S2000 Vs. Porsche Boxter

I'm looking at buying a used car so i came across a 2000 Honda S2000 with 20000 miles on it for $19500 and a 1998 Porsche Boxter with 58000 miles on it for $18600.

Just curious what you guys think of the two and which i should go for. The honda is certified used and comes with a 7 year 100k warranty while the porsche does not.

How much would it cost to maintain the porsche compared to the honda? How easy is it to upgrade either cars with a turbo etc...

Any advice would be great and if you know of any other cars in a similar price range any ideas are welcome, thanks a lot....

i would go with the s2000... for one its a newer car and has less miles... the s2000 also puts out the most power n/a for the amout of displacement... (2.0L 240hp) well i can imagine that the honda has better reliabuility than the porshe... and then you cant just get a porshe serviced anywhere... it may be easier than a lambo or a ferrari but a LOT harder than a honda... also the honda comes with a huge after market basis... a lot of people supe up their s2000's... carbon fiber hoods/trunks, air intakes, body kits, rims, exhaust, turbos, super chargers, ect... honda uses the s2000 to race... porshe doesnt use the boxter for races that often... think of it... why would they when they have the gt1, gt2, gt3, 911 turbo, ect... the boxter is the lowest porshe there is there fore its aftermarket is nowhere near the s2000's... and then there is always the fact that if you got the boxter people would call you a kind of "wanna be" porshe owner... the fact is that i hear it all the time... a lot of people think that the boxter isnt a "real" porsche... thats my belief

The porsche would perform better, although you are talking about a regular boxster, not an S, so Im not sure. And you are right, an oil change for my stepdads S costs something like $120, due to its having a mid-engine. And you do bring up a good point, on a hp basis the S2000 wins....but it has no torque whatsoever....I believe its 160 something. IMO nothing beats german engineering (except of course for the italian super cars). But since your looking at cost, go with the S2000. You will be happy with it.

According to car and driver an other very reliable sources the s2000 beats the boxter in 0-60 mph acceleration, quarter mile, and going around a track.
Your call.

Thanks a lot guys for the awesome feedback. I think i might be going with the S2000 because of all the reasons you guys listed. I am checking one out on Friday so i might be coming home with it on Friday...the weather's been great in Baltimore, MD (unusual) so hopefully the weekend will be the same although with my luck, it will probably snow....thanks again.

According to car and driver an other very reliable sources the s2000 beats the boxter in 0-60 mph acceleration, quarter mile, and going around a track.
Your call.

If you were referring to me saying that the boxster would perform better, then whatever. I dont know much about the regular boxster, considering Im used to the S model...which by the way, does out-perform the S2000 (but not by much).

ive seen boxster s performance numbers, and 0-60 was around 5.7-5.9, 1/4 mile was around 14 sec. ive seen the s2000 put up similar numbers. i wonder how the 2.2 liter version of the s2000 would do against the boxster s.

Bullshit you can Turbo an S2000 out of the box- the Compression is far too high......


Get a Boxster- he S2000 has a snappy chassis- that will get away on you if you catch it off guard- and is no more or less reliable than the Boxster- the Boxster is more maintenence free- such as no coolant changes- ever and a lower compression ratio.

the F20C is a good engine- but good luck finding some low down torque!

The Boxster is just far more sorted than an S2000 definately the Porsche

I agree with Jimster that the Boxster is a more 'sorted' car and would much prefer to own one than an S2000. The difference in mileage is something to think about but Boxsters have an excellent reliability record so dont let it put you off too much. I'd go for the Boxster

Finally i can see some people that backed up the boxter.....


while the S2000 its a very good car....the boxter would make a better daily driver plus its a much more classy loking car...

this honda legend its getting out of hand here in the US....while they are very good cars....its ridiculous how high on a pedestal they are put in the States....they are considered as being better than even that porsche...IMO that is ridiculous

i still think that the s2000 is a better car... and yes you can turbo charge it... why is the boxter a better daily driver? also the s2000 may have a younger look than the "classy" boxter but i think that the boxter looks like one of those fished that sucks on the glass from the back because of the big eshaust in the middle.. of course there will be people who like the boxter and those who like the s2000... i think he should just test drive them to see what he thinks

we put the boxter as better daily driver mainly due to its better powerband

and looks as you said of course are subjective

Bullshit you can Turbo an S2000 out of the box- the Compression is far too high......


