M4 vs. Cayman GTS

[bclk55]

Originally Posted by Romo

No it`s not, certainly not while smooth PDK daily driving it shifts very quickly and RPM`s are kept low, although the engine sound can change instantaneously by WOT.
Then it becomes a kind of Dr Jekyll vs Mr Hide.....

Anyway; the sound will not disappoint, no matter how you`ll drive the GTS, no matter the settings.......

Well Said, I concur! The sound does not disappoint. It sounds so good!

[M3OW]

Originally Posted by bclk55

Well Said, I concur! The sound does not disappoint. It sounds so good!

I just placed my order for a 2015 cayman gts 6spd manual. The sound is phenomenal!

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by M3OW

I just placed my order for a 2015 cayman gts 6spd manual. The sound is phenomenal!

Enjoy the Cayman GTS forum. Bon Voyage

[M3OW]

Originally Posted by gmcconn535

Enjoy the Cayman GTS forum. Bon Voyage

Lol ur still angry? I have some more good news for you period orange. I'm buying an m3 as a DD

Me and u are going to be good buddies for a while.

[ridin135]

Originally Posted by M3OW

I just placed my order for a 2015 cayman gts 6spd manual. The sound is phenomenal!

Congrats man what's your build

[JeffM-Houston]

I certainly would cross shop them if both fit my needs. For me though the lower seating position of the Cayman doesn't work, I'm old with bad knees and can't easily get in and out of them.

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by E92LNGCGY

The thing I did not like about the Cayman/Boxster S motor is the lack of torque below 4k rpm. I may be used to driving turbo cars with the huge torque down low.

Really only a problem on the street. When you're messing around. You're not going to let your high revving car get under 4k on the track or whenever you're really getting after it.

But we are talking about street cars so it's absolutely a valid point.

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by fatmike91

The 981 Cayman is a fantastic car. Just fantastic. If you haven't driven it you should.

If you are interested in a a pure sportscar experience, it is one of the best cars on the road (and maybe one of the best cars ever made by any car manufacturer ever).

The M is very interesting to me. I'd like to drive it. Whether I consider buying it depends 100% on the driving inputs. That is the shifter feel, the steering wheel feel, the clutch feel and throttle response. You can talk smack all day long about the Cayman, but it's throttle response is second to none (as good as some old M3s).

Will the new new M maintain it's throttle response? I'll tell you this, I bought a first generation 335 and sold it within 3 months because I absolutely couldn't stand the turbo lag...



/

Well you KNOW it won't "maintain its throttle response". The question is, will it be ENOUGH improved from its origin N55 to suffice given its other benefits.

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

I have the same thoughts as you. Should have and could have done more

Yet no complaint about a 2k lower rpm HP peak, and only 11hp bump in peak HP for the M3?

Completely changed the character of the car.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

Yet no complaint about a 2k lower rpm HP peak, and only 11hp bump in peak HP for the M3?

Completely changed the character of the car.

the peak hp extends to 7300 rpm, which according to my top shelf math skills, is approximately 1000 RPM, not 2000 RPM. but hey, lets just make stuff up to make our point, right?

the car is making more than 11hp more than the e92, that's not debatable. its also much more powerful at all RPMs. the huge jump in trap speeds and 0-100 all prove that

ive said 100000000x that this motor and power delivery makes much more sense in the m3 to me, and I prefer it to the s65 which I have also actually owned and driven.

you like the s65 a lot, that's great, but honestly I don't really care.

have you actually driven an s55 powered car?

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by Kadema

DIN weight of the new cayman gts is 1345kg / 2965lbs. So it's just 335lbs lighter than the M4, not 600. Always this confusion of weight categories. This means the gts is noticeably slower than the M4. E.g. 0-62mph in 4.9s vs 4.1s. Besides beeing a much smaller two seater. Same priced porsches are always slower than their BMW counterparts, but a little more luxury and better handling. Porsche only shines when money doesn't matter that much.

Seriously? Still with the proven false 3300 lbs crap? The lowest posted weights are around 3450, so let's call it a minimum of 485 lbs.

[M4GTS]

GTS PDK vs. M4 DCT

Mass 1375 1537
0-62mph 4.5 4.1
0-100mph 9.8 8.6
1/4 mile 12.6 12.1?
0-200kmph 15.3 13?

My GTS doesn't feel any slower than my E92 M3, but the M4 is quite a bit faster...

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by alpinweiss 335i

My gut: 2 door goes to the Cayman, 4 door goes to the f80.

But, who knows. Neither car has been reviewed. We're comparing Unicorns to a Sasquatch at this point.

Points for the most sensible post in this thread!

Funny too!

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

the peak hp extends to 7300 rpm, which according to my top shelf math skills, is approximately 1000 RPM, not 2000 RPM. but hey, lets just make stuff up to make our point, right?

the car is making more than 11hp more than the e92, that's not debatable. its also much more powerful at all RPMs. the huge jump in trap speeds and 0-100 all prove that

ive said 100000000x that this motor and power delivery makes much more sense in the m3 to me, and I prefer it to the s65 which I have also actually owned and driven.

you like the s65 a lot, that's great, but honestly I don't really care.

have you actually driven an s55 powered car?

why would he drive the new car to see for himself when he can preach the e90M dogmatic beliefs on F80post?

