[SYT_Shadow]

Originally Posted by Motorsportenterprise

I can understand that but after spending a lot of time with one, it's still not bad sounding and while it doesn't retain the sonorous wail and scream from the F6, it's quite good from my view.

As for a boxster S having its doors torn off.

http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/ao2spi57eagj

Boxster S is faster on all but 2 tracks where it was made for. If you're taking driving events, then that's down to the driver but equal factors the 981 S was by and large the faster track car. But if it wasn't fast enough in a straight, which is guess you're alluding to, no not the case anymore given how much faster the turbo cars are over their predecessors.

Do you like the current M3/4 and its qualitative characteristics?

I really do not like the current M3/4, specifically the engine. I have been spoiled rotten with the S65. I'm still debating whether to get another E9X or a F80 for the track.
I have yet to hear a turbo engine that sounds even acceptable. I have driven the M2 and it sounds better than the M3, but that's not saying much!

You mentioned straight line speed of the cars, which is where I find the previous ones got their doors torn off.
Around a track, I believe Lightning Lap has shown every generation M3 to be faster than its equivalent Cayman/Boxster S. Maybe that will change now with the turbo Boxster, but if it did it would be the first time in 10 years.

I wish they had made a 6 cylinder 2L engine for the new Boxster/Cayman. It wouldn't be as efficient as the 4 cylinder for sure, but it would have retained a lot of the pleasantness of the 6 cylinder with a small penalty and felt more expensive.

BMW did this back in the stone age on the Z3 if I remember correctly. A NA 2L 6 cylinder with 150hp.

Whenever I get into a 4 cylinder car it reminds me of diesels back in Europe growing up. That is not a pleasant memory as they seem like little tractors.

[raysspl]

These comparo tests sure are getting more interesting day by day

[Motorsportenterprise]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

I really do not like the current M3/4, specifically the engine. I have been spoiled rotten with the S65. I'm still debating whether to get another E9X or a F80 for the track.
I have yet to hear a turbo engine that sounds even acceptable. I have driven the M2 and it sounds better than the M3, but that's not saying much!

You mentioned straight line speed of the cars, which is where I find the previous ones got their doors torn off.
Around a track, I believe Lightning Lap has shown every generation M3 to be faster than its equivalent Cayman/Boxster S. Maybe that will change now with the turbo Boxster, but if it did it would be the first time in 10 years.

I wish they had made a 6 cylinder 2L engine for the new Boxster/Cayman. It wouldn't be as efficient as the 4 cylinder for sure, but it would have retained a lot of the pleasantness of the 6 cylinder with a small penalty and felt more expensive.

BMW did this back in the stone age on the Z3 if I remember correctly. A NA 2L 6 cylinder with 150hp.

Whenever I get into a 4 cylinder car it reminds me of diesels back in Europe growing up. That is not a pleasant memory as they seem like little tractors.

I can understand that, and a fair assessment as well. Not had much experience with 4s.

If you look at the fastest laps I provided, the m3 was easily beaten on track by the 981S on all but 2 tracks of 10, including a 1.2 second delta in the Lightning lap (that's VIR right?). The current car is definitely going to be much faster especially considering how much faster the 991.2s got from some pretty damn incredible numbers already.

I would certainly have liked a 2.0-2.5 liter F6 over the 4s...but I think they are making some of the best and most technologically advanced turbo motors and can't find much fault in the 718 except that it doesn't sound AS good as the 6.

[bradleyland]

Wishing for a 2L F6 turbo is about as reasonable as wishing for the S65 to return. A 2L six-cylinder engine would have a cylinder volume of 333cc, which is far below optimal. Cylinder volume is a balancing act between filling efficiency and heat losses to cylinder surfaces. Modern engineering identifies 500cc as the ideal balance between the two concerns.

It's easier to understand when you compare cylinder volume to cylinder area visually:

View post on imgur.com

(click for full size)

At 333cc cylinder volume, cylinder surface area is around 265cc.

At 500cc cylinder volume, cylinder surface area is around 350cc.

So you get an additional 167cc of displacement for an increase of 85c^2 in cylinder surface area. You could, of course, keep going with cylinder size, but your intake and exhaust ports are limited by the area of the bore, so things start to get impractical for car engines pretty quickly. It's worth noting that where efficiency is top priority, cylinder volumes tend to be huge. That's why giant ship motors might only have 6 cylinders that displace many cubic meters. The engines run at constant speed for long periods of time, so you can turbocharge them all to hell in order to overcome fill rate issues.

And that's your daily digression on engine design compromises

[nate340]

Originally Posted by eau_rouge

"It’s the true successor to the E46 M3 of 10 years ago—immensely chuckable, outright rowdy, wonderfully temperamental, and within reach of more budgets."

No - it's definitely not. Not because of the reason that I say the M346 is such a good car (it is quite enjoyable, but it has it's flaws), but because I think that you can't even compare them in other things than size. The engine, gearbox and suspension of the M346 is so different to the M2s, if you go drive these cars back to back (what I did recently, that's why I judge it), I really think that the M2 is a little bit to much of a "every-darlings-car". The MT gearbox could be operated by my mum without a problem (without offending any gender here), same goes to the steering. I think it is quite "hard" to drive the M346 with an MT in an ambitious way. Not everyone can do that - you need a bit of experience and know how to engange the clutch and gas pedal properly. Same goes for the steering as it is completely hydraulic and sometimes difficult to operate. The M2 is so much easier to drive - the engine is pretty decent, but still lacks a lot of the excitement of a NA I6 from the past that revs until 8. The sound of the M2 is very nice, but you can always feel that it is some kind of "digital" and you always know what is coming. The M346 is much more multi-faceted when it comes to sound and behavior.
The M2 is a very nice car, even better when we are talking about cars from todays day and age. I am definitely happy with the result of the M2 in general, and I would not order a car without navigation, connected drive and all that stuff. So I am happy that the M2 exists. Other than that it seperates itself nicely from the competitors and still offers a MT, I6 and RWD driving experience, which is kind of rare today.

