionally more fuel can also enter each cylinder, meaning that more power is generated with each explosion inside the cylinders. As air temperature increases, the density of the air, and the amount of oxygen it holds decreases. This means that the turbocharger has to work harder, spin faster and compress more air to produce the same amount of boost it would at lower temperatures. As the temperatures inside the turbocharger gets higher, the turbocharger can no longer increase it’s speed efficiently, thereby reducing engine performance, acceleration and top speed. In addition, hotter air also has a secondary affect on the turbocharger, by naturally increasing the operating temperature inside the turbo. Usually, the intercooler works to cool the air from the hot air intake, but in warmer temperatures, the intercooler becomes less efficient, as it is also exposed to the warmer temperatures.
So, turbos have a challenge in high temperatures, but I doubt that the average driver will be able to detect the difference unless the temperatures are very hot and the car is pushed hard for a period of time.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top