dadc4s

I think that they have limited the Cayman over the years by not putting the most powerful engines in it by limiting displacement and not putting a turbo on it. The balance of the Cayman chassis coupled with power equal to the 911 would lead to the Cayman being faster and that would make it hard to charge the higher prices for the 911 variants.
The current Cayman S, with the now available LSD is in a position to be as fast if not faster than the base 911 and several magazine reviews have in fact said as much but I don't think we will ever see Porsche sell a Cayman that will obviously embarrass a more expensive 911.
Porsche marketing people have said that few if any buyers "cross-shop' the 911 with the Cayman and that the two don't really compete. I certainly did as do many others I know but the number of Porsche buyers who are real "car" people is still relatively small and large numbers of 911 buyers are buying the image and the shape and for them only the 911 will do.

Trader220

dad,

I agree that they have held the line on displacement and not going to a turbo so as to preserve the 911's place in the lineup. It surely would be easy to build a Cayman which could out perform a 911 if they wanted to. I think that’s a whole lot different than saying they detune certain cars in the lineup which have the exact same motors.

I don’t have a whole lot of clients who are cross shopping a new 911 vs. a new Cayman or Boxster. I do have them who cross shop a pre-owned 911 vs. a new Cayman or Boxster as a starter Porsche.
I think the notion they detune the Panamera S as compared to the 4S is pretty silly, what would they gain?

dadc4s

I don't think that de-tuning the S makes sense and I am not convinced that there is evidence that that has been done. I believe that quicker acceleration times of the 4S are due to better traction, plain and simple.

falb

I think those posted S times are just wrong. Take a look at the new March 2010 Road and Track. They pick the Panamera S over the 750i and Quattroporte GTS. Here are the acceleration times.

0-30 1.8
0-60 4.6
0-100 11.2
0-150 30.2
1/4 mile 13.2 @ 109

So.. you could deduce the following on the S from R&T and the 4S from the posted source.
.................S.............4S
60-150.....25.6..........25.1

It still puts the 4S in the lead but I would bet that in the real world a 60-150 run between these cars starting at the same static 60 MPH the S would win, no question. The additional weight and parasitic losses on the AWD certainly would cause the 4S to be slower than the S. Of course I am still under the assumption that they share exactly the same engine.

Trader220

They share the exact same motor. The notion that Porsche secretly detunes the S vs. the 4S is silly.

eclou

that doesn't explain the difference. I would like to come to the same conclusion but the empirical data leads to a different conclusion.

Trader220

I would consider the “empirical data” extremely suspect.

Were the cars identical other than one being an s and the other being a 4s? We’re the options identical? Where they tested on the same day with the same driver? How many runs did they use to determine data? Did both cars have the same mileage and same break in conditions? Was the fuel in the cars identical? How many drivers did they use?

Lets be clear here, you’re accusing the company from lying on a huge number of publications, marketing materials, technical materials, and any number of other things. PAG would also have to keep the techs in the loop and on the hush because they would have to know one motor was detuned over the other. Just think of the law suit possibilities alone? “motorist family sues PCNA because his Panamera was detuned and could not match the 0-60 time of his neighbors Panamera 4s and fraction of a second was the difference in him not getting by the oncoming train in a game of chicken”

Was there any real data presented here in this thread other than quoting one magazines times?

By the way we never really reached the moon, it was all staged on a TV production set. I read it in a magazine.

Trader220

How were the Cayman and Boxster held back? Choosing not to put more powerful motors in those cars is a far far cry from claiming that they detuned what was presented to the public as identical motors in the Panamera S and 4S. They never presented the Boxster or Cayman even in S as a superior performer to the 911.

eclou

Let's get a few things clear. Porsche has always published the 4S as faster than the S despite the weight and driveline efficiency disadvantage. That goes contrary to just about any other vehicle ever produced - the heavier AWD model is always slower when the engine is held constant and on dry surfaces.

The 4S tested also did not include sport chrono which is supposed to allow both faster shifting and throttle mapping according to Porsche. The S model tested did have sport chrono.

