Newb researching and looking for some guidance

[box_canyon]

Hi Topshelf. One point to note is that in 2000, Porsche bumped up the displacement from 2.5 to 2.7l and from 201 to 217 mainly to compensate for the weight added to the car in meeting new side impact standards in the states. You gain power but not performance!

I was lucky, when I bought my 1999, the previous owner had fried the motor and the dealer installed a 2000 spec 2.7l in its place. A little more power with the lighter car- even at that, I'm not sure the difference is very noticeable though! If you want more low-end "grunt", the 3.2 S makes alot of difference. Problem is they are way more cash!

[Topshelf]

That is interesting info box. I'm definitely going to test both 2.5 and 2.7 cars to see if I prefer one over the other. I've already all but ruled out going with an S at this point, so it's really going to be down to engine preference and options.

One thing I forgot to ask though is about higher mileage. Are these cars capable of going 100k+? I know they need care, but I didn't know if they had only so much life in them, even if they were maintained well. Not that I plan on buying one with that many miles, just like to know the facts.

[Sloan]

Topshelf,

How much of a premium are you finding for the "S" in the model years you are looking for? I see that you have 'essentially ruled out' the "S" and its not even on your test-drive list, but I'm wondering if the price gap is really that big - for sure if you pay for mods to get more power out of the 2.5 or 2.7, it would seem that could exceed the extra you'd pay for the "S" up front. I'm really asking b/c you make it clear you will be buying with Tiptronic, where the extra torque of the "S" would really make a difference.

I'm not trying to make this more difficult for your or make you second-guess your 'decision' against the "S", I just want to know how much of a factor the price difference is.

P.S. I went through the similar analysis recently of 2003-2004 "S" vs. 2005 base model, and I ended up with the "S", and am very happy with my choice.

[kennedi]

Topshelf:
Seeing how my S just got delivered two days ago, I can say that I was going through the same analysis as you. I live in So. MD so many of the pre-owned Porsche choices were out of No. VA and MD. I found that I could get a year or two base model for the price of a loaded S - at least in my area. I ended up buying one in CT because the prices and choices were much better than my area. I ADORE the extra hp!

BTW. Thanks to many of the folks here on this forum for giving me advice on buying!

Now, I just gotta figure out which radar detector to procure.....

[Bob Z.]

As others have said, drive a few and see what suits your needs - I say go with the newest you can afford.

Sorry to be off topic but speaking of roads, I lived in Port Tobacco MD for 11 years before moving to Florida - some of the best roads in that area anywhere and that is the only thing I miss about living there...roads here suck - mostly straight & flat.

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by Sloan

Topshelf,

How much of a premium are you finding for the "S" in the model years you are looking for? I see that you have 'essentially ruled out' the "S" and its not even on your test-drive list, but I'm wondering if the price gap is really that big - for sure if you pay for mods to get more power out of the 2.5 or 2.7, it would seem that could exceed the extra you'd pay for the "S" up front. I'm really asking b/c you make it clear you will be buying with Tiptronic, where the extra torque of the "S" would really make a difference.

I'm not trying to make this more difficult for your or make you second-guess your 'decision' against the "S", I just want to know how much of a factor the price difference is.

P.S. I went through the similar analysis recently of 2003-2004 "S" vs. 2005 base model, and I ended up with the "S", and am very happy with my choice.

Having the Tip S transmission is a reason NOT to go with the 'S'.

This is because in low gear and in second gear, an auto transmission acts as a torque multiplier.

Low gear, the gear used when getting under way, climbing a steep hill, or sometimes when pulling a very heavy load, has a torque multiple of around 3:1.

Second gear has a torque multiple of about 2:1.

In High gear, used at highway speeds, the transmission uses a direct drive gear, meaning that there is no torque multiplier.

And if you have a car equipped with "overdrive," like 5th gear in the Tip S, the torque ratio is in the neighborhood of 0.8:1.

Every auto transmission establishes its multiples with slight differences, depending on what the designers determine to be the most efficient torque multipliers for a given engine in a specific car.

You'll feel less torque in a Base w/ manual transmission than you will with a Tip S.

[CJ_Boxster]

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

Having the Tip S transmission is a reason NOT to go with the 'S'.

This is because in low gear and in second gear, an auto transmission acts as a torque multiplier.

Low gear, the gear used when getting under way, climbing a steep hill, or sometimes when pulling a very heavy load, has a torque multiple of around 3:1.

Second gear has a torque multiple of about 2:1.

In High gear, used at highway speeds, the transmission uses a direct drive gear, meaning that there is no torque multiplier.

And if you have a car equipped with "overdrive," like 5th gear in the Tip S, the torque ratio is in the neighborhood of 0.8:1.

Every auto transmission establishes its multiples with slight differences, depending on what the designers determine to be the most efficient torque multipliers for a given engine in a specific car.

You'll feel less torque in a Base w/ manual transmission than you will with a Tip S.

Good info, Thanks Jim... I mean Lil_bastard.

[Topshelf]

The more I read, the more confused I get! LOL

I was going to skip test driving an S altogether figuring that if I never feel the power, I'll never miss/want it. Not sure if that's a foolish idea, but it does make sense on some level. And to be honest, I'm not really a engine modding kinda guy as long as there's sufficient power. I don't need gobs of brutal hp to entertain me, especially since I enjoy corners, and there's really almost nowhere around me that I'd be able to use the power. The thing that's making me laugh though are the reviews I've been reading. Read any 97/98/99 Boxster review and they rave about everything, including the engine. Read any Boxster S review and they talk about the Base like it's using a 100hp 4 cylinder. How in the heck did the base engine go from being so nice to completely underpowered garbage in 12 months? What I think I'm going to do is test at least one 2.5 and one 2.7 tiptronic, then hop in a S just to see what it's all about, even if it's a 6 speed. As long as there's decent midrange power in the smaller engines I think I'll be fine. Right now I'm driving a 3250lb car with 189hp that does 0-60 in 7.8 seconds (According to Edmunds). I can't imagine that either Base model wouldn't feel considerably faster to me. And yes, price is a factor here. As much as I want to push my range a little bit and get the more expensive car, I really want to make sure that I can afford the inevitable repairs that will sneak up on me. So that's one more reason to avoid the S. Ideally I can find myself a nice Base model and enjoy it for a few years until I save a little more and the prices on the Cayman S comes down. :drool

[gmboxster]

I dont understand your confusion at all. If you're being honest with yourself you have already answered your own questions. you state a few extra horses doesnt matter to you and that cost is a big factor. Cornering is more important than top speed. How many times will you have the chance to go 150mph on the highway ? Ahh , NONE. The 2.5l or 2.7l base model will be PLENTY fast for you and it's cornering ability is just as good as the 'S'. Or at least the difference would not be noticable. In addition you can get a newer base model for the same money you would spend on an older 'S'. I think the decision is a 'no brainer'.