Go Back   986 Forum - for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Boxster General Discussions

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-12-2002, 02:38 PM   #1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1
Why did you buy your Boxster?

Good afternoon folks, I'm a car enthusiast in the LA area just looking to get some reviews about this car from the owners' perspectives! Any input would be much appreciated.
Lee355 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2002, 03:03 PM   #2
JT
Administrator and Founder
 
JT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 265
Reason 1.

Was the handling ability. The car is rock solid with a tight suspension and steering. NO MUSCLE car comes eve close to it. All those who say that the vette is equal or better in hadling are completely off their rockers. I drove a brand new Z06 Vette the other day and it felt like I was going really fast in a Lincoln Town car. Talk about sloppy steering.

Reason 2.

Looks. The vehicle IMHO is very attractive and aggresive looking at the same time. Especially with those 18" wheels. Overall, I am more than glad I bought a Boxster. I would never sacrifice my handling ability for more HP. it just dosnt make sense.

Reason 3.

Build quality and Trim is unmatched by any muscle car on the street. I get in a Vette and feel like I just rented a GM car at the local airport. Yuk !

Sorry to sound so negative about the GM flagship. But people over rare that car.

I speak my opinion from actual experience. A lot of people will boast over one car without ever really driving the cars they are comparing. I have done so and can honestly say to those Vette owners they have power and only that.
__________________
Jorge Torralba
Forum Founder
JT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2002, 12:56 AM   #3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Holland
Posts: 140
1. Had the money
2. Wanted a (fast) cabrio
3. Wanted a RWD sportscar

Considered M3 roadster, M3 cabrio, Corvette cabrio, TT-cabrio and Honda S2000. Corvette is too big / heavy, TT falls down if you can affort a Boxster, S2000 is a 2.0l rev happy engine and I like torque. The BMW's were difficult because they have a lot more power (321 / 343 respectively). Decided that the BoxsterS had the better looks and is more exclusive.

Mark.
markk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2002, 07:31 PM   #4
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 284
Boxster purchase

I looked at M-rodster and M-3 cab...
1) Porsche handled much better (although bimmers have more ponies)
2) Porsche looks much better (IMHO)
3) Availability of car at the time of purchase (M-3 cab has a 4-6 month wait)
4) Porsche dealer was more aligned with my needs/wants


By the way, I have driven BMWs for several years and still own bimmers; however, Porsche is the PERFECT sports car....
ehljags is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2002, 07:34 PM   #5
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 284
Porsche purchase

I forgot to mention in the last posting----

I kept my search pretty much to BMW and Porsche ---

I enjoy eating rice, but not burning it!!!

and

vettes are still poorly made......
ehljags is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2002, 06:49 PM   #6
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern Ohio
Posts: 1
Just to add a slightly different take on things...

In addition to the handling, availability, and so on that others have mentioned, I am one of those kids who thought Porsches were the coolest things on four wheels...and then grew up.

How can a bimmer or a 'vette compete with a dream?
__________________
I can take my bass to a gig, but I can't
take you too.
Forest-S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2002, 07:46 PM   #7
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 284
"coolest things..."

Also, have you checked out the 2-wheel Porsche's? Their bicycles look intense. According to a friend of mine (who is not into cars, but into bikes), the Porsche designed bikes are extremely well made and handle as one would expect!!!
ehljags is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2002, 04:02 PM   #8
Registered User
 
donv's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NW of Boston, MA
Posts: 697
Besides really liking the car for all the reasons mentioned in earlier posts, one of the motivating factors for me was that I actually *fit* in the Boxster. I found it amazing that a lot of the other direct competitors couldn't accept my 6'1" height with the top up. Though my goal was mostly top down joyrides on twisty scenic roads, I realized that at least once in a while I was going to have to put the top up -- which meant slouching down or twisting my head sideways in the TT, the Z3, etc. Who wants the car equivalent of a pair of bad fitting pants?
donv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2002, 05:00 PM   #9
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 284
"the fit"

I agree with the "fit." I am 6'2 " and have no problems fitting into my Boxster. The Z3 was relatively ok in height, but without leg room. the TT is designed for people under 5'10".

I have driven seveal Porshce models over the years, and all of them work with tall frames!
ehljags is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2002, 12:21 AM   #10
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1
2000 Boxster S

My reasons:
1) Promised the wife a conv. car.
2) I would not drive around in a Z-3
3) The Miata was not even a consideration.
4) S-2000 was a consideration
5) found a 2000 Boxster S (mint w/19K)
for $38K - who could say no
6) my wife and I are both happy
7) Best ____ night of my life the nite I surprised her
with it.
Chirgs S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2002, 12:54 AM   #11
Forum Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 12
I bought my Boxster S exactly 4 weeks ago! Truth be told, I didn't mean to buy it. I wasn't shopping for a new car. In fact, I was just killing time while my old "weekend car" was being repaired.

I've always lusted after the Boxster because of its great looks and superb handling, and when I read car mags I always (used to) think, "would I rather have that or a Boxster S?" The only car that came close was the M3. They are great cars.

Anyway, to kill time I went for a test drive, and I was hooked! The dealer had a 2001 with under 2000 miles, in the color I wanted and most of the options (though I don't need heated seats since I ain't driving it when it's cold!).

So there it was, the car of my dreams, at about $7K under what a new one would cost. I always knew that I'd end up in a Boxster. Why not now?

