Car Modern 2011

Yamaha's success saling automatic bike in Indonesia influenced other manufacturer to sale the same bike type. After Yamaha Nouvo, Yamaha launch Yamaha Mio which has won Indonesian market and forced Honda and Suzuki to take a role in this class. Honda launched Honda Vario and Suzuki lauched Suzuki Spin and Skywave to compete Yamaha Mio. Then, Yamaha launch Mio Soul and we hear some rumors in recent days that Yamaha will bring their retro bike to Indonesia, Yamaha Vino. People call it Yamaha Mio Vino, yups .. it could be a retro style of Yamaha Mio, not like it's original Vino which has only 50CC capacity, but 125CC.

Yamaha's success saling automatic bike in Indonesia influenced other manufacturer to sale the same bike type. After Yamaha Nouvo, Yamaha launch Yamaha Mio which has won Indonesian market and forced Honda and Suzuki to take a role in this class. Honda launched Honda Vario and Suzuki lauched Suzuki Spin and Skywave to compete Yamaha Mio. Then, Yamaha launch Mio Soul and we hear some rumors in recent days that Yamaha will bring their retro bike to Indonesia, Yamaha Vino. People call it Yamaha Mio Vino, yups .. it could be a retro style of Yamaha Mio, not like it's original Vino which has only 50CC capacity, but 125CC.

After being secret for about two monts, finally Honda launch their new motorcycle in Indonesia. This motorcycle has been advertised for about one month, but didn't mentinoned it's name. And finally, 6 April last week, Honda launch it for public in Surabaya. It's name is Honda CS1 (City Sport).

After being secret for about two monts, finally Honda launch their new motorcycle in Indonesia. This motorcycle has been advertised for about one month, but didn't mentinoned it's name. And finally, 6 April last week, Honda launch it for public in Surabaya. It's name is Honda CS1 (City Sport).

Mercedes-Benz performance brand AMG shows its environmental side.

Mercedes’s AMG performance division wants to offer guiltless pleasure for those who love performance cars but are tired of being criticized for a lack of commitment to save the planet.

On the eve of the 2008 Geneva auto show, AMG boss Volker Mornhinweg boldly announced that the fleet of performance cars will achieve a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2012. Smaller engines, hybrid systems, and diesels are all on the table for Mercedes’ thriving performance sub-brand.

Mornhinweg leveled a shot at BMW’s claim to “efficient dynamics” which is spawning products such as the X5 Vision diesel hybrid concept, also unveiled in Geneva. AMG’s roots are in racing, he said, and “racing was always about ‘efficient dynamics,’ we just called it differently.” He then went on to announce fuel-saving technologies to be offered in AMG cars across the globe.

In 2010, direct-injection gasoline engines and start-stop systems will mark the beginning of the push to lower consumption and emissions. AMG is developing a crankshaft starter-generator system that it claims is far more advanced that BMW’s current system, which operates with a conventional starter.

Two-Mode Performance

But that kind of technology is just the beginning. AMG is working on full hybrid cars that can drive short distances with just the electric motor. Mercedes is part of a consortium with General Motors, Chrysler, and BMW in developing this “two-mode” or full hybrid system for use by each automaker.

Mercedes did not want to launch its version of the two-mode system in the M-class, as there already are hybrid SUVs on the market, and “we don’t want to be a follower,” says Mornhinweg. For AMG, look for the technology to bow on a low, sporty car like the CL, the SL, or the CLS.

Turbocharged V-6s on Tap?

In a reversal of its strategy of the past few years, AMG could also offer six-cylinder gasoline engines again. This time around, they would be turbocharged. Mornhinweg says that a decision will be made soon. Turbocharged V-8 engines are already high on the agenda.

Despite all that fuel-saving technology, AMG continues to focus on fun and performance. The new MCT multi-clutch transmission—essentially Mercedes’ seven-speed automatic with a multiclutch system replacing the torque converter—will migrate to more models after its debut in the SL63 AMG. The next-generation CLK and SLK are sure bets to receive the gearbox, while the C-class is an open question. It won’t replace the automatic throughout the lineup as it is not well-suited to towing and does not fit the character of the S- or CL-class luxury cars.

AMG will also up its performance credibility with ceramic brakes. By now, they are reliable but cooling is still a challenge, and there needs to be a significant performance advantage over the regular brakes to warrant the additional cost.

AMG is hoping its fuel-saving announcements present a challenge to competitors. Porsche has announced a CO2 reduction of 30 percent for its V-6 hybrid powertrain over the regular V-6. But such savings across the entire fleet are “unrealistic,” Porsche board member Wolfgang Dürheimer tells us here in Geneva.

Last year, AMG sold 20,107 units, its best results ever. For 2008 and beyond, Mornhinweg is aiming for “further, profitable growth.” If he reaches his ambitious CO2 targets, Mother Earth won’t really care.

Mercedes-Benz performance brand AMG shows its environmental side.

Mercedes’s AMG performance division wants to offer guiltless pleasure for those who love performance cars but are tired of being criticized for a lack of commitment to save the planet.

On the eve of the 2008 Geneva auto show, AMG boss Volker Mornhinweg boldly announced that the fleet of performance cars will achieve a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2012. Smaller engines, hybrid systems, and diesels are all on the table for Mercedes’ thriving performance sub-brand.

Mornhinweg leveled a shot at BMW’s claim to “efficient dynamics” which is spawning products such as the X5 Vision diesel hybrid concept, also unveiled in Geneva. AMG’s roots are in racing, he said, and “racing was always about ‘efficient dynamics,’ we just called it differently.” He then went on to announce fuel-saving technologies to be offered in AMG cars across the globe.

In 2010, direct-injection gasoline engines and start-stop systems will mark the beginning of the push to lower consumption and emissions. AMG is developing a crankshaft starter-generator system that it claims is far more advanced that BMW’s current system, which operates with a conventional starter.

