2.7 liter vs 3.2 S-type? - 986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners

litteng · 05-03-2009, 04:53 PM

all good comments based on perceived need for performance. my perceived desire was to drive a porsche,

i also wanted the newest car i could afford, and up here in canada, S's are not as common, (mostly due to the much higher asking price even when new)

everyone who has had a ride in my 2.7 walks away satisfied, the car is comfortable and a thrill to drive, there will always be faster cars out there, but i don't care because i'll just enjoy and be thankful for what i have,

so in my opinion having an S is not necessarily better, there are other criteria which need to be considered such as fuel cost, insurance, etc...

when the weather is nice, it sure is a nice way to get around ...

RandallNeighbour · 05-03-2009, 06:45 PM

I wish I had a lot more torque for the street. My 2.5 is underpowered, and feels about the same as the early 2.7's... however, the 2003+ 2.7's have nearly as much HP as the 2000 S if I'm not mistaken.

Very, very few owners regret getting the Porsche with the larger motor. Mike's the only one I have ever heard say they'd rather have the smaller motor after driving one with a larger motor.

I just bought a BMW 550i and while I get lousy fuel economy, the 360 hp V8 is something I am incredibly happy to have because my boxster is so friggin' slow off the line. I love the way it handles, but the only reason Porsche put such a puny motor in it was because they wanted to keep the 911 boys feeling superior.

Suburbans beat me off the line from the right hand lane to cut me off and get on the freeway in front of me. I don't race, but this is all wrong.

If I had the cash, I'd shoehorn a 3.6 or even a 3.8 into my Boxster to have the car that Porsche should have produced.

Perfectlap · 05-03-2009, 07:15 PM

One of the things you may do with your new Porsche which you weren't planning on is to participate in your local Porsche Club's Autocross and track events (DE's).
I've driven 2.5, 2.7 and 3.2 (still waiting for a shot at 3.4) at these events and out of corners the car has a much more "lively" exit with the additional HP and torque. In my opinion under these circumstances a car of this weight is ideal with 240 HP. I've noticed this with the Honda S2000 as well.
If you don't dabble in these events even just a few times you're missing out on a huge component of being the owner of a car of this caliber. Its very inexpensive ($40 per event) and over the course of a few months you'll take your driving skills to another level that could be useful in the real world. On at least one ocassion I avoided a big accident in front of me by a cat's whisker with some quick hands and hard braking.

Petermcd · 05-04-2009, 03:51 AM

Ok first off you all are awesome - that is some great help. I would really be searching blind otherwise. If anyone ever gets to Cape Cod the beers are on me.

JP308 - you are absolutely right - the S-type I drove had 18" wheels and the 2.7 had 17". I enjoyed the ride in the 17" wheels more. Whats the advantage of bigger wheels???? Stiffer is better for handling twisty roads but more tiring for long distance? The size of the tire gets smaller as wheel size increases?

I have to say after each of the few I tested -" Holy S---- I want this car now". Was not expecting to to think that with the 2.7 for all I had heard but I totally get that once behind the wheel you could care less which one you are driving. Patience is going to be tough!

Definitely going to be taking options into strong consideration. PSM, Litronics, glass rear window and leather (tx 23109VC) seem to be most valued by people I have spoken to...and probably best for resale..... anything else I should be strongly considering?

Had not thought about autocross or track but that might be a blast in this car...

Thanks again guys......

edevlin · 05-04-2009, 04:25 AM

"In my opinion under these circumstances a car of this weight is ideal with 240 HP."

Interesting comment about weight and hp for our cars. Because of my modding games, my 2000 base Boxster is about 100 lbs lighter than stock and it is putting out a little over 240 hp to the crank. It's unusual that when I am driving the car that I feel like I need any more hp, and the balance and responsiveness is great. I am definately the limiting factor on the perfomance of the car. Still, with all that being said, if I had to replace the engine in my car, it would probably be a 3.6L.....

Ed

:dance:

Brucelee · 05-04-2009, 07:59 AM

I have had them both and would buy an S.

As Randall stated, the torque is really the thing. Makes the care more enjoyable for most of the driving we all do.

Perfectlap · 05-04-2009, 08:11 AM

^ Sportec put in a 3.6 a long time ago and they weren't that impressed. With bigger brakes "the Boxster can still handle much more power" was the conclusion.
But a mid engine roadster with 350+HP isn't really a roadster anymore.

I think the weight of the Boxster should be much lower. A well engineered manual soft top would be better than a slow heavy motor. I'd get rid of cruise control too.
My GT3 seats and 20 pound 18 wheels (moving weight) vs 30 pound wheels and the stock seats probably reduced the weight of an extra passenger.

Immortal1520 · 05-04-2009, 11:38 AM

I think every 2.7 or 2.5 owner probably has probably thought about how things would be with a 3.2L. It's no lie, there are times where I wish I had one myself. But also, you need to think about what you would do with those extra cc's. I don't take my box out for track days nor do I race or go nuts with it. For me, a 3.2 would be pointless. I'd pretty much be paying a lot more for an S badge and painted calipers.

If you're going to be like me and cruise more than race, you're better off with a 2.7. If not, get that S. You'll be happy either way, and once you do make that purchase... welcome to the boxster community!