It totally changed my way of thinking today...
09-05-2005, 10:50 AM
#31
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by pcar964
I hardly think that you can extrapolate from the few people responding to this thread that nobody else is having problems. Besides, I believe my point has been made, and if you don't accept this, then you're just plain in denial:
Porsche quality is not even close to what it used to be. Saying that "the new pcars are better than the old" simply based on paper numbers, is asanine. If we bought cars based on statistics alone, nobody would own a new pcar, we'd all be in Z06 Vettes.
If you're content to purchase a sportscar that was built as a compromise between highway cruisers and soccer moms in order to cash in off the Porsche name, you're free to do so... However, it's people like you who don't even raise an eyebrow when quality suffers so much, that allow Porsche to continue taking great concepts like the Boxster, and ruining them (imho) with Kia build quality and wet sump motors.
Don't you people understand, that if the majority of you demanded better, we just might all be driving 964/993-quality Boxsters with GT3 motors? That's what Porsche is CAPABLE OF, but instead because of your complacency and capitulation, we have 996s depreciating so fast that most new pcar drivers are LEASING as opposed to buying their cars, diluting the brand in the marketplace.
Porsche quality is not even close to what it used to be. Saying that "the new pcars are better than the old" simply based on paper numbers, is asanine. If we bought cars based on statistics alone, nobody would own a new pcar, we'd all be in Z06 Vettes.
If you're content to purchase a sportscar that was built as a compromise between highway cruisers and soccer moms in order to cash in off the Porsche name, you're free to do so... However, it's people like you who don't even raise an eyebrow when quality suffers so much, that allow Porsche to continue taking great concepts like the Boxster, and ruining them (imho) with Kia build quality and wet sump motors.
Don't you people understand, that if the majority of you demanded better, we just might all be driving 964/993-quality Boxsters with GT3 motors? That's what Porsche is CAPABLE OF, but instead because of your complacency and capitulation, we have 996s depreciating so fast that most new pcar drivers are LEASING as opposed to buying their cars, diluting the brand in the marketplace.
I grant you a Boxster with a GT3 engine would be nice, but don't confuse build quality with model line-up. Just because they don't put one of their highest performing NA engine in the Boxster doesn't mean build quality and reliability are not excellent.
Compromise? Whats wrong with a car that is comfortable on the street and on the track? That's always been what Porsche is all about: street cars that can go on a race track. Even your beloved 964/993 is a compromise. What has happened as the cars evolved into the newer models, is that they have become both MORE street comfortable and MORE track capable than their preceding models. The 997S with sport suspension has posted the best times for a NA stock Porsche at the 'Ring! It also happens to be the most comfortable and streetable 911 to date!
Basing opinions on paper and numbers is assinne? At least I base my opinions on something reproducible and factual. How about your opinion? Since it's based on nothing but inuendo, rumors, and hot air, what would you call it?
Last edited by Palting; 09-05-2005 at 11:27 AM.
09-05-2005, 01:29 PM
#32
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
Posts: 2,310
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by kcrpca.org
Yeah I wouldn't compare a 996 to my Boxster S as I keep seeing 996's in my rear view mirror and fading at the track... I mean the engine is in the wrong place but well its a Porsche so I have respect for the crest... 
This track that you speak of ......Is it the one that has the yellow brick road??
09-05-2005, 05:51 PM
#33
GT3 player par excellence
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
sjp3003,
i apologize for not being clear. elise with sport pack which i had is indeed hard as rock and you have to avoid every pot hole on the ROAD. that point i agree with you totally.
however, some say elise is a hard core TRACK car. no, on a race track, the car is way too soft. it has way too much lean.
that said, i am not dissing the car at all. i loved for weekend fun runs. i would still have it if my wife would just shut up and leave me alone and if my garage was bigger.
i apologize for not being clear. elise with sport pack which i had is indeed hard as rock and you have to avoid every pot hole on the ROAD. that point i agree with you totally.
however, some say elise is a hard core TRACK car. no, on a race track, the car is way too soft. it has way too much lean.
that said, i am not dissing the car at all. i loved for weekend fun runs. i would still have it if my wife would just shut up and leave me alone and if my garage was bigger.