Get a Boxster- he S2000 has a snappy chassis- that will get away on you if you catch it off guard- and is no more or less reliable than the Boxster- the Boxster is more maintenence free- such as no coolant changes- ever and a lower compression ratio.

the F20C is a good engine- but good luck finding some low down torque!

The Boxster is just far more sorted than an S2000 definately the Porsche


On s2ki.com there is a substantial amount of stock engined supercharged and turbocharged S2000s. Are their even supercharger or turbo kits for the Boxster?

Boxsters are maintenance free? I've heard the first couple years for Boxsters were HORRIBLE as far as reliability is concerned, recently they've been quite good though.

Given completely different engine architectures, why higher/lower compression even be a factor? I can give a few examples of crappy low compression engines.

And on the track, the S2K completely owns the Boxster. Now, the Boxster S is a different story (they are very closely matched).

well i think its better if we all test drove both cars at the same time(i wish) some article did state that the s2000 takes top honors in its class, which means that it beat the boxster s, but that was for like 2000 i think, and the newest boxster s has like a little more power, something like 8 more horses? anyways i think that newer boxster s should be compared to the 2.2 s2000.

On s2ki.com there is a substantial amount of stock engined supercharged and turbocharged S2000s. Are their even supercharger or turbo kits for the Boxster?

Boxsters are maintenance free? I've heard the first couple years for Boxsters were HORRIBLE as far as reliability is concerned, recently they've been quite good though.

Given completely different engine architectures, why higher/lower compression even be a factor? I can give a few examples of crappy low compression engines.

And on the track, the S2K completely owns the Boxster. Now, the Boxster S is a different story (they are very closely matched).
Sorry, but you'll have to get me up PRETTY early in the morning to convince me that there are Unreliable Porsches, and if there were reliability problems there is no possible way that Porsche would let it continue for a few years- I don't know where you heard it from- but you should get a new source- JD Power UK and US will support my views here............Or the Driver power Survey 2001 (Or 2002- I can't remember- but the cars were 2 years old minimum) in the UK- where the Boxster (Which were 1996-1999 models) scored number one position overall- and in the top ten 10% for reliability and build quality. Case two would be looking at the April 2001 Edition of Top Gear magazine- with JD Power UK- the Boxster scores a perfect 5 in every aspect of reliability.

As for tuning kits for the Boxster.........Are you stupid??? Or simply ignorant :confused: ever heard of RUF, or Gemballa- RUF offer a stroked version of the 3.2 engine- which will destroy a Supercharged S2000- to a bloody Sushi pulp- the aftermarket for Porsches is endless- there is a HUGE market for Porsche tuning here in Europe- even Hamman seem to be in on the action.............It's kind of like the market for Ricing Civics and Sentras in the States, almost...........

My point with compression is that the higher the Compression, then 1. The worse it will run on Lower-Octane US fuel (EVEN 91- I wouldn't dream of anything short of 98 RON full stop), 2. The more prone to wear it will be and 3. The sooner it will blow up on the addition of Forced Induction.

Boxsters are maintenance free? I've heard the first couple years for Boxsters were HORRIBLE as far as reliability is concerned, recently they've been quite good though.

