Base Model is better choice than S
 

Several posters have been emphatic that the S is the only way to go. Only a very few have said that the base is OK, but even then almost apologetically.

I'm willing to take some flack, so here's why the base model Boxster is just fine:

The 240-hp engine of a 987 provides only a little less power than the S of a couple years ago. The difference is negligible.

I'm not going to take the car onto a track. I don't plan to race anyone. I love driving, but I'm doing 99% of it in town, up PCH or on the freeway, which is no place to try to push any limits of speed or handling. I couldn't care less whether a Z4 or SLK passes me. Crossfire maybe, but I'll survive it.

If you're going to get an S for performance, then you better get options like the Sport Chrono and PASM too. Once you do, the price is getting up so high that I can't imagine not just getting a Carrera coupe.

If you want a car to race, why get a convertible anyway? If you want a convertible, then you're not really racing.

OK, now talk me into an S, but when you're done, tell me the price of the car and why I'm not getting a new 911 coupe for $10K more.

I don't see any reason why anyone should try to convince you to get an S. If you don't feel you need it, then that's fine. Go drive the two and figure out which one makes you happy, then buy it.

Personally, I didn't buy a 986 S because I felt that they were too slow and they didn't feel as crisp as I wanted them to feel. I wanted a car that didn't make me feel like I'd want to change anything on it. The 987 is that car. The base chassis/suspension setup is nice enough (although I went with PASM) but the base engine is still a bit too slow for me. The S had the horsepower I wanted, so that's what I chose.

My desire for a fast car has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to race anyone else. I drive for myself, not to impress others. :) And it's all relative--what you consider "fast" or "fun", so again, there is no reason why anyone should convince you of one over the other.

I knew one of these threads would pop up...it was due. And I love these threads :D



The 240-hp engine of a 987 provides only a little less power than the S of a couple years ago. The difference is negligible.
It's not negligible. The 986 S still has significantly more torque. If you cared about top speed, then HP is a good comparision. But if you care about acceleration (as most people do), then torque rules. If you don't enjoy dropping the hammer, then why buy a sports car?

I'm not going to take the car onto a track.
If that's a justification then a Honda Accord with 240hp would save you tons of money.

I don't plan to race anyone.
So if you don't buy a sports car to drive...well, sporty, then what do you buy it for? Utility?

I love driving, but I'm doing 99% of it in town, up PCH or on the freeway, which is no place to try to push any limits of speed or handling.
So let's see, with more torque on the S (986 or 987), you can get to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60...etc. faster. I don't think getting to 60mph as fast as you can is "pushing the limits". But it is a lot of fun and part of owning a sports car.

Again, if you're not going to be doing any of this, then why buy a sports car in the first place? Or, why not buy a Mazdaspeed Miata with 170hp? It would be significantly cheaper than a Boxster and provide 10/10ths of what the Boxster provides if driven as you allude to.

If you're going to get an S for performance, then you better get options like the Sport Chrono and PASM too.
Sport Chrono and PASM are driver aids. A person might elect out of those options because they want to improve their driving skills yet still have the fastest model of the Boxster.

Once you do, the price is getting up so high that I can't imagine not just getting a Carrera coupe.
Let's see, you're comparing a fully loaded Boxster S to a stripped down Carrera hardtop? First of all, the 2 cars are obviously different. Why don't you compare a Boxster S to a 911 Cabrio? Second, mid-engine and rear-engine handle differently so how can you even compare the two?

If you want a car to race, why get a convertible anyway? If you want a convertible, then you're not really racing.
Does it say that somewhere in the Racing Handbook? Come to think of it...aren't F1, champ cars, prototypes, etc. all open cockpit cars? Weren't all the old racing Porsches open air cars? Old AC Cobras? Hmmm.

OK, now talk me into an S, but when you're done, tell me the price of the car and why I'm not getting a new 911 coupe for $10K more.
Along with the above rebuttals, I'd have to say "why aren't you buying a lesser car than a Base Boxster?" Afterall, there are plenty of cars that are just as fast or slower that are cheaper.

