Sound of the new 4-cyl 718 Boxster

[TitanTim]

I think manufacturers have forgotten that for most petrolheads its the engine and the noise it emits that makes the car for them. It is a shame that it seems the norm now to cut cylinders and produce a synthethised sound pumped into the interior to compensate. I honestly don't think I could go back to a 4cyl.

Tim.

I think it is just one thing among many in what petrol heads like about cars, after all if you are a purest then only a V configuration (including flat/boxer) will do and then a 12, 8 then 10 and then 6 in that order. What all you neanderthals are missing is that this is a flat four boxer and should not be confused with an inline 4 found in most production cars, which also has an illustrious rallying heritage

Neanderthals?, is that most Z4 Forum members generally then?

You misunderstood me sars, I'm talking most manufacturers generally, i.e. some e.g. BMW are reducing the no of cylinders in their model ranges generally and faking engine sounds to compensate with the lack of aural pleasure.

Will crawl back in my man cave now!

Fred Flintstone :wink:

 

[Sae]

I think manufacturers have forgotten that for most petrolheads its the engine and the noise it emits that makes the car for them. It is a shame that it seems the norm now to cut cylinders and produce a synthethised sound pumped into the interior to compensate. I honestly don't think I could go back to a 4cyl.

Tim.

I think it is just one thing among many in what petrol heads like about cars, after all if you are a purest then only a V configuration (including flat/boxer) will do and then a 12, 8 then 10 and then 6 in that order. What all you neanderthals are missing is that this is a flat four boxer and should not be confused with an inline 4 found in most production cars, which also has an illustrious rallying heritage

I think the comment about synthesised sound vs raw sound is a valid one, however as long as the power and emissions improvements continue hand in hand then I don't really mind....

...So long as there's always a lambo/Ferrari 12v available to buy when my numbers come in

Btw a straight six ranks above a v6

 

[sars]

Btw a straight six ranks above a v6

For smoothness indubitably, but aurally, I believe you too biased sir

....and Tim I meant it in the nicest possible way

 

[Sae]

Btw a straight six ranks above a v6

For smoothness indubitably, but aurally, I believe you too biased sir

For smoothness, power and decent shove of torque at screaming revs, it might not be bass and power chords like a v8, but more like 80s rock backed up with an orchestra and choir - me biased

Btw, can you suggest a current v6 to go sample to persuade me otherwise.

 

[sars]

I give you the supercharged V6 Jaguar F Type

[youtube]ULq9YJOo6iM[/youtube]

I think that's QED

 

[Sae]

I give you the supercharged V6 Jaguar F Type

[youtube]ULq9YJOo6iM[/youtube]

I think that's QED

That's cheating, I'd need to borrow a certain supercharged z4m for true comparison

 

[Marlon]

I give you the supercharged V6 Jaguar F Type

[youtube]ULq9YJOo6iM[/youtube]

I think that's QED

:wub: I want one

 

[MrPT]

You can't use that as a comparison. The result of Jaguar's finest minds all working on the exhaust sound until 3am in the morning for 5 years!

I prefer inline 6s over V6s too. Plus, the one drawback - packaging - means you need a long bonnet and end up being forced to produce absolutely hideous cars like the E-Type and Z4M Coupe.

 

[LeeZ4MR]

Btw a straight six ranks above a v6

For smoothness indubitably, but aurally, I believe you too biased sir

I agree sars and I have had four V6's and four straight sixes and the V6's win hands down for noise for sure

Given the choice I would always prefer a V6 to a straight six and a V6 just has much more character for me and I appreciate that a straight six lacks in the noise department but they are nice and smooth when compared to a V6.

 

[TitanTim]

The F Type in the vid sounds good running along but at idle the engine sounds broke to me, doesn't sound nice to my ears.

Tim.

 

[Smartbear]

I thought the jag sounded great listening to the short vid, however on a long run it would grate & get on my nerves.
Sometimes less is more.
Regards

 

[TitanTim]

I thought the jag sounded great listening to the short vid, however on a long run it would grate & get on my nerves.
Sometimes less is more.
Regards

It definitely sounds great when in the mood but I'm the same with any shouty exhaust note at low to moderate speeds would grate after a while, probably why I like the BMW Sixes, refined at low speeds with a nice tone at high revs.

I'm guessing the F Type in the vid was in sport mode so don't know if you can tone the boy racer sound down a tad lol I must be getting old :lol:

Tim.

 

[techathy]

Assuming an even spaced crank if you love a screaming howl then you'll prefer an I6 with its even spaced beats. If you don't like howling engines then as a V6 is big-bang by natural geometry its off-beat element will always produce a burble which some people prefer.

By playing with manifold lengths you can tune things to some extent but you can't get away from the inherent harmonics of the engine.