It wasn't until after I had signed the papers that it occured to me--hey, I could have bought an M3! But the M3's not a sports car, it's not a Porsche, and it doesn't have the graceful lines and finesse of the Porsche. Power is great, but the joy of driving is in the handling. And there isn't a better handling car out there.
MilwSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2002, 06:46 PM   #12
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 57
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...
Another S in S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2002, 10:34 PM   #13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2
My choices were S2000, Z350 and boxster. In 5-7 years the 2 Japanese cars would be just another sports car, hence I picked up a Boxster. This thoroughbred will be a classic.
quitinathome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2002, 02:50 AM   #14
Registered User
 
mjbliemel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 487
Talking Why I bought my Boxster

Well, several reasons come to mind about why I bought my used 1999 AS/BLK/BLK.

1. I grew up in Germany and ever since I was a kid I loved Porsches, so I knew that someday I had to have one.

2. I really love the styling of the Boxster, it is just a beautiful car.

3. I finally reached the point in my life where I could afford one and afford to keep it up.

4. I knew it would handle like a Porsche handles and have great performance.

http://homepage.mac.com/bliemel

Pictures of the Boxster at the URL above.
mjbliemel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2002, 05:59 PM   #15
Forum Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NY, Hudson Valley area
Posts: 21
I am a former Corvette owner. I noticed that many people into Porsches trash Corvettes for a variety of reasons. I drove the C5 and felt it addressed all what was wrong with previous generation Corvettes and bought one. I kept it 3 years as my toy car and enjoyed the hell out of it. I test drove a Boxster and Boxster S model and really like the handling and general balance of the car. I liked the standard Boxster until I drove the "S". The extra torque alone makes it a logical choice. The other guy that went on and on about how terrible the S model performs must have had bad experiences with his car. Knowing the higher HP and Torque existed would always haunted me if I bought a standard model. Key features on the S are higher hp, torque, bigger brakes, improved suspension and a six speed. Take a look at Car and Driver or Road and Track magazines, they love the Boxster S model. In fact this past summer one of those magazines stated that if you had to buy a sports car to be your last it should be a Boxster S. I suggest you go out and drive one and I think you will be hooked. Good luck in your decision.
__________________
01 Boxster "S" six speed, High Gloss 18" Sport Design Wheels, Rainforest Green
BobnNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2015, 03:26 PM   #16
Motorist & Coffee Drinker
 
78F350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 2,273
Garage
Bumping a thread from 2002.

Still a good question and kind of fun reaching to the past. 2003 models were new on the shelves when this thread was last posted to.

I had never even seen one around town when I got mine in August 2014. I had heard of them, and liked the look, but had heard they were a bad buy as a used car due to the high cost to maintain. Then I saw one, a 2000 S for under $10k, on Craigslist and fell in love. I had cash and a little room left in the driveway. Sadly it had sold (and had been listed on the forum) before I contacted the owner.
I learned that there were some risks, but maintenance was affordable to a guy with a few wrenches. Great cars to drive, and IMO one of the best looking roadsters made.
78F350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2015, 05:17 PM   #17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 366
Because due to anal-retentive Porsche owners...you can buy a $75,000 car for $15,000 with low miles and in mint condition!

That and the fact that its counter-parts (Mercedes, BMW, etc) from 15 years ago look like '90s cars inside and out. The 986 with leather interior still looks fantastic aside from the headlights and climate display.
__________________
DD summer/winter: 2000 Boxster S
DD spring/fall: 914-6 w/ 3.0L SC Dual Webers

http://imgur.com/a/k0Wtl - My 914-6 Build/Project Story
patssle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2015, 05:38 PM   #18
Registered User
 
RedTele58's Avatar
Interesting to read opinions on the cars when they were still new.

I was especially interested in their comments on the 5-speed vs 6-speed transmission and the S engine vs the base engine.

Several weeks ago here we had a discussion on S vs base and I said I prefer my base cars over my S cars as daily drivers. I didn't really think much why I prefer the 5-speeds and less horsepower over the S cars, it was just my initial gut reaction, but the comments above got me to thinking.

I took my '01S out of hibernation Saturday and had a very enjoyable afternoon driving it in the hills about 20 miles from here. It is a beautiful car, and at 36k miles is the cleanest in my fleet of six Boxsters. I drove it for the afternoon, then put it away and got one of my '99s out yesterday and drove it for the afternoon on the same roads.

Comparing the two cars, I think the 5-speed really was the more enjoyable to drive as I would find the 6-speed often a half gear high or low from where I wanted to be. The 5-speed allowed me easier access to that sweet spot between 3,500 rpm and 5,000 rpm where both engines seem to come alive. While the S car had the added 50 horses over the base car, I wasn't able to use it to my advantage on the roads I was on.

Sitting here thinking while typing, I realize similar thoughts about driving the S vs the base cars in DE events. Last year I drove the '02S car, this year I'm driving the '99's. The added 50 horses is fun on the straights, but again, I like the feel of the 5-speed over the 6-speed when I have to really start driving the car in the corners and the added horses are not that much of an advantage. (It's been kinda fun to have the 996/997 cars pull away from me on the straights only to be able to catch them and hang on their bumpers in the corners. It only sucks when coming out of the corners they wave you past them only to have them blow back by as soon as they get their extra horses spun up! )
__________________
I think I have a Porsche problem...
RedTele58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2015, 05:42 PM   #19
Registered Boxster abuser
 
healthservices's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: socal
Posts: 1,014
Why is DonV's avatar so big on my screen?
Attached Images
 

Last edited by healthservices; 04-20-2015 at 05:48 PM.
healthservices is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2015, 07:25 PM   #20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Moore, Ok
Posts: 105
Garage
I bought mine for a few reasons. Loved them as a kid. And as an adult with a passion for cars. There is nothing like a Porsche. I love it! And why is that avatar so big lol
Redboxs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page