Real world difference between Cayman 987.2 S and R

[andygo]

Just wondered what the real world driving/living with differences are between the two versions are. I understand the differences in spec, but what actual difference does it make to handling etc.

 

I say this as an owner of a 22,000 mile old 2010 Cayman S and am intrigued as to what is so much better that justifies such a price hike for the R. If I spend £1500 on all new R springs and dampers, am I pretty much there on the dynamics?

 

I guess this is a question for someone who has experience of driving both versions in the UK.

[Windymiller]

Can’t comment on the difference in driving dynamic, but to truly ‘match’ the R you’d also need thicker rear R anti roll bar, and lighter weight wheels, which presumably affects handling. 
 

and then there’s the lighter aluminium GT3 doors. 
 

and of course the weight saving door pull straps. 😉

 

and then some recaro pole positions to replicate the carbon buckets. 🤷‍♂️

[FLAT STICK]

Is the difference in weight only about 150kg

[Beanoir™]

Different engine map, larger bore exhaust, more aero, limited slip diff, weight savings, suspension etc etc. It also just feels a bit more special.  
 

Just changing the suspension will not turn an S into an R because it’s the complete package of subtle changes that make the R such a great car.  But you can make an S better by doing some mods, of course.  
 

The value of an R is mainly down to the fact that there is such a limited number of them and they were a great car out of the box.  The perfect combo for future classic status.  

[Andyoz]

R feels good bit more nimble than an S.

 

It's a combination of the weight loss and more so the stiffer suspension.

 

The buckets add alot to the existence.

 

Whenever I open the door to an S it feels so heavy. Opening it and seeing the bucket seats definitely triggers something in my brain anyway..

 

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Andyoz

[wtaite01]

If you haven't seen it already, Autocar did a comparison below, hope it helps!
 

 

[andygo]

Thanks, it's just interesting to see how the differences in hardware stack up.

[Andyoz]

45 minutes ago, wtaite01 said:

If you haven't seen it already, Autocar did a comparison below, hope it helps!
 

 

 

He comments on the understeer and LSD a few times and being able to drive it on the throttle in the corners.  That's exactly what I feel.

[Trickle]

Forget comparing the two cars with each other on paper, you won’t even appreciate the difference in the first couple of months of owning and driving an R.  But when it comes, then it makes sense.  
 

Those who know, know.  

 

Those who don’t quote hypothetical technical differences and clearly haven’t owned an R for any period of time, if at all.  
 

Forget monetary values, it’s irrelevant when comparing performance and driving attributes of the two cars.  

[andygo]

51 minutes ago, Trickle said:

Forget comparing the two cars with each other on paper, you won’t even appreciate the difference in the first couple of months of owning and driving an R.  But when it comes, then it makes sense.  
 

Those who know, know.  

 

Those who don’t quote hypothetical technical differences and clearly haven’t owned an R for any period of time, if at all.  
 

Forget monetary values, it’s irrelevant when comparing performance and driving attributes of the two cars.  

The 'on paper' spec differences are pretty well documented, as the OP, I'm interested to understand the benefits of the sum of the parts equation. Depreciation V outlay is perhaps one of the parameters.

[Beanoir™]

1 hour ago, andygo said:

The 'on paper' spec differences are pretty well documented, as the OP, I'm interested to understand the benefits of the sum of the parts equation. Depreciation V outlay is perhaps one of the parameters.

Without trying to sound like an arse about it, I think the point made above by Trickle was quite pertinent.  It’s almost impossible to quantify it and realise the difference until you’ve actually owned and lived with an R.

Having owned an S for 3 years, then straight into an R for another 3 years I can relate to the fact that immediate impressions are that you don’t appreciate the difference immediately.  Once you’ve gotten to learn more about the car and start to push its limits further thats when it shows it’s talent.  I didn’t ‘get it’ until I had the opportunity to drive it on track and even more so doing 2,000 miles in a week spent in the Alps.  Then I got it.  

