Sorry that my post isn't a contribution, as I don't own and have never planted my butt in an S2000 (yet)...

I just wanted to say that I've actually enjoyed reading this so far, and I'm glad the members on here have enough decency to not turn it into a flame session against one of Honda's better accomplishments of late. Overall very good, objective comments from membes who have owned or otherwise experienced both cars.

:cheers:

Why do you need to own a Boxster before you buy a 911? But following your thinking, Honda made the NSX up to 2005. Although I don't think you have to have owned an S2000 to buy one.

Canadians always pay more on sticker, also back then it was $1 USD = $1.5 CAN.

We still pay more now at our dealers but lots of owners are buying from the US and have them shipped here.

Agreed, it's just that it has more flex than a S2000. It's noticeable if you've owned an S2000.

One other difference that I forgot to mention is the Boxster is a lot quieter on the highway (top up or tow down) than the S2000.

No regrets here on moving up to a Boxster S.

Sorry, I just meant to say that part of my thinking was that a used (cheap) Boxster was an easy way to try the Porsche owners experience and if I liked it, then I could easily upgrade to a higher performance (and more expensive) 996/997 later.

Mainly I was trying to avoid sinking a big investment into something that I'd sell in 6 months for a big loss if I didn't like living with it.

But there is no sensible reason why someone couldn't go straight into a 996/997. Many people do that all of the time.

Your statement is wrong.

You would be down grading to a carrera from a Boxster. Boxsters ger a bad wrap being cheaper and slower. The difference in the two are a motor and extra seats. Go buy a any other super car. Where's the motor? In the middle. The Boxster is way better balanced than any 911. If you want to upgrade get a cayman s. This is just my opinion. I have driven everything that has been talked about so far and the mid engine pcar is the way to go. Heck. Why didn't they make the cgt rear engine? :).
My .02

What happen to Surf?

Owned a 2004 S2000 for almost 2 years. Other than the oil change and tranny flush I performed when I bought the car, I did not have to touch anything for the rest of the time I owned it. If you want reliability, the S2000 is a no brainer.

Owned the 2000 S for almost a month. The car broke down on me once already due to the water pump. I also dread the IMS failure every single time I drive the car. If you like to work on cars, this may be a good choice. Otherwise, be prepared to spend big bucks fixing and maintaining these things.

In terms of driveability, I don't think you'll be disappointed in either one as they are both a blast to drive.

One huge huge plus I'd like to point out for the S2000 is the headlights. They are arguably the best performing headlights in the world. Litronic xenons do not even come close to the sharpness, wideness, and brightness of the s2000 lights.

I think your question is too generic to be answered properly.

THE answer depends almost solely upon what you want the car to do.

If you're planning on any sort of daily driver, don't buy either of them! Get a Civic.

Enlisting a thoroughbred to do draught horse duties is at best a compromise, at worst a disaster. Your cost/mi. is going to be so high that it borders on the impractical (as compared to the cost/mi. of a true daily driver), esp. when you factor in everything incl. ins., tires, MPG, maintenance, etc.

Lots of peeps will chime in and say they drive their Boxsters daily. But, they can't go to the lumber yard with it, pick up an appliance or TV with it, take a month's luggage to the airport with it, carry 2 or 3 friends, etc. - compromise.

If looking for a fun car, the s2k will do, but will lack any visceral feedback. It'll be reliable, cheap to maintain, but boring! Hondas are practical, not sporting. Even the Accura NSX was boringly competent. Lacked any visceral feel and after the 1st 5 mi., you feel you're in a hopped up Civic. Then there's that annoying F22C1 engine in the S2K! If you're not wringing it's neck, making it sound like a scalded cat, it's about as much fun as the 3hp Tecumseh on your lawn mower. In-city driving at 6k+ on the tach gets pretty tiring.

The Boxster is a more pure sports car, has greater visceral response, but it's a sports car. It doesn't do other things especially well. The engineers who designed it, designed it with that in mind. It was the Marketing Dept. that convinced everyone it could be a multi-tasker. It really isn't, at least not without compromise.

Lots of people want sports cars. But true sports cars aren't primary cars. The Boxster isn't a primary car either, not without compromise. Monetary limitations cause many people to force a sports car to do double duty, but that's not what they do well, or were designed for.

Cheers!

This is the same excuse American soccer moms use when they go buy their SUVs... how did Europeans do it with their small cars then?

Oh, they drive diesels wagons and hatchbacks.

It is no cheaper to own a Boxster than it is a non-Turbo, non-GT Carrera. Perhaps slightly less but not enough to back up your notion that Boxster is a more economical way of testing the Porsche waters. Particluarly with the Boxster S since it has nearly the same transmission, suspesion and cockpit instruments, 18 wheels, staggered tires, basically everything from the doors forward are the same.

Also, if by higher performance you mean lesser handling, then I would agree. That's somewhat of an important element in a Porsche. :D

The other thing about the Carrera is that it's in a unique (and not in a good way) category of sports car. One that you have to learn how to drive even in you already know how to drive a high performance sports car -- for no measureable lap time advantage. In other words you could climb into a Boxster and set a fast lap right out of the box because of its neutral balance. If you climbed into the Carrera you'd have to learn how to manage the pendulus cornering of a rear engine car and modify your line accordingly. Some think this is "rewarding" but that's not demonstrated as a lap time advantage over a similarly powered mid engine car. Put it this way, If both Boxster and Carrera had identical engines this pendulus cornering of the Carrera would still not produce a faster lap time. I suppose this is good for a driver who is prone to making mistakes since it gives him some advance warning. But why plan on making a mistake in the first place?

