Boxster

What does everybody think about it? I don't like it that much cause it is kind of slow but it did the job for porsche to keep them alive.

I love the boxter, but you are right about its performance, they need to spice it up a little more, even more than the boxter S. but its a fun car.

I'd like to see a Porsche Boxster Turbo with a 350 or so Horsepower Biturbo Flat-6 and those sweet PCCB brakes all for about 70K. Now that would sell!

Yeah, that would definitely sell. But, it might interfere with sales of the 911. Remember, the Boxter is supposed to be an entry level Porsche, not their flagship. The boxster S is great, and the styling, I like....but I don't think that a Turbo Boxster, no matter how cool it would be, would only be a good thing in limited numbers.

That being said, I'm no marketing exec...hell, I'm not even a business major.

I'd be impressed if they could make it a hard-top convertible. If performance is already lagging, then no one wil notice a little more weight.

My biggest complaint about Porsche (as well as many other companies, for example Ligenfelter's shop) is the huge price increases that accompany power upgrades like turbos. $70K for that Boxster you described, Porsche? Outrageous!
That should be.. maybe $10K over the base Boxster price, $12K tops.

Maybe I've just been in the Honda world too long, where power upgrades can be had very cheap in relation to these kinds of prices. Do they spend these huge amounts of cash on R & D with these projects, or are they just taking people for a ride in order to get more power, perhaps because they just don't know how much more cheaply they could do it if they did it themselves?

A good example to use here is the new 911 GT2. Here, Porsche has taken a 911 Turbo, changed a few items (fixed rear wing, eliminated the AWD, the traction control system, and other driving control systems), and makes 41 more hp and 42 more lb-ft of torque by bumping boost from the twin turbos from 12.1 psi max boost to 14.3 psi.. and for these changes, they charge about $70K more than the 911 Turbo. Anyone else have a problem with this? Seriously, this is highway robbery in my book. They should be charging less, as they are eliminating the AWD and other sophisticated control systems, making minor changes to the turbos (that in custom systems can be done by simply changing the waste gate settings!!), and adding louder exhausts with a big rear wing. Big deal! Well, that's enough out of me.

Yeah, maybe less than 70K more like 59K or soemthing. Porsche tends to do that however, You hit the nail on the head with the Gt2, performance is only slightly increased and the price gained quite some weight, $180,000 United States Dollars. It's mostly casue people WILL pay that for a GT2. They also don't mass produce them.

I Was disapointed by the new Boxter 2,7, I think it wasn't such a great improvement. Plus, the setting of the seat is manual, even my 15 years old 944 is electrical. The perfect driving position was almost impossible to find! Compromise, compromise...

I thought the Boxster S offer more power ? and I also heard somewhere that they are plannign to put the 911 engine to the boxster to compete with those roadster form Mercedes ?

But hey, Boxster got to be the beter looking car from Porsche, and with nice car like this, you got to be slowing down so people can see the car

Originally posted by punk_911
I thought the Boxster S offer more power ? and I also heard somewhere that they are plannign to put the 911 engine to the boxster to compete with those roadster form Mercedes ?

But hey, Boxster got to be the beter looking car from Porsche, and with nice car like this, you got to be slowing down so people can see the car

What roadster???

I assume punk_911's referring to the SLK series Mercedes Benz.

A boxster will take it easy.

the SLK isn't better than a boxster!
the boxster S kills an SLK, the boxster S can take most roadsters out there, like M roadster, audi TT, S2000

I'm inclined to agree with you guys. There are few roadsters that can hold a candle to the Boxster S. The M Roadster has more power, and a Corvette convertible would take it, but not even the S2000 can match its performance. The SLK is really aimed at a different marketing group. Though I guess they are still competitors.

the SLK is for the preppy rich girls

ummm, not that i know any ;)

Originally posted by JD@af
I'm inclined to agree with you guys. There are few roadsters that can hold a candle to the Boxster S. The M Roadster has more power, and a Corvette convertible would take it, but not even the S2000 can match its performance. The SLK is really aimed at a different marketing group. Though I guess they are still competitors.

Yea they look good I know a few. :)

Originally posted by gang$tarr
the SLK is for the preppy rich girls

ummm, not that i know any ;)

seb, did you mean to quote this?