The benefit of all of the parts that make an R is that you’ll have a car that is just that bit sharper, that bit more reactive, slightly quicker in some situations, slightly more stable under braking and turn in, slightly more communicative through the seat, and it feels that bit more special.  

 

I hate to use the phrase, but it’s a 10/10ths kinda car.  If you drive at 7/10ths you probably will never really appreciate the differences over an S.  

[Masher]

Just to look at the question another way. Go to rightmove with a spreadsheet open and look at houses. You’ll find many that on a spreadsheet look extremely similar and probably have some price variation. If you visited these houses you’d get a very different feel for them and hate some and love others. Sometimes it’s not possible to say where the passion for one over the other comes from but it’s there and makes a difference. 

Back to cars… the CR was, in my opinion, the most complete car it’s possible to buy for £40k ish (when I bought) and but for setting off my tinnitus it’d still be in my garage. Truly stunning.

[Andyoz]

When I was looking to move up from my S, I kept focussing on the price difference.

 

But you need to ignore that and just look at the R in absolute terms. I came to the conclusion the S was underpriced and the R was about right. That was when good spec ones were just south of £40k though.

 

It is Porsche first serious attempt at a tricked up 6 cylinder mid engined car in modern times (i.e. ignoring the 916).

 

Where else do you go for a well made manual mid engined car. Lotus?!?

[Aaron]

I think the simplest way to explain it is this, and the market agrees with it: there's a reason there's a significant premium over an S.  If the differences were so minimal or so easy to imitate, then prices would've fallen long ago.

[Windymiller]

I wouldn’t worry about it - I went flying past a pedestrian PDK R at Cadwell park on Wednesday in my lowly 7/10ths S. 😜
 

it’s clearly the driver that really matters, not the car... 😉😆

 

(of course this was not the case when Tim Harvey’s 991GT3RS made me look like I was in reverse as he left me in his wake - that was very much a case of his car simply enhancing what modicum of talent he may possess... 🤔🤷‍♂️😳)

[Aaron]

58 minutes ago, eponymoose said:

 

Not even remotely true.

 

Popularity and / or market value is not a remotely reliable metric of merit. The value of any given car is no guarantee of a certain driving experience. Plenty of classics worth megabucks that are garbage to drive, but are fashionable with values that reflect that.

 

 

Moreover, if you think market value reflects merit, well, the market clearly thinks the 987 generally is s**t including the R. A perfect R is worth less than most sheddy air cooled cars, despite the fact that the R was built in pretty low numbers. I've driven numerous air cooled cars worth six figures that I wouldn't take over a basic 987 2.7 let along an R in terms of the pure driving experience, market doesn't see it that way!

 

I'd say the market seriously under values the R. But the reality is that the £40k-ish value of the R is very small beans for a low volume Porsche special and indicates that the market holds the R in fairly low regard. Obviously it holds other 987s in even lower regard. As ever, the market is pretty clueless.

 

As for the idea that you have to have owned a car to hold a valid opinion and 'if you know, you know', usual defensiveness born of blinkered bias. If a car has merit, it can be articulated. Casting such aspersions adds nothing by way of insight.

 

And for the record, from a driving perspective, the differences are easy to imitate. Sticking R suspension and wheels, plus taking a roughly comparable amount of weight out would pose zero technical difficulties. Which isn't to say it would necessarily be a good idea. Personally think one would be better off not trying to directly emulate an R. Instead, makes changes to suit whatever your personal preference is rather than trying to make a fake R. But that doesn't change the fact that making an S that drove the same as an R would not be remotely difficult.

 

But as cars like the 1973 2.7RS demonstrate, that's not how these things a valued by the market.

 

 

You have taken what I've said astronomically outside of its original context.