09-05-2005, 06:27 PM
#34
Pro
Thread Starter
Wow didn't think this thread would continue on like this. Very interesting read...
Ok so I test drove the brand new '06 regular Boxster because I have been looking for a roadster for quite sometime. Ruled out the Audi TT for turbo lag and the BMW Z4 (2.5L) is out cuz I didn't really like the looks. Anyway, yesterday I decided to test drive the Boxster to get a feel for around town driving. Didn't get to rip on the car because it was on just a test drive but I did get to take it on the highway for a little bit and around town it makes for a really good cruiser. Handling of the car is solid from what I could tell but I didn't get a chance to really take it on some fast corners so I wouldn't know how it behaves on the track but it felt planted from some of the quick corners around town. Throw on some sticky tires and it probably would be pretty stable. The car felt more balanced than the other two roadsters I test drove probably due to the mid engine layout, and the engine has fairly decent mid range torque for what it is although the 2.7L is obviously no stump puller. It's not really that fast of a car but gets going pretty well when getting on the gas...no surprises although quite impressive for "only" a 2.7L engine. Gear box was ok...not the best and I would have wanted a little more solid "feel" when shifting gears, however overall the car was solid and looks really good! Interior fit and finish is beautiful and beats the other cars by far in my opinion. Maybe I'm just partial to Porsche. I never thought I would be considering the Boxster ever but it's not that bad of a car. I would need more seat time with the car before I can gain a really good feel of how it is but first impression is good. One thing I didn't do was do a back to back drive with the Boxster S, which I should have done, to get a feel of how the two differ. I will go back and drive both sometime in the next few weeks. I really cannot give a detailed feel of how the Boxster was to me because for one, I didn't know what I was looking for yet from the car, two is that I am not a motor journalist so I can't describe it like they do, and three I didn't spend much time behind the seat, maybe half hour at most, but from what I can see Porsche has definitely lost its "rawness" if I can call it that when compared to the older aircooled cars. Not that that's a bad thing because it's more refined now but just not like they used to be. Don't know how the 996 or 997 drives and I can only guess that the Boxster is a reflection, albeit a mild one, of how the 996 and 997 are but that's not the point here. I need to spend more time driving before I can make a decisionon if this is the car for me. Definitely not as "fun" as the Honda S2000 that I drove a few months back. The Honda feels more like a race car and is much more balanced and responsive than the Posrche. The gearbox in the Honda is simply awesome as well as its razor sharp handing and although they make the same power around 240-250hp and the Honda with much less bottom end torque than the Boxster, it still felt more responsive maybe because of the close ratio 6-speed box. Definitely felt more connected to the Honda but felt like the engine was straining itself the whole time even though it was fast. The Boxster is definitely a more comfortable cruiser and a better around town car and daily driver but when I feel like getting on the gas hard, it lacks the rawness that the S2000 has and that I would expect from a Porsche having myself come from the aircooled cars. As of right now, the regular Boxster in my book gets a 6.5-7/10 overall. One thing I don't like with this Boxster and never liked on all year Boxsters is how you can't see the engine bay unless you look underneath the car. I still haven't shut the door on it though but aside from the really nice interior and great looks from the outside, there really isn't much else in my opinion to give it the go. No offense to the Boxster owners nor am I trying to put the Honda S2000 above the Boxster for some of those with P-car pride. Both cars were designed with different purposes. I just wish I had the characteristics of both cars in one neat package. Maybe the Bosxter S is what I'm looking for. We'll see in a few weeks...