I think the price of the GT2 can be fully justified when you compare it to a 550 Maranello, which it will beat for speed yet still undercuts $ wise.
Besides a lot is invested into these cars, and not many are built, so if people want to stand out that little bit more they pay it anyway. Whether they're getting an extra $70k's worth is debatable, but remember this is a hell of a fast car that will almost match the acceleration of the McLaren F1, which costs £600k over here in the UK, now probably more as they are no longer being made.

cheers
jay

As for a "hot" boxster, there were rumours that Porsche were going to build one that develops circa 320bhp.
I think they probably will, though it will be expensive and as Porsche fear I am sure it will step on Big Brother's toes in terms of performance.
Nevertheless, someone in the market for a 911 will still buy a 911 regardless of the Boxster, and those looking for a fast, entertaining car will go for the Boxster rather than the 996 which has become a GT rather than an all-out sports car. I think Porsche owe it to their fans to produce this 320bhp Porsche; they certainly need to come out with a rough-neck race car as the 996, 996 Turbo and 996 GT2 have disappointed petrolheads and journalists alike, who describe them as too soft compared to what they should be.
So come on Porsche, give us a full-time production 996RS with the same power as the GT3 but less weight (how amazing would that car be!) and a 300+bhp Boxster!!
maybe if i send them 50 letters every day and annoy them enough with phone calls they'll do it..:D :D

cheers
jay

i would rather get a 911 over a boxster... even if the power & price range is the same.... just cause it's a 911, not an affordable boxster :D :D

Though i prefer the 996's styling to the Boxster, if i had a choice of driving either with the same powerplant (320bhp), i would have to take the Boxster as it's the much more engaging vehicle.
if however you were to put a 320bhp air-cooled flat 6 into a 993 (best looking 911 ever) or 964, that would be my easy favourite!!

cheers
jay

Boxster is fun to drive.

You guys can refer to the article in Car and Driver Magazine which compared the Boxster S to the Audi TT (225 BHP) BMW M Roadster and Benz SLK320. As you guys predicted, the BoxS beat out the field with the only complaint being its relatively cheap looking interior. Second was the BMW M Roadster (which is, come on you have to admit it, a really ugly car) which was praised for its "heroic thrust." Third was the SLK320. Although they praised it for its improvements over the years, they still would not classify it as a sportscar, given its acceleration and handling behavior. A distant fourth was the Audi TT, which among other things had poor handling and a leaky convertible top.

Although I dislike some parts of the Porsche Boxster (interior, similarity to the Carrera, and unforgiving clutch) Porsche has built a perfect sportscar for the <50K sportscar/cruiser niche.

it sounds nice too :)

the boxster in my mind is the best porsche ever made.

Originally posted by cars_rule
the boxster in my mind is the best porsche ever made.

you must be joking..... it's totally underpowerd, it's real slow

so you'd take a Porsche Boxster over a Porsche 959???

Originally posted by gang$tarr


you must be joking..... it's totally underpowerd, it's real slow

so you'd take a Porsche Boxster over a Porsche 959??? yes definatly i love the boxster it rulez the only porsche close to it is the 996.

Originally posted by cars_rule
yes definatly i love the boxster it rulez the only porsche close to it is the 996.

haahah you gotta be kidding me.... the 959 is the greatest porsche ever made IMO.... it's a Ferrari F-40 competitor

let's see:

Boxster

Flat-6
201hp
181 ft/lbs
0-60: mid 6s (5-spd)
top speed: 150mph
1/4 mile: high 14s

959

Twin-Turbo Flat-6
450hp
370 ft/lbs
0-60: 4s
1/4 mile: mid 12s
Top Speed: 195mph


and the 959 wasn't even designed to be a quick accelerating car, it was built for all around track and handling.... it's probably the most important car porsche has ever made

Originally posted by gang$tarr


haahah you gotta be kidding me.... the 959 is the greatest porsche ever made IMO.... it's a Ferrari F-40 competitor

let's see:

Boxster

Flat-6
201hp
181 ft/lbs
0-60: mid 6s (5-spd)
top speed: 150mph
1/4 mile: high 14s

959

Twin-Turbo Flat-6
450hp
370 ft/lbs
0-60: 4s
1/4 mile: mid 12s
Top Speed: 195mph


and the 959 wasn't even designed to be a quick accelerating car, it was built for all around track and handling.... it's probably the most important car porsche has ever made we all have different opinons dont we.