Two-Mode Performance

But that kind of technology is just the beginning. AMG is working on full hybrid cars that can drive short distances with just the electric motor. Mercedes is part of a consortium with General Motors, Chrysler, and BMW in developing this “two-mode” or full hybrid system for use by each automaker.

Mercedes did not want to launch its version of the two-mode system in the M-class, as there already are hybrid SUVs on the market, and “we don’t want to be a follower,” says Mornhinweg. For AMG, look for the technology to bow on a low, sporty car like the CL, the SL, or the CLS.

Turbocharged V-6s on Tap?

In a reversal of its strategy of the past few years, AMG could also offer six-cylinder gasoline engines again. This time around, they would be turbocharged. Mornhinweg says that a decision will be made soon. Turbocharged V-8 engines are already high on the agenda.

Despite all that fuel-saving technology, AMG continues to focus on fun and performance. The new MCT multi-clutch transmission—essentially Mercedes’ seven-speed automatic with a multiclutch system replacing the torque converter—will migrate to more models after its debut in the SL63 AMG. The next-generation CLK and SLK are sure bets to receive the gearbox, while the C-class is an open question. It won’t replace the automatic throughout the lineup as it is not well-suited to towing and does not fit the character of the S- or CL-class luxury cars.

AMG will also up its performance credibility with ceramic brakes. By now, they are reliable but cooling is still a challenge, and there needs to be a significant performance advantage over the regular brakes to warrant the additional cost.

AMG is hoping its fuel-saving announcements present a challenge to competitors. Porsche has announced a CO2 reduction of 30 percent for its V-6 hybrid powertrain over the regular V-6. But such savings across the entire fleet are “unrealistic,” Porsche board member Wolfgang Dürheimer tells us here in Geneva.

Last year, AMG sold 20,107 units, its best results ever. For 2008 and beyond, Mornhinweg is aiming for “further, profitable growth.” If he reaches his ambitious CO2 targets, Mother Earth won’t really care.

GM checks off milestones in the development of its gasoline-electric plug-in vehicle.

General Motors is developing the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle and its lithium-ion battery pack on parallel paths—and both have passed significant milestones en route to a targeted November 2010 launch.

Larry Burns, GM vice president of research and development and strategic planning, tells Car and Driver in an interview that the design of the car has been frozen. While the production model is not a twin of the Volt concept, the more conventional sedan bears a family resemblance to the Chevy Malibu. And, in the interests of speed, it dips into parts bins of existing GM products wherever possible. That likely includes an existing four-cylinder gasoline engine as the on-board means of recharging the battery that, alone, gives the vehicle a range of only 40 miles.

The car was designed around the need to package a battery pack with a 150,000-mile life, with enough performance for a 0-to-60 mph time of 8.5 seconds. The Volt concept also underwent changes to improve aerodynamics after extensive wind-tunnel testing.

Time to Hit the Road

And at an event in Detroit, GM execs discussed preparations for road-testing the lithium-ion batteries that will go into the production car—past tests were with nickel-metal hydride batteries. The next stage of testing begins this month, with battery packs in a 2001 Chevy Malibu mule to gather much-needed durability data as the team scrambles to simulate 10 years of usage over the next two.

Burns says initially GM canvassed numerous battery suppliers around the world as part of its e-flex program. After a “bake-off” between suppliers, GM is working with two deemed to “have the chemistries to get there.” Burns says there are eight criteria that GM determined its lithium-ion batteries must meet for automotive application, including such things as energy density, extreme temperature viability, the material set, and cost.

Second-Gen Work Underway

Meanwhile, Burns says work is already underway on the second generation. He declines to give a timeframe.

Plug-ins may be exciting, but with a range of only 40 miles, they fall short in comparison to a family-size fuel-cell vehicle with a 300-mile range and zero emissions. Burns sees work on plug-ins as a complimentary play to FCVs that convert hydrogen to electricity onboard, with batteries for power assist and to store energy regenerated in braking.

And he doesn’t anticipate the Chevy Tahoe or other full-size vehicles—or even minivans, wagons or mid-size SUVs—will be offered as plug-ins. “It’s okay for a Cobalt-sized vehicle, but not something with twice the mass.” For larger vehicles, GM’s two-mode hybrid system makes more sense. And efficient gasoline engines will continue to play a significant role in the future, Burns says.

GM Determined to be Fuel-Cell Vehicle Leader

And while the Volt program has been designated a number-one priority at GM, fuel-cell-vehicle development is running full steam as well, Burns says, because GM is determined not to repeat with FCVs what happened with hybrids, with Toyota getting so far out in front of the market. “Toyota creamed us on the Prius,” Burns says. “It won’t happen again.”

GM checks off milestones in the development of its gasoline-electric plug-in vehicle.

General Motors is developing the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle and its lithium-ion battery pack on parallel paths—and both have passed significant milestones en route to a targeted November 2010 launch.

Larry Burns, GM vice president of research and development and strategic planning, tells Car and Driver in an interview that the design of the car has been frozen. While the production model is not a twin of the Volt concept, the more conventional sedan bears a family resemblance to the Chevy Malibu. And, in the interests of speed, it dips into parts bins of existing GM products wherever possible. That likely includes an existing four-cylinder gasoline engine as the on-board means of recharging the battery that, alone, gives the vehicle a range of only 40 miles.

The car was designed around the need to package a battery pack with a 150,000-mile life, with enough performance for a 0-to-60 mph time of 8.5 seconds. The Volt concept also underwent changes to improve aerodynamics after extensive wind-tunnel testing.

