sounds like you aren't reading my post.

I said I like both cars. I haven't weighed in at all.

I pointed out that your post was like doing the victory dance in a way to egg on more bickering from Ray.

If you wanted to have a conversation you could have responded to the list that he most recently provided.

I don't really personally care because I do not plan to buy a Boxster or an S2K, and I don't really care what people think about what I drive anyway

 

I am reading the post to which you directed at me.

1) I replied to his post line-for-line

2) Egging on or bickering, it's his will to do what he wants and given that we are on an on-line forum where we WRITE stuff, let it roll

And you obviously don't care much because I'm sure you get a lot of **** for driving a 911 suntan barbie edition car. j/k

 

I didn't think I owned a real 911, or even a real Porsche for that matter. As I said, I buy cars for ME, not for anyone else, so I don't really care about "image."

Funny, I didn't see your reply to his line by line. Again, not like you have an obligation, but I think you just like continuing the bickering. There are ways to end things, and ways to keep them going. methinks you enjoy the bickering

Finally, I don't care much for arguing on the Internet. It would be much more fun if you could ever bring your C4S to one of the tracks I frequent and I would love to try to make you cry in my lowly little 147 hp n/a (non)Porsche 944. Now that would be fun.

 

Talk about panties......

You didn't have the ***** to answer a single criticism I laid out. Instead you cross-posted and brought someone from S2Ki (who only chose to address the autocross argument).

Weak sauce Ben....

 

I'm kind of dense when it comes to parsing bulletin board slang and online intonation, but I think you just insulted me?

What is a suntan barbie 911?

 

First, the Boxster S started in SS. The S2000 started in AS, directly against the base Boxster. At the start of 01, the SCCA re-aligned the stock classes shifted most cars down one class (mostly due to the Z06 being so much faster than the cars allowed to run in SS). BS Miatas were not in CS. AS base Boxsters and S2000s were now in BS. Even with the re-alignment, the Boxster S remained in SS.

Later that year, Rob Falkner (probably 1 of the 10 best drivers at the national level) got 3rd place amongst a field of Corvettes at the national final. The next best Boxster S was around 20th. At the same time, the S2000 was continuing to dominate BS over the base Boxsters. The following year, the Boxster S was moved down to AS to be more competitive.

After 2 years of BS S2000s running consistantly as fast as AS C4 Corvettes, they moved the S2000 and the 986 base Boxsters up to AS. The S2000 has consistantly proven to be a competitor due to its small size and light weight. But also keep in mind that 1 of those nationals, they had particularly tight courses and CS Miatas ran as fast as AS S2000s.

To support a good part of this disucssion, the SCCA has also supported that the new 987 Boxsters have improved handling. The 987 Boxster S is in SS, while the base 987 Boxster is in AS. The 986 base Boxsters are proposed to be moved back down to BS at the end of this year. There is all the autocrossing history.

A road course is very different from an Autocross. While brake are used for such a short time that fade is not an issue in an autocross, on a road course brakes are a key differentiator. The best autocross brakes pads (typically organic with high cold friction like Axxis/PBR Deluxe) tend to be overworked after only 2 hard driven laps on a road course. The same goes for brake design. The single sliding pistons of an S2000s calipers really start to show problems on a road course. They tend to overwear and cook the inside pads on the front. The other differentiating factor is power. With big sweapers and long straights, the S2000 doesn't have quite the pulling power across the rev range of a Boxster and speeds are much close. Boxster S models are noticeably faster. We even have a local DE driver who switched during the last year from a S2000 to a 987 Boxster S and he is significantly faster.

Even with all these facts, I would not strictly follow the SCCA and their class structure. The SCCA Committees are both biased and predjudessed. They tend to make decisions that favor the individuals on the committee and not the masses. Try to figure out this one:

The 405 hp 3150 lb C5 Z06 and 500 hp 3400 lb SRT-10 Viper are both allowed to run in SS, where the 280-295 hp 3050 lb 987 Boxster S competes. They are now going to let the 505 hp 3150 lb C6 Z06 and the upcoming 600 hp SRT-10 Viper run in SS. They stile do not allow the 400 hp 3400 lb 993 Turbo, 415 hp 3500 lb 96 Turbo, 480 hp 3500 lb 987 Turbo or the 415 hp 3250 lb 997 GT3 to run in stock classes. The reason consistantly given is to control the cost of the sport, even though you can buy a used 993 or 996 Turbo for significantly less than a new SRT-10 Viper. The interesting part of all this is how many national competing C5 Z06 owners are on the committee and are looking to move up to C6 Z06s. Hmmm....

 

Nice post. For a road course, I would unquestionably take a Boxster S, as I mentioned before. In fact, 100% stock for 100% stock, I would take a Boxster S over a 996. However, with suspension modifications, even "relatively" modest ones, I would take the 996.