Ok so I test drove the brand new '06 regular Boxster because I have been looking for a roadster for quite sometime. Ruled out the Audi TT for turbo lag and the BMW Z4 (2.5L) is out cuz I didn't really like the looks. Anyway, yesterday I decided to test drive the Boxster to get a feel for around town driving. Didn't get to rip on the car because it was on just a test drive but I did get to take it on the highway for a little bit and around town it makes for a really good cruiser. Handling of the car is solid from what I could tell but I didn't get a chance to really take it on some fast corners so I wouldn't know how it behaves on the track but it felt planted from some of the quick corners around town. Throw on some sticky tires and it probably would be pretty stable. The car felt more balanced than the other two roadsters I test drove probably due to the mid engine layout, and the engine has fairly decent mid range torque for what it is although the 2.7L is obviously no stump puller. It's not really that fast of a car but gets going pretty well when getting on the gas...no surprises although quite impressive for "only" a 2.7L engine. Gear box was ok...not the best and I would have wanted a little more solid "feel" when shifting gears, however overall the car was solid and looks really good! Interior fit and finish is beautiful and beats the other cars by far in my opinion. Maybe I'm just partial to Porsche. I never thought I would be considering the Boxster ever but it's not that bad of a car. I would need more seat time with the car before I can gain a really good feel of how it is but first impression is good. One thing I didn't do was do a back to back drive with the Boxster S, which I should have done, to get a feel of how the two differ. I will go back and drive both sometime in the next few weeks. I really cannot give a detailed feel of how the Boxster was to me because for one, I didn't know what I was looking for yet from the car, two is that I am not a motor journalist so I can't describe it like they do, and three I didn't spend much time behind the seat, maybe half hour at most, but from what I can see Porsche has definitely lost its "rawness" if I can call it that when compared to the older aircooled cars. Not that that's a bad thing because it's more refined now but just not like they used to be. Don't know how the 996 or 997 drives and I can only guess that the Boxster is a reflection, albeit a mild one, of how the 996 and 997 are but that's not the point here. I need to spend more time driving before I can make a decisionon if this is the car for me. Definitely not as "fun" as the Honda S2000 that I drove a few months back. The Honda feels more like a race car and is much more balanced and responsive than the Posrche. The gearbox in the Honda is simply awesome as well as its razor sharp handing and although they make the same power around 240-250hp and the Honda with much less bottom end torque than the Boxster, it still felt more responsive maybe because of the close ratio 6-speed box. Definitely felt more connected to the Honda but felt like the engine was straining itself the whole time even though it was fast. The Boxster is definitely a more comfortable cruiser and a better around town car and daily driver but when I feel like getting on the gas hard, it lacks the rawness that the S2000 has and that I would expect from a Porsche having myself come from the aircooled cars. As of right now, the regular Boxster in my book gets a 6.5-7/10 overall. One thing I don't like with this Boxster and never liked on all year Boxsters is how you can't see the engine bay unless you look underneath the car. I still haven't shut the door on it though but aside from the really nice interior and great looks from the outside, there really isn't much else in my opinion to give it the go. No offense to the Boxster owners nor am I trying to put the Honda S2000 above the Boxster for some of those with P-car pride. Both cars were designed with different purposes. I just wish I had the characteristics of both cars in one neat package. Maybe the Bosxter S is what I'm looking for. We'll see in a few weeks...
09-05-2005, 06:47 PM
#35
GT3 player par excellence
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
everything you said about S2k in comparision to boxster is right on except that the s2k is more balanced then boxster. at limit of adhesion, S2k is as twitch as it gets. makes 911's easy to drive by comparison.
09-05-2005, 09:10 PM
#36
Originally Posted by Palting
You still don't get it, Pcar. A new Porsche with 964/993 quality would be a throwback, not an improvement. And if you want to know what Porsche is capable of in a mid-engine platform, they HAVE done it. It's called the Porsche GT.
I grant you a Boxster with a GT3 engine would be nice, but don't confuse build quality with model line-up. Just because they don't put one of their highest performing NA engine in the Boxster doesn't mean build quality and reliability are not excellent.