You heard so, so wrong. And they're more than "quite good", too.

http://www.consumersunion.org/products/chevy502.htm

"Introduced in 1998, the mid-engined Boxster tied the Corvette in overall score, but drives very differently. The base Boxster ($49,105 as tested) provides nimble, secure, and effortless handling that instills driver confidence. The 217-hp, 2.7-liter horizontally opposed six-cylinder engine provides smooth, strong performance, and the five-speed manual transmission shifts accurately. Braking performance was excellent. The Boxster has had much-worse-than-average reliability."

http://www.consumersearch.com/www/automotive/convertibles/fullstory.html

"But no car is perfect. Reviewers have found the Boxster lacking in certain areas: The interior gets poor marks for its stark design and use of low-grade plastic materials that just don't look luxurious, and long-term tests have shown the Boxster's reliability record to be less than stellar. This car is also expensive; the base Boxster starts at about $41,000, and that doesn't include cruise control, CD player, full-leather interior or glass rear window. The Boxster S, with its extra 33hp, six-speed manual transmission and cross-drilled Brembo brakes, starts at $49,930. It's easy to add more than $10,000 in options on either car; wood trim, for example, costs $4,350."

http://www.europeancarweb.com/longtermers/0111ec_boxster/

"From a reliability standpoint, the S has been damn near perfect. It's certainly less fussy than our first Boxster, which would show assorted fault codes and warning lights for no apparent reason."

If I had found previous years JD Powers stuff which mentioned the Boxster I would post that, but can't find any....someone help?

Oh, so do you agree that the earlier Boxsters might have had some reliability problems? Or would admitting that cause the Earth to rotate the other direction? Should I not bring up Naturally Aspirated 996 engine failures?

As for tuning kits for the Boxster.........Are you stupid??? Or simply ignorant :confused: ever heard of RUF, or Gemballa- RUF offer a stroked version of the 3.2 engine- which will destroy a Supercharged S2000- to a bloody Sushi pulp- the aftermarket for Porsches is endless- there is a HUGE market for Porsche tuning here in Europe- even Hamman seem to be in on the action.............It's kind of like the market for Ricing Civics and Sentras in the States, almost...........

Hmm, you seem to have problems with reading comprehension or are you just stupid? :)....did I say no one modified Boxster engines? No, I said I doubt there would be no turbo or supercharger kits........something which you have not refuted, but I will gladly admit to being wrong if you prove me to be. So instead you mention a stroked engine for a Boxster S.........LMAO. For the cost of that.......you could build a 400rwhp turbo S2K that we teach the Boxster what it means to be a "track car".

Oh, and when I think of huge aftermarket, I think of things like "5.0 Mustangs" and "LS1 cars". But sure, I'd say that an entire brand of performance cars can have a "huge" aftermarket, I'd be surprised if they didn't.

well you acknowledge, the availability of tuned engines, good- personally, I"m not too sure about Forced Induction kits for the Boxster, but due to the fact that there is such a big market for Porsche tuning in Europe, I'd be surprised if there wasn't one, whereas, you on the other hand come across as saying that there is no aftermarket for them, which couldn't be furhter from he truth. Simple as that, just in case you WERE to imply that, then I'd need to de-imply it, if that's a word, which it isn't.

Doubtlessly, you'd need to look harder for Porsche parts in the US, as compared to Honda parts, but the S2000 also has flaws that need to be sorted out, like the a-little-too snappy chassis and the need to rev the nuts off it to get some decent torque, whereas the Boxster is more or less perfect as is, so if you're going to keep it as it came in the box, then the Porsche is the best propositon


As for the Boxster reliability problems- warning lights are hardly the end of the world, usually most cars that show faults early on (Such as the first models off the line) are either sorted before they are sold on, or given back to the company under warranty, so by buying a Boxster, even if there were minor glitches, usually is a trouble free experience, but it sounds very much like Porsche the cars glitchy early on, perfect three years later.

however, a Boxster, like most cars these days, you can be confident in the car, lasting you three reasonably trouble-free years, reliability has become so much better, that you needn't worry about it when buying a car.

http://www.consumersunion.org/products/chevy502.htm

"Introduced in 1998, the mid-engined Boxster tied the Corvette in overall score, but drives very differently. The base Boxster ($49,105 as tested) provides nimble, secure, and effortless handling that instills driver confidence. The 217-hp, 2.7-liter horizontally opposed six-cylinder engine provides smooth, strong performance, and the five-speed manual transmission shifts accurately. Braking performance was excellent. The Boxster has had much-worse-than-average reliability."

