base boxster
 

I just got a base '05 boxster. Sure the S is much faster, but is it $10,000 faster? I don't think it's worth the huge price difference. Why did I want a boxster. Because it looks sweet, sounds sweet, and drives sweet. With the top down, I don't care that much about 0-60 times. As long as it's under 6 sec, it's fast enough for me. If money weren't an issue, sure, why not get the S. But $10,000 isn't chump change, so I don't think it's worth it. I have plenty of fun with my 240 hp. By the way, I never drove the S b/c I don't want to know how much faster it feels.

Reading these threads are very interesting. Everyone is always going to try to justify why they purchased what they have. When it all comes down to it there will always be a reason for what we buy and enjoy. Let's face it, it's a car not an investment. I've had several expensive cars from an Porsche 928 S4 to a BMW 850i and I've enjoyed them all. I choose the base model b/c I got a great deal and it's a second car for fun. My Mercedes E430 has plenty of power but isn't as much fun to drive. If you buy a boxster S over a base b/c of the possible resale value I think you're not investing your money wisely. Let's not forget this car isn't a collector's dream it's a basic fun car to drive everyday. So let's just enjoy our cars for what they are.

If we are talking about a new S model as an "investment", actually, it is not a wise choice. The reason is that is depreciates faster on a % basis than the base model.

To wit, the price difference new is about $10G. The difference on a three year old model is down to about 4-5G.

That is why the S model is def. the one to get if you are buying a used Porsche (IMHO).

However, it is clear that cars are NOT an investment over all. It is also true that if you don't have the dough, you don't have the dough.

These are really good problems to have, no?

You are thinking rational
 

IMHO someone who is thinking rational will never buy a Porsche. There's lots of other cars out there for less money.

I'm in Europe/Holland and my new MY01 BoxsterS set me back 80k euro's which is more than I payed for my house. No way I can rationalise it. I just had the money to spent, only live once and wanted to spoil myself with a open sportcar (open was THE criteria because I like cabrio's).

Considered:
- F360 spider
- Corvette Convertible
- Honda S2000
- Audi TT cabrio
- Porsche Boxster

Never considered a 911. Too big for my taste and engine in the back !!!!????!!!!
Corvette Convertible is to big/heavy, F360 spider I could buy but questioned whether I could affort the running costs and why think of a S200/TT when you can affort a Boxster.

So I ordered MY ultimate Boxster. An S, speedyellow, special paint on dash, GT3 rims, sportsuspension, no psm, no airco, sport-exhaust, full leather, sportseats and some other nifty things. Rational NO WAY, fun ALL THE WAY.

Though about letting Gemballa put a 450bhp bi-turbo set on it. Then I became rational again;-)

So basically If you shopping in this range. Think rational about how much money you can spent on something non rational/bisare hobby of yours and then let your heart get in and buy the best possible within the rational set budget. For me there was no question about it I had to have the S because I like power (there is never enough) and could affort it. For you the base might be better because you have other things in your heart. But _PLEASE_ don't rationalize buying a Boxster. There is nothing rational about it !


Mark.

My thoughts exactly. :cheers:
Enjoy what you have because you are in a small percentile of people that are in the position to say, "I enjoy driving my Porsche"

I love my boxster i had enough money to buy an 03 facelift or an 02 s i drove sevaral and decided on the 03 base never looked back and never been beaten by a z4 yet... :D

Bruce, you sell cars so you must know what you're talking about. But I don't understand the comment on faster depreciation. There's less S cars, and as more enthusiasts discover the Boxster I would assume supply/demand would generate a higher price for the S.

The only reason I can see an S depreciating more is because people are getting rid of them for way less than it's worth. Again, supply is less than a base model so it doesn't make sense.

Here's what I see on KBB based on 2002 Boxster and Boxster S w/ 25000 miles:
Box msrp: $42600 Private sale: $27950 Cost to own: $14650
Box S msrp: $51600 Private sale: $34950 Cost to own: $16650

So the difference is $2K.

The S comes with a few extras like bigger wheels, interior bits, etc. that would easily make up the $2K difference. Not to mention the obvious bigger motor.

-

In real terms, I will pay an extra $10K to buy an new S vs a standard Box.

Say three years later, I go to buy a used Box. I will likely pay about $5 more for the S vs the standars Box.

So, the S has depreciated at a faster rate, ie, it has not maintained that edge of $10G but that edge has declined some 50% or $5G.

So, in relative terms, the S "incremental cost" has degraded faster than the base car's depreciation, which is less than 50%.

This is not surprising. The cost of options follows this path generally speaking. For example, you may pay $2G for the full leather interior or similar option. 3 yrs later, it is worth $425 as an add-on value in your car.

Now, as to WHY this is, well, I never try to figure this out. The market is the market!

Make sense?

Let's not forget the 10K extra is not just for the .5L bump in displacement. I'm not sure if the 987 and the 987 S share the same brakes, but in the case of the 986 S you get the 911 brakes and the 6 speeds tranny. Plus some other little extras here and there. Heck, I bet the 986 S brakes alone cost several thousand dollars if bought separately.

Yeah, $10,000 gets you the following "real" pieces:

- Six-speed transmission
- Bigger engine
- Bigger wheels

It also gets you the following "bogus" pieces:

- Dual exhaust tips
- Red painted calipers
- Fake front scoop

:rolleyes:

It would cost you much more than $10,000 for you to increase your standard's Boxster's performance to match that of the S.

