[Trade911forBoxster]

I still have my 06 S2000 (bought new) and My 03 Boxster S. I sold a really fantastic air cooled 911 to get the Box, back in December.

1. The S2000 has a much better shifter than the Box, and a bit more steering feel. Turn in is definitely sharper. On the other hand, it has far less torque, and a much more brittle (and brutal) ride. I don't know how much it costs to service one, because the thing has never failed in any way. The S2000 may look "girly" to some, but a Boxster rides like a Jaguar sedan by comparison to an S2000, has better HVAC, etc., making it feel much more luxurious. Although there's less interior volume in an S2000, I find its seats a bit less confining across my lower back than the ones in the Boxster. But other than that, the Boxster gets the comfort award from all women who have ridden in both.

Also, there was never an automatic S2000, which removes it from the chick car category to some extent.

I lived in Japan for 3 years, and became friends with a senior Honda powerplant engineer who had worked on the Honda F1 team. He said they put everything they knew into the S2000. It was intended to be nothing more than a limited edition, pure sports car to celebrate their 50th anniversay, and they never expected it to be popular. Kind of like their original S600, only on a catastrophic 'roid rage. He said they lose money on those cars, particularly because of the work they put into the drivetrain. They use the same tolerances and quality control procedures building an S2000 engine that they do for their F1 engines. Even the NSX doesn't come close to that level of attention to detail. If only they'd made it a straight 6...

2. I'm really surprised that some of you have had such negative eperiences with the Solstice. I never drove one, but I did look at them. In terms of panel fit, and other visible indicators of quality, they're in a whole different universe than the bad old Pontiacs. I'm no fan of 4 cylinder buzziness (which is why I'm selling the S2000 a little later in the spring), but by all accounts they don't perform that badly, esp. the supercharged one. I think they look pretty good really, with none of the typical Pontiac scoops and geegaws. Useless trunk though.

3. I actually had an 86 Fiero GT in the early 90s. The worst thing about it was unreliability. I went through 3 A/C compressors one summer, the shift cables failed while my wife was driving in heavy traffic one day, and one time a piece of the catalytic converter detached inside, making a horrible racket until it was replaced. It had 20,000 miles on it when I bought it, and I sold it before it had 26,000 because it was eating me alive in repair expenses. But it had a lot of grip, and decent power, for an 80s car. Considering the origins of the drivetrain (the GM X cars), I thought they did a remarkable job of converting it into something fun to drive. Its balance was surprisingly good, and I never got the feeling that it would be scary at the limit. Relatively good ride too. Hideous, idiotic rear spoiler on it.

4. I've had a lot of BMWs, and I really wanted to like the Z3 and the Z4, but I didn't enjoy the way either of them drove. The Z3 was ok, but seemed to be more expensive than it should have been for what it was. A Boxster apperaed to be a better deal for the money to me, as it handled better, had a more comfortable ride and cabin, and better carrying capacity. The Z4 is certainly a better distance cruiser in every way than the Z3, but I really don't like the way it handles. It feels like the front roll center is excessively high for a performance car, and there's something very strange about the steering feel that I can't quite put my finger on. That includes the "S" model, which I drove shortly before buying the Boxster. The Z4 definitely has a better interior than the Boxster. The design is fresher, and the materials are drastically better. It just isn't that great of a sports car.

5. The Boxster is excellent, but suffers in comparison to my old 911 in a few ways. Good 3.2 Carrera engines seem almost indestructable. Mine had 107k on it when I sold, had never been apart, and still had excellent compression. People run those engines for 3 or 4 100k miles all the time. I don't get the feeling my Boxster will last that long. The 911 also had the best seats I've ever had in any car. It had more steering feel than the Boxster too. Of course, it had incredibly bad ergonomics and ancillary switch and control gear. I never found drop throttle oversteer to be that much of a problem, but I concede that driving one of those cars in bad weather would have required one's full attention. It was also less comfortable than the Box, louder, harsher, etc. And then there's the fact that the Boxster was designed to be a convertible from the beginning.

6. I have no doubt that the recent Vettes are good. I've driven my brother in law's Z06. My problem with those cars, believe it or not, is that they have too much performance. I like to explore the limits of a sports car, and if you're getting anywhere near the limit in a Z06 Vette on the highway, you're a fool. I think I'd be constantly itching to find some place to open it up, but there just aren't that many places left where that would ever be possible. Not a problem with a Boxster, even an S.