http://www.consumersearch.com/www/automotive/convertibles/fullstory.html

"But no car is perfect. Reviewers have found the Boxster lacking in certain areas: The interior gets poor marks for its stark design and use of low-grade plastic materials that just don't look luxurious, and long-term tests have shown the Boxster's reliability record to be less than stellar. This car is also expensive; the base Boxster starts at about $41,000, and that doesn't include cruise control, CD player, full-leather interior or glass rear window. The Boxster S, with its extra 33hp, six-speed manual transmission and cross-drilled Brembo brakes, starts at $49,930. It's easy to add more than $10,000 in options on either car; wood trim, for example, costs $4,350."

http://www.europeancarweb.com/longtermers/0111ec_boxster/

"From a reliability standpoint, the S has been damn near perfect. It's certainly less fussy than our first Boxster, which would show assorted fault codes and warning lights for no apparent reason."

If I had found previous years JD Powers stuff which mentioned the Boxster I would post that, but can't find any....someone help?

Oh, so do you agree that the earlier Boxsters might have had some reliability problems? Or would admitting that cause the Earth to rotate the other direction? Should I not bring up Naturally Aspirated 996 engine failures?
No need for sarky crap.

http://www.btinternet.com/~andy.connolly/JDPower.htm

This 2001 JD survey looks at '98-'99 cars. Boxster finishes 25th out of 182 cars. Below average? Ish no think so... and one boxster having defective warnings lights is a pretty lame argument, dont you think? My father's E-class has had 100% reliability over the past 5 years, does that mean they all have? I have an article at home concerning early Boxsters' reliability in case i have to move the earth to convince you...

THANK YOU JAY!!! This is the Survey I was after, do you have links to any later ones??? Ever since they switched to what Car? I've not been bothered with it :(

can't find it anywhere :(

No need for sarky crap.

http://www.btinternet.com/~andy.connolly/JDPower.htm

This 2001 JD survey looks at '98-'99 cars. Boxster finishes 25th out of 182 cars. Below average? Ish no think so... and one boxster having defective warnings lights is a pretty lame argument, dont you think? My father's E-class has had 100% reliability over the past 5 years, does that mean they all have? I have an article at home concerning early Boxsters' reliability in case i have to move the earth to convince you...

Wait, did you actually think my argument was based upon ONE car? Did you even read the first two links? I actually debated putting the third link on because I knew people would make a fuss about it either being about "warning lights" or either the fact they only used a long term test of one car. So, do I think my argument was lame? No.....why would I? In my original post I stated that I heard that the first few years of Boxsters had poor reliability. The stuff I found corroborates that statement. I'm not sure where I'm making the error.........American market cars were different? :confused:

Wait, did you actually think my argument was based upon ONE car? Did you even read the first two links? I actually debated putting the third link on because I knew people would make a fuss about it either being about "warning lights" or either the fact they only used a long term test of one car. So, do I think my argument was lame? No.....why would I? In my original post I stated that I heard that the first few years of Boxsters had poor reliability. The stuff I found corroborates that statement. I'm not sure where I'm making the error.........American market cars were different? :confused:
No, of course I didnt think your argument was based on one car, I just didnt think that a single l-t test car had a place in an argument debating a car's reliability record, especially when the faults are pretty minor.
As for the other two, i dont know what to make of the 'findings', which are actually pretty vague... the first one is based on data collected from a magazine's readers, which i dont know how to analyse because i dont know the sample size. it could have a million readers or 10,000... not being cynical, just need to know the full details.
the second one is supposedly based on l-t reviews, this again is a little vague for my liking. when, what mags, what problems? If they'd come to the conclusion that very early Boxsters tested by magazines had niggling reliability problems i wouldnt be so doubtful as that is almost always the case with new cars. I would never buy a car in its first few months of production. If i sound sceptical about this whole Boxster thing it's because everything i've read suggests it's a very reliable car.

