Notices
Boxster & Boxster S (986) Forum
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Boxster/S vs. ???...

 
Old 09-13-2002, 06:49 AM
  #16  
Christer
Super User
 
Christer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 4,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wink

Netmaniac

Just for you:



I know you all want this interior!
Christer is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 10:32 PM
  #17  
NetManiac
Addict
Rennlist Member

Thread Starter
 
NetManiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Encinitas, CA
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

That doesn't look so bad. I was picturing pin stripes everywhere. Maybe I will get them for my Boxster... Nah, I like my black leather even if it does get hot as heck when I leave the top down...

/m
NetManiac is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 10:56 PM
  #18  
tonytaylor
User
 
tonytaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: WhippetWorld, .........is it really only this many
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Arguments against Boxster/boxster S
1) Too heavy
2) underpowered
let me elucidate,
1300kg for a two seater sports car is not light by any yardstick - compared to a Lotus Elise, a TVR or even a Honda S2000 the Boxster is heavy -why? - is it beyond Porsche`s ability to produce a lighter car. I doubt it.
The 2.5 Boxster was rated at 204bhp - less than 968 or 944S2 - the previous "entry" level Porsche.Was this the best Porsche could manage at the time? I doubt it.
OK so Porsche is in the business of selling cars and the Boxster has been a huge sucess but has this been at the expense of "selling out" to a market based on image over performance?
The Boxster S is a good car - 250bhp/1300kg mid engine and one of the best chassis of any production car, but the fact that it only compares with 1980`s 911 and 951`s should set alarm bells ringing. It should just be much better, fullstop, no arguement.I take my hat off to those people who have modified their Boxsters to produce 300bhp, better handling etc - they probably have faster/better cars than my 964 - but surely Porsche could/should have built these cars - they did with previous models.
Many Boxster owners bought their cars instead of SLK`s or Z3`s and not in place of other sports cars.In all fairness, I rather suspect that this does not apply to most people posting on this forum but the association with this type of owner is what allows others to disparage all Boxster owners - obviously unfairly, and may be the reason why Boxster owners are a bit touchy about the girls car theme.
I think Porsche had ulterior motives for making the Boxster less than it could have been. The Boxster S should have been the entry level model released in `95 and a factory 3.4/RS model the range top.
IMHO the Boxster is a wasted opportunity - cynicaly shackled with too little power so as not to upset 911 sales and that is a shame.
If you think the Boxster is the red headed stepchild wait unti Cayenne owners start posting.
tonytaylor is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 11:41 PM
  #19  
Sean
Super User
 
Sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Hey, my 944 has the same 80's pinstripe interior. Mine is faded pretty badly though, so I am planning to recover the seats in factory original Porsche-script cloth.

With regards to the Boxster, I'm still not convinced it is truly underpowered. Underpowered for what purpose? If you mean for track use, then perhaps you are right. But the majority of auto owners don't track ther cars, and never come close to exploring the true limits of their car.

Everyone says "it's underpowered," but no one uses a fraction of the power they've got.

And if you DO happen to track your car, then you've probably heard the phrase "it's all the driver." Hurley Haywood could take my 1986 NA 944 and run circles around all of us.
Sean is offline  
Old 09-13-2002, 11:58 PM
  #20  
Ghost Rider
Banned
 
Ghost Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Couple of quick facts:

1295 kg / 2855 lbs

Is the weight of my Boxster "S" without going on a diet.

No, it isn't as light as a Lotus Elise, but then again it can be sold legally in the US and meet all crash test requirements and then some, and few cars are as light as an Elise.

The Honda S2000 weighs just over 2800 pounds, virtually dead even with the Boxster.

The Boxster is lighter than the 996 and many 911's that came before it.

I agree that Porsche should do something more with the platform, but whining about it isn't going to help. Take matters into your own hands, bump up the HP and kiss the 911 drivers goodbye... I know I did last weekend.

As Sean says, the driver makes a huge difference... but in my case, I think it is the car...
Ghost Rider is offline  
Old 09-14-2002, 11:05 AM
  #21  
Harold
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Harold's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

All Porsche's are fantastic cars...regardless. We should just be out there having fun. Heck, if a 924 beats me (which is highly likely given my driving skills) on the track so be it... as long as I have had fun (and haven't bent my car).