So you see, your argument doesn't lie in the Box S vs. the 911. It lies in the Box vs. the S2K, Miata, Solstice, Sky, MR2, TT, Z4, Crossfire, and 350Z Cabrio. I'd like to see you justify the Boxster against those sports cars...as well as against the Maxima, Accord, G35, Neon R/T, and RSX (to name a few) relative to how you perceive you'll drive the car.

And last but not least, the Box S costs more initially, but also resells for more. So the actual amount of money spent doesn't really reflect the actual cost-to-own differences.

Your turn. :p
-

Well, as my Grandfather used to tell me,

"there are horses for courses!"

Having more torque on tap is always a nice thing, all things considered.

Whether it is worth the extra money is of course, totally subjective.

Buy what you like! :cheers:

Here's my 02 cent's worth:

Buy an S so you will have far more people interested in your car when you want to sell it.

If for no other reason, resaleability (not so much value, but the ability to sell it quickly) is important.

... and one more thing that's probably easy to argue with, but is important to me personally:

When you drive down the road and see an S, you will never think to yourself "I wish I had an S now that I've had the car a while."

My dad always said, "You'll never be dissapointed buying the top of the line." In my mind, that would be an S in the Boxster line.

I decided on a non-S for several reasons.

1) Allowed me to get a 99 which is far less money then even a base 2000

2) They did not make Pastel Yellow in 2000+

3) This car has enough power and tourque to get me in trouble as it is, and I by no means think its a slow car

4) I buy a porsche for myself, and I don't care what others think that the car is too slow, or that I won't be able to sell it, or that it is not an S

5) Insurance is far less for a non-S sub 2000

6) If I wanted a sports car thats super fast I would have purchesed a 911, which I thought about, but chose the boxster instead because it was a much funner car to drive

7) I have had it for 2 months now, and have not even thought about reploacing it with an S. The only place I seem to think about this, is on here or other boards that seem to always say that the S is the only way to go

Mike

well if you never drove an S you will always be in Love with your baby.

But if you owned the S and it was totaled and replaced with a standard Boxster you would not be happy.

I guess its like marrying the first girl you ever dated, not knowing that the total babe that lived next door to you who would go outside to take out her garbage in her two piece bikini and would go out running 5 miles every morning
secretely had a crush on you while your wife stoped having sex with you and started packing on the pounds.

sometimes your better off not experiencing something better.

Interesting analogy :)

If it were only as easy to trade in your wife as it is a car :) eheheheheh Just kidding

Mike

A few points of contention:

"Sport Chrono and PASM are driver aids. A person might elect out of those options because they want to improve their driving skills yet still have the fastest model of the Boxster."

Do you mean PSM is a driver aid? The Sport chrono is a gimmick, but the sport BUTTON is not and you can't get it seperately. The Sport button puts PSM in a less motherly mode and remaps the throttle response curve to a more sport and responsive setting. (I really hate the electronic throttle).

PASM allows the car to ride soft when cruising and stiffen up to a more sporty setting when needed.

PSM has been driving me kind of nuts. I'm considering disabling it and driving around, but I'll have to wait until I have time to pay a bit more attention to the car.

"If I wanted a sports car thats super fast I would have purchesed a 911,"

Don't sell yourself that short--the 911 isn't THAT fast really. :) If you wanted a sports car that was super fast you could have purchased a Corvette Z06. :)

seriously at this curb weight when a car goes over the 240 HP mark something happens to the car.
its hard to describe but it just comes alive, not just off the line but in all situations.
I had the same feeling when I drove a supercharged Miata.

a very different sensation for me.
And pratically speaking as other's have pointed out if you plan to sell you Boxster NOT BUYING the S may cost you more than buying the standard boxster.
The S has a slower depreciation.

