[medphysdave]

I'm getting the sense that the increased weight of a vehicle is overblown. We've been trained to think this way because historically getting the center of mass low in a vehicle was difficult. Now with electric cars, different materials the center of mass is quite low. A high weight with a low center improves stability. It allows a lateral slide of object versus a rotation in the vertical axis. This is then offset with increasing grip. Grip and suspension trickery can only do so much to keep a skyscraper from tipping over. Try tipping over a manhole cover.

Given enough low end tq to keep things feeling lite, grip and suspension wizardry, high weight, low center, and you still have a car that handles like it's on rails.

Only the new architectures will be able to achieve these things. A heavy car can still be nimble if it has the supporting components up to the task.

[msmatt]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Well, it's no secret that BMW did quite some surgery on the E46 M3 to develop the E46 M3 CSL, shaving off 110 kg (1495 kg reduced to 1385 kg), never called it "limited edition" and made 1383 cars (see for example here, here and here).
Attachment 2535306

And then there is also the art of figures management that had to be adjusted because of new regulations, requiring car weight figures to be more realistic (no longer the weight figure of a stripped Porsche with PCCB, manual transmission and without airco, without SATNAV & radio, etc. to push down the weight figure to the minimum level - a minimum weight configuration that only very few customers spec):

As a consequence, it's almost inevitable that the G87 M2 weight figure will be higher - at least on paper - than the F87 M2 6MT weight figure (1495 kg) or M2C 6MT weight figure (1550 kg) (or as I noted in the past: "S55 = Supplementary 55 kg" ).

A 4-cyl layout could save weight (and for the F87 M2 BMW has also toyed with that idea at some point in time many moons ago), but it's gonna be 6-cyl again. From 6-cyl to 4-cyl: Porsche gave it a shot with the 718 Cayman, but all fancy marketing could not convince and Porsche re-introduced the 6-cyl for the 718 Cayman.

So the new rules in EU drove Porsche back to a 4.0L NA flat six and there have been rumors that this engine will displace the turbos in the regular 911’s. So who’s up for a 3.5-4.0L NA inline in the next M2? Do we know how much displacement can be added to the current crop of BMW 6’s?

[classj]

Not so sure new rules drove them back to the 4.0 6 cyl. The crappy 4 cyl models that had no soul drove them back. The cars were all sitting on the lot.

After having owned a 6cyl cayman S for years I drove the 718 Base and GTS. Service dept actually gave me a Boxster loaner for the weekend.

The 4 cyl power plant destroyed that car.

The 4.0 NA could end up in a next gen special edition car. I doubt it would end up in regular Carreras.

In a world of turbo cars making 400-500hp horsepower and a boat load of torque it is going to be hard for average people to appreciate NA engines.

Hate to admit but I like my 991.2 T turbocharged engine better than my 981 3.4.

[msmatt]

Originally Posted by classj

Not so sure new rules drove them back to the 4.0 6 cyl. The crappy 4 cyl models that had no soul drove them back. The cars were all sitting on the lot.

After having owned a 6cyl cayman S for years I drove the 718 Base and GTS. Service dept actually gave me a Boxster loaner for the weekend.

The 4 cyl power plant destroyed that car.

The 4.0 NA could end up in a next gen special edition car. I doubt it would end up in regular Carreras.

In a world of turbo cars making 400-500hp horsepower and a boat load of torque it is going to be hard for average people to appreciate NA engines.

Hate to admit but I like my 991.2 T turbocharged engine better than my 981 3.4.

Yeah, we all know why they went back to the 6cyl, those 4cyl’s sucked. But the rules are pushing displacement otherwise they would have stuck the 3.0L turbo in there:

https://www.autoblog.com/2020/05/19/...gines-in-2026/

[CarJunkie]

Originally Posted by Bimmed Out

I'm not sure I can imagine a less meaningful dichotomy. As an aside, do people really use the term "sporty car"?

Great point! As soon as I read the title of this thread I remembered a co-worker at a restaurant I worked at in college glowing about the car she just bought and how "sporty" it was. It was a Ford Escort. Not a Focus....an Escort.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by msmatt

So the new rules in EU drove Porsche back to a 4.0L NA flat six and there have been rumors that this engine will displace the turbos in the regular 911’s. So who’s up for a 3.5-4.0L NA inline in the next M2? Do we know how much displacement can be added to the current crop of BMW 6’s?

No, Porsche reintroduced the flat-6 for the Boxster and Cayman because of criticism how the 4-cyl sounds. And people vote with their wallets + look at what the competition has on offer.

The 4-cyl replaced the 6-cyl in June 2016. Boxster and Cayman became "718 Boxster" and "718 Cayman". The flat-6 returned in 2019 with the GT4 & Spyder and in 2020 with the GTS 4.0.

