Just Ranting
 

I am tired of uneducated 996/997 owners saying how their vehicles have better handling then our boxsters. I can understand the argument of how our boxsters are underpowered and what not. But to say that the 996/997 handles even close to the boxster is absurd. If you were to put exact same engines in the boxster and the 996/7, the boxster would win hands down. It is just pure physics. A mid engine roadster will beat a rear engine 2+2 sports car. The new 987 boxster S will out slalom a 997 s or not. In the latest road and track, I believe the boxster beat the ENZO's slalom record. I am a car enthusiast, holding nothing against the 996/7 but I cannot stand ignorant comments.

I dream about owning a 997 turbo one day and think the m3 is more practical, however, I love my boxster. I just cannot understand the 996/7 community(claiming their true "car" enthusiast) lying to themsleves that their car handles better then ours because it just ins't true.

Flame away

I once told myself I would never buy a Boxster. If I was going to plunk down big bucks for a car it would have to be the 911.
Well I didn't know what the hell I was talking about back then. Like most people..
Buying a cabriolet Porsche in my book is for old guys or Britney spears.
Which leaves only one choice if you want a drop top and a Porsche: The 986

IMO, The Boxster and the 911 are two completely different engineering/design principles.

One car was orginally designed to be a convertible the other was not.

I blame Porsche for not marketing this point enough. But they were in desperate need of a car to sell to the masses to save the entire operation from going the way of the Tucker (extinct). Porsche wasn't interested in making any points other than "look we made a CHEAPER Porsche, PLEASE BUY IT SO WE CAN PAY THE ELECTRIC BILL!" Well like the Miata, Porsche missed an oppourtunity to educate consumers on the enourmous engineering that went into creating this car. The Miata is probably the most sought after car for new racing drivers yet its still seen as a chick car. No mention of its excellent chasis, equal weight distribution,light weight,precise shifting,great power to weight, and bullet proof reliability, its still to this day after years of club racing, a chick car.

I once read an interview with the head of Porsche UK in which he said "well the first time Porsche buyer will generally buy a Boxster and then later on move up to the 911 ". I thought he should have been fired for saying that. Until I read an interview with 18 year old Patrick Long (American racing driver) in which he said that off track the Porsche racing apprentice drivers are given Boxsters and the fully inducted drivers are given 911's. "you have to pay your dues before you get the 911".
I now see where this misguided feeling that Boxster is a stepping stone comes from: Porsche.

There will always be that perception that someone bought a boxster because they couldn't afford a 911. And I agree that Porsche marketing is partly to blame, along with 911 owners who have the natural kneejerk reaction to defend a car that costs 25K and up more. Unfortunately for its "image", used boxsters can come cheap, with 2.5's priced in the upper teens, low 20's and 2000 S's under 30K. Moreover, I do see a disproportionate amount of boxsters driven by women. Just yesterday I pulled up alongside a silver boxster at a light, eager to wave to a fellow owner. However, the woman driving it was too busy putting on her makeup to notice. Such is how a stereotype is perpetuated. One thing I have noticed is that almost every S I have seen had a man behind the wheel whereas it is a more even split on the 2.5/2.7's. Perhaps this is because the S is marketed as more of the "performance" boxster? (Apologies in advance for the admittedly sexist remark, but I am just reporting my observations.)

It is all good stuff. From my point of view:

Porsche builds cars to make money and they have their own cultural biases. They have the 911 franschise to protect and they need the Boxster. It is a tightrope they walk everyday. Also, being German I can say that arrogance is our birthright. It shows up in cars big time!

Those 911 owners have their own reality. I am fine to let them have it. Hey, they pay enough for it. When I have a 911 to drive, it is a kick. Yet, give me a S Box any old time.

RE: Women and Box S's? I love to see a pretty woman in a boxster, any model, preferrably siting next to me in mine!