There are lots of ways to enjoy automobiles. There was a time when I pretty much thought that the "performance" of said vehicle, as measured by stop watches and lap times was the only thing that counted.
All of the enthusiast auto magazines teach us to buy into this nonsense by track testing street cars and trumpeting the outcome as proving that one pile of aluminum and plastic is better than the other pile of aluminum and plastic because it goes around in a circle microscopically faster.
Stopwatches and horsepower figures can only represent one view of the appeal of a car to the owner. For some people it is a big factor, for others, not so much.
My standard Boxster, with a Tiptronic no less, has no trouble keeping up with traffic, so I guess I would have to say the performance is adequate.

My turn
 

OK, Lux, Thanks for playing along. Here's my reply.


The 240-hp engine of a 987 provides only a little less power than the S of a couple years ago. The difference is negligible.
It's not negligible. The 986 S still has significantly more torque. If you cared about top speed, then HP is a good comparision. But if you care about acceleration (as most people do), then torque rules. If you don't enjoy dropping the hammer, then why buy a sports car?
To follow your logic then, you'd want a 911, or a Corvette, but not an S. You always can point a different car to get "a little more" acceleration or speed. My point is that the basic Boxster is sufficient for its intended purpose, sporty cruising, and that the S is not worth the $10K increase.

I'm not going to take the car onto a track.
If that's a justification then a Honda Accord with 240hp would save you tons of money.
Wrong answer. I want the fun of driving the Boxster. The extra money for the S is not worth it.


I don't plan to race anyone.
So if you don't buy a sports car to drive...well, sporty, then what do you buy it for? Utility?
You're replacing logic with sarcasm, and making my point for me. I do want sporty driving, which is amply served by the base Boxster. Still waiting for any justification for $10K more for the S.

I love driving, but I'm doing 99% of it in town, up PCH or on the freeway, which is no place to try to push any limits of speed or handling.
So let's see, with more torque on the S (986 or 987), you can get to 20, 30, 40, 50, 60...etc. faster. I don't think getting to 60mph as fast as you can is "pushing the limits". But it is a lot of fun and part of owning a sports car.
But just barely faster. Not $10K faster. Not 911 faster.

Again, if you're not going to be doing any of this, then why buy a sports car in the first place? Or, why not buy a Mazdaspeed Miata with 170hp? It would be significantly cheaper than a Boxster and provide 10/10ths of what the Boxster provides if driven as you allude to.
But you're not answering my question, which is why pay $10K more for an S.

If you're going to get an S for performance, then you better get options like the Sport Chrono and PASM too.
Sport Chrono and PASM are driver aids. A person might elect out of those options because they want to improve their driving skills yet still have the fastest model of the Boxster.
Would you opt out of these options? If you're emphasis is on performance? That's inconsistent.

Once you do, the price is getting up so high that I can't imagine not just getting a Carrera coupe.
Let's see, you're comparing a fully loaded Boxster S to a stripped down Carrera hardtop? First of all, the 2 cars are obviously different. Why don't you compare a Boxster S to a 911 Cabrio? Second, mid-engine and rear-engine handle differently so how can you even compare the two?
I'm not comparing a 911 Cab because the 911 was built to be a coupe. Again, you're making my point. If you want a sporty, top-down cruiser, the base model is fine. If you want high-performance, then you want the 911 coupe.

If you want a car to race, why get a convertible anyway? If you want a convertible, then you're not really racing.
Does it say that somewhere in the Racing Handbook? Come to think of it...aren't F1, champ cars, prototypes, etc. all open cockpit cars? Weren't all the old racing Porsches open air cars? Old AC Cobras? Hmmm.
Gee, I didn't know that those purpose-built open-cockpit race cars had soft tops hidden in the back, and that they were designed to be street legal. You've gone tilt here. You may as well concede that the basic Boxster fits the purpose of the car, and the moderately higher performance of the S isn't worth the price tag.

OK, now talk me into an S, but when you're done, tell me the price of the car and why I'm not getting a new 911 coupe for $10K more.
Along with the above rebuttals, I'd have to say "why aren't you buying a lesser car than a Base Boxster?" Afterall, there are plenty of cars that are just as fast or slower that are cheaper.
Because I want a Porsche, for all the obvious reasons -- style, handling. My post stayed with comparisons in the Porsche line.