Back to the Porsche, for me its not the engine sound that's wrecked the car, it's the power delivery. The Boxster almost demands a sightly top-heavy torque curve which rewards the driver for getting it right. But now you just have this low down torque which rewards being lazy. They could have done the decent thing and supercharged the engine. That would have produced most of the benefit from forced induction without making the engine into yet another slightly laggy & mushy 4 pot torque pusher.

 

[MACK]

Its not all doom and gloom. I did use to love the sound of my RS60 sports exhaust, particularly once I installed a switch to override the bypass valves that operated at certain revs/speeds. However these flat 4s do sound reasonably good and putting the noise issue aside the other benefits certainly compensate.
These modern turbos with their low down grunt etc have never hurt 911 sales, the 911 turbo is still the car most 911 Carrera and Carrera S buyers actually want and a well sorted modern turbo can be as free revving as a normally aspirated engine.
The new S has 345bhp and 295lbft from as little as 1,900rpm! Thats way up on 7 years back when an RS60 managed 303bhp and 251lbft at 4,500rpm. The new 0-60 is a shade over 4 seconds, well over a second up on 3.4 987 yet the new model is a massive 45% better on fuel! Hell even the standard Boxster is a well under 5 seconds to 60 car, more than a match for even the last of the 987S made with the DFI engine. In the real world, for road driving these new 718 models wipe the floor with even the last 987's which where in production as little as 4 years a go. Cant wait to see what the GTS will be like.

Styling wise, rears a big improvement not sos ure the front is though.

 

[Sae]

Its not all doom and gloom. I did use to love the sound of my RS60 sports exhaust, particularly once I installed a switch to override the bypass valves that operated at certain revs/speeds. However these flat 4s do sound reasonably good and putting the noise issue aside the other benefits certainly compensate.
These modern turbos with their low down grunt etc have never hurt 911 sales, the 911 turbo is still the car most 911 Carrera and Carrera S buyers actually want and a well sorted modern turbo can be as free revving as a normally aspirated engine.
The new S has 345bhp and 295lbft from as little as 1,900rpm! Thats way up on 7 years back when an RS60 managed 303bhp and 251lbft at 4,500rpm. The new 0-60 is a shade over 4 seconds, well over a second up on 3.4 987 yet the new model is a massive 45% better on fuel! Hell even the standard Boxster is a well under 5 seconds to 60 car, more than a match for even the last of the 987S made with the DFI engine. In the real world, for road driving these new 718 models wipe the floor with even the last 987's which where in production as little as 4 years a go. Cant wait to see what the GTS will be like.

Styling wise, rears a big improvement not sos ure the front is though.

45% better on fuel - that's the Volkswagen effect for you

 

[MACK]

Its not all doom and gloom. I did use to love the sound of my RS60 sports exhaust, particularly once I installed a switch to override the bypass valves that operated at certain revs/speeds. However these flat 4s do sound reasonably good and putting the noise issue aside the other benefits certainly compensate.
These modern turbos with their low down grunt etc have never hurt 911 sales, the 911 turbo is still the car most 911 Carrera and Carrera S buyers actually want and a well sorted modern turbo can be as free revving as a normally aspirated engine.
The new S has 345bhp and 295lbft from as little as 1,900rpm! Thats way up on 7 years back when an RS60 managed 303bhp and 251lbft at 4,500rpm. The new 0-60 is a shade over 4 seconds, well over a second up on 3.4 987 yet the new model is a massive 45% better on fuel! Hell even the standard Boxster is a well under 5 seconds to 60 car, more than a match for even the last of the 987S made with the DFI engine. In the real world, for road driving these new 718 models wipe the floor with even the last 987's which where in production as little as 4 years a go. Cant wait to see what the GTS will be like.

Styling wise, rears a big improvement not sos ure the front is though.

45% better on fuel - that's the Volkswagen effect for you

Oh yes, forgot about that! Ok thats 10% WORSE overall then!!! Dirty smokey VW!!!

 

[techathy]

Lets get this straight. I don't give two hoots about 0-60 times & I don't care how much torque it makes at 2000 rpm. What I care about is the chassis was an absolute hoot & the engine enhanced that by rewarding you for getting everything just right. Dumping a shed load of torque at the bottom end of the rev range will only detract from what I liked so much about the Cayman I drove. In the same way that the very same power delivery I loved in the Cayman would detract from the what I love about my 35iS.

Problem I have with current economy figures is a 1.6l 4 cylinder N/A engine according to official figures uses about 20% more fuel than a 1.2l 3 cylinder turbo engine. However, in the real world the smaller engine uses 5-10% more fuel. You have one manufacture offering a larger capacity N/A engine which apparently has a 19% economy advantage, however it’s competitors smaller capacity turbo engine delivers about 25% better fuel economy.