[southernstar]

If you prefer the appearance etc. of the 996 then you should go for one. Personally, I prefer the looks of the 986 Boxster to the 996 and, since I prefer having a roadster over a hardtop (for what is essentially a summer car in my climate), I consider the difference in appearance even greater - i.e., IMO the 996, while uninspired and even dull compared to the 986, at least looks more balanced than the 996 Cab.

I also prefer the inherent handling balance in the 986 over the 996. Yes, while there is no question that Porsche had by the 996 made great strides towards overcoming the inherent problems associated with having the engine in the rear - i.e., poor weight distribution at the limit, nevertheless there is a reason that all pure race cars are now mid, rather than rear engined.

Interiors? Since the dash/interior facia layout in the 986 is, apart from the two additional gauges, identical to the 996, it is not as if one is getting vastly superior quality or ergonomics with the increased price tag.

Reliability, or the lack thereof? Again, no appreciable difference (and sadly, as you point out, both can fall prey to the dreaded IMS bearing failure). Mileage? When I was looking for my Boxster, I noticed that most 996's had higher mileage than the 986's of the same vintage. It may be that due to the hard-top, more 996's are used as year-round daily drivers. This, of course, may not be the case in areas such as Southern Florida, New Mexico, Utah and Southern Cal.

Performance? To me, a sports car is all about handling, braking, toss-ability and responsiveness. Top-down motoring is a real plus (having owned both roadsters and hardtop sports cars in the past). And IMO while acceleration and top speed are nice, they are nowhere near as important in a sports car as they are for the owners of muscle cars. Frankly, my 2000 2.7 has more than enough power to get me into trouble, if I am foolish, and can exceed our legal top speed of 100 kph in second gear The power/top speed and acceleration are also significantly better than in my previous sports cars: a 1970 Fiat 850 Spider, a 1962 Porsche 356 B Normal, a 1974 Fiat X/19, a 1974 Datsun 260 Z (euro spec), and a 1986 Porsche 944 (all before taking a hiatus from sports cars due to a child).

What about engine sounds - the incredible aural contribution that they can make to the experience of driving a sports car? Frankly, from the driver's seat with the driver's window down, the sounds through the air-intake in the flanks near the driver's ear of the 986 are much nicer than the sounds one gets driving a 996 with the driver's window down (I will confess, I have not driven a 996 Cab with the top down). Both make superbly sweet sounds as they accelerate up through the rev range, but in my experience, the sounds are just a little more accessible in the 986 Boxster.

Is the 986 as much of a status symbol as a 996 (or any 911, for that matter)? No, although that is of no importance to me. It certainly out-performs, in every respect, the non-turbocharged 911's prior to the 993. Will the 986 have the same kind of resale value down the road as a 911, even those with less performance? Undoubtedly not. Although it is my expectation that they will be significantly less expensive to keep on the road, even in the case of serious damage: due to larger production numbers and a greater tendancy to scrap them, used doors, trunk lids, fenders, interior components etc. should be not only readily available for years to come, but cheaper. So too various components such as the transaxle (from VW), or even used engines (since there are many more 986's than 996's on the road and both are subject to IMS failure, etc., there are bound to be more used engines available as well).

For some the styling of the 911 - any 911, creates an emotional response that no other car can replicate. If you are one of those people, then obviously there is no substitute - regardless of cost. For the rest of us, there is a great deal to commend the 986 over the 996.

Brad