So you see, your argument doesn't lie in the Box S vs. the 911. It lies in the Box vs. the S2K, Miata, Solstice, Sky, MR2, TT, Z4, Crossfire, and 350Z Cabrio. I'd like to see you justify the Boxster against those sports cars...as well as against the Maxima, Accord, G35, Neon R/T, and RSX (to name a few) relative to how you perceive you'll drive the car.
But that's exactly where the argument lies, comparing the Porsche lineup with itself. You can't support your position without going to different makes. My point still is, if you want a convertible, get a base Boxster. If you want performance, get a 911 coupe.

And last but not least, the Box S costs more initially, but also resells for more. So the actual amount of money spent doesn't really reflect the actual cost-to-own differences.
Same argument makes you buy a 911, or a GT for that matter. Plus, I thought you recommended against PASM and Chrono -- doesn't that cut against your resale value argument.

Your turn. :p
OK, I've considered your attempts at refuting my position, and the answer is clear. I'm getting an S!!! I wouldn't be getting a Boxster if I wasn't at least a little bit a thrill junkie. No damn Z4 is pulling away from me!

^ Is this guy for real? You want an S now? This is good stuff. Nice rebuttals Lux, I couldn't have said it better myself. At first I thought Socal had an inferiority complex and was trying to justify his base model.

As I wise man once said---


"There is no replacement, for displacement!"

:troll:

Amen!


-

Damn, this thread is like a good thriller! The ups, the downs, and the surprise ending! You were pulling our leg all the time, weren't you? :cheers:

Want to keep this going...
 

Yep, could have bought the S, but then my logic:

1. I need to learn to drive first. 'Slower' cars need better drivers - now I have to learn. Umm, I have a modified WRX that will out accelerate most Boxsters - S or not. Fun car, but now too many kids have it.

2. Blow up my motor, out goes the 2.7, in goes the 3.4

3. Yeah, resale for the S is better, but I have a history of giving my used cars to relatives anyway.

4. Lastly, all I want. It's a great handling Porsche. No justification necessary.

The best after effect of buying the car - when I get overwhelmed at work, I reach for my keys and :D

Guy

If you're going to get an S for performance, then you better get options like the Sport Chrono and PASM too. Once you do, the price is getting up so high that I can't imagine not just getting a Carrera coupe.

Not really and exactly, respectively. For the performance nut who doesn't want to drop $60K+ on a new car, an S with very few options would fit the bill (sorry, no more puns, I swear) nicely.

I'd rather have a stripped S than a loaded base model, but that's just me. Of course, if you're pressing your financial limits with the base model then that's the reality. I'm sure you'd have great fun it the base model too!

OK, now talk me into an S, but when you're done, tell me the price of the car and why I'm not getting a new 911 coupe for $10K more.

If you're spending all that money for the base Boxster then what's another $10,000 spread over several years? ;)

(P.S. This is a great forum you guys have here! I look forward to learning even more & contributing to the threads. :cheers: )

Thanks. You guys are great members!

"(P.S. This is a great forum you guys have here! I look forward to learning even more & contributing to the threads. )"

:cheers:

You guys are funny. :)
You remind of me of the 944 guys, "Can anyone help me make my n/a faster?...reply: Yes, sell your car and get a 951(944 turbo).

This basically translates to you guys too. "Sell your base and get an S"

I've not really heard any of the 911 guys say "Sell your base and get an S, Turbo, GT3, or GT2." Is this some sort of "little man syndrome". Every 911 owner I've talked to just says, "I AM GLADE TO HAVE MY CAR"
I know lots of people that have 993s and 964s with less hp than 996s and they profusely are against selling their slower car for a faster and better handling 996 or 997. Why? beside from the air-cooled factor, BECAUSE THEY ENJOY WHAT THEY HAVE.

My opinion is, I am glade you got a PORSCHE AND ENJOY IT. :cheers:

edit:
And if you don't have an S, I say don't worry about what anyone else says. They are just jealous that they don't have a CARRERA GT :dance:

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.