Yea, 1000kg or even 1000lbs seems out of the realm of reality. I totally agree that lighter is alway better. That Colin Chapman guy was right, and the fact that a few auto companies are using the current Elise/Exige as a base for their electric cars validates it.
But the ever growing feature list of safety items as well as even the basic list of luxuries resets the weight baseline of modern cars. The 997 does seem porky, but every time I'm in/under/around the car, I can't figure what I'd want to throw out:
rear seats? no problem
wheelbase to support rear seats? maybe
strength and ridgidity? nope
simplified suspension design to remove parts and mass? doubt it
much more aluminum? maybe, but it would cost a lot more
carbon fibre everything? cost out of sight and impossible to fix
I'm stymied!

 

Chapman was a genius with "just add lightness". Gordon Murray is a genius when it comes to packaging car systems - just wait until you see his new city car.

Sadly it is easier and cheaper for companies like Porsche to not make any effort in this area (witness the current fat boy 997 Turbo that should be sent to Jenny Craig asap!) because customers don;t demand it.

Packaging lighter HVAC systems, using lighter wiring harnesses, finding lighter speaker systems, reducing weight on exhaust systems, fitting ceramic brakes as standard, building the car from extruded aluminum structural components would all make a big difference. But it's not going to happen because Porsche has become a marketing company rather than an engineering company these days, and their image is more important than anything else.

I suspect that companies like Ferrari and Lotus will continue to innovate because it's still in their blood and DNA, and theirs are the cars we will gravitate towards, rather than Porsche which has become a pastiche of a sports car company.

 

I was racking my brain for Chapman's quote. Glad you reproduced it.
I agree with all that you've said, except perhaps for the last part. I don't believe that Porsche has become a marketing-only group. Yes, they excel at marketing - for their targeted base and price point. But they also produce excellent technology and excellent cars - with a design point that works for them
The Lotus folks may have mastered the auto 'dark matter' thing, but they have given up trying to build their own engines and transmissions. At least for their volume cars. Thank god for that. Nonetheless, they have figured out how to add english reliability to the rest of the car.
Ferrari, until recently, had cars that were virtually useless. They were supermodels. Amazingly beautiful, but unreliable, uncomfortable and not overwhelmingly performant . They have radically improved recently, but maintaining a price point that guarantees the cars will only ever be treated as hobbies.
Just my opinion. Re-reading it, it sounds rather defensive. But I'm actually not a raving religious Porsche owner. Just trying to call it as I see it.

 

Porsche as a marketing company can be shown by two examples: 19" wheels when the engineers suggested 18" were optimal, and the dog's breakfast of the PDK user interface. The PDK controls are different for the sake of being different. No one anywhere has managed to explain what was wrong with paddles and how the PDK bat ears improve on what almost every other manumatic uses. If there really were advantages you can be sure Porsche would have made that message ring out loud and clear.

I could go on about Cayman "RS" models that are a travesty of badly managing your brand assets.

But there's no question Porsche understand how to make money out of those activities.

 

that was an excellent video- thanks for sharing

 

I don't understand why anyone here would be under any illusion regarding the purpose of the company. Do you really believe an industrial entity as large as Porsche doesn't care about marketing or profit? Do you believe they SHOULDN'T?

I also don't agree that just because you or I may not fully understand a design decision (PDK paddles?) doesn't mean there's not a decent functional reason for the design. It seems to me that overall, Porsche design is very good, including attention to detail.

Having said that, some decisions are influenced by aesthetics or personal choices of folks involved in those design decisions. Not every decision has to fit into the black and white of SELL-OUT-TO-MARKETING or COMMITTED-TO-PERFORMANCE.

 

Of course companies should make money. As a share holder I demand that the value of the company grows or I flip the stock. But there's a difference between doing it well so there's long term value creation rather than just short term gain, and some of Porsche's decisions are questionable.

As to Porsche design when it comes to interfaces some of it is very poor. They have only just gotten round to a touch screen for PCM and even then the logic is not as good as it should be. PDK is a dog: whether you understand it or not designers do, and it's unanimously a dog.

 

Agreed.


Can you explain this? What do you mean "PDK is a dog"? The transmission itself, or the steering wheel interface to it?

Thanks!

 

The gearbox is terrific technology and worth the wait for those who don't want to or can't shift their own gears, but the interface is a dog. Yes you can get used to it - you can get used to anything - but good design is meant to be intuitive and simple to use and PDK is not intuitive nor simple.

 

Not sure I agree with this. Sometimes it takes some time/effort to learn a great but different or complex system, that then becomes a great way to get it done.

But whatever. I haven't even driven a PDK yet.

 

I'm going to guess its imperial gallons (not US gallons)... it is a UK show, after all.

Now if I can only get my car out for some lengthy highway driving rather than the back-and-forth-commute non-sense that never gets much above 40 and gets me around 20mpg. (Which I could improve upon if I would shift up as indicated by the arrow.. but it just doesn't seem right to be in 6th gear doing 35mph, just because the engine is most efficient at that ratio.

 

PDK is very impressive, however I have to agree with the above posts, I do like the visceral connection that occurs using that little stick to the right of me.

 

...if it takes some time/effort to learn then it's not intuitive. The iphone is complex but very simple to use and very quick to learn. That's not the case with PDK and that's why it's criticized as poor design.

 

Here's my impression of driving a twin clutch trans for 6 months. No it is not the PDK but an '08 EVO X MR w/ twin clutch. I purchased the car after test driving the twin clutch and was very impressed w/ the car. I've always had manual transmission and thought for a daily driver, I could give a twin clutch a try. The EvO is modified with exhaust, intake, downpipe, intercooler pipes, and a tune with 305 AWHP so the power output is probably in between the 3.6 and 3.8 motor. After trying the normal, sport, s-sport, and manual shifting modes, I ended leaving the car in sport mode all the time as the way the transmission shifts is so agressive and just like how I'd shift myself, it blips the throttle louder and more agreeivesly in sport also (s-sport is strictly for the track as it keep the revs above 4500 RPM at most times). I've thinking of getting a C2S Cab and I think I wouldn't mind the shift buttons as I'll drive this car like the EVO with the car in sport auto mode most of the time and I'd bet without driving the car that the factory's race mode or whatever they call it would be better shift logic than my brain while on the track either. But how about involvement, you might ask. Well, in my case, I feel as involved as ever w/ the EVO in Sport auto mode as even though it shifts seemlessly, but the sound of the engine, the intake, the exhaust do keep one entertained, and I now seem to get more feedback from the steering wheel as I now can keep both hands on the wheel during shifting. For those who haven't driven a twin clutch, keep an open mind, go out there and drive one before coming to conclusion.

 

Well, by definition, sure.. but when you come to a field with other solutions that were out first, it may be better to sacrifice intuitive, if in the end, the designers think their solution is better. It may be a matter of 'unlearning' the other way. Whats complicated about PDK, though. Its PDK. so you put it in D and just use the right foot. How is that complicated.