If I could find actual Consumer Reports (most comprehensive collector of automotive reliability data) data, believe me...I would have posted it. You have to subscribe though, so I passed that, understandably.

Reliabiltiy of both cars are not one to be contesting about. Saying porsche isn't reliable should almost deserve a slap in the face as well as doubting the reliability of Honda. With the S2000 also being offered with a 7yr/100k mi. warranty, that should make anyone feel confident that Honda isn't doubting its consumers. And Porsche's reputation alone should wipe the look of doubt off anyones face when considering one.

I also have a video of an S2000/Boxster/(a Z4 to, but it fits nowhere into this discussion) taking a lap on the same day around the same track. This video was presented by TopGear (i'm sure you've all heard of them). The lap times for the two had the Boxster coming in at 1:37.0. The S2000 ran it in 1:37.4. In this case I couldn't see how an S2000 would completely own a Boxster. Don't under estimate a Porsche, even if its a base model Boxster.

Which car would I choose? Well I'll have to consider the taste prefered for both cars. An S2000 is thought to be a pure enthusiast car as it stands. I believe the 00' model only comes with a 2 speaker package which only relates further to this being a pure enthusiast car. Honda is not kidding when they say the car lacks in the department of amenities. Now a porsche on the other hand, comes with the nice porsche amenities i.e. high end fit and finish, a much better than 2 speaker system, and a better daily driving powerband. Now I'd choose the Porsche only because it would comfort my everyday needs further more than an S2000 would. Now if im including the fun factor into this, things might become more even. Because without the fun included, why would you buy the car? I am by no way saying that a Boxster wouldn't be fun, but I wouldn't bet it being over exhilerating compared to the S2000.

Well thats my call, what do you all think?

I couldn't see how an S2000 would completely own a Boxster. Don't under estimate a Porsche, even if its a base model Boxster.

http://roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=155&page_number=1

same track, same day.

boxter s - 2:17.46
s2000 - 2:17.66

yeah that is fast enough to take out a base boxster. i also have a few videos were the s2k just decimates the boxster so bad its not even funny. if the s2k is driven right the boxster is no match for it, the boxster s is very close in comparison. do not underestimate the s2k, even if it is just a honda.

http://roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=155&page_number=1

same track, same day.

boxter s - 2:17.46
s2000 - 2:17.66

yeah that is fast enough to take out a base boxster. i also have a few videos were the s2k just decimates the boxster so bad its not even funny. if the s2k is driven right the boxster is no match for it, the boxster s is very close in comparison. do not underestimate the s2k, even if it is just a honda.

Realize that not all comparision will result in the same favor. I wouldn't say that a boxster is no comparision for an S2000. Like I posted before, the Boxster beat an S2000. This video was actually posted in an S2000 forum. Both cars have potential.

I would never underestimate an S2000, trust me.

i wonder how the 2.2 liter s2000 would do against the boxter s.

Being that my username on these boards is what it is, people will look at me with the automatic thought of "biased". Well, not so much.

These two cars are far more different than one might assume. Being that they ARE so different (even though yes, they are both roadsters) this makes the decision of which one a much easier one. Drive them both. That is all you need. This is all a matter of personal taste (duh) and driving them both I believe would secure the would-be buyer a definite hold on which one.

The Boxster, in comparison to the S2k, is a much more "sophisticated" automobile IMO with its elegant styling and classic porsche interior design. 200 horses, not as much as the S2k, but those are PORSCHE horses!!! It also has heated seats and a better stereo, yes.

Here's the thing the either gives someone the thumbs up or down about the S2000: 9000rpm redline. Sounds cool to me, but not for everyone. Stereo sucks, back end IS twitchy Jimster (fixed for 04) ...if you WANT it fixed, no nav, no heated seats, barely any interior space, And it has digital instead of analog guages.