Official U.S. retail figures for Boxster and Cayman (sources: 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020):

• 2016: 6260 (981 + 718)
• 2017: 5087 (718)
• 2018: 5276 (718)
• 2019: 3880 (718)
• 2020: 3447 (718)

For the rest: EU emissions regulations force manufacturers to reduce CO2 and exhaust noise. EU emissions regulations do not impose the way how to do it - it's up to manufacturers to figure out how to stay under the imposed limit.

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by medphysdave

I'm getting the sense that the increased weight of a vehicle is overblown. We've been trained to think this way because historically getting the center of mass low in a vehicle was difficult. Now with electric cars, different materials the center of mass is quite low. A high weight with a low center improves stability. It allows a lateral slide of object versus a rotation in the vertical axis. This is then offset with increasing grip. Grip and suspension trickery can only do so much to keep a skyscraper from tipping over. Try tipping over a manhole cover.

Given enough low end tq to keep things feeling lite, grip and suspension wizardry, high weight, low center, and you still have a car that handles like it's on rails.

Only the new architectures will be able to achieve these things. A heavy car can still be nimble if it has the supporting components up to the task.

That was brilliantly explained. Thank you for making things interesting

[classj]

Originally Posted by msmatt

Yeah, we all know why they went back to the 6cyl, those 4cyl’s sucked. But the rules are pushing displacement otherwise they would have stuck the 3.0L turbo in there:

https://www.autoblog.com/2020/05/19/...gines-in-2026/

Nah. Rules had nothing to do with it from what I understand. The 718 is an old platform by every definition. It has barely been touched since 2012 when the 981 was released.

Numerous people have confirmed that the 6cyl turbo platform could not be shoehorned into the existing 981/718 body without substantial changes.

It was a packaging issue, poor sales, and the need for a gen 2 GT4 that led them to create the new 4.0 motor (which is a 3.0 turbo without turbochargers and more displacement). Cylinder deactivation was used to help on the compliance front. It turns itself into a 3 cyl when power is needed.

Putting the GT3 engine in the Cayman would have been the power move but Porsche will never threaten a current 911 variant with the 718 platform. There is a pecking order.

This is the same reason we only get the M2 CS with 444hp after they dropped the current M4.

[msmatt]

Originally Posted by Artemis

No, Porsche reintroduced the flat-6 for the Boxster and Cayman because of criticism how the 4-cyl sounds. And people vote with their wallets + look at what the competition has on offer.

The 4-cyl replaced the 6-cyl in June 2016. Boxster and Cayman became "718 Boxster" and "718 Cayman". The flat-6 returned in 2019 with the GT4 & Spyder and in 2020 with the GTS 4.0.

Official U.S. retail figures for Boxster and Cayman (sources: 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020):

• 2016: 6260 (981 + 718)
• 2017: 5087 (718)
• 2018: 5276 (718)
• 2019: 3880 (718)
• 2020: 3447 (718)

Attachment 2535406

Attachment 2535407

Attachment 2535408

Attachment 2535409

For the rest: EU emissions regulations force manufacturers to reduce CO2 and exhaust noise. EU emissions regulations do not impose the way how to do it - it's up to manufacturers to figure out how to stay under the imposed limit.

Originally Posted by classj

Nah. Rules had nothing to do with it from what I understand. The 718 is an old platform by every definition. It has barely been touched since 2012 when the 981 was released.

Numerous people have confirmed that the 6cyl turbo platform could not be shoehorned into the existing 981/718 body without substantial changes.

It was a packaging issue, poor sales, and the need for a gen 2 GT4 that led them to create the new 4.0 motor (which is a 3.0 turbo without turbochargers and more displacement). Cylinder deactivation was used to help on the compliance front. It turns itself into a 3 cyl when power is needed.

Putting the GT3 engine in the Cayman would have been the power move but Porsche will never threaten a current 911 variant with the 718 platform. There is a pecking order.

This is the same reason we only get the M2 CS with 444hp after they dropped the current M4.

Y'all are missing my point, we all know the the 4cyl was a a dud, no debate on why they put a 6cyl back in. But they put a 4.0L NA motor in instead of the Carrera 3.0 turbo and if you read this article from autoblog, they discuss how emissions may cause the use of higher displacement.

I'd take a bigger NA motor anyday........

[medphysdave]

I'll continue my previous topic

Most say they want a car that handles "like it's on rails", but they don't. They want a car that has character. "Character" = "Sucks at being a modern marvel". Porsche might be at the pinnacle of engineering marvel. It's at the expense of "character" and can translate to less fun unless challenged in an environment that exceeds the ability of the engineering.

