Originally Posted by Six_Cylinders

If raw power isn't really such a big issue with Cayman drivers, but rather the ease and precision with one can carve through corners, then by all accounts I've read in these forums, the 5-speed Cayman with the smaller 2.7 liter engine ought to be considered superior to the heavier S version, especially if heavy and frequent acceleration (gas guzzling) isn't a part of one's driving habit.

Sex_Zylinder

Originally Posted by Gator Bite

I admire the clever attempt to make your point, and understand what you're trying to say, but I hardly think that the 110lbs less that the 2.7 is carrying would even be felt. I think that the wider rubber and bigger brakes of the S would allow for faster carving of turns.

Originally Posted by K-Man S

I never said your use of Rohl's time was "selective" I said some of the info you posted was selective and it was, for example I think it is Road and Track that has the Boxster with a better slalom time than the Cayman and Car and Driver is the exact opposite. What I am saying is that if you post one without the other you aren't giving the full story, you are being selective. That's ok, as long as people realize that and you are simply trying to make a point. My point is that many people rely far too much on something they read in a magazine from a single test and take it as gospel without understanding what the test means or doesn't mean. I don't think I said anything about Nissan, but sure lots of people use the Ring now as one of their test beds, it might become so common as to be the next "0-60" rating.

I'm sorry what was the OP's original point again? I think we've gotten lost...

Originally Posted by Cayman Cabriolet

"What I am saying is that if you post one without the other you aren't giving the full story, you are being selective." I did not know of the Car and Driver data. If I willfully omit unfavorable data, that is being selective. Surely one cannot be expect to post ALL data regarding comparison tests or be accused of being "selective". By that standard, all data posted is "selective". I would disagree with the use of "selective" because you are implying that I culled one favorable test to prove my point. I think you could more fairly include ANY additional data to prove your point. Simply post the Car and Driver data as counter-point. Fair enough? We ARE discussing car comparisons here, to point you in the right direction. Charles

Originally Posted by K-Man S

Note they said pulled away on the straights implying that they were on a track where there were corners followed by straights. A car that can really carve a corner will enter the straight with a higher entry speed thus making it very hard for a car slower in the corners to catch or even pull on the corner carver despite having more horsepower because the first several seconds are used at just trying to get up to a matching corner exit speed and then accelerating from there. The new M3 is a heavy car, there is a lot of physics to overcome if the Cayman has carved the corner well before it and it wouldn't surprise me that save for a track with a really long straight the M3 would never catch the Cayman. Certainly this is true in my own track experience when pitted up against M3's, even modified ones.

I don't think they were talking about a standing start 1/4 mile run in which I would expect the new M3 to be faster whereas the Cayman S was slightly faster than the old outgoing M3.

If I remember our Articles section correctly the Cayman S also beat the RS4 as well, again for some of the same reasons.

As far as posting scans of articles, it is a no-no to post the whole thing, if you want to post say the first page or two and a link to the entire article that is usually fine under the fair use clause, otherwise it is a copyright violation. Posting excerpts as you have is typically fine as well.

Originally Posted by K-Man S

for example I think it is Road and Track that has the Boxster with a better slalom time than the Cayman and Car and Driver is the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by K-Man S

Hey for $6 I just downloaded the SportAuto article on the Cayman S and the new M3 and did a comparison as well as looked at other cars near their results and I've determined the following.

1) If you believe the SportAuto tests then you will believe the following:
A) The Boxster S (3.2L) will outperform the Cayman S in EVERY category
B) The new M3 can pull more G's than the Cayman S
C) The new M3 can out slalom the Cayman S
D) The new M3 beats the Cayman S in all but 1 test, it even out-brakes the Cayman S.

I think I know the problem, SportAuto tested Porsche press car 1072 not 1088 or one of the others, and car 1072 is the same car as reported as having problems in some other magazine tests (strange misfires, quirky handling and general sluggishness to name a few).

So I've come to the conclusion that while these tests are "interesting" and SportAuto even includes Ring segment times which is nice (BTW the M3 reached a top speed of 266km/h while the Cayman S was only 239km/h [148 vs. 165mph]) but looking at it I can tell something is wrong with the Cayman S they tested. In stock form my car could get over 150mph in a much shorter distance than it took them to get to 148.

For credibility I really think they should re-test a Cayman S. Looking at Car & Driver for a moment they tested the new M3 at .94G road holding and 163ft to brake from 70-0. The Cayman S tested as over 1G and just over 150ft, in other words better in both categories, yet it lost both tests to the M3 in the AutoSport tests. Does that mean something? I don't know, but again, one time magazine tests are never something you should bank money on.

Ok enough on this subject I've probably bored everyone by now...

Originally Posted by Hets

... looking forward to test drive one in spring but doubt it would make me switch...