Sunday, July 10, 2022

Porsche Prices, Reviews & Ratings




Porsche鈥檚 2018 lineup of sports cars is exactly in line with their excellent reputation for superior aesthetics and extreme performance. The Porsche 718 Cayman S now has a 350 hp engine, automatic transmission, and boasts a 4.4 second acceleration time from zero to 60 mph. The 718 Cayman S now offers the Sport Chrono package, which can improve acceleration times and reach a top speed of 177 mph. The 718 Boxster S has also been improved for 2018, and now has a turbocharged boxer 4 engine capable of exerting 309 lb-ft of torque at 1900 rpm. With a compression ratio of 9.5:1, the 718 Boxster S is also a bit more fuel efficient than prior models. Porsche鈥檚 legendary 911 Turbo S series also has a few upgrades in 2018, with 27 more hp than the 2017 model for a total of 607 hp of engine power. The Porsche Communication Management system has also been improved for the 2018 911 Turbo S series, which will make navigation much easier than before.





Unlike its downsized turbocharged rivals, Mazda鈥檚 right-sized policy means this larger lump produces more power, at 163bhp, but with only 213Nm it is down on torque compared with its competitors. You feel this latter figure on the road and it also showed during our performance tests because the CX-5 was slower than its opponents here. As it doesn鈥檛 have a turbo to boost its mid-range and the Mazda has only six gears to the Q3鈥檚 seven, it took 23.3 seconds to accelerate from 50 to 70mph in sixth, whereas the Audi managed 10.1 seconds. The Q3 was more urgent from 30-50mph in the lower gears as well. It needed just 5.2 seconds in fourth, whereas its turbocharged Volvo rival took a second longer in fifth. The Mazda took 7.6 seconds. However, using the upper reaches of the rev range from 0-60mph, where the CX-5鈥檚 performance lies, highlighted that it was only two tenths slower than the Q3, taking 9.2 seconds.





This shows that refinement isn鈥檛 the Mazda鈥檚 strongest point, because with no turbo boosting its mid-range performance, you have to rev it to extract the pace. The six-speed auto box also holds on to ratios too long and is sluggish to shift when it does, so it doesn鈥檛 feel as instant or as punchy as either rival, despite its higher power output. In fact, it feels laboured. Still, the CX-5鈥檚 chassis is great. It doesn鈥檛 have the body control of the Audi, but then it also isn鈥檛 as firm and rides with more compliance. It still governs its mass well, so the chassis doesn鈥檛 wallow around. In fact, it鈥檚 a good balance of agility and comfort. The steering has a great weight and a good speed; it鈥檚 not overly assisted and doesn鈥檛 have the artificial-feeling enhanced responsiveness to inputs of its rivals. It feels more natural as a result. The CX-5鈥檚 footprint is actually similar to its rivals鈥?here, while it trumps the XC40 for boot space, at 506 litres.





This is 24 litres down on the Q3, but in reality this isn鈥檛 too much and the Mazda should offer enough practicality for most situations. There鈥檚 not much to split the CX-5 and Q3 for rear legroom, but the Audi鈥檚 cabin feels more spacious in the front with better storage, even if the driving position and range of adjustment isn鈥檛 as good. Levers in the load bay make it easy to fold the rear seats from the boot as well. Mazda鈥檚 ninth place result in our Driver Power 2018 survey was a strong showing, with the brand praised for its ride and handling, as well as reliability and build quality. We don鈥檛 disagree, but you can also add safety to that list as well, because the five-star-rated CX-5 offers autonomous braking, blind spot monitoring, lane-keep assist and cross-traffic alert. Despite lacking a turbo, the CX-5 returned stronger economy on test of 34.5mpg, which means annual fuel bills of 拢1,935 over 12,000 miles.





This compares with the XC40鈥檚 30.1mpg, which means you鈥檒l only pay 拢2,218 a year at the pumps. No surprise, given it鈥檚 a manual. The Q3 returned a respectable 31.7mpg, which means your outgoings on petrol will come to 拢2,106 over 12 months; the Audi and Volvo were closer, but running costs here are still similar. Testers鈥?notes: 鈥淚f towing a trailer is important to you, the Mazda鈥檚 2,000kg limit is good. The Q3 has come of age. It鈥檚 a more mature, more refined and more practical package than before, and is loaded with lots of desirable technology as standard. This makes it really easy to live with, along with its great flexibility. Yet it hasn鈥檛 lost its premium appeal or character. The Audi is pricier, but the quality and kit compared with the Volvo mean we feel it鈥檚 worth the extra. While the XC40 is still a great compact premium crossover, it鈥檚 better in diesel auto form than this T3 petrol version. The lack of an automatic option hampers its appeal, and the engine isn鈥檛 as sweet as the Audi鈥檚, either. Also, the infotainment isn鈥檛 as advanced (smartphone tech is optional), and while it鈥檚 comfortable and refined, the Audi鈥檚 extra practicality edges it ahead. The CX-5 has come a long way and is more premium than ever, but it still has a little way to go in this company. It beats the Volvo for practicality, but the Mazda鈥檚 infotainment is lacking, even after a significant update with CarPlay and Android Auto. The engine also feels a generation behind and means it鈥檒l be pricier to run compared with its rivals.

No comments:

Post a Comment