I find it AMAZING that the BASE model Porsche has MORE HP than the first 911 Turbos.

1976 930 = 234-260hp depending on rating (US SAE, DIN)- turbo 3.0L motor
2012 Boxster/Cayman =255-265 hp... 2.7l, N/A motor.

In fact, I think if you compared 0-60 and Top speed, the "base" boxster would crush the '79-89 "stock" 930 as well. IIRC, the Boxster S of 10 years ago has less hp than the new Base car. These base cars have a tremendous performance envelope. imho, those who cite HP numbers have "insecurity" issues. I enjoyed trouncing more powerful cars with my lowly 914 and later Non S 2.7L boxster.

Porsche's have never been about HP... A 1970 911S had what, 180hp? compared to similar vintage 250-350hp Corvettes.

 

Much larger tires/wheels on the 2012 Boxster/Cayman, too. Braking is a world better, also, even thought the 930 was no slouch in that regard.

 

I would like to see a horse power jump. 255hp is no longer respectable to me in the base.

 

I had posters of Lamborghinis, Ferraris and Porsches hanging in my room growing up. And was astonished to actually look at the performance numbers and realize today's Boxster spanks damned near every early 80s supercar in handling and acceleration. We live in a magical time, a time where you can get 305hp in a $23k V-6 Mustang, and nearly every American can afford what's essentially a "supercar". While 255hp might look good compared to early 80s cars, it sucks by modern standards. Porsche really needs to get over 911itis and offer the same engines in the Boxster/Cayman as in the GT3 and TurboS.

 

My 320hp 2012 Boxster S Black Edition has plenty of ponies to drive on the road - and then some. I don't race anyone and don't want to. The car has only a few options (sport exhaust, sport chrono and the electronics package for that model). It is spare in many respects, at least relative to the gobs of hp that one can get in a Corvette or Mustang, the electronics in many less expensive cars, etc. What it has that these others lack is a connection to the driving experience based upon a balancing act that I can't entirely articulate. If I had deeper pockets, I would buy a 911 and get more horses. I don't.

 

I find it baffling that the conversation centers around hp rather than performance. Surely hp is really about bragging rights - "mine's bigger than your's so there!" rather than true performance.

You can add more hp to deliver more performance but you will also probably have to add a bigger cooling system and bigger brakes.

If you want better performance, go ahead and define it: no one has outlined it yet.

But I would sooner see a "just add lightness" approach to performance. Take weight out, pay more for lightness that leads to better performance. Look at the "R" or Spider and what terrific cars they are with a weight reduction.

 

The point is that Porsche is holding the Boxster back because of marketing concerns. The only reason that the 981S doesn't have the same HP as the 991 is because Porsche fears that it will be outperformed by the 981S. Your suggestion of increasing performance by further weight reduction is possible but expensive. If Porsche won't take the easy step to increased performance by using already developed engines, why would they incur the significant expense of better performance through significant weight reduction? Read Byprodriver's post regarding Porsche's willingness to incur additional expense simply to ensure that the Boxster had less HP than the 911.

 

Is not hp per se, but that you feel the Boxster is inferior because it doesn't have the same hp as the 911?

Frankly having driven a Cayman R a while back I was blown away by how nimble the car felt. No sense of it being underpowered or feeling inferior to anything.

It reminded me of the best Porsche made ever - the 911 2.7 RS. To a point where the 911 is no longer on my replacement list but a 981 Cayman most likely will be.

 

I read that there's something about the engine packaging in the mid-engined position that somehow limits the intake which limits the ultimate power the motor can produce. No idea if that's true, only saw that once. I think it was in GT Purely Porsche, though, which has been wrong before.

 

Just feel that a good car could be converted into a great car if only Porsche would allow it.

 

The 986, 987 and 981 are great cars, if not phenomenal, all of them. TPC and Jake Raby can add additional sting if necessary.

 

Of the four Porsches I've owned over the years, none of them have been purchased for the pure power they had/didn't have. All were bought for the feel of the car - build quality, design, and the feel of driving a car that is designed simply for the feel of driving a real sports car. Sure, more power is almost always better, but hey, they simply have to draw a line between build cost vs. performance vs. cost to the end user.... all of that. I kind of like what they've done since my 1960 356B Super 90.

Now... let's see what happens when they're basically owned by VW.

 

Vote with your wallet.. don't buy one then. Seems Porsche has no problem selling Boxsters.. Base or S cars.

Would you be less annoyed, persay, if they didn't offer the BoxS? just a base Boxster with 260hp and a base 911 with 350hp?

Is the issue that you simply want more HP for your Dollar?

Are you bitter that the "halo" car will always be preserved?