Talk:Porsche Cayman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a strong enthusiast community at http://www.planet-9.com (formerly CaymanClub.Net) where you will find specifications and information about the Cayman.

Gen I & Gen II 987 Vs Second Generation 981[edit]

In my experience the 987 facelift model from 2009 onwards is referred to as a "Gen II". Therefore, using the words "Second Generation" as the subtitle for the 2013MY 981 seems rather spurious. Is "Second Generation" an official term? More clear ways to refer to the variants are perhaps 987.1, 987.2 and 981. Here's a credible link showing use of the term Gen II meaning facelift 987: http://caymanregister.org/faq.php?faq=models. I propose this needs clarifying in the article and use of "Second Generation" needs to be dropped when referring to the 981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.76.125 (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications[edit]

Seems to me that the specifications provided by Porsche indicate a 3.4 L on the Cayman S ...194.183.196.141 08:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the specifications section, there is a list of four versions of the Cayman which is a speculation before the release of the first version of the specifications of the Cayman S by Porsche last month.

And there there are the official specifications, which contradict what is written above. I think that the specification section should be rewritten on the basis of the actual information provided by Porsche and not on the basis of pre-release rumors of the press.

Please in particular be coherent for the Cayman S 194.183.196.141 28 June 2005 10:53 (UTC)

photo[edit]

I'm not certain that picture is up to date and it certainly doensn't do it justice. Any better pictures in the public domain that show the car?

Up to date[edit]

says scheduled to release in 2005... Its out... I saw it at the dealer...maybe someone knowledgeable can update?? 24.211.135.6

Cayman or caiman[edit]

It is said that it is named after the Caiman, isn't it the Cayman Islands rather than the Caiman ? Hektor 05:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Clarkson?[edit]

"British motoring columnist Jeremy Clarkson does not like the styling of the car. Nor is convinced by it's performance. He also suggests that it should be refered to as "Gayman". Which is totally wrong." Totally unnecessary POV... who cares what Jeremy Clarkson thinks? I don't believe Jeremy Clarkson's opinion would really appear in an encyclopedia so I am taking it out.

Response: I agree with you on excluding the the Clarkson comments, but it is true that Clarkson called it the "Gayman" (he does so in his Sunday times Op-eds; on Top-Gear he calls it the "Coxster"). BMan1113VR 06:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree the comment shouldnt be in here, a hell of a lot of people watch top gear (bbc2's top rated show isnt it?) so SOMEONE cares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.223.6 (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications: Porsche official vs. third-party[edit]

Roguegeek and BMan1113VR have a disagreement over whose performance specifications to publish -- Road & Track's (an American car magazine) or Porsche's official specifications. I can't find any official policy guidance on this, but I'm strongly inclined to cite Porsche's official specifications. Two reasons to avoid third-party specifications when official ones are present are that every third party source will differ (e.g. Car and Driver got different times than Road & Track), and third-party publications often have typographical errors (e.g. there's no way the Cayman S can only do 160). - Stephen Hui 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated with many more sources (other magazines (and other Road&Track Articles claiming 171)and 2 videos[more available]) all claiming 171. The 160 claim is probably and error/typo on R&T's part. Maybe they confused Cayman with Cayman S (the base Cayman has a top speed of 160/161 depending on transmission). I know this is unencyclopedic (hence why I didn't include it), but as an owner who took European Delivery, I personally drove it to just over 170 on the Autobahn. Simple explination: 0.29 Drag Coefficient + ~270+rwhp [1][2]+6-speed=Car running out of 6th gear at ~170mph. BMan1113VR 05:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter to me. I was just bothered by the fact that NO SOURCES were cited when I did my original edit. Now that there are some there, I don't see a problem. FYI, multiple third-party sources are always better than a single first-party source. Roguegeek (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with automotive performance specifications is that they're variable -- different cars will perform differently on different surfaces with different drivers in different conditions. For that reason, you can have a half-dozen accurate sources (in this case, Car and Driver, Road & Track, etc.) that all disagree. I'm inclined just to put Porsche's stats in the chart and change the header to "Manufacturer's rated performance specifications" or some such. Sure, some manufacturers will fudge the numbers, but I can't think of a more compelling argument to include anyone else's stats instead. Stephen Hui 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First-party sources fudging numbers is the main reason why Wikipedia asks for several secondary sources instead. Inconsistencies between secondary sources could easily be overcome by saying stating best and worse from what we could find. It's really all a mater of what the editors can agree on. In any case, secondary sources are almost always better to use unless there is simply a lack of sources (which in this case, there wouldn't be). Roguegeek (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Predecessors[edit]

