I can speak to the Mileage for the current Turbo, its a pig. I get 13-14 mpg combined but that is part to driving like an animal at times in boost. The smaller displacement of a 4 cylinder offering for the base or smaller 6 cylinder turbo for the C2S may offer better mileage statements from the manufacturer but that is negated in a sports car due to drovers habits.

 

Tommy you must be driving "spiritidly" ( I made that word up)!!
I drive 30 miles to and from every day, did a little experiment.
In normal mode I get 24 to 25 mph, in sport mode (my favorite way to drive to work) I get 17. I have about half and half highway and traffic light type roads.

 

DOC,

I travel most of the time for work and usually only drive the car around town. My mileage is based mostly on stop and go. Here or there I will take it down the tollway about 23 miles to the office when in town. I plan on driving down to Austin in two week ends and will reset the mileage to see what I can get on a highway run for 200 miles.

PS- I still have not seen you make Cars and Coffee.

 

No surprise.. The fuel benefits of a turbo are relative to the overall size of the engine.. combined with how it is driven.. In general the purpose of a Turbo is to pack more potential HP/Torque into a lower displacement engine than you would need with a NA engine. The whole Idea of supercharging or turbocharging is to increase volumetric efficiency of a smaller displacement engine. When driven lightly and power is not needed you get the economy benefits of a lower displacement and combined with the lower weight as well.

The converse is when you drive a fairly large displacement engine such as the TT/TTS engine which is turbocharged.. and you drive it hard such that it is under boost.. You consume more fuel much like a larger displacement NA engine.. Maybe like a 5.5 or 6.0L engine instead of a 3.8L..


The interesting thing about introducing turbos into the current NA 911's isn't the technology as much as how they will market them as compared to the TT/TTS..

Historically Porsche has marketed the turbo's (technology wise) as the higher performance models.. Obviously that distinction won't work well when the entire family is turbocharged. So somehow they will need to redefine the TT/TTS not as turbocharged versions but as the higher performance versions.. Will be interesting in how things like the GT3's and TT's shake out when everything is turbocharged given they share similar cost points.

It is funny though how every time there is a technology shift for one reason or another that the enthusiasts think the world is coming to an end. It's been that way for entire life of performance and technical improvements.. my short list of items I can recall as being end of the world as we know it (not necessarily in chronological orders)... Some weren't necessarily improvements but shifts due to environmental and economy issues

Fuel Injection
pointless ignition systems
Unleaded Fuel
Catalytic converters
Smaller displacement engines (i.e. death of the Big Block V8 in Muscle cars)
Diesels (however has been mostly a failure to adopt much in north america)
Electronic Engine Control (ECU's)
Death of the Manual Transmission
Hybrid and Electric Technology
Turbo Charging (not for more power but for fuel efficiency)

Things like elimination of manual transmissions are just now beginning, and Hybrids are sort of in an experimental stage (at least with high performance) but my guess is 30 years from now things will change much more than over the last 30 years.

As much as I absolutely love normally aspirated engines.. It's something that is like it or not going to go the way of the do-do-bird sooner or later.

 

I was pleasantly surprised this week on a 200 mile trip with my new Turbo S. I averaged 20 MPG with 25% city and 75% highway. I did NOT buy the car for economy but compared to the R8 V10 which was horrible in that area I was happy.

 

If they could just get a larger gas tank in these damn things (any 991) I'd be a much happier camper.. Fuel economy to me has become important not from a financial perspective but instead my hatred and desire to minimize gas station ballet during rush hour lol...

Hmm wonder if I should look at a Prius? No Just kidding... I'd rather be dead..

 

Lol, the mileage is a huge surprise but a 16 gallon tank is also a surprise. But then again a smaller tank keeps the weight down, I am sure the P Engineers tried to envelope the perfect combo. The 991 in any variety is great in all aspects.

 

Yes and it also gives you more space in the frunk

 

Better mileage would give the same range with a smaller tank, reducing weight and cost as well as increasing frunk space. I'm thinking they should use a LIPO battery to save weight.

ChuckJ

 

Maybe eventually.. LIPO are pretty spooky things, especially when they are manufactured with a large electrical capacity.. And they have to be charged just right otherwise they start melting down.. so it probably complicates the relatively simple charging systems needed for Lead Acid.. So far they are best as small packs for mobile and weight sensitive devices...

Li Ion I believe are probably a better bet in the near term as they are showing up in Hybrids... But I'm not sure any of these quite make economic sense yet for a 12V car battery which by comparison is pretty simple..

I say we just put an extra tank where the backseat would normally go.. Probably get about 15 gallons there.. Hey it worked in a Cessna 172 I had once.. (Ferry tank for long over water use...)...

 

I am happy with the smaller tank which saves weight vs a larger capacity tank. One reason I like the PCCBs is for the same reason. Cars have gotten way too heavy in this day and age.

 

So far i have owned two 911s.

What i have noticed is that the claimed power by Porsche is or must be way underated!

My 09 Carrera 4S PDK with a claimed 385 bhp has ran a flat 12.0 @ 115 with a "race" weight of 3665 lbs...

Yes horsepower is important, especially for bragging rights but actual real performance is way more complicated...

If they indeed come out with turbocharged 911s even from the basic version, competition will face significant issues in terms of performance comparison with the 911s... Not so much because of the extra horsepower but because of the torque..
.I can't even imagine how my car would launch with an extra 180 ft-lbs torque (assuming the claims for 500 ft-lbs torque on the new S cars)

 

Back to the original topic, in the new issue of Panorama, the editors quote insiders at Porsche as saying 1. turbo-charged 991.2's are a strong-possibility, 2. they feel there are too many models across the 911 range (no *hit sherlock!!), 3. they don't think the 991 was the runaway sales success they hoped... so... wait for it...

4. The 991.2's Carreras might be 4WD across the range

 

I was reading that last night as well and was kind of shocked. Looks like VW is laying down the law. Big changes ahead for our beloved brand; more volume with less options.

 

Everyone picks on the base 911 horsepower but scan down to the Leaderboard lap times in this current Road and Track article: http://www.porscheboost.com/content....urb-weight-etc