New Boxster vs. used 996 Cab
09-15-2002, 01:01 PM
#1
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: new albany, ms
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Boxster vs. used 996 Cab
I would like to hear any opinions on this. I have noticed that two year old 996 Cabs have depreciated significantly.
Thanks.
Thanks.
09-15-2002, 05:13 PM
#2
Let's see...
996 Cab would get you a pseudo back seat, rear weight bias, & an extra 40 HP.
986S would get you an extra (rear) trunk, mid-engine handling (and downsides, like the fact the engine is hard to access), plus a warranty and all the new car benefits.
If we were talking new cars here, then the choice is easier IMHO: Boxster S (and with the extra cash, a BMW 330 for the backseat
).
But since the price will be comparable, it's a tougher call. I would suggest you test drive both cars extensively before making up your mind. My experience with the 996 is limited, but I believe they handle significantly different than the Boxster S. The 986 is more of a nimble sports car, the 996 a more substantial GT car.
The good news is...you can't make a bad decision here. <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
996 Cab would get you a pseudo back seat, rear weight bias, & an extra 40 HP.
986S would get you an extra (rear) trunk, mid-engine handling (and downsides, like the fact the engine is hard to access), plus a warranty and all the new car benefits.
If we were talking new cars here, then the choice is easier IMHO: Boxster S (and with the extra cash, a BMW 330 for the backseat
).But since the price will be comparable, it's a tougher call. I would suggest you test drive both cars extensively before making up your mind. My experience with the 996 is limited, but I believe they handle significantly different than the Boxster S. The 986 is more of a nimble sports car, the 996 a more substantial GT car.
The good news is...you can't make a bad decision here. <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
09-16-2002, 10:59 AM
#5
Racer
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Agoura Hills
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive driven a Boxster S and 3.4" 996 Cab on skid pads and race tracks back to back. No question. WIth the weight savings,better balance and the much stiff chassis. The Boxster S beats the 996 cab hands down. The lighter wieght of the Boxster S largely negates the 40 or HP ofhte car. Boxster S's a routinely faster around Laguna Seca than 996 Cabs.
and Really, Unless you have midgets for kids or legless children. The Back seat of a 996 is useless. WIth the BOxster S you get 2 trunks that is much more usefull. Anyways, 03 Boxsters now have glass rear windows and a little bump up in HP that in 02.
Get a Boxster S its a REAL Porsche
and Really, Unless you have midgets for kids or legless children. The Back seat of a 996 is useless. WIth the BOxster S you get 2 trunks that is much more usefull. Anyways, 03 Boxsters now have glass rear windows and a little bump up in HP that in 02.
Get a Boxster S its a REAL Porsche
09-18-2002, 02:16 AM
#6
Rennlist Member
Indeed the 996 cab is a great car, but the Boxster S would surely provide a better alternative for you given you already have a 996 twin turbo...
it would be far more interesting to buy a sufficiently different car from your twin turbo...hence my vote for the Boxster S if I was in your shoes....
Cheers
Harold
993 C2
964 C4 (ex car)
911 3.2 (ex car)
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
it would be far more interesting to buy a sufficiently different car from your twin turbo...hence my vote for the Boxster S if I was in your shoes....
Cheers
Harold
993 C2
964 C4 (ex car)
911 3.2 (ex car)
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
09-19-2002, 01:02 AM
#7
To follow up on Robert’s point about weight to power ratio…
I was recently browsing an old issue of Motor Trend (Nov 2000). Here are the listed performance stats from their own road tests:
1999 996 Cab
¼ mile 13.8 sec. 103.3 MPH
0-60 5.4 sec
60-0 braking 123 feet
2000 Boxster S
¼ mile 13.9 sec. 100.7 MPH
0-60 5.3 sec
60-0 braking 117 feet
Therein lies the root of recent changes to both the 996 line (3.6L engine) and 986 (new styling cues). When you compare these two cars 1999 996 Cab vs. 986S from a performance standpoint, you get a statistical dead heat (if not a handling advantage for the 986). In real world driving situations, there will not be much difference between the two. Porsche had to take steps to differentiate the cars so as not to cannibalize 996 sales (and justify the 996 price premium).
But still....get the car you want.
I was recently browsing an old issue of Motor Trend (Nov 2000). Here are the listed performance stats from their own road tests:
1999 996 Cab
¼ mile 13.8 sec. 103.3 MPH
0-60 5.4 sec
60-0 braking 123 feet
2000 Boxster S
¼ mile 13.9 sec. 100.7 MPH
0-60 5.3 sec
60-0 braking 117 feet
Therein lies the root of recent changes to both the 996 line (3.6L engine) and 986 (new styling cues). When you compare these two cars 1999 996 Cab vs. 986S from a performance standpoint, you get a statistical dead heat (if not a handling advantage for the 986). In real world driving situations, there will not be much difference between the two. Porsche had to take steps to differentiate the cars so as not to cannibalize 996 sales (and justify the 996 price premium).
But still....get the car you want.