- Stephen, I strongly disagree with the 968 being the "predecessor" the fact that the 968 was a coupe and wasn't a 911 isn't enough to make it a predecessor to the Cayman. They share no parts, no design philosophy, they don't even drive the same! :) Porsche has stated that both the 550 LeMans Coupe and the 904 were inspirations for the Cayman, the 968 was not. I mean you could argue that the 912 was a predecessor by stating that it was the least expensive coupe offered at the time that wasn't a 911, but that doesn't really make it related in any way or even a predecessor. Just because there was a gap of some 40 years between the 904 and the Cayman doesn't make it any less a predecessor, the same for a 50 year gap and the 550 LeMans Coupe. The Boxster (on which the Cayman shares the same platform group - 987) was soley based on the old 550 spyders, the 550 was the Boxster predecessor, not the 944 Cabs or 914's or anything else that happened to be topless and not a 911 coupe/cab, etc. Let's look at Chevy for a moment. The Camaro used to be the entry level sports car. It is gone (for now) and the Chevy Cobalt SS is the entry level Chevy sports car. When the new Camaro is released next year are you going to say that the predecessor to the new Camaro was the old Camaro or the Cobalt SS? I'd argue for the old Camaro and I think most Chevy fans would too. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.229.30 (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the predecessor entry in the info box back to the 968. Saying that the 550 and 904 is romantic, but not really relevant to any buyer. I expect that the vast majority of people would say the Cayman's predecessor was Porsche's previous inexpensive, hardtop car, which was the 968; "Porsche's previous mid-engined hardtop car" is too narrow a definition, in my opinion. Stephen Hui 15:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content must verifiable. Porsche has published that the 904 is a predecessor:
"The Porsche 904, a predecessor of the Cayman S, is arguably among the most exciting sports cars of all time—"
Quoted from Porsche's Christophorus magazine article, 'Double Excellence'
http://www.porsche.com/usa/accessoriesandservices/christophorusmagazine/archive/archive2006/april-may/
That the Porsche 550 is also a predecessor can be verified by reference to another publication from the manufacturer:
"The ... unique combination of mid-mounted engine and hard-roof body was originally prototyped in 1953 on the Porsche 550 coupé... The result: the new Cayman and the Cayman S."
http://www.porsche.com/all/transitional/uk/pdf/Cayman_MY07_gb.pdf
Is the assertion that the 968 is a predecessor of the Cayman verfiable as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines? --Wiley 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the 904 is a predecessor of the Cayman doesn't mean it's the Cayman's immediate or only predecessor. The Cayman is Porsche's less-expensive hardtop model. Prior to the Cayman, what Porsche's less-expensive hardtop model? The 968, or course. While I could cite sources for this, frankly that would be silly, as it's common knowledge and thus would serve no purpose but to clutter the article.
It's also worth pointing out that Porsche marketing copy hardly qualifies as NPOV source material. Other than Porsche marketing copy evoking the image of the 550 and 904 in an attempt to grant the Cayman mystique, on what basis do you assert that either car is an immediate predecessor of the Cayman? Stephen Hui 07:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the tag description in Template:Infobox_Automobile:
"predecessor: previous models of the manufacturer in the segment or similar".
I'll go along with leaving the predecessor as 968. --Wiley 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Thanks also for your recent round of edits to the article, even if I disagreed with this particular one.  :-) Stephen Hui 15:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I recently part-exchanged my 968 for a Cayman S Sport, so it was definitely its predecessor for me :-) Strobie (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lap times[edit]

Bwileyr, I see you distinguished between Röhrl's Ring lap time in a car equipped with PASM, PCCB, etc. and the Porsche literature's stated time for a "standard" Cayman S. I think it's a bit of an assumption to say that "standard" means non-optioned, as implied by your original wording of the lap times section. Unless someone can find a more explicit description of the 8:20 car's options, I think the current wording is better. Stephen Hui 05:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Röhrl was quoted about that in the article Porsche's new kid on the grid:

"We were a little bit surprised how near we were to the 911 (in performance)," says Rohrl of the Cayman. "But that was a car with (optional) 19-inch wheels and ceramic brakes, so it was a bit quicker (than the standard model)."

--Wiley 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was referring to Porsche's describing the lap time of the "standard" Cayman. I'm not disputing that Röhrl's car had options; what's ambiguous in my mind is what constitutes "standard". Standard (manual) transmission? No options? The option configuration Porsche expects most people to buy? Stephen Hui 04:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a better version of that quote in the interview section (at the end of that article):

"We were at Nurburgring, it was my first lap and I did 8 minutes, 11 seconds - my first lap! But that was a car with (optional) 19-inch wheels and ceramic brakes, so it was a bit quicker. A normal (unmodified) Cayman S will do it in about 8.20, ..."

--Wiley 18:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another time line thought. Why are the Boxster and Cayman listed as separate entities when one is just the hardtop version of the other? --9toes (talk) 22
00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Getrag[edit]

In case anyone else was wondering if the name of one of the gearbox manufacturers should be shown in Wikipedia as GETRAG or Getrag, there are WikiProject Automobiles and a Talk:Getrag discussions about that. As of today, the winner is Getrag. --Wiley (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zuffenhausen[edit]

The article says Zuffenhausen is near Stuttgart, but Zuffenhausen is IN Stuttgart. It is a district.--75.80.43.80 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it.--75.80.43.80 (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

As no one seems to object I will look at merging the article in the near future. Bjmullan (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bjmullan (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006 Cayman-S.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:2006 Cayman-S.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Porsche_Cayman&oldid=1200152203"