But please, dear journalists, stop comparing it to the M330, M346 or whatever. All of these cars are great in their own way, but they are all completely different when driven the way they suppose to be.

welcome to something called a "NEW" car. even the new 911R has had similar reviews, less soul than the 997 gt3 less interaction and more of a grand tourer than sports car. even though it's supposed to be the most driver focused Porsche available

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

It is laughable to think Porsche has put a 4 cylinder engine in the Boxster... if you were confused you'd think they've thrown the TFSI engine from the Golf R into a Porsche

There is a huge, huge qualitative difference between 6 and 4 cylinders.

It's bad enough the world needs turbo cars everywhere... now 4 cylinder ones...

I find it interesting that people praise the E30 M3 for going with a light 4 cylinder engine instead of the more powerful inline 6 engine yet when Porsche does this the sky is falling.

I personally prefer the big turbo punch and the effortless power at any rpm of a turbo car. I'll miss the sound of the 6 cylinder but most of the time even the Cayman S feels slow compared to a 4 cylinder turbo.

[Lp01]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

Wishing for a 2L F6 turbo is about as reasonable as wishing for the S65 to return. A 2L six-cylinder engine would have a cylinder volume of 333cc, which is far below optimal. Cylinder volume is a balancing act between filling efficiency and heat losses to cylinder surfaces. Modern engineering identifies 500cc as the ideal balance between the two concerns.

It's easier to understand when you compare cylinder volume to cylinder area visually:

View post on imgur.com

(click for full size)

At 333cc cylinder volume, cylinder surface area is around 265cc.

At 500cc cylinder volume, cylinder surface area is around 350cc.

So you get an additional 167cc of displacement for an increase of 85c^2 in cylinder surface area. You could, of course, keep going with cylinder size, but your intake and exhaust ports are limited by the area of the bore, so things start to get impractical for car engines pretty quickly. It's worth noting that where efficiency is top priority, cylinder volumes tend to be huge. That's why giant ship motors might only have 6 cylinders that displace many cubic meters. The engines run at constant speed for long periods of time, so you can turbocharge them all to hell in order to overcome fill rate issues.

And that's your daily digression on engine design compromises

Taxation structure (in most important markets) is also a very important variable, otherwise 550 cm3 would be much more used, for instance. Considerable better in a surface to volume ratio and not to much different in what concerns intake and exhaust ports.

[guarnibl]

Originally Posted by eau_rouge

"It’s the true successor to the E46 M3 of 10 years ago—immensely chuckable, outright rowdy, wonderfully temperamental, and within reach of more budgets."

No - it's definitely not. Not because of the reason that I say the M346 is such a good car (it is quite enjoyable, but it has it's flaws), but because I think that you can't even compare them in other things than size. The engine, gearbox and suspension of the M346 is so different to the M2s, if you go drive these cars back to back (what I did recently, that's why I judge it), I really think that the M2 is a little bit to much of a "every-darlings-car". The MT gearbox could be operated by my mum without a problem (without offending any gender here), same goes to the steering. I think it is quite "hard" to drive the M346 with an MT in an ambitious way. Not everyone can do that - you need a bit of experience and know how to engange the clutch and gas pedal properly. Same goes for the steering as it is completely hydraulic and sometimes difficult to operate. The M2 is so much easier to drive - the engine is pretty decent, but still lacks a lot of the excitement of a NA I6 from the past that revs until 8. The sound of the M2 is very nice, but you can always feel that it is some kind of "digital" and you always know what is coming. The M346 is much more multi-faceted when it comes to sound and behavior.
The M2 is a very nice car, even better when we are talking about cars from todays day and age. I am definitely happy with the result of the M2 in general, and I would not order a car without navigation, connected drive and all that stuff. So I am happy that the M2 exists. Other than that it seperates itself nicely from the competitors and still offers a MT, I6 and RWD driving experience, which is kind of rare today.

But please, dear journalists, stop comparing it to the M330, M346 or whatever. All of these cars are great in their own way, but they are all completely different when driven the way they suppose to be.

People are only comparing these cars because they're longing for a suitable replacement -- which there hasn't been. Dream all you want I suppose.

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by nate340

welcome to something called a "NEW" car. even the new 911R has had similar reviews, less soul than the 997 gt3 less interaction and more of a grand tourer than sports car. even though it's supposed to be the most driver focused Porsche available

I find it interesting that people praise the E30 M3 for going with a light 4 cylinder engine instead of the more powerful inline 6 engine yet when Porsche does this the sky is falling.

I personally prefer the big turbo punch and the effortless power at any rpm of a turbo car. I'll miss the sound of the 6 cylinder but most of the time even the Cayman S feels slow compared to a 4 cylinder turbo.

It's amazing how many people don't remember the Porsche 914 and the Porsche 944 (including 944 turbo). Porsche did the same thing at the time, as it was the direct competitor for the e30 m3

[N & M]

Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow

It is laughable to think Porsche has put a 4 cylinder engine in the Boxster... if you were confused you'd think they've thrown the TFSI engine from the Golf R into a Porsche

There is a huge, huge qualitative difference between 6 and 4 cylinders.

It's bad enough the world needs turbo cars everywhere... now 4 cylinder ones...

I hate to break it to you but BMW is probably headed that way soon considereding enviormental legislative and social pressures.

It is the end of an era and we have to hope that down the line they will find a way to engineer that special lost Majid back into future tech.