S2000 Vs. Porsche Boxter

[crayzayjay]

Originally Posted by Mr Payne

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.

[Mr Payne]

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/au...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/longte...111ec_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?

[Mr Payne]

Originally Posted by Jimster

As for tuning kits for the Boxster.........Are you stupid??? Or simply ignorant 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.

[Jimster]

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.

[crayzayjay]

Originally Posted by Mr Payne

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/au...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/longte...111ec_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...

[Jimster]

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

[crayzayjay]

can't find it anywhere

[Mr Payne]

Originally Posted by crayzayjay

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?

[crayzayjay]

Originally Posted by Mr Payne

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?

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.

[Mr Payne]

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.

[Kurtdg19]

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?

[fd3s drift]

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?...&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.

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by fd3s drift

http://roadandtrack.com/article.asp?...&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.

[OoNismoO]

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

[S2kStu]

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")