who cares about performance figures??????
stats dont make a great car!!!!!! just because a certain car would annihilate another on a straight road or even around a track it doesnt mean its a better car!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

and the 959 wasn't even designed to be a quick accelerating car, it was built for all around track and handling.... it's probably the most important car porsche has ever made

what??????? so why did they give it so much power throughout the range if it wasnt made for quick acceleration???

besides neither of these are the greatest porsche of all time....
step forward 2.7RS, 964RS, 996GT3, 993GT2.... the list is endless.
there is no doubt how important the 959 was to porsche and what an achievement it was but it is not the greatest.

if i see one more set of figures used to compare two cars i'll kill myself!!

You don't think the 959 handles well :eek: :eek: :eek: everything i've read about it has said that the handling is incredible! It was designed to be a good handler and track car as a first priority, not acceleration and top speed.... sure those are important but that's not what they were concentrating on the most

When did i say it didn't handle? Don't put words in my mouth. All i objected to was you saying it wasnt made for rapid acceleration and speed.

If anything, your statement applied a million times more to the Boxster. That's why it's mid-engined (like a pure sports car, perfect balance), and had only 204BHP for the first few years. The desired (and achieved) result: fast car, truly outstanding handling

as for the 959, it was designed to break records. Yes, it was made for grip and handling, but i think the emphasis was just as much on how fast it went.

cheers
jay

huh :huh: that's weird? for some reason i thought you said it didn't handle that good..... i dunno why, sorry
maybe it's cause you said that just because a car can annihilate another car in a straight doesn't mean it better

all i'm saying is it could have been much faster but they were mainly concentrating on an all around track car with REALLY good handling.... not to be the fastest accelerating car

obviously they're still gunna make it fast, not like they're gunna make an amazing handling 0-60 in 12s car.... it was meant to compete with the Ferrari F40

all i'm saying is it could have been much faster but they were mainly concentrating on an all around track car with REALLY good handling.... not to be the fastest accelerating car

you think it could have been much faster? does 0-60 in 4 seconds and 200mph seem slow to you?? forget now, how about in 1987????
the car was made to go fast AND handle superbly, which it did.

it was meant to compete with the Ferrari F40
quite the opposite... ferrari built the F40 so that they wouldnt be upstaged by porsche and the 959. it was a knee-jerk reaction. they missed the point and went for top speed, which was slightly higher than that of a 959, but that wasnt the issue. the 959 was an insight into the future and stunned the automotive world. the ferrari stunned it, but for different reasons. both great cars, couldnt be more different.

cheers
jay

Originally posted by crayzayjay


you think it could have been much faster? does 0-60 in 4 seconds and 200mph seem slow to you?? forget now, how about in 1987????
the car was made to go fast AND handle superbly, which it did.


quite the opposite... ferrari built the F40 so that they wouldnt be upstaged by porsche and the 959. it was a knee-jerk reaction. they missed the point and went for top speed, which was slightly higher than that of a 959, but that wasnt the issue. the 959 was an insight into the future and stunned the automotive world. the ferrari stunned it, but for different reasons. both great cars, couldnt be more different.

cheers
jay

uh yes they could have it faster... did i ever say that was slow?!?! :confused:

and i said it was meant to compete with the F40...... so are you saying that it didn't compete with the F40? cause it sure as hell did

you're totally missing the point...
you didnt say it was slow, but you said it could have been faster, whereas the truth of it is that those performance figures were unbelievable at the time, so no, it couldnt have been faster.

AND NO, IT WASNT MEANT TO COMPETE WITH THE F40. that they did compete is a different story. the 959 had no rivals when it was being conceived. it was being planned before the F40 even existed in anyone's mind so no, it wasnt meant to compete with anyone, it was meant to blow everyone's socks off, which it did. the F40 was ferrari's knee jerk reaction so as not to get left behind. the F40 was built to compete with the 959, not the other way around. can you make the distinction or not yet?

cheers
jay

when i say it's meant to compete with the F40
all i meant was that it competes with the F40... not that it was built to compete with it. just that it DID compete

well, there is a difference between the two. after all, we were talking about the objectives intended for the car so the way you wrote it strongly suggested that it was built in the intention of competing with the F40, which as we ve clarified is the opposite of the truth.

cheers
jay

I have a new soft top that I bought for my 97 right before I was to have it installed, the car was stolen!
I need to sell it soon. I have no use for it!
Contact me at drochester@classicbmw.com:rolleyes:

Hey people. I was just wondering what you guys think the average imcome of a person who owns a Boxster would be? I would like to have a Porsche, but never looked at one because there really expensive. I'm in college and work at a clothing store??? Think I could afford one?

