Boxster - Page 3

gang$tarr · #31 12-10-2001, 05:37 PM

You don't think the 959 handles well

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

crayzayjay · #32 12-11-2001, 01:42 PM

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

gang$tarr · #33 12-12-2001, 04:13 PM

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

crayzayjay · #34 12-12-2001, 07:46 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

gang$tarr · #35 12-12-2001, 08:04 PM

Quote:

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?!?!

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

crayzayjay · #36 12-15-2001, 12:17 PM

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

gang$tarr · #37 12-15-2001, 03:23 PM

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

crayzayjay · #38 12-16-2001, 07:27 PM

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

rhodie · #39 04-30-2002, 01:26 PM

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 [email protected]

college_cars · #40 08-14-2003, 11:20 PM

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?

sprokett · #41 02-04-2004, 01:01 PM

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...

hogandawg · #42 03-31-2004, 01:31 PM

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!

crayzayjay · #43 04-02-2004, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hogandawg

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

ell_d · #44 04-13-2004, 05:06 PM

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.

crayzayjay · #45 04-13-2004, 07:06 PM

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

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)

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD