Looking at my first Boxster...and my first Porsche
09-12-2012, 02:56 PM
#16
I will eat my gas cap if you see similar mileage in a 986 as you do the 2. It's not the worst thing on gas, but my mileage with mostly highway driving has ranged from the low to high 20s, mostly floating between 24 and 26 mpg. Tanks with more city driving are in the 22-23 range. You'll also have the added cost of premium fuel rather than regular. Then again I always see ~10% better mileage when I go up north, so maybe I ought to be preparing myself for plastic ingestion 
Not to scare you off, it's a great car and everyone here is setting you straight with the maintenance information. They're not bad to work on, and I haven't found anything that seems intentionally difficult to do like I do on my Civic. Some things are harder, yes, but that's the nature of a mid-engined car sometimes.
Not to scare you off, it's a great car and everyone here is setting you straight with the maintenance information. They're not bad to work on, and I haven't found anything that seems intentionally difficult to do like I do on my Civic. Some things are harder, yes, but that's the nature of a mid-engined car sometimes.
09-13-2012, 06:05 PM
#17
Racer
Thread Starter
I drove it yesterday. I didn't fall in love, and this example didn't present too well. No service history, roached interior...I was really disappointed. It sounded nice enough - a flat six will do that to you - but I really think I could get an S for that money, or a least a super-nice non-S...
09-13-2012, 07:04 PM
#19
Racer
Thread Starter
Look at this. For the price, I wouldn't mind putting some money into it for basic/preventative maintenance...
http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-s...14661360&Log=0
27 Carfax records, though. I wonder how many times it's been written off...
http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-s...14661360&Log=0
27 Carfax records, though. I wonder how many times it's been written off...
09-13-2012, 10:09 PM
#20
Wax On, Wax Off
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 5280 ft above the sea
Posts: 17,727
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Eh... One thing I keep in mind when shopping for Porsches, is the phrase "there is nothing more expensive than a cheap Porsche". Get the best example you can afford.
The other thing I keep in mind, is that if there is an S model, buy it. All 3 Porsches I've had in the past 10 years have been S models. 924S, 944 turbo S, and now a boxster S. I've found the little performance bumps are fun. I remember going to 944fest with my turbo, and on the caravan down, lined up with a regular turbo, both stock, and I just flat took off. Left him in the dust. That just confirmed in my mind to get the S. but that's my mindset.... Ymmv
The other thing I keep in mind, is that if there is an S model, buy it. All 3 Porsches I've had in the past 10 years have been S models. 924S, 944 turbo S, and now a boxster S. I've found the little performance bumps are fun. I remember going to 944fest with my turbo, and on the caravan down, lined up with a regular turbo, both stock, and I just flat took off. Left him in the dust. That just confirmed in my mind to get the S. but that's my mindset.... Ymmv
09-16-2012, 05:07 PM
#21
I would definitely hold out for the Boxster S. I owned a 2001 Boxster S that i sold 3 years ago for $19K with 45K miles on the clock. It was the BEST Porsche i have ever owned and I have owned 5 (four of them 9ll's). I ordered the Boxster from the factory and spec'd it exactly how i wanted it. Shortly after i received the car, I took a trip to Germany where i was given a ride at Weissach with a factory test driver in a 2001 Boxster S with the European Sport Suspension (M030). It was phenomenal ! The things this test driver did with the car including four wheel drifts in complete control was intoxicating. Upon my return to the states I got all of the European parts #'s for the European M030 which included bushings, sway bars, springs and shocks . Installed it came to about $2K. It completely altered the feel of the car and I did things with this car I have never done with any other Porsche. I quickly got a reputation with the Porsche Club as a hooligan ! I kept the car for 9 years and sold it privately to a friend before buying my current ride, a 2007 997 C4S. I still miss that little Boxster bastard though !
09-16-2012, 11:05 PM
#22
3rd Gear
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years ago I had both an RX7 convertible and a brand new 2001 base Boxster. The RX was absolutely showroom condition with every option available
In comparison:
The RX7, with its rotary engine had to be rev'd really high to get any power... even pulling away from a stoplight felt like it took days. The Boxster had excellent torque throughout powerband
MPG - RX got about 18, Boxster mid 20's
Handling - though they raved about it ahndling great the RX was not good at all. 50/50 weight distribution was supposed to be awesome but in reality no where near the Boxster in terms of grip
Comfort - RX is very small, actually tiny inside, Boxster fairly tight (I'm 6'3" 200lbs)
Space - trunks on Boxster are pretty big, RX had a tiny rear trunk and nothing up front
Maintenance - not that far apart. RX had to make sure you ran only one oil and one oil only ever, Boxster is worrisome. The rotors in the RX are known to have issues as are the IMS in the Boxster but neither were my experience.
Insurance - the brand new Boxster cost me a LOT less to insure, go figure! 1/4 the value but still costs more to insure.
