2003 Porsche Boxster Roadster S Special Edition 3.2l Excellent Condition on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Porsche reportedly working on new turbocharged flat-four boxer engine?

These days, we've seen just about every automaker dropping cylinders in an effort to appease tightening fuel economy and emission standards - and Porsche is no exception. Nearly three years after introducing an all-new V6 powerplant under the front hood of its Panamera sedan (launched with a range of V8 engines) comes word that Porsche is working on an all-new turbocharged flat-four boxer to replace the flat-six engines mid-mounted in its Cayman and Boxster models.
Specifics have yet to be learned, but reports say the engine is a derivative of the current 3.8-liter six (shown above) found under the rear decklid of the Carrera S, yet with two fewer cylinders. Fitted with a turbocharger, direct-injection and the automaker's VarioCam Plus, the new all-aluminum 2.5-liter flat-four will likely develop upwards of 350 horsepower and 360 pound-feet of torque. Redline should be about 7,500 rpm. Initial indications say that Porsche will only offer the new engine with its seven-speed PDK dual-clutch automatic, tuned to take advantage of the low-end torque, but a traditional six-speed manual gearbox has not been ruled out. Despite the loss of two cylinders, enthusiasts will likely embrace the new engine as it promises to be lighter, more fuel efficient and more powerful than the 2.7-liter and 3.4-liter sixes in the Cayman/Boxster today.
Even though Porsche has been using Volkswagen Group engines for years (e.g., Cayenne V6, Cayenne Diesel and upcoming Macan), all indications are that the new flat-four will not be shared. Instead, it will be kept in-house for the automaker's sports cars and possible future fitment in an entry-level 911.

'Faster. Farther.' dives into the history of Porsche racing tech

No doubt, Porsche has produced some of the best endurance racecars around, such as the turbocharged, slant-nose 935 of the 1970s and the ground-effects-enhanced 956 and 962 of the 1980s. But the company's most famous racecar, its first overall winner at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, was the 917.
The 917 embodied many of Porsche's technological achievements up to that point, such as the company's first 12- and 16-cylinder engines (the flat-16 was never used in competition), fiberglass bodies that implemented early aerodynamic practices and the use of new, exotic materials, such as magnesium and titanium.
The racecar was commissioned by the head of Porsche Motorsports, Ferdinand Piëch, to win overall at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1970, after he realized a loophole in the rules that allowed cars to compete with engines up to five liters in the Sport category if they were also production models. Piëch saw opportunity: the top prototype class was restricted to three liters; the production minimum to compete in Sport was 25 cars. And so, with much effort, Porsche assembled 25 "production" 4.5-liter 917s and had them parked in a neat line for the race inspectors to verify their legitimacy. It didn't take long before people realized the new Porsches were much faster than the prototype racers, with a top speed approaching 250 miles per hour.

What do J.D. Power's quality ratings really measure?

Check these recently released J.D. Power Initial Quality Study (IQS) results. Do they raise any questions in your mind? Premium sports-car maker Porsche sits in first place for the third straight year, so are Porsches really the best-built cars in the U.S. market? Korean brands Kia and Hyundai are second and fourth, so are Korean vehicles suddenly better than their US, European, and Japanese competitors? Are workaday Chevrolets (seventh place) better than premium Buicks (11th), and Buicks better than luxury Cadillacs (21st), even though all are assembled in General Motors plants with the same processes and many shared parts? Are Japanese Acuras (26th) worse than German Volkswagens (24th)? And is "quality" really what it used to be (and what most perceive it to be), a measure of build excellence? Or has it evolved into much more a measure of likeability and ease of use? To properly analyze these widely watched results, we must first understand what IQS actually studies, and what the numerical scores really mean. First, as its name indicates, it's all about "initial" quality, measured by problems reported by new-vehicle owners in their first 90 days of ownership. If something breaks or falls off four months in, it doesn't count here. Second, the scores are problems per 100 vehicles, or PP100. So Power's 2015 IQS industry average of 112 PP100 translates to just 1.12 reported problems per vehicle. Third, no attempt is made to differentiate BIG problems from minor ones. Thus a transmission or engine failure counts the same as a squeaky glove box door, tricky phone pairing, inconsistent voice recognition, or anything else that annoys the owner. Traditionally, a high-quality vehicle is one that is well-bolted together. It doesn't leak, squeak, rattle, shed parts, show gaps between panels, or break down and leave you stranded. By this standard, there are very few poor-quality new vehicles in today's U.S. market. But what "quality" should not mean, is subjective likeability: ease of operation of the radio, climate controls, or seat adjusters, phone pairing, music downloading, sizes of touch pads on an infotainment screen, quickness of system response, or accuracy of voice-recognition. These are ergonomic "human factors" issues, not "quality" problems. Yet these kinds of pleasability issues are now dominating today's JDP "quality" ratings.