Time to Hit the Road

And at an event in Detroit, GM execs discussed preparations for road-testing the lithium-ion batteries that will go into the production car—past tests were with nickel-metal hydride batteries. The next stage of testing begins this month, with battery packs in a 2001 Chevy Malibu mule to gather much-needed durability data as the team scrambles to simulate 10 years of usage over the next two.

Burns says initially GM canvassed numerous battery suppliers around the world as part of its e-flex program. After a “bake-off” between suppliers, GM is working with two deemed to “have the chemistries to get there.” Burns says there are eight criteria that GM determined its lithium-ion batteries must meet for automotive application, including such things as energy density, extreme temperature viability, the material set, and cost.

Second-Gen Work Underway

Meanwhile, Burns says work is already underway on the second generation. He declines to give a timeframe.

Plug-ins may be exciting, but with a range of only 40 miles, they fall short in comparison to a family-size fuel-cell vehicle with a 300-mile range and zero emissions. Burns sees work on plug-ins as a complimentary play to FCVs that convert hydrogen to electricity onboard, with batteries for power assist and to store energy regenerated in braking.

And he doesn’t anticipate the Chevy Tahoe or other full-size vehicles—or even minivans, wagons or mid-size SUVs—will be offered as plug-ins. “It’s okay for a Cobalt-sized vehicle, but not something with twice the mass.” For larger vehicles, GM’s two-mode hybrid system makes more sense. And efficient gasoline engines will continue to play a significant role in the future, Burns says.

GM Determined to be Fuel-Cell Vehicle Leader

And while the Volt program has been designated a number-one priority at GM, fuel-cell-vehicle development is running full steam as well, Burns says, because GM is determined not to repeat with FCVs what happened with hybrids, with Toyota getting so far out in front of the market. “Toyota creamed us on the Prius,” Burns says. “It won’t happen again.”

Pole-dancing? Audi’s next lightweight supermodel might be a bit more of a stripper.

The Audi R8 is great. But as evidenced by the R8 V-12 TDI (nee R8 TDI Le Mans) concept car on display at this year’s Detroit and Geneva auto shows, Audi is clearly thinking about proliferating the R8 lineup.

The next R8 to roll down the spotless Neckarsulm, Germany, assembly line may be a lightweight stripper version rather than a more powerful oil-burner. So hints Stafan Reil, the head of development for Quattro, GmbH, which assembles the R8 and almost every Audi that starts with “S” and “RS.”

Lighter, more intensified cars make sense for Audi’s sport cars, Reil tells Car and Driver, much like Lamborghini’s success with the lightened Gallardo Superleggera.

“This is a direction you can go and make business,” Reil says, stressing that Audi won’t build anything that won’t make the company money. “It makes sense for the TT, and maybe in the future in an R8.”

Pole-dancing? Audi’s next lightweight supermodel might be a bit more of a stripper.

The Audi R8 is great. But as evidenced by the R8 V-12 TDI (nee R8 TDI Le Mans) concept car on display at this year’s Detroit and Geneva auto shows, Audi is clearly thinking about proliferating the R8 lineup.

The next R8 to roll down the spotless Neckarsulm, Germany, assembly line may be a lightweight stripper version rather than a more powerful oil-burner. So hints Stafan Reil, the head of development for Quattro, GmbH, which assembles the R8 and almost every Audi that starts with “S” and “RS.”

Lighter, more intensified cars make sense for Audi’s sport cars, Reil tells Car and Driver, much like Lamborghini’s success with the lightened Gallardo Superleggera.

“This is a direction you can go and make business,” Reil says, stressing that Audi won’t build anything that won’t make the company money. “It makes sense for the TT, and maybe in the future in an R8.”

Audi maintains performance while increasing efficiency by 20%.

Those who assumed the 2010 Audi S4 would share its powertrain with the S5 were incorrect. Instead, look for an all-new forced-induction 3.0-liter V-6 that will generate something close to the 340 horsepower found in the outgoing S4’s 4.2-liter V-8.

Why is the Audi S4 moving from a V-8 to a V-6, just as the BMW M3 moved from an inline-six to a V-8? In two words: Fuel economy. Audi’s strategy is to deliver comparable or improved overall performance by toeing the line on weight and maintaining power output by using forced induction on a smaller displacement engine. Doing so will boost a manual transmission S4’s fuel economy on the European cycle to 23.3 mpg compared with only 19.4 mpg for the V-8 S5. That’s an efficiency gain of 20%.

A less powerful, 290-hp, 310 lb-ft version of the engine will be the base offering in the A6 Quattro, replacing the 3.2-liter V-6. Known as TFSI, which in the past has been Audi’s internal moniker for four-cylinder turbos, the new engine may be referred to as the 3.0T in the model name, possibly indicating a twin-charged system using both a supercharger and a turbocharger. While Volkswagen has a “twincharger,” Audi has not yet offered such a system. At the very least, we expect the new V-6 to be supercharged, although what will allow the S4’s version to generate 50 or so more horsepower is still a mystery.

The supercharger will make the V-6 weigh about the same as the V-8 overall. Add in the requisite safety and luxury features that every new model gets, and it’s a wash. Expect Audi to claim a nominal weight reduction of only 20–100 pounds for the new model, putting it at about 3900 pounds.

Audi will debut the 2010 S4 this fall sometime after the 2008 Paris show in October—making the L.A. show in November a possibility. Expect the new S4 to compete with the BMW 335i for efficiency but the Audi probably won’t have the edge in performance and will cost significantly more. Watch for more details on the new S4’s engine in the coming days.

Audi maintains performance while increasing efficiency by 20%.

Those who assumed the 2010 Audi S4 would share its powertrain with the S5 were incorrect. Instead, look for an all-new forced-induction 3.0-liter V-6 that will generate something close to the 340 horsepower found in the outgoing S4’s 4.2-liter V-8.