And of course doing it yourself is something that is RARELY done better than the manufacturer of the car unless you are dealing with some well known professional tuners like RUF. And beleive me they aren't givin out any discounts lately.

The best course of action is to buy the S (986 or 987) after a couple of years.
But some people don't like to wait! :cheers:

Respectfully disagree, Brucelee
 

Would it not be better to compare the price diff between the base and S in percentage? I don't think a cold-hard $10k figure is an appropriate basis of comparison as time progresses (you have to leave room for that price difference to depreciate as well, no?).

For easy figuring let's say a new new base model is $40k and a new S is $50k. So you'd have to pay 25% above the cost of the regular Box to get into an S. This translates to a $10k difference.

Now let's say the avg used Box (regular model) after several years is $32k. In this case the basis of comparison to see which model has depreciated faster is 25% above $32k = $40k for the S. The original $10k difference is now $8k (but more "fair" I'd think).

According to Lux's MSRP figures earlier in this thread (KBB used 2002 MY w/ 25000 miles):

Box msrp: $42600 Private sale: $27950
Box S msrp: $51600 Private sale: $34950

we see that in 2002 one paid 21% more than a new base model to get a new S. And according to the private sale figures, today you'd pay 25% above a used regular Box to get a used S. Meaning the base model is depreciating faster than the S *assuming* the KBB prices are indicative of what consumers actually pay (big assumption).

Please correct/update the calculations if you have more accurate prices. I tried to get real-world asking values from autotrader.com but couldn't separate regular model vs. S model pricing.

Sorry to math-out like that, hope it was clear (-ish). ;b

I absolute terms, the amount one takes on depreciation for an S is larger than one takes for a standard boxster, over say a three year period. To me, this means that from a financial perspective, the S is going to cost me more in pure depreciation than the standard car will over that same time. If this were not true, to me the S as a new car would be an no-brainer.

Moreover, the KBB data is faulty here. In reality, a 2002 S will likely net you about $5K more than a standard Box, not $7 as they say. This is not the only place where KBB falls down BTW.

Of course, it all depends on how you look at it. To me, the used Box S is the car to buy, as much of the cost diff has been wrung out of it by the marketplace.

Make sense?

:cheers:

I second that. One of many things designed for a false sense of confidence in.

Not to be too harsh on KBB but ALL value guides are not the bible that they are touted to be.

Think about it; where do they get all these data from and how do they insure it is accurate? As a dealer I can tell you that it is next to impossible to get a very precise picture of what a car really was sold or traded for, if you are data collection agency.

Having said that, I use KBB as a guide. However, I rely on auction data much more so, as it actually shows me the individual transactions AND the averages.

S or Plain
 

I bought an S but have nothing against the base model. As others have mentioned this argument is totally subjective. In my case I opted for the S since it was my first Porsche so I went for the more powerful engine, in short the more bang for my dollars. I drive it to work every day even in the winter. I would assume the base unit would be as enjoyable as the S as a daily driver. The upgrade will cost you about 5 to 10 thousand so if you have the disposable income you can buy it and if not you can still get the base model. Good luck in your choice but for sure you will be happy with either. :)

[Brucelee]I absolute terms, the amount one takes on depreciation for an S is larger than one takes for a standard boxster, over say a three year period.
Agreed. This is the "cost to own". But you must also agree that it is much less less than the initial $9K difference to buy.


[Brucelee]Moreover, the KBB data is faulty here. In reality, a 2002 S will likely net you about $5K more than a standard Box, not $7 as they say.
OK, so using the original KBB formula and adjusting the S price to [base+$5K] you still only pay $4K more out of pocket instead of the $2K per KBB. Yes, it's still $4K more than the base. But you get a whole lot of goodies for that $4K.

People can throw the "it's not worth an extra $9K" BS all they want. That's subjective and everyone's entitled to their opinion. But the fact is that it only costs about $4K extra in the end to own an S.

-

That's not a fact. That's just another BS opinion, based on assumptions that the car will be resold in three years for the assumed depreciated price, and it does not take into account higher insurance, potentially higher gasoline costs, potentially replacing your 19-inch tires more frequently, or the costs of financing (or lost investment opportunity costs if you paid all cash).

I could have fun with statistics and show you that if one person bought a base Boxster and another bought an S for $10K more, and both paid let's say $5,000 down and financed the balance, and both kept their cars for 10 years, the S owner could spend an $20K or more to own the S compared with the base Boxster owner.

And that's just another reason why I'm getting an S.

[SoCal]That's not a fact. That's just another BS opinion, based on assumptions that the car will be resold in three years for the assumed depreciated price.

Reading comprehension. You should try it. The numbers can be backed up because they are based on a 2002 car. These are not projected numbers. I even adjusted for Brucelee's numbers and they still support my argument. If you don't want KBB's numbers, feel free to use NADA, Edmunds, or any other used car price book. Also feel free to look up lease residuals. The only time your argument would hold water is when an S sells for the same price as a base, comparably equipped and same year/mileage. I doubt that'll happen anytime soon.

I'm done here. You're trolling and you're not even good at it.

-

Logical reasoning. You should try it.

You cherry pick the date you want about the timing of a relatively near-term resale, and you ignore other variables -- financing costs, insurance, gas, tires, etc. -- and from that you leap to the so-called "fact" of a $4K difference in cost of ownership.

I didn't say your relative depreciation assumptions were invalid for a resale after only a few years.

Rather, I said you make the assumption about the timing of a resale being in a few years, as if everyone would do that, and then you ignore other cost variables to reach an inaccurate blanket conclusion about the cost of ownership differences.