Another interesting thing is that I once started two polls in another web forum along the lines "If Porsche offered a mid engine Carrea today would you buy it?".
One poll ran in the GT3/GT2 forum and the other in the Standard/S/C4 forum. Obviously the GT3/GT2 forum is more likely to have drivers who venture onto the track or regulary autocross. 75% of these guys said they WOULD definitely buy the mid engine Carrera. In the standard Carrera/S/C4 forum 75% said they WOULD NOT and cited all sorts of comments about how rear engine was superior. :rolleyes:

I can tell by this statement that you haven't driven sporting Hondas. They are light on their feet and very mechanical. This not only holds true for the chassis but also for the engine. The mechanical sensations provided by an engine that can rev to 8000 or even 9000 RPM when you want it to are fantastic.

Aside from steering feel, I don't see the Boxster as having much in the way of mechanical communication on the S2000 or the NSX.

Here is the link to a S2000 forum. I posted pretty much the same question there.
I even posted some of your comments over there, and they thought you guys had a fair assessment of the differences. You’ll see that pretty much everybody came to the same conclusion as you guys here at 986.

Enjoy!

http://www.s2ki.com/s2000/topic/878653-s2000-vs-boxster/

Reading those comments there seems to be a belief that a pre 987 Boxsters are on par with S2000's on performance. I don't think they are very familiar with the Boxster S. My local autocross like most others classify the cars on power to weight ratios. Base 2.5 and 2.7 Boxsters were grouped with the S2000.
Boxster S 3.2 and 3.4 987 were one class above running against the standard 996 3.6 Carreras and some of the older 993 Carreras. I regulary saw lap times from Boxster S (3.2) that at least matched and often beat the higher horsepower Carreras. Probably due to the fact that they didn't have long straights to make up ground against the more nimble Boxsters.

At any rate very few of those S2000 owners seem to have first hand knolwedge of any Porsches. So if I were you I would focus on what they like about the S2000 and not so much what they don't like about a car they haven't even driven. The best advice is from someone who has driven both in a track and autocross setting which I presume you are looking to do at some point.

by the way, the Boxster is not the "lowest" Porsche. An base Cayenne is the cheapest Porsche you can buy. Also, the Boxster sets the bar in the roadster category. I don't think there any other Porsches that can say the same.

I was exactly where you are 8.5 years ago except without the benifit of forums. Never really cared for the air-cooled Porsches & loved Honda in general for reliability & engineering (especially the shifter) bought a 1986 Prelude Si new. Did extensive test drives of every new Porsche model & quickly realized the Boxster S was the funnest of the bunch. Still knowing the S2000 was cheaper to own I rented a 2003 model & had a blast in it but knew I would tire of the constant shifting & lack of space as my only car. When the S2000 first went on sale many owners sold them in less than a year due to the impractability of using as a daily driver. :) Speaking of impractical @ 88,k miles a year ago market value on my 2000 Box S was about $14,k so I deceided to double down & invest $14,k into a 3.6 rebuild of the original engine. I love it more than the day I bought it & the extra torque makes it even easier to drive around town. :D

Surf, thanks for the link to the comments on the other site...interesting. I hear the same thing all the time about the cost of Porsche owner ship. I am the second owner of mine with 54k miles and have all the records. The cost of ownership was not high at all. Yes even the Indys charge a lot but if one is inclined to do at least a fair amount of their own maintenance these cars are not that bad, shopping around can also keep the part prices down. Some of the yearly costs I hear are amazing high.
I found the Oct 2005 issue of Consumers and they compared the new (at the time) 987 to the S2000. The comparison used the base 987. They clearly liked the 987 a little more but both cars were considered great open air sports cars.
You can't go wrong either way for fun and value...get both and enjoy them.

I owned a 2005 S2000 before picking up my current Boxster S. For me:

S2000 > Boxster S:
-Reliability hands down
-Maintenance costs hands down


Boxster S > S2000:
-Cachet
-Day to day driveability/handling

Lots of other things are plus/minuses in my book depending on what you are looking for. An S2000 is a track weapon in the hands of a talented driver, but it will bite you. The Boxster S can make a bad driver look pretty good, it's much more balanced.

Given all that you listed in your original post I would seriously consider the S2000. If I didn't have relatively deep pockets I would probably still have the S2000 instead of the Boxster S.

That's a matter of opinion, I've owned both an AP1 and an AP2 S2000 and have driven countless others in various states of modification. The advantage of the S2000 is it's sheer simplicity and the 9000rpm redline of the AP1. The AP2, for me, wasn't as much fun to drive as the AP1.

As for the comparison with the Boxster S, I enjoy the fact it produces 72 lb/ft more torque and 10 extra horsepower, has creature comforts like heated seats and automatic climate control - both nice features in a convertible and lastly, the mid engine, rear wheel drive lay out must truly be experienced to be appreciated. The balance of this car is unlike many other I have driven, including 996 911s.

Au contraire mon frére... I've driven several 'sporting' Hondas. i have tracked a '67 S800, a '94 Accura NSX and an '06 S2K.

I never said they weren't capable, what i said was that they lacked any sort of visceral response. They were like a double dose of 'Sominex'.

Your reply says to me that you have never tracked a lotus (pick your model), a porsche, an Alfa, an MG, a Healey, a BMW etc.

If you had, you'd know what I mean.

You wanna track a car and have no more sensation than you have driving down the expressway? Fine.. that's OK.

But do not try to tell me that a Honda is in any way visceral... It isn't.

Cheers!

I disagree. They're very mechanical and communicative. 9k RPM is very entertaining.