Now, those of you reading this: think about these things and about what a Boxser and an S2000 mean to you overall. Very different, yes? So why is there even a question? Neither is better, just one is more of an "Enthusiast" car and one is more of a "GT" car. If someone has ANYTHING specific as to what he/she wants in a car then after a couple test drives the decision is DONE.

side note: Jimster- I'd like to see you stray away from posts concerning Euro cars of any sort. You say that you aren't biased, but c'mon...you don't fool ANYONE. (except your loyal band of "e-thugs")

The last bit confused me, credit where credit is due- I am not biased in any way towards anything- I like a lot of things from Japan and Europe, why? Because individually most cars in those regions are of the finest quality of engineering and refinement.

I like most cars from Honda (even the Civic), Subaru and Mazda- while I like sporty Toyotas and Nissans as well (But aside from the Evo and Eclipse GSX can't stand Bitsofshittys)- don't like Suzuki or Daihatsu (But who, under 70 does)

Guess you haven't seen me protecting Jap cars from idiots who come on going "ricas r sucky y0 i h8 japanese cars auw"

Being that my username on these boards is what it is, people will look at me with the automatic thought of "biased". Well, not so much.

These two cars are far more different than one might assume. Being that they ARE so different (even though yes, they are both roadsters) this makes the decision of which one a much easier one. Drive them both. That is all you need. This is all a matter of personal taste (duh) and driving them both I believe would secure the would-be buyer a definite hold on which one.

The Boxster, in comparison to the S2k, is a much more "sophisticated" automobile IMO with its elegant styling and classic porsche interior design. 200 horses, not as much as the S2k, but those are PORSCHE horses!!! It also has heated seats and a better stereo, yes.

Here's the thing the either gives someone the thumbs up or down about the S2000: 9000rpm redline. Sounds cool to me, but not for everyone. Stereo sucks, back end IS twitchy Jimster (fixed for 04) ...if you WANT it fixed, no nav, no heated seats, barely any interior space, And it has digital instead of analog guages.

Now, those of you reading this: think about these things and about what a Boxser and an S2000 mean to you overall. Very different, yes? So why is there even a question? Neither is better, just one is more of an "Enthusiast" car and one is more of a "GT" car. If someone has ANYTHING specific as to what he/she wants in a car then after a couple test drives the decision is DONE.

That was all very reasoned until you stated that one is more of an enthusiast's car than the other, which is a ridiculous thing to say if im correct in my assumption that you're referring to the Boxster as a GT.


side note: Jimster- I'd like to see you stray away from posts concerning Euro cars of any sort. You say that you aren't biased, but c'mon...you don't fool ANYONE. (except your loyal band of "e-thugs")
that's some request!!

let's just stay on the cars please :)

i agree with what s2k saids, that a test drive should give you a realistic choice. even if you like the boxter cause of the way it looks, or cause you like its torque numbers better, you could change your mind after a test drive, the same goes for the s2000.

Noone has mentioned the UK Top Gear survey, released just before xmas. This is a poll of UK viewers of the most widely viewed car releated TV show. The survey was quite detailed and covered stuff like reliability, cost of ownership and how much fun they are.

http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/survey_2003/02/

In sort, the S2000 was in 4th and the Porsche Boxster was in 20th (out of 137)

Oh and for those of you who are obsessed with "German Reliability", there are no less than 3 Mercedes in the bottom 11 cars!

Daern (S2000 owner)

S2k's are undoubtedly extremely reliable... didnt Clarkson once comment that VTEC engines have never (ever) failed? :thumbsup:

and ps. the boxster didnt exactly score too shabbily :)

Noone has mentioned the UK Top Gear survey, released just before xmas. This is a poll of UK viewers of the most widely viewed car releated TV show. The survey was quite detailed and covered stuff like reliability, cost of ownership and how much fun they are.

http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/survey_2003/02/

In sort, the S2000 was in 4th and the Porsche Boxster was in 20th (out of 137)

Oh and for those of you who are obsessed with "German Reliability", there are no less than 3 Mercedes in the bottom 11 cars!

Daern (S2000 owner)
Merc M Class- designed and built in Alabahma (sp)

Mercedes A Class- cheap piece of crap, extremely rushed, dash quality is shocking

and the VW Sharan is Portugese, before you start.

