Cayman S Hockenheim Times

**Hets** · #1 (**permalink**) 12-31-2007, 03:33 PM

Just got the January edition of Sport Auto (German sportscar magazine)..

There is 3 articles in his edition including the cayman:

1. Compare Cayman S with BMW 135i
In short: The compare rates them equally, with the Cayman having the better performance while the BMW being the better value (=cheaper)
BMW is quicker from 0-100KMH but all the other performance measures are ruled by the Cayman

Hockenheim times
Cayman S: 1.15,8min
BMW 135i: 1.17,4min
Cayman M: 1.13,6min
Cayman S - Aero Kit: 1.15,5min
BMW M3 E92: 1.14,3 min (with Michelin cup sport tires)
BMW M3 E92: 1.15,8 min (with PS2's)
Audi S5: 1,17.2 min
Maserati Gran Turismo: 1.17,6 min

Slalom (18m)
Cayman S: 71.8 KMH
BMW 135i: 69.4 KMH
Cayman M: 72.8 KMH

0-100 KMH
Cayman S: 5.5 Sec
BMW 135i: 5.3 Sec
Cayman M: 5.4 KMH

On the next pages there is the Manthy Motors Cayman S test.
Yellow car that was discussed in other treats.... Exhaust, Aero-Kit, Suspension, 19 inch BBS, 60% Differential, Sport Clutch... approx. 20KEURO in Tuning (no Engine modifications) - Exhaust supposely bringing 20HP.
The time of 1.13,6 in Hockenheim is up with the best in the sportscar world... quicker than a 997 S, quicker than all the Ferraris from the prior generation (360, 575...), and quicker than any BMW with the exception of an M3 CLS with slicks.... -> would be interesting to see K-Man's Cayman there for comparison...

Also included is a test of the Cayman Aerokit - makes the Hockenheim in 1.15,5 Sec - with similar values as the Manthey car in terms of downforce... quickest stock Cayman they ever tested.

Further in the Magazine there is articles on the Audi S5 as well as the Maserati Gran Turismo. The Cayman beats the Audi in every driving dynamics - while times on the Nuerburgring are equal the Cayman is 2 seconds quicker in Hockenheim - confirm my view that on the Nuerburgring you need power but in Hockenheim Handling rules... (will be interesting to see the Nissan GTR times there)

So when comparing the Cayman times with other car's you very quickly come to the conclusion that we have one of the best handling car's out there... should come as no surprise to anyone.

PS: let me know if you want me to scan the results/pieces of the articles - will be in German though.

Other discussion on Manthey Cayman S as well as link to all the Hockenheim/Ring times...
Yellow Manthey Cayman S

**porcupine** · #2 (**permalink**) 12-31-2007, 04:45 PM

thanks for the info!

Kor · #3 (**permalink**) 12-31-2007, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by porcupine

thanks for the info!

How is the 135i quicker, isn't it a 5.3 0-60 while the CS is commonly tested <5 ?

Cayman S: 5.5 Sec?

I can do that without even using the gas pedal.

Someone needs to learn how to shift...

bob · #4 (**permalink**) 12-31-2007, 08:49 PM

Thanks, that's good info. Do they mention the actual values of the downforce achieved with the Manthey kit vs the Porsche aerokit?

CharlesW · #5 (**permalink**) 01-01-2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kor

How is the 135i quicker, isn't it a 5.3 0-60 while the CS is commonly tested <5 ?

Cayman S: 5.5 Sec?

I can do that without even using the gas pedal.

Someone needs to learn how to shift...

The times they are giving are for 0-100 kph. ie 0-62.5 mph.

**Hets** · #6 (**permalink**) 01-01-2008, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob

Thanks, that's good info. Do they mention the actual values of the downforce achieved with the Manthey kit vs the Porsche aerokit?

They don't quote values for the manthey kit but for the Aerokit the improvements are as following:

at 200KMH: - values are for buoyan force

190 NM vs. 300NM (front)
130 NM vs. 150NM (back)

**K-Man S** · #7 (**permalink**) 01-01-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hets

They don't quote values for the manthey kit but for the Aerokit the improvements are as following:

at 200KMH: - values are for buoyan force

190 NM vs. 300NM (front)
130 NM vs. 150NM (back)

Hets did they actually wind tunnel test the items themselves or are they quoting Porsche figures for downforce?

**Hets** · #8 (**permalink**) 01-01-2008, 05:57 PM

Not 100% clear from the artikle but the way it read's it sounds like these are porsche speces for downforce...

gtscayman · #9 (**permalink**) 01-02-2008, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hets

Not 100% clear from the artikle but the way it read's it sounds like these are porsche speces for downforce...

I couldn't find where it was referred to in the article but NM (I'm assuming this is N-m) could either be an expression of energy (N X m) or is Newton-metres which is a torque, or a force applied over a distance. Either this should be Newtons if it is indeed refering to a force or it's talking about a torque, which would be an unusual way, to say the least, to describe downforce......same thing goes for the energy interpretation. Any further clarity on this?

**Hets** · #10 (**permalink**) 01-02-2008, 02:55 AM

I am not an aerodynamics expert but they call it reduction in "uplift"... not sure if this is the correct translation from German... so the lower values are supposely the better ones...

gtscayman · #11 (**permalink**) 01-02-2008, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hets

I am not an aerodynamics expert but they call it reduction in "uplift"... not sure if this is the correct translation from German... so the lower values are supposely the better ones...

Makes more sense that it would be in Newtons (10 Newtons ~ 2.2 lbf). I'll believe your translation as it is going to be a lot better than mine!