Compromise? Whats wrong with a car that is comfortable on the street and on the track? That's always been what Porsche is all about: street cars that can go on a race track. Even your beloved 964/993 is a compromise. What has happened as the cars evolved into the newer models, is that they have become both MORE street comfortable and MORE track capable than their preceding models. The 997S with sport suspension has posted the best times for a NA stock Porsche at the 'Ring! It also happens to be the most comfortable and streetable 911 to date!
Basing opinions on paper and numbers is assinne? At least I base my opinions on something reproducible and factual. How about your opinion? Since it's based on nothing but inuendo, rumors, and hot air, what would you call it?
I grant you a Boxster with a GT3 engine would be nice, but don't confuse build quality with model line-up. Just because they don't put one of their highest performing NA engine in the Boxster doesn't mean build quality and reliability are not excellent.
Compromise? Whats wrong with a car that is comfortable on the street and on the track? That's always been what Porsche is all about: street cars that can go on a race track. Even your beloved 964/993 is a compromise. What has happened as the cars evolved into the newer models, is that they have become both MORE street comfortable and MORE track capable than their preceding models. The 997S with sport suspension has posted the best times for a NA stock Porsche at the 'Ring! It also happens to be the most comfortable and streetable 911 to date!
Basing opinions on paper and numbers is assinne? At least I base my opinions on something reproducible and factual. How about your opinion? Since it's based on nothing but inuendo, rumors, and hot air, what would you call it?
Every time you try to say the new Pcars are an IMPROVEMENT in quality, you lose every ounce of credibility you may have had - unless you've owned and driven the old cars, how could you know. And if you have owned them and STILL feel that way, you're truly blind.
Our Boxster had fewer than 35k miles on it when we sold it, and had been in the shop for repairs more times than you would believe. Plus the cheap seats looked like crap despite regular care and sub-200lb passengers. They look and feel great in the showroom, but these cars are not intended to last 20 years. How many Boxsters do you think will be around and running well 15 years from now, compared to older 911s?
In 2020, my 993 will look and perform the same as it does today. Boxsters will be a mess, if the owners have the motivation to even keep them on the road. After all, who wants to replace entire engines and transmissions when only a small piece breaks on an inexpensive used car? How many 944s would still be driving around if you had to replace the whole engine/tranny when something went wrong, especially when the used price is $5-10k?
I understand you like the cars in the short term, SO DID I - but I can see the forest for the trees, and they are not the kind of car you'd keep for life, plain and simple. The old Porsches are lifelong cars.
09-05-2005, 09:12 PM
#37
Pro
Thread Starter
that's interesting to know...I haven't driven either car to it's absolute limit so I would not be able to say which one is more balanced. Just driving around town though, I got more feel from the S2K probably because it is a little more responsive. The Boxster felt a little more grown up and a little "squishy" for lack of better terms. Still an awesome car nonetheless. I guess the low CG midship design on the Boxster would help when cornering at the limits. I also think the Boxster has a wider stance than the S2K am I correct? It would be much better if I had a chance to do back-to-back runs with the S2K, Boxster, and the S because I feel that I had so much fun in the S2K that I hardly noticed the negatives of the car and how it behaves when pushed hard. Either that or my memory isn't as good since I drove it a little over a month ago.
09-05-2005, 09:23 PM
#38
Pro
Thread Starter
Hey Pcar964, I agree with what you are saying in your most recent post and it's not just with Porsches either. It pretty much applies to almost all of the new cars no matter what make...you would probably agree too. As cars get more complicated with advanced technology and electrical sensors and gizmos, it forces even the die-hard home mechanic to take it into the dealer to get serviced since new cars require much more than just the basic amount of air/fuel/spark to run these days. This is why I am hanging onto the aircooled cars for their simplicity and pure mechanical design with minimal electrical gadgets. I hate all of the fancy schmancy stuff. Sure they are nice to have and show off but a nightmare when they malfunction. All of the expensive equipment they install on newer cars these days would be crazy to repair when the warranty is over I agree and that's why I am so reluctant to buy a new car for fear that I will not be able to afford to fix things when they break, and I know things WILL break. This is also because I buy a car to keep it for a long time. I don't like turning over cars every 2-3 years otherwise I would just lease one, and longevity is something that I'm afraid newer cars don't have. Mechanically, the engine block and tranny might last for 300K miles who knows, but it's all of the other stuff that makes it run that will crap out way before the engines aquire that many miles.
