996 vs boxster-s for first purchase?
#16
Ironman 140.6
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by First986NJ
BrockPorsche - buy what ever floats your boat, but I have to say your "tone" sounds more like a 911 kind of guy than a 986/987 kind of guy.
But some of this whole discussion bothers me so I'm gonna get it off my chest.....
First of all, of course the 911 accelerates quicker. Even with all other factors equalized, the 911 is REAR engined, which means that it doesnt have to rotate the weight of the engine during weight transfer when starting motion. More of the torque is converted into forward motion.
Secondly, 0-60 translates into neither passing performance nor corner exit performance. Sorry, but 50-80 isn't the same thing as 0-60. Zero to sixty is a dead stop to 60 mph "red light" number. Unless your aim is drag racing red light to red light, it doesn't really mean all that much - this is a ROADSTER. If you want a drag racer, buy a Mustang GT500, not a Porsche. Corner exit performance is more affected by how much speed you can carry through the corner apex, and for an average driver (you said this is your first right?) the 986/987 will probably carry more corner speed for you.
Also, all the 0-60 numbers I see being put up here are published numbers off a 2.5L - the smallest Boxster engine. The 2.7L is 5.8 and the 3.4L 987 is 5.1. Spend $1500 and breath either of those engines a little bit, and those times improve by at least 0.4 to 0.5, approaching the same area as the Carrera.
I ran drag cars for the better part of 25 years, so I know a thing or two about acceleration times. I have a 2.7L base 986 with headers/exhaust/and EVO intake, and I will be happy to run for pinks with anyone who actually believes that it takes 6 seconds for my car to hit 60.
....down off my soapbox. Sorry for the rant.![ooops](https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/icon501.gif)
But some of this whole discussion bothers me so I'm gonna get it off my chest.....
![soapbox](https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/soapbox.gif)
First of all, of course the 911 accelerates quicker. Even with all other factors equalized, the 911 is REAR engined, which means that it doesnt have to rotate the weight of the engine during weight transfer when starting motion. More of the torque is converted into forward motion.
Secondly, 0-60 translates into neither passing performance nor corner exit performance. Sorry, but 50-80 isn't the same thing as 0-60. Zero to sixty is a dead stop to 60 mph "red light" number. Unless your aim is drag racing red light to red light, it doesn't really mean all that much - this is a ROADSTER. If you want a drag racer, buy a Mustang GT500, not a Porsche. Corner exit performance is more affected by how much speed you can carry through the corner apex, and for an average driver (you said this is your first right?) the 986/987 will probably carry more corner speed for you.
Also, all the 0-60 numbers I see being put up here are published numbers off a 2.5L - the smallest Boxster engine. The 2.7L is 5.8 and the 3.4L 987 is 5.1. Spend $1500 and breath either of those engines a little bit, and those times improve by at least 0.4 to 0.5, approaching the same area as the Carrera.
I ran drag cars for the better part of 25 years, so I know a thing or two about acceleration times. I have a 2.7L base 986 with headers/exhaust/and EVO intake, and I will be happy to run for pinks with anyone who actually believes that it takes 6 seconds for my car to hit 60.
....down off my soapbox. Sorry for the rant.
![ooops](https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/icon501.gif)
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.
![Cheers](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/beerchug.gif)
#17
Instructor
Thread Starter
![Question](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon5.gif)
Thanks for all the replies ![Smilie](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
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
![Smilie](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
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
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
![Confused](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif)
Last edited by BrockPorsche; 04-27-2007 at 01:53 PM.
#18
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Benjamin Choi
if roadster, i'd get an '04-'05 s2000 and call it a day. fantastic cars. great reliability.
but a 911 is a 911. and guess wht fellas? all cars depreciate and if you check it out, the 997s depreciate just as quickly as the 996s. some of you speak as if the 996 is especially hit hard. pls. no porsche save for the handful of models, shun depreciation. it's just basic economics.
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.
#19
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by BrockPorsche
Thanks for all the replies ![Smilie](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
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.
![Smilie](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
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.
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.
#20
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by perfectlap
...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.
#21
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
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.
#22
Instructor
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
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.
#23
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 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.![Cheers](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/beerchug.gif)
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.
![Cheers](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/beerchug.gif)
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.
![thumbup](https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/thumbup.gif)
#24
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Vampyre
Have you thought about a 996 C4S? great car with AWD and back seats! Might be a better choice based on your weather...
They all are great cars. One day I would also like to pick up a used Boxster because I've never owned a convertible.
#25
Ironman 140.6
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by First986NJ
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. ![thumbup](https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/thumbup.gif)
![thumbup](https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/thumbup.gif)
#26
Ironman 140.6
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Pzkw993
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.
* 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.
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.
![nono](https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/nono.gif)
#27
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Benjamin Choi
if roadster, i'd get an '04-'05 s2000 and call it a day. fantastic cars. great reliability.
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.
Originally Posted by Benjamin Choi
skip the boxster. u won't be happy without a 911.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Dave
San Diego
#28
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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?
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?
#29
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by SDDave
Short answer-
Get the Boxster S!
The 996 was a step in the wrong direction for Porsche. The 993 was sublime, and in returning to that form, the 997 is devine. The 996, to me and many others, felt like a hiccup between the two.
Get the Boxster S!
The 996 was a step in the wrong direction for Porsche. The 993 was sublime, and in returning to that form, the 997 is devine. The 996, to me and many others, felt like a hiccup between the two.
#30
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
BTW it is interesting to see how the prices of 968 and 964 compare as reported in the May issue of Excellence.