Will the boxster become the next 944?
 

A little cross-post action from the <a href="http://forums.rennlist.com/forums/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=15" target="_blank">the front-engined waterpumpers</a>. . .

<a href="http://forums.rennlist.com/cgi-bin/rennforums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=016533" target="_blank">"Will the boxster become the next 944?"</a> Thread from the 924/944/968 Rennlist Dept.

Anyone care to chime in with opinions from the peanut gallery?

No point in chiming in - the 944 folks seem to relish in the concept of model obsolescence since it affects them and their 928 brethren so profoundly. What is it about front-engined Porschephiles, anyways? I like ALL Porsches and I have always liked the 944 variants. It would be nice to still have them around. Methinks they doth protest too much.

No one doubts the 356 is the revered predecessor to the 911 - and the 996, even though it is liquid cooled - or says that is has fallen from grace, as the 944 folks seem to wish upon every subsequent model. The 986 has been a proven winner and whether it depreciates as badly as the 944 remains to be seen. Chances are that due to production numbers, it will likely see larger drops than the older 911s but we'll see.

Also, Porsche has reaffirmed the Boxster configuration as its preferred direction in its next, great iteration. Let see... Mid engined, liquid cooled, removeable roof - by george, it's the Carrera GT. A V10 powered Boxster, you might say.

No front engine. Hmmm. That alone has to bug our 944 brethren.

:)

Consider what kept porsche alive in the mid to late '80s.

Craigg, I for one don't relish in the concept of model obsolescence at all. I just don't particularly like the fact that the introduction of the 986 was 100% market-driven and 0% competition derived. If you add the large quantities built (up to 25K units in a year) that makes for a pretty obvious lack of exclusivity as well.

The Carrera GT is another "concept car" with no track heritage that also represents a market-driven product, albeit at the top echelon of the car spectrum, as far as technology goes. However, I'll be the first to take off my hat to you and to Porsche, A.G. if that car ever accomplishes anything on the race track.

Sure, the front-engined watercoolers have become the poor-man's P-car 15 years later, but at least some iteration of them ran decently at LeMans, which is more than can be said for the Boxster's heritage and is what the marque was all about when it began: competition cars refined for the street.

Are you saying the 944 (or its 924 predecessor) was essentially developed as a competition focused product? I don't think so!

I'm not the one who is making a positive case for obsolescence, rather, I am quite happy to look at the heritage and consider the the 944 and 928 as honored members of the P club. My point is there are far to many FEWC (and some others) owners who like to point at the 986 and predict its downfall - which might cause irrepairable damage to Porsche and therefore their own dear cars. Why should we crap on ANY Porsche? For any non-technical reason. Seems like sour grapes - or P envy! I also own a mid 80s 911 - does this give me the right to disparage the 928? I don't think so.

You are suggesting that a car developed for the "market" rather than competition is in some way a negative, let's not forget what keeps these things on the road. The market, not racing. Ferrari is not owned by Fiat (who is in deep financial trouble themselves right now) because of a lack of racing success, but because they couldn't remain profitable! Maserati is marque that died years ago. Lambos are always struggling. Jag is now a Ford (not that there is anything wrong with that)

The Dodge Viper was essentially a market driven car that has enabled a competetive result. I wouldn't want one (Drove it, didn't like it) but it is a showpiece that Daimler Chrysler developed and then took racing - with surprising success.

Boxsters can run circles around almost anything in the handling department - including 944s and 911s. They are doing well in most track outings I've ever heard of. The fact that Porsche (who has not been factory racing much of anything lately, by the way) focused on the 911 - as it always has - only makes sense.

I don't see any parallelism in the Ferrari/Viper race-driven/market-driven comparisons you brought up.

My point was simply that the early Porsches were relatively cheap cars that competed well and were accessible and widely accepted among motoring enthusiasts for this reason.

Accessibility was never a characteristic of the Ferraris, Jaguars and Maseratis of their time, and surely not in the Viper.

Here is story guys..
Boxster's are Nice cars. The reason I own a 944 (several in fact) and the reason most people own them is due to their low entry cost and performance vs cost. When the boxster came out alot of people like it. Most 944 owner simple could not afford it or could see spending $40-50K on it even if they could. Now that the car seems to be depreciation rapidly we see opprotunity. Most of us feel that the 944 line of cars should be worth much more than they are. This means it is a buyer's market and we can get really good cars for little money. Now we are looking to see if the same thing will happend to the Boxster. This not ment to denegrate the car, but will be good value in the future. Heck If I can get a Boxster for 15-20K... Hmm I just might try find me one. At 25-30k... No I'll just wait another 5 years.

<img border="0" alt="[bigbye]" title="" src="graemlins/xyxwave.gif" />

This is a good point. I fully agree that the 944 offers a superb level of performance - and good looks, reliabilty, repairability, and so on - for the money. Perhaps the issue of depreciation right across the board is more relevant. As much as it pains many people, cars are almost always a poor financial investment. They nearly always drop in value and unless you wait out a long time, and even then that is no guarantee, one should not think in terms of retained value or even increasing asset value.

Limited production is no guarantee either - I used to own a Cadillac Allante - I was intrigued by the idea of a V8 North American 2 seater built on the same line as Ferraris. They only built 20,000 of this car in its 7 year existence ('87 - '93) and yet they are nearly worthless, every one. The 1957 Chevrolet, which was built in huge volumes, has been highly desirable and valuable since the mid-late '60s. Go figure that, Luis.

The fact is...all Porsches, along with many other brands, have been suffering a noticible drop in retained value lately, and the BMW Z4 is not lining them up either. Times are tough. Oh to hear the sound of high end cars in Silicon Valley once again...

To say this phenomenon is because the 986 was not "competition" derived or they built too many is malarky!

this area of the building is weak, in terms of responses.... jeez. think there'd be a lot more enthusiasts speaking up here. hmmm..

Deni, for some reason a lot of 986 owners hang out on 986board.com. I'm sure your post there would receive a bunch of responses.

Well, that is a great board, but I would like to see more 986 enthusiasts on Rennlist!

In the UK, the very first boxsters are stll worth nearly 3/5ths of their value (6 years on <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> ) and have almost the best resale of any car for sale in the UK.

In the past this wasn't always the case for the 924/944s etc in the UK. Although the 924/944/968 were good cars and did have a production run in one form or another for 20 odd years, which is pretty impressive.

The new model Boxster is going to look almost the same as current models this should also stop the Boxster becoming obsolete too quickly.

The Boxster is still the class leader in its sector and likely to continue to be so.

I say the z4 is the leader. Sorry and don't hate me but I think the boxster is from what I hear more fun. Proformance and interior the z4 has the boxster beat from what magizines say. Also the boxster is more expensive.

LOL!

Now that I 've picked myself up from LOL after the remarks Fishy made, let me provide some concrete remarks...

Automobile Magazine said about the Z4:

"...the Z4 is just plain goofy-looking."

"The only roadster that comes close to the Z4 in terms of handling, fluency, and feedback is the Porsche Boxster, which has one of the best chassis out there." (a somewhat backhanded compliment, I guess)

"It still lacks the reassuring weight and feel of a Boxster's, though."

"its price does undercut the Porsche by $2420 in base trim. (The 2.5i is way cheaper, of course, but isn't as quick as the Boxster, hitting a claimed top speed of 146 mph and taking 7.1 seconds to reach 60 mph.)" ($2420? Hardly a major difference - unless you are scraping to get there in the first place!)

ref: <a href="http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/0212_bmwz4/" target="_blank">http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/0212_bmwz4/</a>

And EVO says:

"The Z4 aims and partially succeeds in redressing the dynamic deficit, but at best it occupies the middle ground between the underwhelming SLK and the benchmark-setting Boxster. To be honest, the Porsche isn't a hellraiser either - only TVR's Tamora is truly hirsute of arse in this sector - but Stuttgart's effort doesn't just do neat and tidy, it defines the discipline."

Ref: <a href="http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/?domain=evo&page=http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/driven/driven_story.php?id=31380" target="_blank">http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/?domain=evo&page=http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/driven/driven_story.php?id=31380</a>

So, Fishy, what magazines are you reading? BMW enthusiast magazines don't count! Gotta be somewhat objective after all.

I think a few of the UK magazines gave the Z4 the nod (just) over the Boxster S. My colleague at work showed one article to me - I think it was Car Magazine. Anyway, the opinion of one or 2 journalists shouldn't sway people - the proof will be in the pudding i.e. when everyone can drive and judge for themselves. Based on one report I think Fishey is just stirring the sh*t.