No. Unless you pay in installements over the next couple of decades...just wait until your out of college and got a proper job...or ask your dad...

Who the hell is Big L? For that matter, who gives a shit? You can have all the thickest chicks you want boy! Keeps um outa my way! Hey gang$star, get a muthafuckin life! Loser! I swear to god, if these n****r's would get a descent education we wouldn't have this shit! Are Ya Wit Dat Yo!

Who the hell is Big L? For that matter, who gives a shit? You can have all the thickest chicks you want boy! Keeps um outa my way! Hey gang$star, get a muthafuckin life! Loser! I swear to god, if these n****r's would get a descent education we wouldn't have this shit! Are Ya Wit Dat Yo!
You're the one in need of a decent education. Moron.

Banned

In my opinion, Porsche has really hit a low lately. I do like the Boxter, and it would be one of my favorite cars, IF THE 911 HAD NEVER EXISTED.
Maybe its just somthing that i have noticed, but most Boxter owners will tell you why they bought a Boxter rather than a 911 without you even asking! And theres all this rubish about the Boxter being a nicer drive, and nicer looking when really its all rubish. The only reason is, that they cant afford a new 911!
The Cayenne! Whats that all about!
And FYI, I have seen a Honda S2000 chew a 2.7 Boxter up and spit it out. And i know for a fact that Audi's TT 3.2 DSG V6 can do the same to the Boxter S. They really arn't all that they are cracked up to be. The only reason they sell is on the strength of the bonnet badge, and the marques succsess with the iconic 911.
The 911 will always be the best. A car that can rival a Ferrari for 40K less is a cheap supercar! theres no denying that. The fact that the Boxter is supposed to be an "Affordable Porsche" just exentuates its crappyness.
Porsch cant up the power, because that would be to close to the 911 for comfort. It has looked into a 911 style Boxter Coupe, which would be a dreadful failure as it would turn it 911 fans away for good, and it cant sell them for any less than it does now. As far as i'm concerned, the Boxter is a dead end car! The sooner it is dropped, the better.
It may be a good car, but its not a good Porsche.

Sure, one of the finest handling mid-engined sports cars in existence should be dropped. :rolleyes:

Im just about had enough of this. Yes, people buy Boxsters because they can't afford a 911. So what? People buy Imprezas because they cant afford a 996TT, does that make them bad cars? Drive a Boxster, then tell me it's crap. People who dont appreciate Boxsters are:
a) stupid
b) straight line freaks (which actually also qualifies under a)

Sure, one of the finest handling mid-engined sports cars in existence should be dropped. :rolleyes:

Im just about had enough of this. Yes, people buy Boxsters because they can't afford a 911. So what? People buy Imprezas because they cant afford a 996TT, does that make them bad cars? Drive a Boxster, then tell me it's crap. People who dont appreciate Boxsters are:
a) stupid
b) straight line freaks (which actually also qualifies under a)

Ok, lets clear this up, I'm not sure if you have ever heard of a Lotus Elise, but if your into handling, you should have! Its a small, mid-engine, rwd car, and the most expensive version, is still £2000 cheaper than a bog standard Boxter 2.7. The cheapest version, the 1.8 will get to 62 in 5.7 secs, but for £15k more, you’d rather buy an ugly, overweight, over priced Boxter 3.2 S that can do the same. Needless to say, the Elise 1.8 WTL-i 111R will do 0-62 in 4.9 seconds, and still returns a mpg of 32! These are figures that the Boxter has never even heard of.