Wound up selling the RX as there was no compelling reason to keep it, found myself driving the Boxster when the weather permitted
In comparison:
The RX7, with its rotary engine had to be rev'd really high to get any power... even pulling away from a stoplight felt like it took days. The Boxster had excellent torque throughout powerband
MPG - RX got about 18, Boxster mid 20's
Handling - though they raved about it ahndling great the RX was not good at all. 50/50 weight distribution was supposed to be awesome but in reality no where near the Boxster in terms of grip
Comfort - RX is very small, actually tiny inside, Boxster fairly tight (I'm 6'3" 200lbs)
Space - trunks on Boxster are pretty big, RX had a tiny rear trunk and nothing up front
Maintenance - not that far apart. RX had to make sure you ran only one oil and one oil only ever, Boxster is worrisome. The rotors in the RX are known to have issues as are the IMS in the Boxster but neither were my experience.
Insurance - the brand new Boxster cost me a LOT less to insure, go figure! 1/4 the value but still costs more to insure.
Wound up selling the RX as there was no compelling reason to keep it, found myself driving the Boxster when the weather permitted
09-17-2012, 02:47 PM
#23
I had an '84 RX-7 with a 13B (at the same time as I owned my Boxster), the car's great. Having a convertible wouldn't have helped things for you. For the $2000 I spent on that Mazda I couldn't have done better. It was also much more fun to thrash than the Boxster is, perhaps because I wasn't nearly as worried about breaking it. But you could feel how light and nimble to car was, and throwing it around a turn and giving it gas resulted in fun times that a 217hp mid-engine car with 255s out back just cannot provide. Completely different cars, it just doesn't make sense to say one is "better" than the other.
09-20-2012, 02:48 PM
#24
Racer
Thread Starter
The search for a Boxster is over. Will more than likely be taking this beauty home for good next month:
I know it's not a Boxster but I think it's still a good first Porsche.
I know it's not a Boxster but I think it's still a good first Porsche.
Last edited by CVDH; 09-20-2012 at 06:52 PM.
09-20-2012, 07:13 PM
#26
Racer
Thread Starter
09-20-2012, 07:36 PM
#27
Wax On, Wax Off
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 5280 ft above the sea
Posts: 17,727
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
And what a fine first Porsche it is. I've been thru 2 of em before I got my Boxster. Turbos are more fun and you can mod the **** out of em. Try that, you'll get sick of the lackluster performance of the 2.5L N/A, and there is NO way to get power out of an N/A without buckets of money. You could turbo an N/A, but it's cheaper to buy a turbo. Just so ya know what you're getting into.
09-20-2012, 08:07 PM
#28
Racer
Thread Starter
And what a fine first Porsche it is. I've been thru 2 of em before I got my Boxster. Turbos are more fun and you can mod the **** out of em. Try that, you'll get sick of the lackluster performance of the 2.5L N/A, and there is NO way to get power out of an N/A without buckets of money. You could turbo an N/A, but it's cheaper to buy a turbo. Just so ya know what you're getting into.
09-21-2012, 04:21 PM
#29
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
The 944 is a great car. My first Porsche too (1987 944S). I still have it. It is in the midst of a comprehensive restoration that I hope to complete before I'm 95!!
It looks like you have one of the early ones (early 1985 and older). I've always thought it would be cool to have one of those.
The N/A cars (and even the 4-valve S) are not terribly quick by modern standards, although they were quite good back in the day. However, that is not what these cars are all about. Their balance is suberb and they are amongst the most forgiving cars to drive fast with that high polar moment of inertia.
They are also well-built and solid machines. Like any Porsche, they don't react well to low maintenance! That sometimes is an issue when you have a car that was bought due to the low price, but then not maintained properly. The car in the photo looks to be in good shape though, so I hope it works out!
It looks like you have one of the early ones (early 1985 and older). I've always thought it would be cool to have one of those.
The N/A cars (and even the 4-valve S) are not terribly quick by modern standards, although they were quite good back in the day. However, that is not what these cars are all about. Their balance is suberb and they are amongst the most forgiving cars to drive fast with that high polar moment of inertia.
They are also well-built and solid machines. Like any Porsche, they don't react well to low maintenance! That sometimes is an issue when you have a car that was bought due to the low price, but then not maintained properly. The car in the photo looks to be in good shape though, so I hope it works out!
09-21-2012, 04:39 PM
#30
Racer
Thread Starter
The 944 is a great car. My first Porsche too (1987 944S). I still have it. It is in the midst of a comprehensive restoration that I hope to complete before I'm 95!!
It looks like you have one of the early ones (early 1985 and older). I've always thought it would be cool to have one of those.
The N/A cars (and even the 4-valve S) are not terribly quick by modern standards, although they were quite good back in the day. However, that is not what these cars are all about. Their balance is suberb and they are amongst the most forgiving cars to drive fast with that high polar moment of inertia.
They are also well-built and solid machines. Like any Porsche, they don't react well to low maintenance! That sometimes is an issue when you have a car that was bought due to the low price, but then not maintained properly. The car in the photo looks to be in good shape though, so I hope it works out!
It looks like you have one of the early ones (early 1985 and older). I've always thought it would be cool to have one of those.
The N/A cars (and even the 4-valve S) are not terribly quick by modern standards, although they were quite good back in the day. However, that is not what these cars are all about. Their balance is suberb and they are amongst the most forgiving cars to drive fast with that high polar moment of inertia.
They are also well-built and solid machines. Like any Porsche, they don't react well to low maintenance! That sometimes is an issue when you have a car that was bought due to the low price, but then not maintained properly. The car in the photo looks to be in good shape though, so I hope it works out!
