By on August 2, 2015

2014-Porsche-Cayman-S. Photo courtesy Porsche.

According to CAR (via AutoGuide), the next round of Porsche Boxsters and Caymans will have turbocharged, four-cylinder powerplants ranging from 240 to 370 bhp. Porsche could also position a base model Cayman below the Boxster depending on region.

The British outlet says the Cayman and Boxster will become four-cylinder-only affairs, except for top-end specials such as the GT4.

The new engines will make do with a single fixed-vane turbocharger and measure in from 2 to 2.5 liters in displacement. The base model Boxster and Cayman will produce 240 bhp from its 2-liter turbo. S models will get a 60 bhp bump to 300 bhp from ita 2.5-liter four. GTS models crank up the 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine another 70 bhp to 370 bhp.

The 370 bhp, 2.5-liter engine in the GTS will be the most powerful four cylinder money can buy, though not necessarily the most power dense (Mercedes will still wear that crown).

CAR says a base model Cayman could also be priced below the Boxster in order to “increase awareness and boost sales”.

We will likely see the next-generation Boxster and Cayman at 2015 IAA Frankfurt for release in early 2016.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

44 Comments on “Porsche Boxster, Cayman Four-Pot Turbo Details Released...”


  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    240 HP? Slower than the proverbial V6 Accord.

    370 is more reasonable, but you can bet the GTSs will approach $100K.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      The Cayman weighs 700 lbs less than the Accord V6.

      In any case, a 240 hp turbo would be as quick as the current base V6, and that power level doesn’t seem to have hurt sales any. Or maybe some of the potential Cayman buyers are buying Accords instead?

      • 0 avatar
        DearS

        Only 300lbs more….both base cayman and accord V6 have 270+ HP, Accord has 40 lb-ft more torque. Both do 0-60 in 5.6 seconds, similar quarter mile too. Accord price $32K Cayman $54k = $21k difference. Accord V6 > Turbo i4, IMO. I will cross shop the 2 for about 30 seconds. Accord wins for now. I need 4 doors, and so I own an Accord (i4 5sp).

        http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1209_2013_honda_accord_first_test/viewall.html

        http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1310_2014_porsche_cayman_first_test/

      • 0 avatar
        koshchei

        Which is more likely to survive daily driving? An Accord or a Porker with an over-stressed four-banger that you have to pull half the interior or drop the rear subframe to perform basic maintenance?

        • 0 avatar
          energetik9

          “Which is more likely to survive daily driving” That is all speculation. Porsche makes very reliable cars and engines. And dropping an engine from a Boxster is a simple process. Done by plenty of DIY’rs. In the end, its a boring appliance or an engaging, spectacularly handling car. Depends on what you want.

        • 0 avatar
          heavy handle

          “Which is more likely to survive daily driving?”

          History suggests that the Accord will be in the junk yard in 12 years (slightly more in CA, NM and AZ). The Porsche will still be worth decent money in 30.

    • 0 avatar
      Nicholas Weaver

      I think the better comparison is a 10 years old S2000…

      Which makes near-as-makes-no-difference power with a 2.0 or 2.2L engine with no turbo, same weight, and unlike the Porsche isn’t going soak you on maintenance or have you worry about it grenading the engine as soon as the warrantee expires.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        And makes about the same amount of torque as a hummingbird, and that at 8000rpm. No thanks.

        • 0 avatar
          duffman13

          Do you buy a high strung car to not wring it out?

          Aside from the fact that I have to downshift to 5th to pass at highway speeds, the lack of torque in the S2000 is largely irrelevant in day to day driving. The revs climb quickly enough that it really doesn’t matter. You adjust your driving style fairly quickly, and it still has a decent mid-range at the top half of the small cam.

          And FWIW my current S2k, which I purchased with 75k on the clock and now has 100k, has seen a decent amount of track mileage in the last 3 years sitting between 6-8k for 30 minute stints. I’ve done nothing but consumables and basic maintenance; it still runs like a champ. I doubt I’d be saying the same about a water-cooled P-car with that kind of mileage and hard use.

          • 0 avatar
            sportyaccordy

            Different strokes for different folks, but personally I really dislike the DOHC VTEC style powerband. The sensation of speed is important, and the absence of any discerning characteristics in the DOHC VTEC power band pretty much robs you of that. Only difference in feel across the RPM band is the sound. And having the choice to have a satisfying result when you wind the car out is one thing….. having to wind a car out just to keep ahead of traffic, despite a power figure that indicates a much higher level of performance, is another, and is def not something I enjoyed in my buddy’s AP1.

            The wind-out powerband is definitely an acquired taste that is not for everybody. It took me a long time to realize that. IMO it’s a shame the S2000 was not available with a bigger V6 option. They could have kept the sweet chassis and given it more shove. But I don’t even like my motorcycle to be top heavy. On the street, for me and most people, midrange is king.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            @SportyAccordy

            My complaint with the S2000 as well.