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

the peak hp extends to 7300 rpm, which according to my top shelf math skills, is approximately 1000 RPM, not 2000 RPM. but hey, lets just make stuff up to make our point, right?

Peak power in the S55 is at 6600 RPM, so it's 1700 RPM below, not 2000. If you have a source for dyno results showing a peak at 7300 stock, post it.

Here's my source:

http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_...eneration.html

the car is making more than 11hp more than the e92, that's not debatable.

Could be. BMW says there's an 11hp difference in peak power. We'll see how long that lives, since BMW has apparently already issued a software update that cuts back the boost. I wonder why? Is it reliability, fuel economy, or something else?

its also much more powerful at all RPMs. the huge jump in trap speeds and 0-100 all prove that

Agreed that it's more powerful at most/all RPM that the low-revving S55 can achieve, and significantly so at low RPM.

ive said 100000000x that this motor and power delivery makes much more sense in the m3 to me, and I prefer it to the s65 which I have also actually owned and driven.

Yea, I suppose I agree with this. Since most folks drive their M3 only on the street, and aren't used to keeping their engine "on the boil" when they want to go fast, a turbo motor, lag and all, is a better choice for them.

you like the s65 a lot,

Not JUST the S65 - though it is magnificent, but all instant response, great-sound (which means N/A of course), high revving engines. I like the Audi V8 from the RS4 / R8, I like the GT3 engines, most Ferrari and Lambo engines ... all the really cool, really amazingly engineered engines. What I don't particularly appreciate is an engine where you could sub in any of a dozen other manufacturer's engine and the owner wouldn't even be able to detect the difference. THAT's what I think of the S55. Not that it's a poor performer. But that it's common, ordinary, unremarkable. It's powerful and a great engineering piece. It's simply a powerplant though. You could likely replace it with a diesel and few would detect any performance change.

have you actually driven an s55 powered car?

No. Heard one in person. Heard the "fart". But again, low revs, short shifting, fake sound (they didn't do that because the natural sound was great) and lag simply don't interest me.

[mithiral67]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

Really only a problem on the street. When you're messing around. You're not going to let your high revving car get under 4k on the track or whenever you're really getting after it.

But we are talking about street cars so it's absolutely a valid point.

Look at my sig, coming from high end tq cars, I can say below 70mph, my PDK gts would eat them alive day to day on the streets. Even short shifting at 5-6k, it just plan faster than you could ever shift twice in either of those cars.

I know the pdk is geared about 20% lower, so might not be true for manuals, but I haven't missed any low end grunt and I probably took near a 40% hit from my last car.

[M3OW]

Originally Posted by ridin135

Congrats man what's your build

Thanks, here's my build. Black 6spd manual cayman gts alcanrara trim with the following add ons

Porsche torque vectoring
Park assist (rear)
Bose surround sound
Adaptive 18 way sport seats plus
CDR plus Audio system
Premium package
Wheels painted in platinum satin
Center console trim in leather
Alcanrara storage compartment with Porsche logo
Sport suspension

Total retail price $85,945.00 plus I negotiated a 6% discount off total price.

[mithiral67]

So, wanted to get a feel for the acceleration on the GTS, so ran some 0-60s on my iphone dynolicious. Yes, its not accurate for purpose of comparing to others, but good enough to compare to different starts for me. So, here are the results for 0-60

4.31s sports plus mode - launch control - redline shifting
4.74s sports plus mode - normal launch - redline shifting
4.96s sports plus mode - normal launch - short shifting at 6k rpms
5.15 normal mode - normal luanch - short shifting at 6k rpms

Based on the first run, I felt like it was getting it pretty accurate. Based on subsequent runs being right inline with at least getting longer and longer, feel decent about the accuracy.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

Peak power in the S55 is at 6600 RPM, so it's 1700 RPM below, not 2000. If you have a source for dyno results showing a peak at 7300 stock, post it.

Here's my source:

http://blogs.motortrend.com/1407_on_...eneration.html

Could be. BMW says there's an 11hp difference in peak power. We'll see how long that lives, since BMW has apparently already issued a software update that cuts back the boost. I wonder why? Is it reliability, fuel economy, or something else?

Agreed that it's more powerful at most/all RPM that the low-revving S55 can achieve, and significantly so at low RPM.

Yea, I suppose I agree with this. Since most folks drive their M3 only on the street, and aren't used to keeping their engine "on the boil" when they want to go fast, a turbo motor, lag and all, is a better choice for them.