Lets not get too carried away about the "my car is better than yours" syndrome...otherwise we may have Nissan owners (nothing against them) coming onto this board to tell us the way it is...I have seen video footage of a comparison being done where a 996 twin turbo was on the track (being driven by an ex professional racer) and was taken out (relatively easily) by a completely standard Nissan Skyline GTR Nismo R Spec- costs about the same price as a fully optioned Boxster S (also admittedly being driven by a fantastic driver).

Ahh, but the 996 twin turbo did eat the 360 Modena alive (once again...no offence to Ferrari owners... as I do love the Modena as well)....

Cheers


Harold

993 C2

<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
Harold is offline  
Old 09-14-2002, 06:42 PM
  #22  
mka996
User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

ok..
IMHO the people complaining about the Boxster's (hp, weight, etc) are not Boxster owners..
They are people that have come to the Boxster/S forum from elsewhere.

If you have spent any fair amount of time in one, I doubt you would complaining (maybe a few exceptions).

Porsche has NEVER been about hp ratings... NEVER.

You could ALWAYS buy a domestic (Corvette, Mustang, Etc..) with more hp and for far less money..

You guys with your 964's and 951's SHOULD have bought 91 ZR1 Corvette's (or whatever) if that is all you care about..

BTW... is it more fun to drive a fast car slow or a slower car fast...hmmmm
mka996 is offline  
Old 09-14-2002, 09:36 PM
  #23  
tonytaylor
User
 
tonytaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: WhippetWorld, .........is it really only this many
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

I have always been under the impression that Porsche cars were built with performance being the primary objective. HP per se is not the issue, - an Elise with 135bhp is not underpowered, a Boxster with 250+bhp is not underpowered but IMHO a Boxster with 204bhp is underpowered.
If ultimate performance is not your prime concern and you simply want a well enginered, well built and stylish 2-seat roadster that is fun to drive and the cost is not an issue then a Boxster is a rational choice and I have no problem with those who choose the Boxster on that basis.
Many of the more voiciferous proponents of the Boxster have the Boxster S or modified cars, 3.4 engines etc so their actions speaks for itself - if the Boxster didn`t need more power why bother?
In the UK "domestic" means Lotus, TVR, Marcos,Caterham etc plus there is the choice of Japanese and other European makes but I choose Porsche for my current and previous sports car because they offered the best overall performance package. A new Boxster S was, for me, overbudget ( which isn`t the same as not being able to buy one), let alone having to put more money in to improve performance ala Ken2KS, RobertG, but the 2.5/2.7 cars to me lacked a vital ingredient in the overall package - power.
I read these forums because I`m interested in what other performance cars are about - I also read other marque forums. I posted because there has been comparison with other Porsche models - which I have owned and I have test-driven a Boxster and so I am giving an informed opinion.I don`t think comparison of models of the same marque is irrelevant and I don`t think critisism of a marque I have personal involvement in isn`t constructive - my critisism is not of Boxster owners but Porsche, to repeat myself and Ken2KS, they should have done more with the Boxster platform. In my view the Boxsters lack of power was deliberate policy so as not to upset 911(also underpowered) sales.
I guess that other 951 and 964/911 owners based their purchases on similar criteria to myself and suggesting they buy something else is just silly.
Personaly I find driving a fast car fast more fun than driving a slow car fast (or a fast car slow )but then again I may be a bit of a maverick.
tonytaylor is offline  
Old 09-15-2002, 12:55 AM
  #24  
Ghost Rider
Banned
 
