911 vs Boxster S
 

I was looking at the specs and wondering if the base 911 is considerably faster than the Boxster S and if so, why :

2007 911 Carrera
$73,500.00
0-60 in 4.8 sec ( manual )
325 hp / 273 ft-lb torque
3075 lbs curb weight

2007 Boxster S
$58,910.00
0-60 in 5.1 sec ( manual )
295 hp / 251 ft-lb torque
2987 lbs curb weight

This equates to the 911 having .1056 hp / lb and the Boxster S having .0987 hp / lb ( a difference of only .0069 hp / lb )

It the 911 worth the extra $15,000 strictly from a performance standpoint ?

Thoughts ?

Nick

From a performance standpoint? no. From an emotional standpoint? guess it depends on the person.

I drove both back to back. 911 feels like it has more torque at low RPM but Boxster is much better balanced as we all know.

I think that it all depends on your feel -- similar to what someone above posted.

Couple of question regarding specs (not trying to thread-jack and somewhat relevant to the original post):

I'm curious as to whether people actually achieve the "reported" times reported in the specs. Likewise, how many cars are tested before coming to the conclusion of, lets say 4.8 seconds? Are these factory-trained "professional" drivers that run 10 or so times (on a track?) and they take an average?

I also thought I read a thread or a post on this forum stating that cars of the same model and year may have different acceleration, hp? etc., from like models of the same build year. Granted, I'm not basing this on anything scientific as I was just thinking about this, but I would venture that a given driver would likely achieve different times per car and (perhaps?) per stats reported from the car company -- anyone ever try to match the acceleration times or have experience with other models? I ask this also because I've also read either here or another forum -- especially when attending auto-x, that experienced drivers can often attain better times, etc., than the respective owners...

In a straight line the Carrera feels faster but, when it comes to cornering the Boxster takes the cake. Boxster feels alot more stable and grips the road better.

Well, to a real racer, the more relevant observation is that at no time in any motorsport do you accelerate from 0-60 and leave it at that.

Drag racing: Maybe an 1/8th mile in a slow car.
Autocrosing: nope
Time trials: nope
Wheel to wheel: nope

It's a pointless figure used by people to "compare" cars, but it's really not a fair comparison. The same is true for peak horsepower. Power is energy per unit time, it is a continuous time calculation of energy produced divided by revolutions of the engine. But area under the curve (total energy) is far more relevant. Furthermore, torque has as much to do with gearing as it does with torque curves. In first gear, your car puts down more than 1000ft lbs of torque!

I'm a professional analyst, so I always get bent around the axle on specs, because invariably specs are point estimates: single data points or statistics that are supposed to accurately describe a system. The problem is that the system cannot be reduced to a point and then compared to another system.

[/rant]

where's the 3.4 CaymanS in your comparo?!

It's a big topic. Here are a couple of points.

1) Any 2 given cars will have different power/torque at the wheels, no two engines are exactly the same, no two transmissions, and no two tires.
2) Any two cars will have different weight, even identical cars won't weigh exactly the same
3) The performance numbers that magazines report are often the best run of a number of trys. And then they correct the numbers for atmospheric conditions and road surface conditions to try to normalize all the data from all the cars in all the different test locations. It's hardly an exact science.
4) The magazines have professional drivers testing the right RPM and clutch/accel/brake work to try to get the best acceleration, each driver will use a different technique and get a different number. So will actual owners.

Echoing what perfectlap said.... you are comparing a coupe to a convertible. Compare apples to apples and a boxster to a 911 cab. I scratch my head when people/magazines compare a coupe to a convertible especially when they don't have to. 911 coupe vs boxster S.....or boxster S vs covette coupe?? What's up with that? Now whats a 911 cab run these days?? 80 grand?? 0-60 time is what a 1/10 sec faster than a 3.4L boxster S? The reasons to buy a 911 are shrinking as we speak.

Again.. from a "numbers" standpoint, the 911 isn't "worth" it... but cars like this should be bought on "emotion" and "desire" and there are still many folks who would answer the question by driving a 911.

While comparing apples to oranges, driving my 2000 Boxster at the track is "easy" .. but driving my 1978 911 was much more "rewarding".

PL,

Regarding the Cayman S, all specs are the same as the Boxster S except price ( $59,100 ) and weight ( 2954 lbs ).

Adam, the reason I was using the Boxster S and 911 coupe is due to price. 911 cab puts you in the $80k price range, $25k more than the Boxster S.

Thanks for all the feedback, guys ( and also to cfos and flyadesk for the rant on specs ;) ).

Nick

i'd buy a cayman over a 911. nicer curves, engine in the right place. but if i had the money i'd buy a 911 turbo over anything porsche makes.

It's worth it from a performance standpoint to a family man who doesn't have room for another car. 2+2 seating is nice at times.

I know this is blasphemy to the porsche purists, but porsche needs to kill the 911 and let the boxster/cayman take it's spot. I know change is tough, but lets face it, the engine is in the wrong place and if they are truly a performance car company then they know what to do.

I don't mind them offering both. I just mind them limiting the Boxster's power to protect the supposed "relevance" of the 911. Why not tune all your cars to be the best they can be?

-David

the engine's been in the wrong place forever, and they know it too, but there will never be the end of 911

C'mon now.. to purists, Porsches are air cooled anyway ;)

I don't know how many 911 guys you've hung out with, but I've had someone say to my face that the Boxster and the 944 were the biggest mistakes Porsche ever made because they brought cheap losers into the Porsche elite.

There is a lot of ego feeding that takes place in the upper half of Porsche's line. These guys almost prefer the cars to be more expensive because it makes them feel more exclusive. You will never lose that element. I for one am almost surprised that the Boxster is still around. Their profit margins are much lower, and it would elevate the prestige and exclusivity of the brand to keep our "mere middle class blood" out of the pure bread line.

This is also why Ferrari will never bring back the Dino.

Of course, I instructed a corporate group once that had a bunch of 911 guys. After a member smashed up his beauty real bad at the track, we discussed renting race cars. We got them all in spec miatas, and after the initial disgust of the thought of driving a mere miata, they could not shut up about how fun and fast those little cars were. This is how I feel about the Boxster. It is loads of fun, whereas the 911 is just fast.

Dino on the way back!
 

I recently read in a car magazine (I know that's ridiculously vague, but my memory escapes me at the moment) an interview with the CEO of Ferrari. He said under no uncertain terms that there would not be a Dino. The reason cited was keeping the prestige level of Ferrari high.

Now that doesn't mean he was telling the truth or that things won't change. I just wouldn't hold my breath.