:cheers:

BTW- on a track, give me a Box S and I will take on any base 911 out there. Money on me????

i put would money on a boxster stock for stock and equal driving ablities

997 vs. 987
 

Whatever the perception whatever the marketing ploy whatever the whatevers the fact is that the Boxster holds its own vs. anything placed on the road against it. We should be not only happy to own such a fine car but we are immensely blessed to drive such a fine machine. I don't feel chided by not owning a 911 or depressed about it. I feel that our car is super quick has the same brand as the 997 and the Cayenne etc. As far as racing heritage lots of the Porsche victory have been by prototypes 917's, 962's etc not necessarily the 911. So it's not the racing prowess of the 911 or the handling of the 911 for sure, it is just the marketing of the 911 that pushes the Boxster aside to a lesser role.
Proof for all Boxster malcontents is the fact that automobile magazine after magazine picks the Boxster over the 911 time and time again. More fun to drive, get more for your money, and much better looking. What more can we say about our car that is a KICK ASS CAR. Screw the rest. :cheers:

Most of the track-slanted reviews that I've read have said that the Boxster out-handles the 996, I just bought one yesterday and I have to say the handling on it is outstanding. (And everything else, I'm thrilled with the car). I traded my track-prepped Viper GTS for it, (for several reasons), and I can say that my base '01 boxster handles better than my sorted Viper.

On an autocross track, totally. On a road track, though, I'd be very surprised if I'd be faster in a Boxster than a 993 or later. The bigger car just has the grunt on any sort of straightaway, and while after driving both I think the Boxster turns better, the margin isn't enough to make up for the grunt in the 911.

(Sorry, not a flame, but that extra $50K has to buy something , right?

A.

"(Sorry, not a flame, but that extra $50K has to buy something , right?"

Higher repair bills and insurance rates?????????????

:D

The extra $50K is going to buy a lot of whine when the Cayman S starts ripping it up!

:D

I've been reading up on 911 owners reactions to the Cayman S. I thought it would've been positive. Instead, I see a lot of hate. Those guys crack me up. They are as bad as the Corvette guys. Just full of themselves and sometimes outright clueless. Some even justify the wrong engine location by saying it's heritage and that's why it's the only real Porsche. :rolleyes:


-

My favorite quote is still that the 911 is a triumph of design over physics. They are very nice cars, though expensive for the performance. Claiming that the 911 is the best car in the universe is tough to back up, the Ariel Atom, for instance, has better power/weight than an Enzo and costs $30K.

I still don't understand why the Boxster and the 996 are even compared.

They are two totally different cars.

Its kind of like a M3 owner complaining about/slamming the Z4.

The Cayman is a diffrent story I suppose because both the Cayman
and the 996 are actually engineered to be tin top racers.

But I will believe the overall track superiority of one ore the other when the
first Cayman wins at LeMans.
:D just kidding, if the Cayman beat the 996 well that would be a nightmare for Porsche.

I see the argument about which is better the 996/997 or the 986/987 all the time. As far as I am concerned it is like comparing a 12oz. steak and a 24oz. steak. Yes the 12oz may leave you wanting a little more but can you handle 24oz. I see a lot of 911's around here and seldom see them doing anything you couldn't do in a 350z( no slight intended). I think that it is more a case of mine is bigger than yours, at least around here. Certainly there are those who get 90% out of their cars, I'll never come close to that. I have heard of how edgy the 911 can be and have no need for this, the 986/987 is just so civilized, how far do you need to push it to get into trouble with the 986/987? The 911 Cab will do 0-60 in 5 sec. the 987S does it in 5.2 I can live with this for 26,000 dollars after all mine is a weekend drive only. The 986/987 has more trunk space and looks much nicer. I promise that I will not lust over the 996/997, in any of its forms. The Boxster is that good a fit.

i hear ya man!

LOL, what have the 911 owners been saying exactly?

If I understand the history of Porsche accurately, the rear engine in the 911 is due to it having been in the Bug and that is what Porsche could buy after he got out of prison.

If so, it hardly seems like a technology that needs to be preserved.

Moreover, are there ANY race cars that are designed this way? IE Grand Prix, nascar, etc.

If it were inherently superior, we would see others use it, ie like mid engine technology.


Lastly, did not the 550 feature a mid engine configuration? :eek:
Hmmmm!

I think the very first Porsche (a 356) was in fact mid-engined and aluminum-bodied. But they had to move the motor to the back to accommodate four seats, as far as I know.

here is a link for you guys...in a nutshell it went from a cayman bashing section to a 911 member defending the boxster and calling the 911 owners out to be posers! pretty interesting read!

How could they bash a car that is superior in every aspect? They must have really been grasping at straws.

Saphriel is correct, Porsche No. 1 (1948) was a mid-engine roadster with an aluminum body. Following the prototype, all subsequent 356's were rear engine. The reason given for switching to the rear-engine VW-style chassis was primarily lower cost. I assume this meant that they could use more unmodified VW pieces.