Ghost Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

[quote]Originally posted by tonytaylor:
<strong>I have always been under the impression that Porsche cars were built with performance being the primary objective. HP per se is not the issue, - an Elise with 135bhp is not underpowered, a Boxster with 250+bhp is not underpowered but IMHO a Boxster with 204bhp is underpowered.
If ultimate performance is not your prime concern and you simply want a well enginered, well built and stylish 2-seat roadster that is fun to drive and the cost is not an issue then a Boxster is a rational choice and I have no problem with those who choose the Boxster on that basis.
Many of the more voiciferous proponents of the Boxster have the Boxster S or modified cars, 3.4 engines etc so their actions speaks for itself - if the Boxster didn`t need more power why bother?
In the UK "domestic" means Lotus, TVR, Marcos,Caterham etc plus there is the choice of Japanese and other European makes but I choose Porsche for my current and previous sports car because they offered the best overall performance package. A new Boxster S was, for me, overbudget ( which isn`t the same as not being able to buy one), let alone having to put more money in to improve performance ala Ken2KS, RobertG, but the 2.5/2.7 cars to me lacked a vital ingredient in the overall package - power.
I read these forums because I`m interested in what other performance cars are about - I also read other marque forums. I posted because there has been comparison with other Porsche models - which I have owned and I have test-driven a Boxster and so I am giving an informed opinion.I don`t think comparison of models of the same marque is irrelevant and I don`t think critisism of a marque I have personal involvement in isn`t constructive - my critisism is not of Boxster owners but Porsche, to repeat myself and Ken2KS, they should have done more with the Boxster platform. In my view the Boxsters lack of power was deliberate policy so as not to upset 911(also underpowered) sales.
I guess that other 951 and 964/911 owners based their purchases on similar criteria to myself and suggesting they buy something else is just silly.
Personaly I find driving a fast car fast more fun than driving a slow car fast (or a fast car slow )but then again I may be a bit of a maverick.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Of course Porsche tried to preserve the 911 by not offering equivalent power in the Boxster, but on the other side of the coin, a Boxster with as much power as a 911 might also be a more dangerous car in the hands of owners without the requesite driving experience.

Saying that the Boxster is underpowered and that the "S" is necessary is sort of like saying to a 996 owner that they should have gotten the S4 or TT because a C2 is simply underpowered. Just about every Porsche save the TT is underpowered when compared to a Corvette Z06, so while sure I'd love to see Porsche do better by the Boxster, I think Porsche needs to do better by the whole brand across the board.

I think it is pretty clear that performance isn't the key driver for Porsche anymore, profitability is and in these economic times that is understandable, maybe not what I'd like to see, but I understand it.

BTW, just because Robert or I modify our cars doesn't mean we wouldn't be doing the same thing to a TT or any other car to get more perofrmance out of it above whatever the factory provided, Porsche or otherwise...
Ghost Rider is offline  
Old 09-15-2002, 01:42 AM
  #25  
Sean
Super User
 
Sean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

They say you can never be too rich or too beautiful. Nor, I suppose, can you have too much horsepower.

If someone asks you "Would you like to see the Boxster have more power?" then the obvious answer is going to be yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean the car is "underpowered."

People are buying the 996TT with the X50 option that provides an extra 30 HP. I have a friend who works at PCNA...he was stunned by the number of people ordering the X50 option. $30,000 for an extra 30 HP! But...does this mean that the base 996TT is underpowered?

Sure, it would be nice to see the 986 get a boost in horsepower. But I maintain that the Boxster is not really underpowered, at least with regards to street use. An "S" has roughly the equivalent power to weight ratio as a 993.

For track use, one might argue that the 2.7L is underpowered. But the argument would be more convincing if it was coming from Hurley Haywood. On the track, driver's skill is the most important variable.

Again, most people only use a small fraction of their car's power anyway. I think there is an element of machismo here... People want to be able to tout a big horsepower number (regardless of whether they are actually using it!).

If you are primarily driving your car on public roads, then I doubt you will have any complaints about Boxster power.
Sean is offline  
Old 09-17-2002, 03:18 PM
  #26  
NetManiac
Addict
Rennlist Member

Thread Starter
 
NetManiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Encinitas, CA
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

I don't have a lot of time to write a long reply but a couple quick points.

1 - I don't think the Elise or any TVR are available in the U.S. If they were I would definately have looked into it. (Tangent: I did consider a '99 Esprit for about the same price as my Boxster S. And still wondering why I didn't jump at that opportunity...) So your kind of comparing Apples to Oranges.

2 - The Boxster doesn't seem to be to heavy for a two seater sports car. For instance:

Audi TT: 3131 lbs
BMW Z3: 2910 lbs
Chevrolet Corvette: 3210 lbs
Honda S2000: 2809 lbs
Boxster: 2777
Boxster S: 2855

The Boxster is lighter than all of them and Boxster S is only 46 lbs heavier than the S2000. With those comparisions I wouldn't consider the Boxster or Boxster S "too heavy".

3 - I'm not sure what you mean by "underpowered". As far as I can tell all of the Porsche models have started at "low" hp. The first 911 had a mere 130hp. So I guess "underpowered" is a subjective term. If you think it's underpowered than it's underpowered for your purposes. However, I think it has adequate power, so I wouldn't consider it "underpowered".

With that said I wouldn't mind having more hp. Of course I would feel that way even it it had 350+hp in it already.