The more I look at the pictures the more I find myself defining a sports car based on how it looks.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by medphysdave

I'll continue my previous topic

Most say they want a car that handles "like it's on rails", but they don't. They want a car that has character. "Character" = "Sucks at being a modern marvel". Porsche might be at the pinnacle of engineering marvel. It's at the expense of "character" and can translate to less fun unless challenged in an environment that exceeds the ability of the engineering.

The more I look at the pictures the more I find myself defining a sports car based on how it looks.

I agree w the 1st paragraph... I think the M2 comp w coilovers or a CS is probably at the very limit of most people's ability on this forum... beyond that, you get into really high levels of performance that many of us wouldn't touch on the daily... or even a track... a base 911 carrera S far exceeds everyone's ability here... the RS models... let's not even get into that.

[classj]

Originally Posted by medphysdave

I'll continue my previous topic

Most say they want a car that handles "like it's on rails", but they don't. They want a car that has character. "Character" = "Sucks at being a modern marvel". Porsche might be at the pinnacle of engineering marvel. It's at the expense of "character" and can translate to less fun unless challenged in an environment that exceeds the ability of the engineering.

The more I look at the pictures the more I find myself defining a sports car based on how it looks.

BINGO! Which is why ring times, 0-60 times, etc don't really matter to me. If they did I would own a 992 Turbo (a fast boring car)

Engineers are great at solving problems like "make the car faster".

Problems like "make the car feel like this" are more difficult. And sometimes they are conflicting problems.

[buckybadger]

Originally Posted by classj

BINGO! Which is why ring times, 0-60 times, etc don't really matter to me. If they did I would own a 992 Turbo (a fast boring car)

Engineers are great at solving problems like "make the car faster".

Problems like "make the car feel like this" are more difficult. And sometimes they are conflicting problems.

They can make the car feel better but they don't want to, there are reasons which we don't know entirely.

[classj]

Originally Posted by msmatt

Y'all are missing my point, we all know the the 4cyl was a a dud, no debate on why they put a 6cyl back in. But they put a 4.0L NA motor in instead of the Carrera 3.0 turbo and if you read this article from autoblog, they discuss how emissions may cause the use of higher displacement.

I'd take a bigger NA motor anyday........

Agreed on all fronts. BUT they did not use the 6 cyl turbo in the 718 for packaging reasons. That was stated by Porsche many times through the years.

As an aside, yes, higher displacements may help them with emissions compliance.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by msmatt

Y'all are missing my point, we all know the the 4cyl was a a dud, no debate on why they put a 6cyl back in. But they put a 4.0L NA motor in instead of the Carrera 3.0 turbo and if you read this article from autoblog, they discuss how emissions may cause the use of higher displacement.
I'd take a bigger NA motor anyday........

The future: a car for Europe that's lower on emissions and a car for the rest of world that's higher on emissions.

In Europe, homologation of new car models is subject to compliance with the EURO 6 emissions regulations (street legal). EURO 7 will apply from 2025 onwards. And for car manufacturers it promises to be a more painful yank on the tightened thumb screws that time around. And as the volume of the party music will get another drop from 2025 onwards, late 2024 will be an interesting window of opportunity for car manufacturers to please oldskool car enthusiasts. BMW better speeds up the process in developing a G87 M2 CS or G87 M2 CSL.

But apart from EURO 6 emissions regulations (globally), over the past couple of years "eco taxes" have been trending in Europe (regionally): countries imposing additional taxes, calculated on the basis of a cocktail of parameters (engine displacement, power output, fuel type, EURO category, age and CO2 emissions). And the only way is up: countries keep increasing those environmental taxes as the years pass by. Officially - alike taxes on cigarettes - as an incentive to discourage buying high emissions cars, but also in some way as a new source of income for the public authorities. Furthermore, fiscal rules gradually discourage companies to buy high emissions cars and increase personal taxes of company directors using high emissions company cars (or the other way around: fiscal rules favoring the purchase of electric cars).

Also trending in Europe (locally): cities imposing bans or restrictions for older, more polluting cars (ANPR cameras installed at the town borders check cars: a ban violation gets automatically fined). Purpose: less pollution or noise in town. We don't know how the situation will evolve, but possibly it's only a matter of time before modern high performance cars also may be banned or restricted (i.e. admitted for city residents subject to a hefty annual "eco tax"): all it takes is just a city deciding to impose a tight CO2 limit (or scheduling the ban or restriction to allow some time to adapt). The more cities copying those city bans, the less usability to drive your fancy high performance cars in cities, and the more those cars will drop in value. A bit like in Medieval Times in Europe: to access bigger towns surrounded by wall borders, you were required to pay a toll (excise) at the town gates (granting a right of passage to town and use its infrastructure and facilities). Looks like that's about to return: the more emissions, the higher the modern day 'excise' (granting some kind of right to 'polluting' in town).

