Why do I need an S and what year

[mikefocke]

I'm surprised someone hasn't mentioned some:

cost of tires on larger diameter wheels

frequency of CV joint boot failures on 6 speed cars (versus 5-speed or TIP)

[JTP]

Originally Posted by mikefocke

I'm surprised someone hasn't mentioned some:

cost of tires on larger diameter wheels

frequency of CV joint boot failures on 6 speed cars (versus 5-speed or TIP)

Why do 6 speeds have a higher CVJ boot failure?

[Perfectlap]

my previous car was a Miata. I changed the shocks/springs twice (KYBs were awesome for that car, Tokis not so much), shock mounts in the rear for more travel, BBS wheels, exhaust, ceramic headers, intake, full aero package, low profile headlights, glass top, MP3 CD player (a big deal in 1998) and a prsitine hard top.
Selling that car was a dumb move but having two roadsters seemed excessive. I should have kept it as an autocrosser. At any rate that car had the shifter kart for the road feel about it that the Boxster does not have. The Boxster feels more like a full sized sports car, that sits higher and dupes you into thinking you aren't really going so fast. The Miata really let you know how fast you were going because it was a tin can. I'm sure the Lotus has a similar feel. To tell you the truth I had a lot more fun driving one of the newer Mini Coopers than the Boxster S.
You just don't interact with the gear box in the same way with the Porsche.
But for power over 200 HP and real world practicality the Boxster still sets the bar amongst roadsters. The S2000 was a most excellent car as well but looked a little generic to me and seat position was kinda awkward for me. I knew a guy who raced in some junior formulas against one of the big F1 stars and when I arrived with the Boxster S he was more excited than I was. He said this car does everything perfectly and would have been his first choice but settled on an S2000 instead because he feared the upkeep of a car that would be tracked/autox'd.

I'd wait for the 3.4 Boxsters to come down in price. Which given the way this economy is moving shouldn't be that long. I'm not crazy about 987 styling but there is no debating the egineering and reliability improvements. If I could retrofit real retractcable soft top (minust the motor) using ball bearings and a manual pull to a Boxster Spyder I'd be all over that.

[Steve Tinker]

Originally Posted by JTP

Why do 6 speeds have a higher CVJ boot failure?

I believe the drive shafts are mounted at a more acute angle on the six speeder compared with the 5 speed.
Mine had to be replaced at 40,000 miles because 2 were already split and 2 had started de-laminating.

[JTP]

Originally Posted by Steve Tinker

I believe the drive shafts are mounted at a more acute angle on the six speeder compared with the 5 speed.
Mine had to be replaced at 40,000 miles because 2 were already split and 2 had started de-laminating.

Thanks Steve, that's interesting. I've had to replace two of mine at around 40k miles also. I never considered the 6-spd transaxle would put the axles at a different angle than others.

[sd_boxster]

Back to what I think is the crux of the matter - S versus Non-S on a tight budget - I'd still go with a CPO non-S instead of a private-party S.

If you're going to take your Boxster to the drag strip, it won't matter anyway. If you're going to take it to the autocross, buy the S (it'll be faster and you'll be voiding your warranty anyway if the dealer finds out the car was tracked). If you want an awesome car with the peace of mind that you won't be on the hook for 12 grand if your motor grenades 6 months from now, buy the CPO non-S.

My other coupe is a 96 C4 with an LT1. My Corvette Jedi mechanic and I have tinkered to the point where it's now making 350+ HP at the wheels, I've gutted some weight out of it to bring it close to the 986's weight, and with the Dana 44 3.73 rear end, it is a rocket. At the drag strip, hooking up is a challenge, and if I don't back off on the 1-2 shift, I'll waste a second or two doing a second burnout. But the Boxster, even with roughly half the WHP, is a much more fun car, and I drive it more agressively than I do the Vette because it is more capable and predictable.

So anyway, I ramble. You won't want to kill yourself 6 months from now if you buy a non-S instead of an S, but if you are the proud owner of a rolling chassis six months from now because you bought Tom Slick's ragged-out S... well... :ah:

[Perfectlap]

by the way to the OP,
if you decide on a 986S or a 987 with the 3.2 or 3.4...just my opinion, but a car at this curb weight needs at least 240 HP. But it this way, at under 240 it's all driver. At 240'ish it's a even mix of driver and engine. At over 300 its most the car doing the work. Coming out of turns under braking the mid egine set up "comes alive" if you will with 240 HP. Even the S2000 despite their torque issues, well the early ones at least, and their engines sitting just behind the front shock mounts, still benefited greatly from this amount of power. I'm sure the engineers at Honda tinkered with different outputs to arrive at this sweet spot on power. If you recall that car was well received right out of the box while many had some issues with the original Boxster coming in under 240 HP at first.

In terms of real world practicality, having 240 HP (or whatever that translates at the wheels) is very useful in merging on highways and overtaking some of these minivans and cross overs with surprisingly big engines that always seem to be in the way or doing parallels with each other on the highway.