            My N52 I6 in my 3-series is a peaky beast as well, with the hp peak right at the redline, but it also has enough torque down low to not HAVE to rev the whee out of it to make progress. The Honda is a slug at low revs. But ultimately, I prefer the more relaxed shove of a turbo. And tuned correctly, you get that shove AND a thrilling redline rush.

          • 0 avatar
            Fordson

            “the lack of torque in the S2000 is largely irrelevant in day to day driving.”

            Hahahahaha…

        • 0 avatar
          Kato

          No torque numbers released for these new engines, but the turbos should pump up the twist to appreciably more than an F20C, which will make a significant difference. The cost of ownership point is well taken though.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      Is the V6 Accord some sort of slug?

    • 0 avatar
      energetik9

      The current boxster does 0-60 in 5.5. A hair faster than the Accord. The boster has far better handling, better looks, and is a better all around car. Comparing to an accord is silly.

      • 0 avatar
        wmba

        Shhh! Don’t wake up the Accord V6/Camry V6 crowd or they’ll think their bouncy plushmobiles can corner at over 1g, stop from 70mph in 145 feet or stretch to 168 mph top end. Taken from the same C/D road test they grabbed their acceleration times from, but hey, let’s just say they that like so many others here, all their minds can grasp is push in the back.

  • avatar
    carguy

    While the loss of the 3.4 flat six will be sad, no one will miss the gutless 2.7. A well designed turbo 4 will most likely be an improvement.

    • 0 avatar
      ducatimechanic

      The people who are buying the 3.4L six and building turbo cars are seeing some impressive numbers; it looks like Porsche is realizing that the Boxster / Cayman is overbuilt with the current engine and the overhead could better be used for something else (probably profit).

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      Funny. In a sporty road car, especially in a ‘vert, I’d prefer the 2.7 to the 3.4. And certainly to any turbo droner up to and including the one headlining the Veyron. No more lowering the top to hear the engine in the Boxster snoring anymore, that’s for sure…….

      For any serious amount of tracking, I could see the 3.4 remain exciting longer. Particularly for those (cripples :) ) opting for the PDK.

      Roadsters are supposed to be charming, not fast. Fast just means you get hearing damage from the wind roar. And more often than not, end up upshifting before you get to experience the engine in it’s sweet spot.

      • 0 avatar
        Drew8MR

        It makes me wonder how many of those complaining about lack of power have ever even driven a 300 – 400 hp car with any regularity. Only an idiot would argue that you can drive something like a STi/Evo to it’s full potential on the street and both those cars hover at or under 300. Underpowered on a top speed biased track? Maybe, but 250 is plenty to have fun with somewhere like Streets of Willow.

        • 0 avatar
          DearS

          +1

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          >> It makes me wonder how many of those complaining about lack of power have ever even driven a 300 – 400 hp car with any regularity.

          A lot of power can be so much work it starts to take away from the fun. My revelation was when I noticed I was having more fun driving my kids “underpowered” cars on the twisty roads where I live.

          Then, there’s this guy:
          http://artofgears.com/2015/08/02/ford-mustang-shelby-gt500-plows-into-crowd-at-annapolis-car-show/

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          “It makes me wonder how many of those complaining about lack of power have ever even driven a 300 – 400 hp car with any regularity.”

          You miss the point. They’re not complaining about power because they think more would make it more fun to drive, they’re complaining about power because they want to be able to brag more outrageously to buddies and conquests.

          • 0 avatar
            Drew8MR

            True enough. I sold bikes at a multi line dealership for quite a few years and spent many fruitless hours explaining that GSXR750s weren’t beginner bikes and race compound tires for the street are beyond idiotic. They rarely listened.

          • 0 avatar
            RideHeight

            “explaining that GSXR750s weren’t beginner bikes and race compound tires for the street are beyond idiotic.”

            Sounds like you were playing god by trying to inhibit an important means of reducing the number of our unmated males.

          • 0 avatar
            Syke

            So you can imagine how well my advice that a beginning motorcyclist’s first bike should be a twenty year old Jap cruiser, and they get the bike they really want in the second year goes over.

            Never mind that my opinion is based on 39 years of motorcycle riding. It’s not cool, and my opinion that street cred is earned by riding experience is definitely not appreciated.

            Then again what do I know. 39 years and approximately 25 motorcycles, everything from choppers to 600cc supersport bikes.

        • 0 avatar
          carguy

          @Drew8MR: Its not about power but lack of usable torque in the NA 2.7. It’s simply frustrating to have this little twist in a chassis this good.