W203 C Class- a surprise, I'd be interested to know what went wrong.

Hondas are reliable, so are Porsche, you'd be a fool not to think that either one wasn't, but the Boxster has the more usable power band and when driving sedately, that's what matters and it's a comfy number

S2k's are undoubtedly extremely reliable... didnt Clarkson once comment that VTEC engines have never (ever) failed? :thumbsup:

Bit of a mis-quote there! Even Honda wouldn't claim that their engines are 100% reliable. What they actually claim is that the V-TEC system with most of their engines has never, in itself, failed.

Still, I don't think that anyone could argue against japanese cars being more reliable, whatever else you might think of them.

Never driven a Boxster myself, so can't comment on performance / handling, but I personally like to drive a car where I can tell what direction it's travelling in ;)

Bit of a mis-quote there! Even Honda wouldn't claim that their engines are 100% reliable. What they actually claim is that the V-TEC system with most of their engines has never, in itself, failed.

That's what i meant, it was poorly phrased.. trust me i wasnt under the illusion that Honda engines never break down :)

as for the looks, i personally think the Boxtser's a (much) better looking car... but hey, thats subjective

Bit of a mis-quote there! Even Honda wouldn't claim that their engines are 100% reliable. What they actually claim is that the V-TEC system with most of their engines has never, in itself, failed.

Still, I don't think that anyone could argue against japanese cars being more reliable, whatever else you might think of them.

Never driven a Boxster myself, so can't comment on performance / handling, but I personally like to drive a car where I can tell what direction it's travelling in ;)
The Japanese and German manufacturers usually have a reliability advantage over thier Continental-Euope counter parts, but the gap is reasonably well closed

But I think the statement still stands, any car, that you can buy off the showroom floor, will get you to a trouble-free 150,000Km's if maintained properly. The most you will get is Electrical niggles and the odd Engine hiccup (Usually minor)

I've recently seen a porsche boxster and an s2000 competing against each other in an autocross event. All cars were stock and i have to say the s2000's decimated the boxsters and left them in the dust. The s2000 has superior handling, performance, looks (in my opinion) and affordability compared to the boxster. S2000 is also much cheaper to maintain and as such i'm guessing performance mods would also be cheaper and more common than those for a boxster.

I would definetely go for the S2000 no doubt about it.

I've recently seen a porsche boxster and an s2000 competing against each other in an autocross event. All cars were stock and i have to say the s2000's decimated the boxsters and left them in the dust. The s2000 has superior handling, performance, looks (in my opinion) and affordability compared to the boxster. S2000 is also much cheaper to maintain and as such i'm guessing performance mods would also be cheaper and more common than those for a boxster.

I would definetely go for the S2000 no doubt about it.
Ever thought that it could come down to the drivers???? Performance numbers for the Boxster 2.7 and S2000 are similar and torque is more favourable for a Boxster. A stock S2000 has a snappy chassis that will get away on an unaware driver very easily, while the Boxster is more controlled, so I find it hard to believe that a Boxster would get decimated by a stock S2000, around an AutoX track, beaten mildly, yes, but not decimated. It can only come down to drivers IMHO.


The new S2000 is more than likely to be a Boxster killer, but Honda isn't gracing us with its presence.

id say the boxster s is more similar in performance with the s2000, not the regular 2.7l boxster. the s2000 pretty much kills the regular boxster on the track.

Ever thought that it could come down to the drivers???? Performance numbers for the Boxster 2.7 and S2000 are similar and torque is more favourable for a Boxster. A stock S2000 has a snappy chassis that will get away on an unaware driver very easily, while the Boxster is more controlled, so I find it hard to believe that a Boxster would get decimated by a stock S2000, around an AutoX track, beaten mildly, yes, but not decimated. It can only come down to drivers IMHO.