Why is the Audi S4 moving from a V-8 to a V-6, just as the BMW M3 moved from an inline-six to a V-8? In two words: Fuel economy. Audi’s strategy is to deliver comparable or improved overall performance by toeing the line on weight and maintaining power output by using forced induction on a smaller displacement engine. Doing so will boost a manual transmission S4’s fuel economy on the European cycle to 23.3 mpg compared with only 19.4 mpg for the V-8 S5. That’s an efficiency gain of 20%.

A less powerful, 290-hp, 310 lb-ft version of the engine will be the base offering in the A6 Quattro, replacing the 3.2-liter V-6. Known as TFSI, which in the past has been Audi’s internal moniker for four-cylinder turbos, the new engine may be referred to as the 3.0T in the model name, possibly indicating a twin-charged system using both a supercharger and a turbocharger. While Volkswagen has a “twincharger,” Audi has not yet offered such a system. At the very least, we expect the new V-6 to be supercharged, although what will allow the S4’s version to generate 50 or so more horsepower is still a mystery.

The supercharger will make the V-6 weigh about the same as the V-8 overall. Add in the requisite safety and luxury features that every new model gets, and it’s a wash. Expect Audi to claim a nominal weight reduction of only 20–100 pounds for the new model, putting it at about 3900 pounds.

Audi will debut the 2010 S4 this fall sometime after the 2008 Paris show in October—making the L.A. show in November a possibility. Expect the new S4 to compete with the BMW 335i for efficiency but the Audi probably won’t have the edge in performance and will cost significantly more. Watch for more details on the new S4’s engine in the coming days.

Two used-to-be roadsters aim for the hearts of purist drivers.

The tradition of sports-car automaking in recent history has been to turn out a roadster, wait until sales slip, then produce a hardtop to pick up the slack. To the nonenthusiast driver, the idea of turning a perfectly good convertible sports car into a hardtop coupe must seem as pointless as the plot of the film Snakes on a Plane. Why give up the joys of driving alfresco to permanently insert yourself into a rolling phone booth, especially if it costs about the same as the ragtop? But adding a roof to a convertible makes sense to car enthusiasts, because the roof increases structural rigidity that in turn allows for a sportier chassis.

In general, a stiff structure leads to a car that is more precise all around, as everything that is intended to move on a car (wheels, suspension, steering) works best when it is attached to a structure that moves about as little as a line at the DMV. Bolt a terrific chassis to a less-than-rigid platform, and movement in the structure will introduce unpredictable motion and inexact wheel control that will muddy handling. Stiff springs, often found on sporting cars, only exacerbate the motion in a flexing structure. Similarly, a floppy structure will introduce imprecision to the steering system, potentially degrading feel and accuracy.

The Porsche Cayman S and the recently introduced BMW Z4 M coupe are hardtop versions of the Porsche Boxster and BMW Z4 M roadster, although Porsche takes exception to that assessment and wants the Cayman considered as a completely separate model line. Delusion aside, the Cayman S and the M coupe are in the grand, olden-day tradition of the MGB GT coupe and Triumph GT6, trading open-air motoring for a distinctive look and the dynamic benefits that come from increased structural rigidity. Indeed, Porsche claims the hardtop Cayman S is 100 percent more rigid than a softtop Boxster S. Both deliver on the promise of the coupe née convertible by offering a driving experience that is different — more sporting and track-ready than that of their cloth-top brethren.

For the hardtop Cayman S, Porsche charges $4200 more than the price of the convertible Boxster S. BMW, though, charges $2000 less for the M coupe than the convertible M roadster. We can imagine that more than a few customers have walked into a Porsche dealership and balked at the idea that the fixed-roof car costs more than the ragtop. Porsche points out a significant fact: The Cayman S has a larger, 3.4-liter engine and 15 more horses than the Boxster S. But pricing the Cayman above the Boxster does separate the driving poseur from the purist.

At this point you’re probably wondering when we’re gonna insert the 400-hp Corvette into this comparison test. No, the Vette remains in the wings because Corvette coupes all have removable targa-style roofs, whereas our two Germans have fixed roofs. If you’re thinking a Z06, which has a fixed roof, would fit in with these coupes, we’d argue that its 505 horsepower puts it in a different league. Arbitrary, you say? Well, you and tech director/Corvette drooler Larry Webster should get a room. In any event, the Corvette isn’t here, so it’s Germany versus Germany, BMW versus Porsche. And after a week comparing the Cayman S and M coupe, we’ve discovered that although both are spawned from roadsters and offer nearly identical performance, it was easy to choose a winner.

We’ve been waiting to get behind the wheel of the M coupe since BMW pulled the wraps off of it at the Frankfurt auto show in 2005. We still remember with fondness the last-generation M coupe, even though in silhouette it looked like a low-top boot. When BMW stopped producing the original M coupe in 2002, it was 315 horsepower strong and arguably the most amusing car in BMW’s lineup. Would the new coupe, we wondered, be engaging enough to make us forget the fondness we had for its predecessor?

The ’06 M coupe is a striking and handsome design when you see it in person. Admittedly, there is a great deal of excited styling, flame surfacing, and what-not crammed into its diminutive 161.9 inches, but all the discordant lines somehow gel together to give off a pleasant vibe that suggests baby Aston Martin. That might be a stretch, but we can all agree that this M coupe’s exterior design will turn on a larger swath of the populace than the previous M coupe did. When parked next to the Porsche, the Z4 M consistently drew more attention and praise. Perhaps passersby didn’t realize the Cayman S was a new model and mistook it for a 911, a mistake that Cayman owners likely won’t mind.