09-05-2005, 09:34 PM
#39
Originally Posted by FormulaRX
Hey Pcar964, I agree with what you are saying in your most recent post and it's not just with Porsches either. It pretty much applies to almost all of the new cars no matter what make...you would probably agree too. As cars get more complicated with advanced technology and electrical sensors and gizmos, it forces even the die-hard home mechanic to take it into the dealer to get serviced since new cars require much more than just the basic amount of air/fuel/spark to run these days. This is why I am hanging onto the aircooled cars for their simplicity and pure mechanical design with minimal electrical gadgets. I hate all of the fancy schmancy stuff. Sure they are nice to have and show off but a nightmare when they malfunction. All of the expensive equipment they install on newer cars these days would be crazy to repair when the warranty is over I agree and that's why I am so reluctant to buy a new car for fear that I will not be able to afford to fix things when they break, and I know things WILL break. This is also because I buy a car to keep it for a long time. I don't like turning over cars every 2-3 years otherwise I would just lease one, and longevity is something that I'm afraid newer cars don't have.
I completely agree, that's pretty much all new cars, maybe with slight exception to Ferrari, but even then they're full of electronic crap that will go bad...
Perhaps an even worse example than Porsche is Mercedes Benz! Since the mid 80s they've gone from indestructible tanks, to lexus-like techno-overload nightmares.
The reason Porsche's quality degradation is so obvious, is that it's happened so fast. Literally since 1994 (which I agree, 964 was better than the 993 in build quality), the quality went from "solid as a rock," to 4 years later and "thin as tin" construction.
But yeah, new cars are definitely aimed towards the "instant gratification" crowd, with no illusions that they're built to last. They're trade-in cars.
09-05-2005, 09:40 PM
#40
Pro
Thread Starter
You say 993's are not as solid as the 964's but surely they are better than owning a used 996 right? What exactly is it that you say makes them less than the 964? Did they get more complicated? Poorer quality, construction, fit, and finish? I was looking at picking up a low mileage 993 S sometime in the near future because I was under the impression that they were and still are among the best 911's ever made.
09-05-2005, 10:02 PM
#41
Originally Posted by FormulaRX
You say 993's are not as solid as the 964's but surely they are better than owning a used 996 right? What exactly is it that you say makes them less than the 964? Did they get more complicated? Poorer quality, construction, fit, and finish? I was looking at picking up a low mileage 993 S sometime in the near future because I was under the impression that they were and still are among the best 911's ever made.
The 993 is absolutely brilliant, and solid as a rock. But they started incorporating some Japanese (I think Toyota consultants if I'm not mistaken) construction philosophies with the 993 (front and rear bumpers for instance, a little cheaper than 964 parts). Luckily those philosophies were VERY LIMITED in the 993 production, and they are still truly tough German 911s (in other words, OVERBUILT
). The Boxster/996 are the Japanese Porsches...The quality difference is very small, and the 993 is imho the best regular street-use 911 you can buy - enough creature comforts to keep anyone happy on long trips, but not overboard on the luxury crap - also they're easier to maintain with the hydraulic lifters, no valve adjustments every 12-15k miles... yeah they're a little softer than the old cars, but that can be easily corrected
09-06-2005, 09:31 AM
#42
Nordschleife Master
FormulaRX,
The S2K was on my short list of ragtop weekend/track car. The other was the Elise, and of course, the Boxster S. The Honda shifter is legendary. Silky smooth yet solid. The Elise shifter is from the stone age. The Boxster's is somewhere in between.