And you know what ? It works: I know several people who decided to refrain from buying 'top dogs' anymore. Car manufacturers are aware of this and invest more in developing electric cars. Petrol cars are headed for extinction and not everyone buying high performance cars only uses those on race tracks.

Originally Posted by msmatt

emissions may cause the use of higher displacement.

If that's the case, let there be no doubt: rules will be adapted, taxing the higher displacement harder. Car manufacturers may get away with smart moves only temporary, but won't manage to permanently outsmart the system - any such loophole will be closed in function of the purpose: lower emissions.

Same happened to the "fake hybrids" that popped up in recent years, those "e-Whatever" cars with a negligible electric range: initially hybrids benefited favorable fiscal rules, and so also cars like a LaFerrari, McLaren P1 or 918 Spyder were suddenly part of the 'hybrids' family. Well, closing the loophole didn't take that long: 'fake hybrids' are taxed again as much as a 'no-hybrids'. 'Real hybrids' still benefit, as was intended.

Same goes for big SUV cars that were initially registered as "lightweight trucks" to benefit from fiscal rules - also that loophole got closed.

[CarJunkie]

^^
Sadly, I think this is correct. It will be interesting to see what happens as the politicians grow accustomed to the revenue and people actually do what they intended, which is to buy lower CO2-emitting cars. As they do that the tax revenues will begin to dry up and the politicians will have to find some other new emergency issue to form tax policies around.

There are some states in the United States that are already charging an additional tax to register a hybrid vehicle because they are not able to collect enough gasoline taxes to cover the cost of maintaining the roads. It's an interesting conundrum, isn't it?

I am so glad I don't live in Europe, and hope that we can be at least 20 years behind on this. Long live the Corvette? I guess it will have to do.

[classj]

Internal combustion cars are not going away. But it will be pay to play. And I fully expect the registration and use process to mimic how emissions in some states are handled for classic cars.

Logically. The Govt should not care about the Vette or Porsche you put 3k miles a year on driving to car shows and weekend cruises. They will tax it, they will
Monitor mileage.

But the 25k miles a year commuter car is going to need to be compliant.

And don’t worry, you will want it to be compliant when gas is $15 a gallon.

There will be 100 loop holes that change yearly too.

[msmatt]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Attachment 2535716

If that's the case, let there be no doubt: rules will be adapted, taxing the higher displacement harder. Car manufacturers may get away with smart moves only temporary, but won't manage to permanently outsmart the system - any such loophole will be closed in function of the purpose: lower emissions.

Same happened to the "fake hybrids" that popped up in recent years, those "e-Whatever" cars with a negligible electric range: initially hybrids benefited favorable fiscal rules, and so also cars like a LaFerrari, McLaren P1 or 918 Spyder were suddenly part of the 'hybrids' family. Well, closing the loophole didn't take that long: 'fake hybrids' are taxed again as much as a 'no-hybrids'. 'Real hybrids' still benefit, as was intended.

Same goes for big SUV cars that were initially registered as "lightweight trucks" to benefit from fiscal rules - also that loophole got closed.

Exactly, so get’em while you can!

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by CarJunkie

^^
Sadly, I think this is correct. It will be interesting to see what happens as the politicians grow accustomed to the revenue and people actually do what they intended, which is to buy lower CO2-emitting cars. As they do that the tax revenues will begin to dry up and the politicians will have to find some other new emergency issue to form tax policies around.
There are some states in the United States that are already charging an additional tax to register a hybrid vehicle because they are not able to collect enough gasoline taxes to cover the cost of maintaining the roads. It's an interesting conundrum, isn't it?
I am so glad I don't live in Europe, and hope that we can be at least 20 years behind on this. Long live the Corvette? I guess it will have to do.

As more electricity will be used to recharge electric vehicles, what about an increased tax for the use of the electricity network/infrastructure (apart from the consumed electricity cost) ?

[Alpine*]

And will the current network support it? Crank up the coal fired power stations boys and girls.

[medphysdave]

Nuclear power will become increasingly popular again. I believe it already is in France with their breeder reactors. Fusion is making progress, but still quite far from mainstream.

Edit: checked on the french program. Looks like they may have pulled the plug in the breeder reactors.

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by medphysdave

I'll continue my previous topic

Most say they want a car that handles "like it's on rails", but they don't. They want a car that has character. "Character" = "Sucks at being a modern marvel". Porsche might be at the pinnacle of engineering marvel. It's at the expense of "character" and can translate to less fun unless challenged in an environment that exceeds the ability of the engineering.

The more I look at the pictures the more I find myself defining a sports car based on how it looks.

hear hear