So, if were into listing:

a) I have driven a friends Boxter 3.2 S, but at that point I had been driving my 996 Turbo coupe for 4 months when i was offered the chance of a drive in a Boxter. It was crap.

b) It was the first time I have ever driven a Boxter, which for someone that has owned 12 other Porsches, you might find unusual! I am what is known as a long term 911 fan, and with the experience that I have had with Porsche, I can tell you with confidence, that it is rubbish!

c) There are loads of cars out there that can crush a Boxter in more than one field! If you think that it is one of the best cars in the world, then you my friend need to get out more.

d) There’s no such word as “engined” and do you know of an apostrophe? Oh, sorry, I forgot, I’m stupid…

…And finally:

e) I'm not disputing that the Boxter can handle. But that’s about all it can do, and for the record, I watched the S2000 paste the Boxter at Castle Combe race way. LOOK IT UP, AND THEN YOU CAN TALK ABOUT STRAIGHT LINES, AND THE "SUPERB" HANDELING CAPABILITIES OF THE "BEST" MID-ENGINED CAR IN THE WORLD!!!

Ok, lets clear this up, I'm not sure if you have ever heard of a Lotus Elise, but if your into handling, you should have! Its a small, mid-engine, rwd car, and the most expensive version, is still £2000 cheaper than a bog standard Boxter 2.7. The cheapest version, the 1.8 will get to 62 in 5.7 secs, but for £15k more, you’d rather buy an ugly, overweight, over priced Boxter 3.2 S that can do the same. Needless to say, the Elise 1.8 WTL-i 111R will do 0-62 in 4.9 seconds, and still returns a mpg of 32! These are figures that the Boxter has never even heard of.

Yes, of course i know of Elises, but the concept is somewhat different to that of a Boxster, i.e. completely stripped out, and aimed at a different market. An Elise can't really be used as an every day car, the Boxster can.

a) I have driven a friends Boxter 3.2 S, but at that point I had been driving my 996 Turbo coupe for 4 months when i was offered the chance of a drive in a Boxter. It was crap.

Sure, you must like to squeeze the throttle on your Turbo and watch the world fly by. Cheap thrills. A Boxster S is a better driver's car than the 996 Turbo, which takes care of everything for you when you run out of talent. The 996TT is a great car, but you sound like another 911 snob to me.

I am what is known as a long term 911 fan, and with the experience that I have had with Porsche, I can tell you with confidence, that it is rubbish!

Like i said, 911 snob. It's my favourite car, but the fact you drive a Turbo shows you didnt even pick the right model. Sad, for someone who thinks he knows cars :thumbsdow

c) There are loads of cars out there that can crush a Boxter in more than one field! If you think that it is one of the best cars in the world, then you my friend need to get out more.

In terms of handling, yes. Let me guess, your understeering Turbo handles better, right? :rolleyes:
And besides, the Boxster can teach many supercars twice its price a thing or two about chassis set-up, steering feel...

d) There’s no such word as “engined” and do you know of an apostrophe? Oh, sorry, I forgot, I’m stupid…

If this is the kind of exchange you're interested in, yes, you are stupid. 'Mid-engined', 'rear-engined', 'front-engined'. Those are all correct terms. If you knew anything about cars you would have heard these terms. By the way, your 996 Turbo falls under the rear-engined category.
And it's spelt Boxster not Boxter. If you're going to be so anal about things, i should point out that "returns a mpg of 32" isnt the most correct english ive ever seen either. "Returns 32 miles to the gallon" is more correct. Feel free to take notes, i dont usually educate for free.

e) I'm not disputing that the Boxter can handle. But that’s about all it can do, and for the record, I watched the S2000 paste the Boxter at Castle Combe race way. LOOK IT UP, AND THEN YOU CAN TALK ABOUT STRAIGHT LINES, AND THE "SUPERB" HANDELING CAPABILITIES OF THE "BEST" MID-ENGINED CAR IN THE WORLD!!!
A Boxster S has 260bhp and handles as well as anything out there. That's a pretty appealing formula to me. But like i said, stick to your straight line kicks and AWD that makes corners easy. Not everyone knows how to drive. And as for the S2k, the original model didnt have the best chassis in the business, the new one is said to be a big improvement. The point is different drivers achieve different lap times. And i couldnt care which one's quicker around a track. The S2k would have been packing an extra 30-40bhp anyway over a standard Boxster.

And oh yeah, it's handling not handeling. Retard.

And i thought there was no such word as mid-engined. You used it in your last line. The word retard springs to mind, yet again.

This thread's been around long enough, you havent brought anything of value into it, i think we'll call it a day.