Latest Excellence article - best $20K Porsche
#17
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
When I was looking for my first Porsche (back in 98) , I drove a new 2.5L Boxster. It was a great car, but I wanted a car for street/track, and the boxster just didn't have the feel I wanted. The new cars are great daily drivers, but they have less "soul" IMHO. The best way to choose between the two is to just get both.
#18
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Daniel Dudley
I don't think the article was totally unbiased, but I managed to read through it five or six times.
They are all great cars, but the Carrera is the icon.
Might have been interesting with a tweeked 951 thrown in there. The thing is, 911s are so engaging. It still made me wonder if a Boxter was in my future.
They are all great cars, but the Carrera is the icon.
Might have been interesting with a tweeked 951 thrown in there. The thing is, 911s are so engaging. It still made me wonder if a Boxter was in my future.
Brett
#20
Three Wheelin'
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by earlyapex
It just confirms what I had concluded several months ago. You gotta have two Porsches in your garage to fulfill every whim, desire, and need.
#21
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I think they should've considered a nice 88/89 944 Turbo S - much more competitive than the 968 they used...
#22
Team Owner
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Grant it certainly would have been more competitive but may have defeated the purpose in that it is not a "typical" porsche... don't know if you can get it for around 20K in the US.
having said that however the 968 was not as popular as the 944 was it not ? maybe someone from that forum could comment. I don't think a regular 944 would never have stacked up , I think a 86-89 Turbo would have been a better comparison, not an S as they were in very limited numbers weren't they ?
just musing.....
having said that however the 968 was not as popular as the 944 was it not ? maybe someone from that forum could comment. I don't think a regular 944 would never have stacked up , I think a 86-89 Turbo would have been a better comparison, not an S as they were in very limited numbers weren't they ?
just musing.....
#23
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by theiceman
Grant it certainly would have been more competitive but may have defeated the purpose in that it is not a "typical" porsche... don't know if you can get it for around 20K in the US.
I bought my 89 for $8,200. It was a VERY tight and strong car (mechanically 9/10) and cosmetically 7/10. I bought a 9/10 cosmetic & mechanical 88 for $16k with under 50k miles. It takes a very special example (near mint or heavily and well modified) to be over $20k.
It is by far the best peformance per dollar Porsche that you can buy (faster on the track than my 2002 996 3.6L), but they are very pricey and time-consuming to maintain...
#24
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
...I wouldn't be surprised if Porsche discontinued the 944 Turbo series because during the end of that 944 Turbo run (was it the 944 Turbo S that was the fastest 944 Turbo?) it was faster than a 911 in most aspects IIRC. Porsche doesn't like their other models being faster than the crown jewel 911...
I still think that the choice of using a 968 in this comparo was a good one. That was the final development of that 924/944 platform and with that big 3.0 liter 4 cylinder and the very balanced chassic design, one would think at first glance that it would be a pretty fair comparison to the other non boosted cars in the comparo. More apples to apples by not using a Turbo car in the mix.
I still think that the choice of using a 968 in this comparo was a good one. That was the final development of that 924/944 platform and with that big 3.0 liter 4 cylinder and the very balanced chassic design, one would think at first glance that it would be a pretty fair comparison to the other non boosted cars in the comparo. More apples to apples by not using a Turbo car in the mix.
#25
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I suspect they considered, then rejected, the 944 Turbo because it is (arguably) inappropriate to compare blown & unblown cars, hard to find a significantly unmodified Turbo, & the aforementioned high operating costs (even by old Porsche standards). I predict they'll receive many letters on this one... let's be gracious in our (car's) victory.
#26
Team Owner
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Yeah I agree.. it was pretty subjective and I would not be complaining if they put the 25y/o 3.2 last , that is pretty good company all round. Also if I remember the turbo S was the first production car to surpass the 100hp per litre mark was it not ?
Would be a real nice car to have , but I have owned 944s in the past and they can be exepensive to maintain compared to my SC.
All the best ..
Would be a real nice car to have , but I have owned 944s in the past and they can be exepensive to maintain compared to my SC.
All the best ..
#28
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by theiceman
Yeah I agree.. it was pretty subjective and I would not be complaining if they put the 25y/o 3.2 last , that is pretty good company all round. Also if I remember the turbo S was the first production car to surpass the 100hp per litre mark was it not ?
Would be a real nice car to have , but I have owned 944s in the past and they can be exepensive to maintain compared to my SC.
All the best ..
Would be a real nice car to have , but I have owned 944s in the past and they can be exepensive to maintain compared to my SC.
All the best ..