Not JUST the S65 - though it is magnificent, but all instant response, great-sound (which means N/A of course), high revving engines. I like the Audi V8 from the RS4 / R8, I like the GT3 engines, most Ferrari and Lambo engines ... all the really cool, really amazingly engineered engines. What I don't particularly appreciate is an engine where you could sub in any of a dozen other manufacturer's engine and the owner wouldn't even be able to detect the difference. THAT's what I think of the S55. Not that it's a poor performer. But that it's common, ordinary, unremarkable. It's powerful and a great engineering piece. It's simply a powerplant though. You could likely replace it with a diesel and few would detect any performance change

No. Heard one in person. Heard the "fart". But again, low revs, short shifting, fake sound (they didn't do that because the natural sound was great) and lag simply don't interest me.

1) can you document the bold? haven't heard this

2) how often do you track your car? I track my cars, and have plenty of seat time in turbo and N/A cars. I can tell you that both are great on track for different reasons. I can also tell you not all turbo engines are the same. I thought my 1m and 997tt were both much more fun on track than my e92, mostly because of the engine. the m3 felt gutless coming out of corners while the 1m and 997tt felt like a beast. I track for fun, so I enjoyed the torque and rich powerband. just my opinion.

3) I also like N/A engines along with turbo engines. I also like N/A high revving engines in cars that don't weigh 3600 lbs like the e9x. The gt3 is completely different since it makes MORE power in a much lighter package. I have seat time in both, they cant be compared. Same goes for a new generation 991s.

4) its pointless to listen to you talk about the characteristics of a car / engine that you haven't even driven. You have no idea what the s55 feels like, so I don't get why you feel the need to make strong assertions without any experience to back it up. I also think that saying you could plug in any turbo or diesel engine into the m3 and have it feel the same. this is highly exaggerated and completely false. looking at dyno curves of different turbo engines compared to the s55 would make this painfully obvious.

5) every single dyno I have seen except the motortrend dyno (which was run in 4wd mode with no fans blowing into the radiator) shows the power holding, and in many cases slowly building to redline. They are all over the forum and not hard to find.

6) its a waste of time to argue personal preferences with people, specifically ones who haven't even driven the car, yet are making declarative statements about the driving experience.

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

1) can you document the bold? haven't heard this

I'll look around for it a bit. I don't have it at the ready.

2) how often do you track your car?

About 6k miles of my 20k on the car.

the m3 felt gutless coming out of corners

Too high of a gear / too late onto the power?

while the 1m and 997tt felt like a beast. I track for fun, so I enjoyed the torque and rich powerband. just my opinion.

Re:fun - me too.

4) its pointless to listen to you talk about the characteristics of a car / engine that you haven't even driven. You have no idea what the s55 feels like, so I don't get why you feel the need to make strong assertions without any experience to back it up.

Interesting perspective. I've learned about many things I didn't/couldn't touch.

I also think that saying you could plug in any turbo or diesel engine into the m3 and have it feel the same. this is highly exaggerated and completely false. looking at dyno curves of different turbo engines compared to the s55 would make this painfully obvious.

What's painfully obvious is that throttle response, revs, uniqueness and sound quality are greatly diminished in the new version. If those things don't matter as much as torque and tuneability, then you'll like the new one better. To the extent they matter to you, they'll diminish your fondness for the new one.

5) every single dyno I have seen except the motortrend dyno (which was run in 4wd mode with no fans blowing into the radiator) shows the power holding, and in many cases slowly building to redline. They are all over the forum and not hard to find.

Could be. I Googled and that was a top result and the first one I clicked.

6) its a waste of time to argue personal preferences with people, specifically ones who haven't even driven the car,

How many low revving, fake sound cars do I need to drive to know I like high revs and racy sounds?

yet are making declarative statements about the driving experience.

Again, I'm capable of learning through study. Plus I agree the new one is faster.

I'll also apply the sniff test: if the lag didn't suck, there wouldn't be an anti lag mode., and if the sound was great, there wouldn't be fake sound added.

[Jockey]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

I'll also apply the sniff test: if the lag didn't suck, there wouldn't be an anti lag mode., and if the sound was great, there wouldn't be fake sound added.

So you really don't know anything about the F8X do you?

For someone who has no interest in the F8X, you spend a lot of time here.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

I'll look around for it a bit. I don't have it at the ready.



About 6k miles of my 20k on the car.



Too high of a gear / too late onto the power?




Re:fun - me too.




Interesting perspective. I've learned about many things I didn't/couldn't touch.




What's painfully obvious is that throttle response, revs, uniqueness and sound quality are greatly diminished in the new version. If those things don't matter as much as torque and tuneability, then you'll like the new one better. To the extent they matter to you, they'll diminish your fondness for the new one.




Could be. I Googled and that was a top result and the first one I clicked.



How many low revving, fake sound cars do I need to drive to know I like high revs and racy sounds?



Again, I'm capable of learning through study. Plus I agree the new one is faster.

I'll also apply the sniff test: if the lag didn't suck, there wouldn't be an anti lag mode., and if the sound was great, there wouldn't be fake sound added.

cliffs : you don't have any real world experience to back your claims up with. so, no point in debating.

posting about preferences is useless, even more so when you haven't even experienced the car

also, nice non response to the dynos. you are wrong, and the car does make power to redline at 7300 rpm, 1000 rpm shy of the e9x. personal preferences aside, this is a fact