New 99 Boxster Owner, loss of engine power?

[SVT Cobra]

Hi all,

I just picked up a 99 porsche boxster with a porsche rebuilt certified engine and about 25k on it. I sold my 2.8 1997 Z3 to get it, and I thought for sure the boxster would be faster. The fact of the matter is, the boxster fees about HALF as fast as the Z3. Im sure there is something wrong, but it takes forever to accelerate. The engine runs great, and seems better on the highway, however. It seems as if it takes the gears forever to wind out, the car feels as if it has a 2.82 gear ratio. Is this how boxsters are, or is there something wrong with the car? Any owners near the cleveland area that have a spare moment, Id love to set up a test drive to see if there are any other issues as well, as I've never owned one of these cars (or know anyone that has,) and have no clue what to expect.

Thanks guys!

[MNBoxster]

Hi,

The Non-Egas cars (<'00) are not quick cars at all. The Beemer will have much better acceleration. BTW, the Gear ratios for the CWA, or DVY 5-speed Transmission on the '99 are:

• 1st Gear - 3.50
  2nd Gear - 2.12
  3rd Gear - 1.43
  4th Gear - 1.03
  5th Gear - 0.79
  Final Drive - 3.89

Hope this helps...

Happy Motoring!... Jim

[blinkwatt]

The 2.5L 5-spd Boxster aren't quick off the line. They do get a zip to them once they hit 3rd gear though. Your old z3 and Boxster should be on pace speed wise. Is your Boxster a manual or tiptronic?

i went to look at my old road and track magazine and saw the specs for the boxster 2.5 and Z3 2.8, and all the boxster times were much quicker then the Z3.

just my 2cents

[SVT Cobra]

Originally Posted by blkboxster

i went to look at my old road and track magazine and saw the specs for the boxster 2.5 and Z3 2.8, and all the boxster times were much quicker then the Z3.

just my 2cents

This is what I thought too. All my research shows this car should be faster than the 1997 2.8 Z3 I had, although it feels extremely slow. The posted gear ratio amazes me, its better than the Z3, so I dont understand why it feels this way. The Z3 had slightly more torque, but the boxter had over 10hp more. I have a 5 speed manual. What gives?

[CJ_Boxster]

I thought the 1997 Z3 only came in a i-4 1.9 liter config, i owned a 97 Z3 and could have sworn it was a 1.9 liter, anyways, you probably need to clean your MAF if the torque curve seems to flaten out at about 4k rpms. My 97 boxster is way faster than my 1997 Z3.

[blinkwatt]

Originally Posted by SVT Cobra

This is what I thought too. All my research shows this car should be faster than the 1997 2.8 Z3 I had, although it feels extremely slow. The posted gear ratio amazes me, its better than the Z3, so I dont understand why it feels this way. The Z3 had slightly more torque, but the boxter had over 10hp more. I have a 5 speed manual. What gives?

Is the car up to date tune-up wise? Spark plugs,air filter, fuel filter, and basically anything that could bog the car down? How much do you weight?

[racer_d]

Maybe a little helpful: From EDMUNDS:

1999 Porsche 2.5 Boxster
Weight: 2825
HP: 201 @ 6,000 rpm
TQ: 181 @ 4500 rpm
0-60mph = 6.5 sec

1997 BMW Z3 2.8
Weight: 2690lb
HP: 190 @ 5300rpm
TQ: 207 @ 3950
0-60 = 6.7 sec

So.. from here, the BMW is lighter and creates more peak Torque (TQ) at a lower rpm AND creates its Peak HP (albeit 10 less hp than the boxster) at a lower rpm.

From this alone I would surmise the BMW to "feel" quicker off the line than a 2.5l boxster.

Suprisingly, the numbers listed on Edmunds show the Boxster marginally quicker. Lets also realize that "your" acceleration times may vary due to skill, conditions, tires, engine mileage etc.

I also imagine the Z3 could have felt quicker due to driver placement (it seems you sit pretty far back in the Z3, whereas in the Boxster you are right in the middle) and other "sensory" differences (sounds, vehicle "squat" under acceleration etc.)

[SVT Cobra]

Originally Posted by racer_d

Maybe a little helpful: From EDMUNDS:

1999 Porsche 2.5 Boxster
Weight: 2825
HP: 201 @ 6,000 rpm
TQ: 181 @ 4500 rpm
0-60mph = 6.5 sec

1997 BMW Z3 2.8
Weight: 2690lb
HP: 190 @ 5300rpm
TQ: 207 @ 3950
0-60 = 6.7 sec

So.. from here, the BMW is lighter and creates more peak Torque (TQ) at a lower rpm AND creates its Peak HP (albeit 10 less hp than the boxster) at a lower rpm.

From this alone I would surmise the BMW to "feel" quicker off the line than a 2.5l boxster.

Suprisingly, the numbers listed on Edmunds show the Boxster marginally quicker. Lets also realize that "your" acceleration times may vary due to skill, conditions, tires, engine mileage etc.

I also imagine the Z3 could have felt quicker due to driver placement (it seems you sit pretty far back in the Z3, whereas in the Boxster you are right in the middle) and other "sensory" differences (sounds, vehicle "squat" under acceleration etc.)

Wow. Thanks for all the great info guys. I weigh 200lbs, 6 ft tall (not fat.)

How hard is it to change the plugs, clean the MAF, air filter, etc? Anyone in the cleveland area want to make some cash and help me out?

[Franco]

Quote:



Wow. Thanks for all the great info guys. I weigh 200lbs, 6 ft tall (not fat.)

How hard is it to change the plugs, clean the MAF, air filter, etc? Anyone in the Cleveland area want to make some cash and help me out?


HI, my advice is to change the MAF, PLUGS, AIR FILTER, OIL and get rid of any spare change in the car and let us know if it feels faster.

BTW, there's plenty of info on this FORUM and OTHERS to do all the basic maintenance yourself.