I bought my 2.7L Boxster because there problems with the 'S' tranny. I did not want to have regrets of driving a car with a mis-matched (996) tranny. No matter how much more HP the 'S' has than the 2.7L it is no good if the tranny is mis-matched. The tranny is the bottle neck between the engine and power to the wheels. The 'S' tranny is the same tranny as the 996 with the same gear ratios! The 996 has 50+ more HP than the 'S' and different drivetrain characteristics! How can this be but a bad bad bad thing! These are facts noone can argue with.
I did not want to have regrets like Shaeteoon(DFW) from PPBB:
"Have to make a comment about the 2.7L, after owning one for 2 years and an S for 8 months I have to say I wouldn't mine going back to the 2.7. Driving in the city you couldn't tell the difference, as a matter of fact the 2.7 feels better in the city than the S."
-Shaeetoon(DFW)
or the respected CFG (whom I trust as unbiased):
"Drove 6000 miles in 2 years [Boxster 'S'] and the gearing was horrible in my opinion....I was unhappy with the Boxster 'S'...
The Boxster 'S' should have gotten the 5 speed gearbox of the 2.7..."
-Chris from Germany (CFG)
Admin for 996 board (
http://www.funcarsonline.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php)
I studied the article from Excellence magazine last year comparing the 2.7L and 'S'. Their conclusion was the 2.7L is the better overall buy and the 2.7L is better shifting in the city:
"And with the base car's slightly longer gear spacing, you're less likely to shift up to third while driving from light to light - which makes it a bit easier to drive around town. So in an urban environment, the base car may be a better pick than the Boxster S, ..."
Many people have been fooled into thinking having the 996 tranny on the 'S' is a great thing. Enthusiasts and anyone with a basic understanding of car dynamics knows bolting the 996 tranny on the 'S' (with 50+ less HP) is a bad bad bad thing.
The other thing that bothered me about the 'S' was it is a heavier car by about 100lbs. This is significant. More significant than the 33HP, in my humble opinion. Excellence magazine said the 2.7L is a more 'lively' car in a different article.
I came to the conlusion the 'S' models are more about Porsche marketing than Porsche performance. I believe the current 'S' models are marketed to Porsche poseur. The 'S' owners can brag about their extra 33HP, 996 tranny, and red caliper brakes. But enthusiasts know the 996 tranny is a bad thing, it is better to have a 100lb. lighter car than 33HP, and the red caliper brakes do not amount to better real world braking because the 'S' is heavier than the 2.7L. C4'S' owners can brag about their TT bodywork and red caliper brakes but again it is all show. In fact the C4'S' is heavier than the non-'S', and slower 0-60 and slower top speed.
The 'S' label means nothing nowadays. Look at the Cayenne. The lowend model is the Cayenne 'S'. Porsche knows poseurs will fall for it.
So that is why I bought my 2.7L.
Here are some other quotes regarding the serious tranny issue:
"I've own/owned 3 Porsches (01 996, 02 996 and 01 Boxster S). Strangely, the shifter in my Boxster S is one of its weak points. It feels sloppy, plastic, and it's hard to get into 3rd gear. The dealer service tech tested my car and told me it is typical, and within
normal. "
-Ray Gram
"The gearbox on the S seems mushy, as well as the clutch. The base seemed a lot more precise. "
-robb in socal
"I still maintain that the 5-spd feels better than the 6-spd. "
-Brian Harrington, 'S' owner
"When I drove the 5-speed it seemed to shifter easier (less balking) than the 6-speed in the "S"."
-John S
"that was my experience as well."
-al greenborg
"On a test drive of the S 6-speed vs 2.7 5-speed , I loved the S power, could not tell the difference in brakes but much prefered the 5-speed. It seemed to match the engine better."
-Iwas There (Toronto)
"but its gear ratios are not particularly well suited to the S' 3.2 liter engine. "
-John Brown of Northern Virginia
Andrew P's observations ('S' owner)
1) Torque delivery in 3rd is lackluster. This isn't a complaint, but I'm used to cars
pulling a lot harder in 3rd. There's plenty of pull in 2nd, but 3rd seems a little anemic.
Having said that, I am faithfully following the break-in guidelines and not taking the
engine past 4200... I have a feeling that the 3rd gear "fun" doesn't start until the 5000
range...
2) The shifter is a little sloppy. I find the throws to be a tad long, but not too long.
It's not spongy (is that a word) like my BMW... it's just... ahh... the best way to
describe it is that the spring that brings the shifer in between the 3rd and 4th gates
while in neutral isn't strong enough. I've missed a number of shifts (fortunately I've
cuaght myself).... It seems that I've been conditioned to work with that spring-load and
I'm just not getting that feedback.
3) The synchros don't always seem to work. I've never "ground" anything, but sometimes I
just can't get it to go into gear (on upshifts). A little bit of double-clutching solves
the problem. I'm not sure what's going on here... hopefully I was just having a bad day...