Under the long hood of the M coupe is the familiar iron-block inline six-cylinder engine with an aluminum head that currently propels the M3 and the Z4 M roadster. As in the M roadster, the engine makes 330 horses high up at 7900 rpm, with 262 pound-feet of torque coming at 4900 rpm. The BMW’s logbook on this comparo was full of praise for the responsive flexibility and “angry metallic wail” of the powerful straight-six. It’s connected to the engine by a ZF six-speed manual that boasts short throws but has a slightly rubbery feel. We also found that it’s easy to beat the second-gear synchros during a high-rpm shift from first to second gear. You get a teeth-rattling grrauuch!

A quick run through the 3303-pound M-car’s gears produces a 0-to-60 time of 4.8 seconds, a quarter-mile time of 13.4 seconds at 105 mph, and a governed top speed of 160 mph. The Cayman S rang in at 4.8 seconds to 60 and posted a slightly quicker quarter-mile time of 13.3 seconds at 107 mph on its way to an ungoverned top speed of 166 mph. This M coupe proved to be a couple of ticks slower than the M roadster we tested in June, which was just 26 pounds lighter (the performance difference is likely attributable to production variation and a green engine). Nevertheless, the BMW is quick and has shorter gearing (through the first four gears) than the Cayman S, endowing it with an eagerness that makes it feel faster than the Porsche in day-to-day urban driving.

On the highway, the coupe locks onto the horizon and rarely requires any correction to stay steadfastly in a lane, but the addition of a roof means it’s not so easy to see the traffic around you. The view out the back is only good for reading the license plate of the car directly behind, rear-quarter views are blocked by the large C-pillars and hatch, the windshield is so short you’ll have to crane your neck to see stoplights dangling overhead, and the roof creeps into one’s peripheral vision. Not surprisingly, six-foot-five tech editor Dave VanderWerp griped the loudest about the pillbox-view interior. It does feel smaller and more intimate than the one-cubic-foot difference between the two cars suggests. However, for humans of a more reasonable stature, the M coupe’s intimacy lends a special feel that is absent in the more spacious Cayman. Whenever we’re in the Cayman, we’re reminded of its brother, the Boxster. The M coupe somehow manages to make us completely forget the Z4 with which it shares much of its interior.

After a slog of 150 or so miles, we arrived at GingerMan Raceway in South Haven, Michigan. We would have been fresh and ready to start lapping the M coupe, but we needed a moment to walk off the miles owing to the stiff ride, unyielding seats, and seating position that arranges the driver almost between the rear wheels. Perhaps our glutes were just sore and sensitive from racing go-karts a few days before, but the Cayman S didn’t draw any such complaints. This would also be a good time to mention that the M coupe ran out of gas on the way to the track while continuing to show an eighth of a tank on hand and a range of 40 miles. Unnervingly, it repeated this failure a second time, the needle showing a quarter of a tank and 60 miles still in the bank. A fill-up revealed that the coupe had mysteriously run out of fuel with four gallons in its 14.5-gallon tank.

On the track, the M-car’s engine proved willing and eager to pull the coupe hard out of corners. Steering feel through the thick-rimmed, multifunctional steering wheel received praise from associate technical editor Robin Warner. “I love gripping the thick wheel in my hands,” he enthused, “and I always know what the car is doing.” However, what Warner giveth, Warner taketh away: “Unfortunately, what it’s always doing is understeering.”

Supporting the M coupe are struts up front and a multilink setup in back. Compared with the M roadster, the coupe has higher spring rates and more aggressive damping. Many chassis parts are shared with the M3, and although the tuning is different, the setup is conceptually the same. Common components include the rear subframe, limited-slip differential, rear anti-roll-bar mounting points, wheel bearings, front control arms, and vented and cross-drilled rotors clamped by single-piston calipers that are shared with the M3 Competition package. On the skidpad, the coupe clung to the tune of 0.89 g. On the track, it lacks the fluidity, sensitivity to weight transfer, and overall grip of the Cayman. We all agreed that the M coupe is willing and easy to drive on the track, but it takes only one corner in the Cayman S to realize the Porsche has one of the best sports-car chassis this side of a Lotus.

Even before we started lapping GingerMan’s 1.88-mile circuit, the brake feel of the M coupe drew some flack: “Longish pedal travel, strong and grabby, but lacking the firm pedal of the Porsche.” Nonetheless, the BMW equaled the Porsche’s 154-foot stop from 70 mph. After three hot laps, the brake pedal became familiar enough with the carpet that we’re surprised they didn’t get engaged. As the brakes began to fade, the Continental ContiSportContact tires began to lose grip and squirm underneath. Interestingly, BMW was stuck with tires that are a generation old. Continental couldn’t make sufficient quantities of its ContiSportContact 2 series in the necessary sizes in time for the M coupe’s launch. The old Contis have an M3 marking on the sidewall, which indicates that BMW had some say in their development, but they still pale next to the Cayman S’s rubber. Porsche equips most of its cars with Mich­elin Pilot Sport PS2s, and the extra grip the Cayman S enjoys over the M coupe is probably due to Porsche’s choice of rubber. With more time, we might have outfitted the M coupe with PS2s to see how the tires affect skidpad grip and lap times. We certainly could have purchased a lot of tires for the $12,380 difference in as-tested prices between the two cars [or bought a Kia Rio — Ed.]. Our $56,270 Z4 M (that price includes a $1000 gas-guzzler tax) came equipped with rain-sensing wipers, power seats, auto-dimming mirrors, and a navigation system and still managed to undercut the Cayman S’s $59,695 base price, not to mention the $68,650 as-tested price. There is some value here, and the M coupe feels sporting and alive in isolation, but life becomes unsettled for the BMW as long as a Porsche is around.

The Cayman S, fresh off a win against the barely legal Lotus Exige [“Coup de Coupes,” C/D, March 2006], faces a more sensible and civilized competitor in the Z4 M coupe. The Cayman S couldn’t quite match the track prowess of the Exige, but it clobbered it everywhere else. This time, the Porsche is up against a BMW that is similar in concept and is blessed with more than a modicum of practicality.