The new S2000 is more than likely to be a Boxster killer, but Honda isn't gracing us with its presence.


you are right...autox is 90% driver....i just love when some of the older experienced guys just bring some pos cars and put up some insane times

and another this is the layout of the course...throw some hairpins back to back and the s2000 will be so far down in its powerband it will take eons to get it back up (i hate it when it that happens to me too)...however in high speed sweeps they will do very good

well yes i would agree that its the driver. There were 2 s2000's and they both got times of around 6 seconds between them and the porsche boxster. I agree it probably had a lot to do with driver skill. Yes I admit, i don't know how it would've been in a straight line race. I still stick by my opinion though that the s2000 is a better car and is easier to modify. But, thats only my personal opinion.

Ever thought that it could come down to the drivers???? Performance numbers for the Boxster 2.7 and S2000 are similar and torque is more favourable for a Boxster. A stock S2000 has a snappy chassis that will get away on an unaware driver very easily, while the Boxster is more controlled, so I find it hard to believe that a Boxster would get decimated by a stock S2000, around an AutoX track, beaten mildly, yes, but not decimated. It can only come down to drivers IMHO.


The new S2000 is more than likely to be a Boxster killer, but Honda isn't gracing us with its presence.


Performance numbers for the 2.7 Boxster and S2000 aren't really similar.

i would take the s2k. sure people complain about its chasis. sure they complain about its crappy powerband. and some complain about its gauges. but one thing i know is my friends and i never fail to gawk at a s2k driving by and we never even notice boxters. i can overlook its slight lacking in the performance category cause its just one of the cleanest looking cars ever.

and the new 2004 model which has geared down the s2k to produce better midrange torque so to hell wit the boxter

my .02

S2000 is the better choice by far over the Boxster cause the only Porsche's i think are worth getting is the 911's or 996's.

Only exotics i'd get are Ferrari, Beamers, and maybe Benz.

Porsche Boxster < Honda S2000

that would be pretty tough, but i would go with the porsche, they are roughly the same in performance, but i would rather say "i own a porsche" than "i got a honda". but thats just me

that would be pretty tough, but i would go with the porsche, they are roughly the same in performance, but i would rather say "i own a porsche" than "i got a honda". but thats just me

All things being equal, I'd rather say "I own an S2000" rather than "I own a Porsche"... :iceslolan

For many years I was the European guy when it came to choices for cars. But after my A4 died a mysterious death, after thousands of dollars of maintenance fees (mind you: these are regular wear-and-tear fees, not repairs from abuse...) I've had it with VW/Audi engines.

After my Audi, I bought an RSX type S and loved the feel and fit and finish of that car. Since then I have new found admiration for Hondas...

S2000 is the better choice by far over the Boxster cause the only Porsche's i think are worth getting is the 911's or 996's.

Only exotics i'd get are Ferrari, Beamers, and maybe Benz.

Porsche Boxster < Honda S2000
Dude, a 996 IS a 911 :huh:

Great thread.

I'm thinking of getting one of those two cars at the moment. To be honest I hadn't considered the S2000 till in won the TopGear customer satisfaction poll (Boxsters came about 17th I think). The new Boxster out this month should have an identical 0-100km/h times of 6.2s and the top speed is stated as 159 mph. The new Boxster would cost about 36000GBP for just leather (in spec colour), metallic paint, wind deflector and Bose Surround sound speaker system.

It sounds like they're quite different cars. One's kinda for people who want to be street racer types (requires high revs to perform and easily modifiable) and the others more laid back (the girlfriend of someone who owns a Boxster said the Boxster owner preferred her MG as the Boxster feels too 'safe'). I'd be curious what people think of the depreciation of the cars as the original poster suggested a Boxster 2 years older and with substantially greater mileage has an equal resell value.

Also was my impression on the two cars correct (having never actually test driven either the new Boxster or S2000)?

Thanks for posting and welcome to AF. I'm afraid i have to close this thread as it's a bit of an oldie, but feel free to start a new thread regarding the new Boxster and compare that to whatever you like.

Oh, and short answer to your question. The first generation Boxster was (i think) the least depreciating car in the UK. Made it almost pointless to buy one second-hand unless it was 5 - 6 years old...