          • 0 avatar
            Drew8MR

            Yeah, I’ve only base one I’ve driven was my ex-MIL’s automatic. I figured with a stick it was probably fine, I had very little trouble making very decent time over 128 between Napa and Winters. Def. underpowered for the track though, I’d guess.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            With ever more EPAtastic transmission programming in autos, this makes sense. But not with a stick. Porsche’s engines, like all “high performance” engines, are the most entertaining and exuberant when caned hard. That’s when they sing the most beautiful, when their fueling is most spot on, when on/off throttle is most precise, etc. The more often an engine allows you to drive it like that, the more often you’ll truly enjoy it. If anything, the base Boxster has gotten too powerful. It’s tires too grippy. It’s chassis too stable. And, for sure, it’s steering too remote. Even for speeds well above what gets you in serious trouble here in the land of the once-was-free.

            By the standards of motoring’s golden days, even the Boxster is now more of a GT car (fast, comfy, plenty of luggage room, beautiful, expensive), to the Miata’s “sports car.” And the 911s Supercar. And Ferrari/Lambo’s low flaying spaceship. And, I’m 99% sure despite likely never being able to verify it, the new S660s absolute bloody riot of a daily driven road car.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      F!#k Porsche and the 2 liter 4 banger horse they are riding in on, and the same goes for Cadillac and their 2.0T 4 banger (ATS and especially CTS & CT6), BMW and any other manufacturer of “luxury” or “performance” vehicles stickering anywhere near 50k, let alone 60k or 70k, with 4 banger mills.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        >> F!#k Porsche and the 2 liter 4 banger horse they are riding in on, and the same goes for Cadillac

        I’m okay with fours in sports cars – although at the high end it would have to be part of a performance hybrid. It’s a different story with luxury cars. A premium luxury car shouldn’t sound like an low end econobox. I was next to an ATS last week and it sounded terrible – lots of mechanical noise. Haven’t been around them enough to whether or not there was an issue with the individual car.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          4s are fine. Small-Turbo 4s not so much. Even in what is probably it’s most exciting rendition, the FiST, it makes for a disjointed experience when driven “sportily.” As if the pace of the chassis is dancing around the lethargic lump of an engine. Kind of like a Buell bike (Buell, Not EBR.) The S2000, another 4, was about as diametrically opposed to that as you can get. Perfect for a sports car, although hardly ideal for a luxury car.

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      Another thing to note, not that it’ll do anything good for reliability, is that with a turbo 4 and the number of aftermarket tuning solutions out there, you’ll see $600 reflashes that will take you up a trim level in power released within 6 months of the car hitting dealer showrooms.

      Turbos plus aftermarket tuning might actually be a good thing for them.

  • avatar
    gasser

    Will this base 2.0T be shared with the family? i.e. end up in the Audi and possibly some model of VW with only a bit of detuning??

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      Highly unlikely. No other VAG brand uses flat engines, and they already have a family of turbocharged inline 4s that are in everything from VW Polos and Skoda Fabias to Audi A6s and Q7s.

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      I cant see VW or Audi wanting a flat-four, especially if they had to detune it from 240hp, when the 2.0T I4 is already supposedly underrated at 210hp (and has plenty of support in their dealer network).

      • 0 avatar
        derekson

        The 2.0T I4 makes 252 HP in the new A6, 290 HP in the Golf R/S3, and VW has versions over 400 HP+ that they are considering for a limited release Golf R. 210 is the lowest version they even offer anymore of the engine.

    • 0 avatar
      Jacob

      If, I hope, it’s an opposite 2.0L engine then highly unlikely.

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    I wish Subaru would design a rear or mid-engined sports car or roadster since they already have a few compact and powerful versions of the flat-4 or 6. A Japanese Porsche, modern MR2 or NSX like vehicle would be quite a halo.

  • avatar
    Jacob

    Finally Porsche is willing to acknowledge that the 2-door Cayman must cost less than the Boxster roadster it is based on. In any other manufacturer’s catalog, the roadster is always a lot more expensive than the coupe or sedan it is based on. But in Porsche’s world, it is the reverse. The Cayman, which is based on Boxster, is a lot more expensive than the donor roadster, and not much cheaper than the 911. No wonder barely anyone wants to buy a Cayman. If you drive a Porsche car with a ridiculous name “Cayman” and an engine that has been nerfed in order to be slower than a 911, at least there’s gotta be some kind of value argument for someone to buy it. I was personally expecting that the Boxster would cost no more than than a BMW Z4 (then being about the same speed on track), and Cayman a little cheaper.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • geozinger: Fnck. I’ve lost lots of cars to the tinworm. I had a 97 Cavalier that I ran up to 265000 miles. The...
  • jh26036: Who is paying $55k for a CTR? Plenty are going before the $35k sticker.
  • JimZ: Since that’s not going to happen, why should I waste any time on your nonsensical what-if?
  • JimZ: Funny, Jim Hackett said basically the same thing yesterday and people were flinging crap left and right.
  • JimZ: That and the fact that they could run on gasoline, which was considered a useless waste product back in the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States