The Cayman S matches or beats all the BMW’s performance numbers (except the 5-to-60-mph time) and proved to be more usable and easier to live with on a daily basis. A lot of the livability can likely be traced to the Porsche Active Suspension Management (PASM) that drops the suspension by 0.4 inch and allows the dampers to be adjusted with the touch of a button. PASM costs $1990, but it gives the Cayman S a smooth and supple ride in the normal mode — even when equipped with 19-inch wheels with rubber-band-like sidewalls — and if you want a track-ready setup, push the PASM button or the sport button, and a firmly damped suspension is immediately at hand.

In the suspension’s normal mode, we settled into the flawless seating position and reveled in the Cayman’s superior outward visibility. After slipping into the supportive if simple-looking chairs, we happily spent hours at a time behind the wheel. A couple of hours in the harsher M coupe are all one needs to begin to feel a bit battered.

On the track, the Cayman S was nearly two seconds quicker than the BMW. That time can likely be traced to the glued-to-the-track Michelin tires, fade-resistant brakes, and easy-to-exploit and neutral handling. We’ve come to expect strong brakes from Porsche, so it’s no surprise that the four-piston calipers clamping large cross-drilled rotors offered fade-free performance and a firm, reassuring pedal feel. Perhaps due to its mid-engine layout and slightly rearward weight distribution, the Cayman S felt more stable and balanced during severe braking. Steering is similarly reassuring, direct, and communicative. Effort builds predictably through the relatively thin-rimmed, three-spoke wheel. With 295 horsepower and 251 pound-feet of torque, the throaty 3.4-liter flat-six makes short work of straightaways. In the Cayman S, shift efforts are lighter and throws from the six-speed manual transmission are longer, but if you demand shorter throws, Porsche offers a sport-shift option for $765.

Through the 11 corners of GingerMan Raceway, the Porsche felt alive. It’s seemingly unperturbed by cornering pressure. Brake late into a corner, and the rear end will begin to come around ever so gradually and predictably. Do all your braking in a straight line, and the Cayman S will take a neutral set that can only be upset by a quick lift or quick stab of the throttle. Add more steering, and experience understeer. Unlike so many things in life, the Cayman S’s handling is faithful and vice-free.

Two used-to-be roadsters aim for the hearts of purist drivers.

The tradition of sports-car automaking in recent history has been to turn out a roadster, wait until sales slip, then produce a hardtop to pick up the slack. To the nonenthusiast driver, the idea of turning a perfectly good convertible sports car into a hardtop coupe must seem as pointless as the plot of the film Snakes on a Plane. Why give up the joys of driving alfresco to permanently insert yourself into a rolling phone booth, especially if it costs about the same as the ragtop? But adding a roof to a convertible makes sense to car enthusiasts, because the roof increases structural rigidity that in turn allows for a sportier chassis.

In general, a stiff structure leads to a car that is more precise all around, as everything that is intended to move on a car (wheels, suspension, steering) works best when it is attached to a structure that moves about as little as a line at the DMV. Bolt a terrific chassis to a less-than-rigid platform, and movement in the structure will introduce unpredictable motion and inexact wheel control that will muddy handling. Stiff springs, often found on sporting cars, only exacerbate the motion in a flexing structure. Similarly, a floppy structure will introduce imprecision to the steering system, potentially degrading feel and accuracy.

The Porsche Cayman S and the recently introduced BMW Z4 M coupe are hardtop versions of the Porsche Boxster and BMW Z4 M roadster, although Porsche takes exception to that assessment and wants the Cayman considered as a completely separate model line. Delusion aside, the Cayman S and the M coupe are in the grand, olden-day tradition of the MGB GT coupe and Triumph GT6, trading open-air motoring for a distinctive look and the dynamic benefits that come from increased structural rigidity. Indeed, Porsche claims the hardtop Cayman S is 100 percent more rigid than a softtop Boxster S. Both deliver on the promise of the coupe née convertible by offering a driving experience that is different — more sporting and track-ready than that of their cloth-top brethren.

For the hardtop Cayman S, Porsche charges $4200 more than the price of the convertible Boxster S. BMW, though, charges $2000 less for the M coupe than the convertible M roadster. We can imagine that more than a few customers have walked into a Porsche dealership and balked at the idea that the fixed-roof car costs more than the ragtop. Porsche points out a significant fact: The Cayman S has a larger, 3.4-liter engine and 15 more horses than the Boxster S. But pricing the Cayman above the Boxster does separate the driving poseur from the purist.

At this point you’re probably wondering when we’re gonna insert the 400-hp Corvette into this comparison test. No, the Vette remains in the wings because Corvette coupes all have removable targa-style roofs, whereas our two Germans have fixed roofs. If you’re thinking a Z06, which has a fixed roof, would fit in with these coupes, we’d argue that its 505 horsepower puts it in a different league. Arbitrary, you say? Well, you and tech director/Corvette drooler Larry Webster should get a room. In any event, the Corvette isn’t here, so it’s Germany versus Germany, BMW versus Porsche. And after a week comparing the Cayman S and M coupe, we’ve discovered that although both are spawned from roadsters and offer nearly identical performance, it was easy to choose a winner.

We’ve been waiting to get behind the wheel of the M coupe since BMW pulled the wraps off of it at the Frankfurt auto show in 2005. We still remember with fondness the last-generation M coupe, even though in silhouette it looked like a low-top boot. When BMW stopped producing the original M coupe in 2002, it was 315 horsepower strong and arguably the most amusing car in BMW’s lineup. Would the new coupe, we wondered, be engaging enough to make us forget the fondness we had for its predecessor?