 

A well presented argument. However, back when I was autocrossing they were classified together and the Boxster held up very well against the S2000 in spite of being way down on peak power. I am not into SCCA autocrossing anymore (all DE's now), but I seriously doubt that the current 237 hp S2000 could be competitive with the current 295hp Boxster S (then again I don't follow Solo II's anymore).

Sure it's subjective, but if you really have experience in both cars the Boxster and Boxster S are subjectively better IMHO. BTW, the majority of the automotive press seems to agree with me on this point.

This is precisely one of my points. The S2000 is obviously a quicker straightline car than the Boxster. However, to be quicker requires a major clutch drop that I would doubt most owners are willing to perform. It's low torque (off the cam) makes it feel week and unispiring (my opinion) around town. Couple that with the other aspects that I brought up (space, interior, equipment, materials, etc.) and I would argue that the Boxster and Boxster S are well worth the extra $$. Subjective yes, but a look at the sales of all Boxter's vs S2000's and it seems a ton of people spend the extra coin for the Boxsters.

It's called sarcasm and it's unfortunate that you could not "read" it in my posts (it was really intended for Ben). However, I seriously doubt you would deny the "Fast 'N Furious" image that the car has as well as it's popularity among very young (and sometimes immature drivers). For just a taste of this, one has to go little further than the "Street Encounters" (read street racing) forum on S2Ki and other Honda sites.

As I said in my earlier post, I like the S2000 but I believe the Boxster and Boxster S are better cars. That is my opinion, you are certainly welcome to disagree.

Now, you may or may not have noticed but this is the 996 forum and the topic of this thread has nothing to do with Honda's. I'd suggest we get back to the topic and agree to disagree about 986's vs S2000's.

 

Ray, if you think that peak HP has anything to do with success at autocross, well, I just don't know what to say...

 

If you think that it has nothing to do with success, well, I just don't know what to say....

Clearly it is not everything. It is not. But your implication that hp doesn't matter just doesn't wash.

 

I can't believe someone trotted out the lame anti-Porsche conspiracy theory.

The 987 Boxster S won't go into the current A Stock because it would be considerably faster than the rest of the class, making it an instant overdog. The current best car in AS is the ~$15k C4 Corvette, and even newer STis and 986S's can still be had in the mid-thirties. If the 987S became the car to have in AS, it would radically increase the class' cost of entry, which is why it's banished to SS, along with other expensive or rare potential overdogs like the BMW MZ4 and the third generation Mazda RX-7.

The reason the 993 and 996 Turbos are still on the exclusion list is that no one has bothered to ask that they be moved to Super Stock. Write a letter to seb@scca.com requesting the 993 be moved and I bet it will be accepted. The 996 would also have a good chance. (Edit: I just wrote the letters myself, so we'll wait and see.)

As for the alleged bias, only one of the SAC members campaigns a Stock class Corvette, and he's balanced by another who campaigns an Elise. When I was on the SAC, four of the committee's six members had or were currently campaigning Porsches. If the committee were to have been biased, it would have been biased towards Porsches, not against them.

We're a long way from the original thread topic, but again, when someone posts a "fact" that I know to be false, I feel compelled to rebut it.

 

Notwithstanding some informative discussion, I thought that it would be useful to post the initial question since the thread has gone so far afield.

I purchased my first 911 in 1970 and over the years I have owned three 911s, the last being a 993. So my perspective about regretting buying a Boxster over a 996 will be far different than someone who has never owned a Porsche. The mere fact that you pose the question suggests to me that this may be a concern for you, and therefore should be part of your decision making process.

If you haven't bought the car yet, I would like to make your decision a little more complicated. For just a few thousand more than the price of a low mileage CPO 2001 996, you can buy a new, lightly optioned 987. The 245 HP 987 Boxster has less HP than the cars that you are considering, but it has more than enough power for the street, and you'll have a car that has outstanding handling and of course a four year 50K mile warranty.

 

I said peak HP, which is what you were comparing in your earlier post. And IMHO and in my experience, it's pretty far down the list of things that make a car quick in autocross, given the speeds are so low and so much more is riding on the suspension, available torque at the typically low exit speeds, and so on. Peak HP is a bench racing BS number under many circumstances, few moreso than in the cones.

 

I never said it was the most important factor. However, it is one factor (along with a slew of others) that does have some influence.

It sounds like we agree.

 

God you guys, what is going on here?

If you like a Porsche, buy a Boxster. If you like a racy car with NO torque that HAS to be drivin' up around 7k RPM's, that hasn't been improved upon in 8 years and goes fast around a track but drives like a civic on the street, buy a honda!