The differential in acceleration time is significant - not .1s or .2 seconds but a 1.3s gap at 120mph. That is approximately 10 car lengths difference. For two cars of equal weight and gearing that would be roughly 50hp difference.

The 5th in-gear acceleration time - 5th is closest to 1:1 IIRC, the S takes 26.8s to accelerate from 30-130mph. The 4S takes almost 2 seconds longer - 28.6s to cover the same run. Allowing the the two cars to run thru gearing, the S takes 18.8s vs the 4S at 18.3s 30-130mph.

GTPorsche test data is a pretty complete set of acceleration results, more complete than C&D, R&T. They use the VBox which is a GPS and accelerometer based tool similar to the ones used by the manufacturer.

How do I think the results could be explained? Defective test car? Possibly. I think the easiest explanation is the shift programming in the S does not allow full redline to be reached when in non-manual mode. Engine is making full power but perhaps the PDK is short-shifting the S. This would explain why the S is faster "in-gear" versus in "drive"

Rojda

I think my point has been missed. As has been noted above, Motor Trend got 4.6 for the 0-60 for the S. So why did GTPorsche get 5.2?

Well, the Motor Trend car didn't have the Sports Chrono which actually hurts the acceleration. Surprising huh? Edmunds reported this some time ago. They were getting better 0-60s with the sports chrono/launch control turned off (and the PSM off). Much more wheel spin with launch control. (The 4S tested by GTPorsche didn't have a sports chrono.)

fer2367

With all due respect, I think you are giving to much relevance to the test results. Maybe the same test with another pair of cars would have produced different results. The bottom line is that commom sense would point in the direction that performance for both these models should be similar in regards to acceleration, with the main difference being behavior between the two. Personally, unless I would live in a market where there is severe winter weather, I 'd rather have the Panamera S than the 4S.

eclou

I can appreciate a difference in launch, however the accel delta between the 2 increased after 60mph until 120mph. In addition there is no AWD system in the world that has ever produced less parasitic drag than its corresponding 2wd system, and in this universe increased mass will result in diminished acceleration when the same force is applied.

The testing of 2 different magazines on different cars with different regional specs under different weather would yield some variation ( I would agree the R&T 4.6 vs the GTP 5.2 is suspect ) but the key is Porsche itself tells us the 4S will be faster relative to the RWD counterpart. Why should that be?

Consider taking 2 Carrera. Both produce equal power. Both should offer nearly identical performance. If you added AWD drivetrain with the associated 150lbs of weight into car "B", would you expect car "A" to out accelerate it or vice versa?

eclou

I agree that the sample size is too small to make a definitive conclusion. I just am puzzled why Porsche has already published stats showing the performance differential should be in favor of the 4S. When you check the Porsche configurator of other regions such a GB and Germany Porsche also lists performance stats of the 2 cars showing a wide advantage to the 4S in 0-100km - almost identical to the GTP results. FWIW the R&T test is the only one out there showing the S dipping into the 4 second range.

AgRosa Brad

Porsche lists the acceleration differences between Panamera S & 4S as .4sec at 60 mph and .2 sec at 99 mph. It certainly makes sense that this difference is because of better traction off the line (and perhaps later) in the all wheel drive car.

At our training, we drove Panamera S, 4S and Turbos back to back with a variety of cars on the track. We consistently noticed that the S would gain on the 4S on the longest "strait" on the track. I noticed this with several drivers of both cars. Now, the S had very few options (very near minimum weight for the car) and the 4S was more typically equipped (heavier). So it would seem to follow that the car with better traction will out accelerate from a standing start, but the lighter car (with the same power) will ultimately be faster at speed. The difference was small - not noticeable from the 4S driver's seat, only noticeable when "catching" the 4S in the S from behind. This probably would only happen in a controlled environment, and a short straitaway. The 4S may be faster through the corners and definitely faster in the real world of snow, rain, sand, gravel, etc...

Le Chef

Did they both have the same tires? different brands of tires can make a big difference. Did they have identical suspension systems? PDCC might make a difference in reducing drag. What options were fitted to both cars? The weight of options alone can distort the picture. Were weather conditions, track conditions and tire pressures identical? To many variables to believe that Porsche secretly detuned the S.