The ’06 M coupe is a striking and handsome design when you see it in person. Admittedly, there is a great deal of excited styling, flame surfacing, and what-not crammed into its diminutive 161.9 inches, but all the discordant lines somehow gel together to give off a pleasant vibe that suggests baby Aston Martin. That might be a stretch, but we can all agree that this M coupe’s exterior design will turn on a larger swath of the populace than the previous M coupe did. When parked next to the Porsche, the Z4 M consistently drew more attention and praise. Perhaps passersby didn’t realize the Cayman S was a new model and mistook it for a 911, a mistake that Cayman owners likely won’t mind.

Under the long hood of the M coupe is the familiar iron-block inline six-cylinder engine with an aluminum head that currently propels the M3 and the Z4 M roadster. As in the M roadster, the engine makes 330 horses high up at 7900 rpm, with 262 pound-feet of torque coming at 4900 rpm. The BMW’s logbook on this comparo was full of praise for the responsive flexibility and “angry metallic wail” of the powerful straight-six. It’s connected to the engine by a ZF six-speed manual that boasts short throws but has a slightly rubbery feel. We also found that it’s easy to beat the second-gear synchros during a high-rpm shift from first to second gear. You get a teeth-rattling grrauuch!

A quick run through the 3303-pound M-car’s gears produces a 0-to-60 time of 4.8 seconds, a quarter-mile time of 13.4 seconds at 105 mph, and a governed top speed of 160 mph. The Cayman S rang in at 4.8 seconds to 60 and posted a slightly quicker quarter-mile time of 13.3 seconds at 107 mph on its way to an ungoverned top speed of 166 mph. This M coupe proved to be a couple of ticks slower than the M roadster we tested in June, which was just 26 pounds lighter (the performance difference is likely attributable to production variation and a green engine). Nevertheless, the BMW is quick and has shorter gearing (through the first four gears) than the Cayman S, endowing it with an eagerness that makes it feel faster than the Porsche in day-to-day urban driving.

On the highway, the coupe locks onto the horizon and rarely requires any correction to stay steadfastly in a lane, but the addition of a roof means it’s not so easy to see the traffic around you. The view out the back is only good for reading the license plate of the car directly behind, rear-quarter views are blocked by the large C-pillars and hatch, the windshield is so short you’ll have to crane your neck to see stoplights dangling overhead, and the roof creeps into one’s peripheral vision. Not surprisingly, six-foot-five tech editor Dave VanderWerp griped the loudest about the pillbox-view interior. It does feel smaller and more intimate than the one-cubic-foot difference between the two cars suggests. However, for humans of a more reasonable stature, the M coupe’s intimacy lends a special feel that is absent in the more spacious Cayman. Whenever we’re in the Cayman, we’re reminded of its brother, the Boxster. The M coupe somehow manages to make us completely forget the Z4 with which it shares much of its interior.

After a slog of 150 or so miles, we arrived at GingerMan Raceway in South Haven, Michigan. We would have been fresh and ready to start lapping the M coupe, but we needed a moment to walk off the miles owing to the stiff ride, unyielding seats, and seating position that arranges the driver almost between the rear wheels. Perhaps our glutes were just sore and sensitive from racing go-karts a few days before, but the Cayman S didn’t draw any such complaints. This would also be a good time to mention that the M coupe ran out of gas on the way to the track while continuing to show an eighth of a tank on hand and a range of 40 miles. Unnervingly, it repeated this failure a second time, the needle showing a quarter of a tank and 60 miles still in the bank. A fill-up revealed that the coupe had mysteriously run out of fuel with four gallons in its 14.5-gallon tank.

On the track, the M-car’s engine proved willing and eager to pull the coupe hard out of corners. Steering feel through the thick-rimmed, multifunctional steering wheel received praise from associate technical editor Robin Warner. “I love gripping the thick wheel in my hands,” he enthused, “and I always know what the car is doing.” However, what Warner giveth, Warner taketh away: “Unfortunately, what it’s always doing is understeering.”

Supporting the M coupe are struts up front and a multilink setup in back. Compared with the M roadster, the coupe has higher spring rates and more aggressive damping. Many chassis parts are shared with the M3, and although the tuning is different, the setup is conceptually the same. Common components include the rear subframe, limited-slip differential, rear anti-roll-bar mounting points, wheel bearings, front control arms, and vented and cross-drilled rotors clamped by single-piston calipers that are shared with the M3 Competition package. On the skidpad, the coupe clung to the tune of 0.89 g. On the track, it lacks the fluidity, sensitivity to weight transfer, and overall grip of the Cayman. We all agreed that the M coupe is willing and easy to drive on the track, but it takes only one corner in the Cayman S to realize the Porsche has one of the best sports-car chassis this side of a Lotus.

Even before we started lapping GingerMan’s 1.88-mile circuit, the brake feel of the M coupe drew some flack: “Longish pedal travel, strong and grabby, but lacking the firm pedal of the Porsche.” Nonetheless, the BMW equaled the Porsche’s 154-foot stop from 70 mph. After three hot laps, the brake pedal became familiar enough with the carpet that we’re surprised they didn’t get engaged. As the brakes began to fade, the Continental ContiSportContact tires began to lose grip and squirm underneath. Interestingly, BMW was stuck with tires that are a generation old. Continental couldn’t make sufficient quantities of its ContiSportContact 2 series in the necessary sizes in time for the M coupe’s launch. The old Contis have an M3 marking on the sidewall, which indicates that BMW had some say in their development, but they still pale next to the Cayman S’s rubber. Porsche equips most of its cars with Mich­elin Pilot Sport PS2s, and the extra grip the Cayman S enjoys over the M coupe is probably due to Porsche’s choice of rubber. With more time, we might have outfitted the M coupe with PS2s to see how the tires affect skidpad grip and lap times. We certainly could have purchased a lot of tires for the $12,380 difference in as-tested prices between the two cars [or bought a Kia Rio — Ed.]. Our $56,270 Z4 M (that price includes a $1000 gas-guzzler tax) came equipped with rain-sensing wipers, power seats, auto-dimming mirrors, and a navigation system and still managed to undercut the Cayman S’s $59,695 base price, not to mention the $68,650 as-tested price. There is some value here, and the M coupe feels sporting and alive in isolation, but life becomes unsettled for the BMW as long as a Porsche is around.