4 - I am not going to pretend I know what Porsche is thinking when it comes to developing its models. But you may recall that they put more hp in 928 when is was in production than they did in the 911 of that time. So I don't think it's fair to lump them in a hole and say they will not make the Boxster more powerful than the 911.

Remember the Boxster is based on the 356 and 550 and thus has a lineage as long, if not longer than the 911. I may even go so far as to say the Boxster is more Porsche than is the 911. But I wont because that may subject me to a flame war unparalled by any in the history of Rennlist (and my Nomex isn't that good).

And finally, I think the Boxster/S is an extermely fun car. It's perfect for me to get a feel for a performance automobile. I'm going to spend the next 3 to 4 years devloping my skills as a performance driver. At the end of that time and if my skills warrent it, I will consider graduating to a 911 (That is if they haven't developed a 400hp Boxster by then).

Just my $0.02,
/m
NetManiac is offline  
Old 09-17-2002, 06:25 PM
  #27  
tonytaylor
User
 
tonytaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: WhippetWorld, .........is it really only this many
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Ken2KS

It appears we have some sort of consensus;but,do you really believe a mid engined car is less safe in in-experienced drivers hands than an out-rigger rear engined one ?
I`d say that a 996C2 is underpowered

Netmaniac

re:1) Fair enough if elise and TVR are not available,but MGF 1075kg
MR2 975kg
MX5 1065kg
Barchetta 1065kg
996C2 1345kg
Boxster 1300kg
My point is that Porsche were not trying hard enough to save weight - a 911 is a 4 seater.
The Audi TT is a Golf in drag and not a bespoke roadster and the Z3 is hopeless as a performance car and comparing a Boxster to these is to damn it by association ( with rubbish)
"Underpowered" is a comparative term also and a Boxsters power/weight is not that good . It is also underpowered for the chassis which can take more and for the tyres/wheels - 204/217bhp is never going to overcome the tyres on the Boxster and where`s the fun in that?
Again I note you have a BoxsterS and your not complaining it`s overpowered, just "adequate" which is probably fair for the S.
re:4) The 928 had more power than the 911 of the time but also had much more weight so the power to weight ratio was worse. I thought in Porsche folklore the 928 was the 911 replacement.
If you like your Boxster there is no need to change the car just the powerplant.
tonytaylor is offline  
Old 09-17-2002, 07:25 PM
  #28  
996FLT6
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
996FLT6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: san francisco
Posts: 10,660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

One question- how has the the Boxster S fared for those who went on the track versus the S2000? They're great looking cars too. Regards. Mike
996FLT6 is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 01:22 PM
  #29  
Ghost Rider
Banned
 
Ghost Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Tony,
No I didn't mean to imply that the Boxster is less safe, only that if equipped with a lot more HP that we'd see more accidents and speed related issues with them due to the "look how fast I can drive" factor. Someone who purchases a 911 potentially has more driving experience, is a little older, a little more seasoned, etc. Not true in all cases, but across the board probably more seasoned than Boxster drivers. Thus I would be concerned about too much HP in the hands of unseasoned drivers.

With respect to the Boxster S vs the S2000. Factory stock both cars are pretty even in terms of performance straight line.

At the track, the Boxster is a more forgiving car and doesn't require as much shifting as it has the low end torque to make up for the lack of RPMs in some sections of the track. The S2000 is more demanding to drive, but that could be a lot of fun too. I don't think you could go wrong with either as a fun track car, although I think the S2000 could use a few upgrades (brakes, etc.) to make it more 'livable' on the track, IMHO.

There are track pics of both on my website...
<a href="http://www.smiley.net/boxster/" target="_blank">Track pics in Pictorials section...</a>
Ghost Rider is offline  
Old 09-18-2002, 05:10 PM
  #30  
Scott in Texas
Addict
Rennlist Member

 
Scott in Texas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Re the S2000 vs. Boxster S comparrison. A good friend of mine runs his S2000 in our PCA track events DE and Time Trial. I got him by 4 tenths of a second this past weekend. Not much of a difference really. So I would say they are close in terms of performance on the track. I would say the driver equation on my example was about equal. I don't know the exact length of the track we had set up last weekend, my guess it was about 2.5 miles in length. Lots of high speed twisties, a devilish reducing radius turn at the end of a fast straight away and a couple of fast sections, one with a slolum and the other with a chicane.
Scott in Texas is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Boxster/S vs. ???...


Contact Us - About Us - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: