Ray S

First, I love you for defending the Boxster (we all know it often needs defending on this board) but get real. The 996 is just plain more powerfull and quicker.....Period! You can pick whatever criteria you want 0-100, 0-60, 1/4 mile, 50-70, top speed, etc, and the 996 (stock) is going to win over a 986 or 986S (stock). Furthermore any mods you can do to the 986, you can also do to the 996. Finally, if you have a mod for $1,500 that can improve 0-60 times by "at LEAST 0.4 to 0.5 seconds" I'd love to hear about it (please don't say something silly like "NOS dude"). A half second gain would be a massive improvement!! Honestly the only way I know of that you can really achieve that type of gain on these cars is FI.

The bottom line is (and remember I own both and have driven multiple examples of each) the 996 is just more powerful. Rotation.....give me a break all cars rotate on acceleration and neither of these cars lack rear grip on acceleration (both have engines near the rear axle). Although dragging these cars is a bit silly as their clutches are not super robust and they both can exhibit deadly axle tramp on launch.

Remember the 986 handles better. Keep in mind that as much as you don't like to acknowledge the 996 superior acceleration, the 996 guys hate to acknowledge the 986's superior handling.

BrockPorsche

Thanks for all the replies

It's not all about 0-60, but there is something about a car being able to push me back that I like. The Boxster base comes nowhere NEAR that. Haven't driven an S yet.

A C4S would be great but I'm bringing my budget down due to other investments needing more attention and they come before a depreciating (even if it's slower than other cars!) asset.

I've just spent two days researching Z4s and when I come back to rennlist it's like coming back home. I think that's a sign I should go p-car no matter what I do. Just need to figure out which one. 986S or 996...and if 996 my pricing leads me to a 99 or 2000...which I have no problem with other than the engine reliability problems.

Found a local 2003 that you can't get a better history on, and low miles...but it's CA$20k more than I want to spend...but even at that it's an amazing deal.

Sigh.

I overanalyze It's a weakness

Pzkw993

Thanks, Benjy. Shouldn't you be showing off pictures of your mommy's M3 on VWVortex? How about showing some photos of your flagship wheels?

I'm not sure you understand "basic economics" as it applies to Porsches. I know from reading Vortex that it's no use ever explaining anything to you, but for somebody who might be lurking and accidentally believe something you have written:

Throughout history, 911s have tended to depreciate slowly. In fact, during the inflationary years it was sometimes possible to keep a 911 for a year and get your money back on trade-in. There are two factors behind this. The first factor was that Porsche increased the price of the car every year from 1965 to 1994, sometimes significantly. Only with the 993 was there any kind of "price break" upon introduction. The 996 was also a "price break" car depending on model and equipment. The 997 definitely was not.

The second factor was that the air-cooled cars were not built in great quantities (the exception being 1984-1986) and that once built they tended not to fall apart. A properly maintained 1987 Carrera 3.2 with 100,000 miles is very close to a new car; the same is not true for an '87 Vette or an '87 Supra, or, God help us, an '87 Testarossa.

With some few exceptions (some of the problematic mid-Seventies cars, the 964, and Tip cabs) it's rare for an air-cooled car to depreciate much past 40% of its purchase price, and many cars have stopped depreciating at the 50% mark. At that point, they will never get any cheaper. If you're waiting to buy anything from a chrome-bumper car to a narrowbody 993, you won't save any money by waiting any longer. Bruce Anderson disagrees, but I have no idea where he's getting his numbers. I haven't seen a '97 993 coupe change hands for $26,500 anywhere - except for the three-tone crash rats sold on eBay.

By contrast, water-cooled Porsches have typically dropped further, to as little as 25% of original purchase price for clean examples. The depreciation curve of a water-cooled car is somewhere between a "regular" car and a "real" Porsche. The 924, 944, and pre-'92 928 have all settled in that 25% to 35% range. Exceptions are the 944 Turbo, 944S2, 968, 928GT manual, and 928GTS, most of which have held 40-50% of original value.

Many of us thought 996es would depreciate like air-cooled cars. In fact, they depreciate like water-cooled cars, with only the Turbo and GT3 bucking the trend. Therefore, we can confidently project that $15,000-$20,000 is the eventual "resting point" for 3.4L and 3.6L 996es.

986es also follow water-cooled depreciation. We're seeing 1997 models which originally sold for $45,000 selling in the $12K range. Good cars will probably continue to be worth $12K for a long time. The 986S will retain more of its value and I predict that they will find their price floor in the $20,000 range.

So, to recap for the slow readers:

* Air-cooled 911s have stopped depreciating, with a minor exception made for the people who are dropping $55K on '98 widebodies.

* If you pay more than $20,000 for a 996, you will lose money. Oh no! It could cost you money to drive a car!

* If you pay more than $12,000 for a Boxster or $20,000 for a Box-S, you will lose money. The horror! To think that your car will not appreciate! You'd better get a Corolla - or an S2000, assuming there's a difference between the two.

perfectlap

The only Porsches that have "knocked me back" the way you describe are the GT3 and Turbo. Haven't been around a GT2 yet but I'm sure its the same if not even better at that one dimensional kick in the pants.

But really getting "knocked back" is a consideration that makes me wonder if you should be looking at Porsches at all. There are far better cars at far lower prices for that. You are paying a hefty premium for a Porsche no matter how you slice it.
And that premium anint coming from its big power.

Once you take either a Boxster,Cayman or Carrera through its autocross/track paces you'll lose that urge to be "knocked back" because it will be quashed by an urge to be "knocked sideways".

Look at this way if you are a history buff. The most famous recent 911 was the 1973 RS. A car that not only won its class at the 24 of LeMans but won overall. That car sold for $9K and had a monster 2.7 engine making under 220 HP. Makes me wonder how good a stripped down 986 "RS" woudl be.
Since then cars get bigger and bigger engines and people have convinced themselves they need more and more power meanwhile they get passed by a 1.8 Toyota powered Lotus on the track.

Vampyre

that has more to do with power to weight ratio then 1.8l motor.

perfectlap

exactly....when it comes to sports cars its not about the HP.
That's something we have completely lost sight of these days. We add more power, yet make the cars less nimble, heavier, more fuel consuming and outrageously over priced ($425 wheel alignment? pffft).
997 GT3 with a sun roof? Boxsters with NAVs? 911's with dash mounted stop watches? .....oh dear.
This happens when there is not enough Driving and too much "hey look at me in this expensive car" cruising. And we all end up paying for it with jacked up insurance rates, jacked up servicing labor and parts prices and crashing deprectiations. $100K used to be exotic car territory, now you can't even get into a 911 turbo with that. Meanwhile the 2002 996 TT's have dipped below $60K.

Over a million Porsches have been built yet the number of those cars that had more than the 250 HP is a very small percentage of that. Sports cars need to start getting simpler and lighter. Then you won't need huge powerplants.

greglionb

This was touched on breifly but I want to emphasize it. The key reason I have personally settled on a 986S over all other options is the ability to have a ton of fun driving the car at everyday speeds. I hope to get the car on the track at some point (4x per year if you're lucky) but most miles will be at speeds of 10 to 90 mph.

A good friend has an 01 C4. Its a great car that it extremely fun to drive but the "perma-grin" really didn't kick in for me until we were well above 85 mph on a back road. By contrast, I drove a perfect 2004 986S two weeks ago and couldn't stop grinning as we tooled along at 30-65, going back and forth from 2nd to 3rd.

BTW, no one has mentioned it but the Boxster has to get extra credit for the induction and exhaust noises. A 996 sounds good but you can not beat a Boxster w/ the top down, running over 4500+ rpm for pure aural enjoyment under $35k. It might not matter to everyone else, but for me its a critical piece that I found lacking in the 996.

First986NJ

Didn't say it wasn't. Didn't say that if you made the same mods to the 996 it wouldn't still be faster. Of course it would. The only point I was trying to make was that you can buy the Boxster AND pay for the mods, still be WAY under the 996 price tag, and have a car that isn't THAT far off the performance of the 911.

Also didn't say that the 911 doesn't rotate on acceleration, just that the weighting is different between a mid engine and a rear engine design and that if everything else were identical, the 911 would still acccelerate slightly quicker.

Yea, I agree I got a little carried away with the .05 second remark. With the added HP and reduced weight maybe 0.2 or 0.3 is more like it.

So we'll leave it at the 911 is the better acceleration and the 986 is the better handling. That way we can peacefully coexist Ray.

RaceCarDriver

I had to make the same decision last year and went with the 996 C4S.

They all are great cars. One day I would also like to pick up a used Boxster because I've never owned a convertible.

Ray S

Agreed! But, I'd still like to hear about the $1,500 mod that will give me a half second improvement to 60.

Ray S

I'll go even slower for you.

A i r - c o o l e d 9 1 1's h a v e N O T s t o p p e d d e p r e c i a t i n g (excepting those of limited production and unique value).

Your 993 may not be depreciating at the same rate as the water cooled cars, but it sure isn't holding it's value or appreciating.

SDDave

Well in that vain, if you want to have to rev to 9,000 to get any power, and you want acceleration, just buy a crotch-rocket.

Seriously, if I had a nickel for every person I knew who bought an S2000 and traded it back in before they'd had it 6 months, I'd be able to buy another Porsche.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is why Porsche has only made one model- the 911- since 1969... oh, wait.


Dave
San Diego

Dwayne Williams

I've had an 01 986S, a 99 996, and am now driving an 01 996. The Boxster S has plenty of power - it's a FUN car to drive. Drop the top on a sunny day and there's no better feeling. It almost feels like you put the car on rather than get in it. It's a great car - period.

So why did I sell it? It always felt just a bit too small to me - I could never quite get the seat far enough back and since I did most of my driving back and forth to work the road noise got to me after a while (we have a LOT of people driving jacked up pickups with huge knobby tires around here). I've always loved the lines of the 911, enjoyed the extra power, and was more comfortable in it. Just a personal preference issue really. On many a sunny day I wish I still had that Boxster S but I don't have room for both.

SO - get out and drive both cars. As much as you can and then decide what you want. You didn't mention a Cayman or a 911 cab so are neither of those an option for you?

designman

You must be talking about styling and only styling because the 997 is off the charts in terms of comparing it to 993 and older 911s. The 996 is more communicative than 997 IMO. I was interested in buying a 997 until I got around to driving them. I lost interest quickly. We are in a new Porsche era and even though 996 started the divide, 997 defines the epoch.

designman

When talking about depreciation don't forget that Porsche starting discounting at the end of 2003. Also they sell in more volume today. In addition 996 is not proving to be a favorite so these factors make for poorer resale value. When a model is popular and it is in shorter supply, naturally it will hold value better. I would expect all post-993 Porsches to follow the same course of depreciation.

BTW it is interesting to see how the prices of 968 and 964 compare as reported in the May issue of Excellence.