Talk:Porsche Cayman

message: 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)
thread_title: Gen I & Gen II 987 Vs Second Generation 981

message: 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)
thread_title: Specifications

message: 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)
thread_title: Cayman or caiman

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jeremy Clarkson? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 +6-speed=Car running out of 6th gear at ~170mph. BMan1113VR 05:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Specifications: Porsche official vs. third-party 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Getrag 

message: 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)
replies: text: I changed it.--75.80.43.80 (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zuffenhausen 

message: * Approve - the Porsche Cayman R page is too short, and has no categories applied. It should be merged into Porsche Cayman as an individual section. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Bjmullan (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:2006 Cayman-S.jpg Nominated for Deletion