The Cayman S, fresh off a win against the barely legal Lotus Exige [“Coup de Coupes,” C/D, March 2006], faces a more sensible and civilized competitor in the Z4 M coupe. The Cayman S couldn’t quite match the track prowess of the Exige, but it clobbered it everywhere else. This time, the Porsche is up against a BMW that is similar in concept and is blessed with more than a modicum of practicality.

The Cayman S matches or beats all the BMW’s performance numbers (except the 5-to-60-mph time) and proved to be more usable and easier to live with on a daily basis. A lot of the livability can likely be traced to the Porsche Active Suspension Management (PASM) that drops the suspension by 0.4 inch and allows the dampers to be adjusted with the touch of a button. PASM costs $1990, but it gives the Cayman S a smooth and supple ride in the normal mode — even when equipped with 19-inch wheels with rubber-band-like sidewalls — and if you want a track-ready setup, push the PASM button or the sport button, and a firmly damped suspension is immediately at hand.

In the suspension’s normal mode, we settled into the flawless seating position and reveled in the Cayman’s superior outward visibility. After slipping into the supportive if simple-looking chairs, we happily spent hours at a time behind the wheel. A couple of hours in the harsher M coupe are all one needs to begin to feel a bit battered.

On the track, the Cayman S was nearly two seconds quicker than the BMW. That time can likely be traced to the glued-to-the-track Michelin tires, fade-resistant brakes, and easy-to-exploit and neutral handling. We’ve come to expect strong brakes from Porsche, so it’s no surprise that the four-piston calipers clamping large cross-drilled rotors offered fade-free performance and a firm, reassuring pedal feel. Perhaps due to its mid-engine layout and slightly rearward weight distribution, the Cayman S felt more stable and balanced during severe braking. Steering is similarly reassuring, direct, and communicative. Effort builds predictably through the relatively thin-rimmed, three-spoke wheel. With 295 horsepower and 251 pound-feet of torque, the throaty 3.4-liter flat-six makes short work of straightaways. In the Cayman S, shift efforts are lighter and throws from the six-speed manual transmission are longer, but if you demand shorter throws, Porsche offers a sport-shift option for $765.

Through the 11 corners of GingerMan Raceway, the Porsche felt alive. It’s seemingly unperturbed by cornering pressure. Brake late into a corner, and the rear end will begin to come around ever so gradually and predictably. Do all your braking in a straight line, and the Cayman S will take a neutral set that can only be upset by a quick lift or quick stab of the throttle. Add more steering, and experience understeer. Unlike so many things in life, the Cayman S’s handling is faithful and vice-free.

Orange-flavored Boxsters to go into production soon.

There’s really only one way to describe Porsche’s Limited Edition Boxster and Boxster S: Orange.

We first saw this retro-inspired paint job on the 911 GT3 RS a year ago, and now it has been bestowed on the Boxster line. In fact, the color covers everything in the Boxster: the roll bars, interior trim, and even the shift pattern markings are rendered in the less-than-subtle hue. Black side mirrors, intake vents, and script “Boxster” badges offer a slight visual reprieve.

It’s all due to a Splashlight Studios creation that was shown at the New York auto show and attracted so much interest that Porsche wants to endow 500 new Boxsters—250 base models and 250 S models—with the paint job. The modified cars will go into production soon, with an aggressive front lip, revised rear spoiler, and a diffuser in the rear bumper that Porsche says reduces aerodynamic lift.

To ensure this Boxster is special, the package adds a dual-tip sport exhaust to add a handful of extra ponies to the already powerful car.

Inside, Porsche nabs the three-spoke Alcantara-clad steering wheel from the GT3 RS, and they’ve added Alcantara to the seats and parking brake. The car rides on sleek black wheels with silver lips.

Even though the 2007 Boxster S is considerably faster than last year’s model, it’s hard to imagine anyone confusing these special edition cars for a real GT3 RS. Still, we don’t doubt there will be Boxster owners trying to do just that. Right after they don sunglasses so they can look at the car without retinal damage.

Orange-flavored Boxsters to go into production soon.

There’s really only one way to describe Porsche’s Limited Edition Boxster and Boxster S: Orange.

We first saw this retro-inspired paint job on the 911 GT3 RS a year ago, and now it has been bestowed on the Boxster line. In fact, the color covers everything in the Boxster: the roll bars, interior trim, and even the shift pattern markings are rendered in the less-than-subtle hue. Black side mirrors, intake vents, and script “Boxster” badges offer a slight visual reprieve.

It’s all due to a Splashlight Studios creation that was shown at the New York auto show and attracted so much interest that Porsche wants to endow 500 new Boxsters—250 base models and 250 S models—with the paint job. The modified cars will go into production soon, with an aggressive front lip, revised rear spoiler, and a diffuser in the rear bumper that Porsche says reduces aerodynamic lift.

To ensure this Boxster is special, the package adds a dual-tip sport exhaust to add a handful of extra ponies to the already powerful car.

Inside, Porsche nabs the three-spoke Alcantara-clad steering wheel from the GT3 RS, and they’ve added Alcantara to the seats and parking brake. The car rides on sleek black wheels with silver lips.

Even though the 2007 Boxster S is considerably faster than last year’s model, it’s hard to imagine anyone confusing these special edition cars for a real GT3 RS. Still, we don’t doubt there will be Boxster owners trying to do just that. Right after they don sunglasses so they can look at the car without retinal damage.