 

It isn't just about emulating it in terms of drive and/or tech specs; it's about it being a 987 Cayman R and not a 987 Cayman S.  Rs have a premium and that is categorically indisputable and undeniable.  The market reflects this by higher prices for an R than an S, irrespective of the price of other Porsche cars and the 987 values in general.  It is priced higher, therefore, the market agrees there is a deserving premium.  If it did not, then there wouldn't be a significant premium and prices would fall.  

 

I'll summarise the above: there is a premium for an R because of its rarity, acclaim and ownership.  It's not just about how it drives.

 

I'll circle back to your comment around older, six figure cars that are clearly inferior vehicles: it's not about the drive.  The market is the best way to understand the general consensus of a car and its desirability; opinions of enthusiasts aside, whether biased or otherwise.

 

If you took an S and replicated an R to the finest detail, it would still be worth less than an equivalent R.  Because it's just not an R.  This makes sense to me and if it doesn't for anyone that reads this, then I'm disappointed you don't agree with me but I have nothing further to say about it.

 

If you want an R, buy an R.  If you're only interested in the drive then, of course, you would logically buy an S and mod one instead (or buy one already there). /Thread

[Andyoz]

7 hours ago, eponymoose said:

 

Would dispute that it was a terribly serious attempt.

 

Changes are minimal, very little money / effort spent. Not a single new arm or bush. No new ratios. no new steering rack or even steering valving. No physical changes to the engine, just a map and exhaust. No new brakes. They couldn't even be arsed to fit the bigger brake MC which ought to have been a total no brainer. The most exotic spec item is the doors. And they're just off-the-shelf 997 GTx parts. They were not tooled up for the R. Even the aero kit isn't specific to the R. 

 

Which isn't to say it's a bad car. It's not. It's the best driving factory 987. But it's not a hugely serious attempt to make a 'tricked out' model. On the contrary, it's more testament to the core 987 that the R is such a great car despite so little effort made.

 

It's also a testament to branding. If the R's spec had been offered as a optional driving pack for the S, it would give the same driving experience but you wouldn't have people trying to pretend it was some kind of latter day 2.7RS Jesusmobile.

 

It's a very good car, but the reality and the answer to the OP's question is that the real world differences are marginal. That's not bad mouthing the R or saying it's a bad car. It's not. I repeat, it's great. It's just not hugely different from other 987s.

 

Didn't word my post that clearly.

 

What I was getting at it is the Cayman was their first serious attempt at a modern 6 cylinder mid engined coupe and the R is a tricked up version of that.

 

Look at how mental 981, 997, etc GTS values are and everything on them could be ticked when ordering a new S. The R had a few fairly expensive things that couldn't. It was more an anomaly of the world economy than Porsche suddenly deciding to be generous with it's extras.

 

I think your idea of 'tricked up' differs to mine ...sit an R beside an S and ask a layman their opinion.

 

I didn't get my head around the fuss about R's until I owned one...The latest R values are mental though IMO.  At the £10k differential I paid it was a no brainer. At the current £20k I'd think long and hard about it 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Andyoz

[Andyoz]

18 minutes ago, eponymoose said:

 

Can't imagine why a layman's opinion is relevant / worthwhile in this context. Yes, a lay view might see the R as something it's not. Hardly contradicts the point I was trying to make.

 

OK, ask a Porsche head then...they are the ones handing over the money for R's  

Edited May 10, 2021 by Andyoz

[PhilCS]

3 hours ago, Andyoz said:

 

OK, ask a Porsche head then...they are the ones handing over the money for R's  

 

You're arguing with a guy who's never owned an R....you do realise it's a waste of time right?

[Andyoz]

1 hour ago, PhilCS said:

 

You're arguing with a guy who's never owned an R....you do realise it's a waste of time right?  Most of us just ignore the fool.  

 

Ah, just a bit of fun.

 

Either way the OP really needs to see them side by side before deciding if it's worth it for him.

 

The S is still the performance bargain out there though - no doubt about that and the further spread between S and R prices has made the R harder to justify.