Test drive them all. Add the Z4 to your list. Nothing like a test drive to let you know which one appeals to you personally. I had my heart set on the Elise. That is, until I drove it. What a disappointment. I love the way the S2K looks. Porsche guys can shoot me, but I think it's the best looking of the bunch. What killed the S2K for me was exactly what Mooty said. Twitchy and a unpredictable as you get close to the limits. Not good if you plan to track a lot, which I do.
Good luck on your quest! Part of the fun is in the choosing.
The S2K was on my short list of ragtop weekend/track car. The other was the Elise, and of course, the Boxster S. The Honda shifter is legendary. Silky smooth yet solid. The Elise shifter is from the stone age. The Boxster's is somewhere in between.
Test drive them all. Add the Z4 to your list. Nothing like a test drive to let you know which one appeals to you personally. I had my heart set on the Elise. That is, until I drove it. What a disappointment. I love the way the S2K looks. Porsche guys can shoot me, but I think it's the best looking of the bunch. What killed the S2K for me was exactly what Mooty said. Twitchy and a unpredictable as you get close to the limits. Not good if you plan to track a lot, which I do.
Good luck on your quest! Part of the fun is in the choosing
.
09-06-2005, 09:36 AM
#43
IMHO, the only people who disrespect the Boxster are those who haven't really taken the time to get to know the Boxster.
If you are talking pure street use, what's not to like? It is a beautiful (more beautiful than the 996/997 cab IMHO), fun, high performance convertible. Great.
If you are talking about the track, the Boxster arguably is more of a true sports car than the 996/997. It is a mid-engined two-seater roadster that feels much lighter and tossable than its big brother, which feels like a GT car to me. The ONLY reason I might prefer a 996/997 to a Boxster on the track is (1) the hardtop and (2) polar moment. The Boxster sticks far longer than a 996/997, but when it lets go, it really lets go and spins rapidly. The 996/997 may start to let go sooner, but it gives you more warning, lets you catch it more easily and makes it easier to drive with the right foot. Nonetheless, with equal drivers, there are many tracks where the Boxster can keep up with, or even pass, a 996/997 of the same year.
Just my two cents.
If you are talking pure street use, what's not to like? It is a beautiful (more beautiful than the 996/997 cab IMHO), fun, high performance convertible. Great.
If you are talking about the track, the Boxster arguably is more of a true sports car than the 996/997. It is a mid-engined two-seater roadster that feels much lighter and tossable than its big brother, which feels like a GT car to me. The ONLY reason I might prefer a 996/997 to a Boxster on the track is (1) the hardtop and (2) polar moment. The Boxster sticks far longer than a 996/997, but when it lets go, it really lets go and spins rapidly. The 996/997 may start to let go sooner, but it gives you more warning, lets you catch it more easily and makes it easier to drive with the right foot. Nonetheless, with equal drivers, there are many tracks where the Boxster can keep up with, or even pass, a 996/997 of the same year.
Just my two cents.
Last edited by TD in DC; 09-06-2005 at 12:06 PM.
09-06-2005, 10:11 AM
#44
Nordschleife Master
BTW, TD in DC is another one of those 996 drivers who happily track their cars, as his sig attests to. .
Formula RX, keep us updated on your quest. I'm curious to hear what another afficionado has to say about the list I made on the previous page.
.Formula RX, keep us updated on your quest. I'm curious to hear what another afficionado has to say about the list I made on the previous page.
09-06-2005, 10:13 AM
#45
Originally Posted by Palting
BTW, TD in DC is another one of those 996 drivers who happily track their cars, as his sig attests to. .
.
Yes, I don't think I would own a P-Car UNLESS I tracked it. Of course, I am addicted and, like any junkie, now need my track fixes
