Boxster vs S2000

[surf40]

I’ve been reading this forum for 6 months to get educated on buying a 986 (2001-04 S). I’m still not 100% decided on the Porsche. My families Daily Drivers have all been Honda Accords and Civics. They are great cars, and I have a great independent Honda guy that I’ve been taking my cars to for 20 years.

The question for this esteemed group is: have any of you owned a Honda S2000? If so, what do you think about them? How do they compare to the Boxster (for those that have owned both)

My heart says Boxster, but my logical side says S2000. I believe the Honda would be more reliable, cheaper Total Ownership cost for a much newer one (2006-9), but still a blast to drive.

Your thoughts?

[JAAY]

I do not own or have not owned a s2k but my brother has had one for over 6 years and I have driven it countless times. It is much cheaper to maintain and extremely reliable. It is quicker than a 986s and the top is pretty nice on it too. I would say it is less comfortable and the only problem that I have with it is that it is a 4 cylinder and sounds like one. Oh.. The motor is in the wrong place, placed well but not in the middle Go out and drive both! The boxster has soul that can not be described. The s2k is great but leaves me bored and wanting more after getting out of it. After a recent trip through the mountains on a boxster meet. I have a new respect for the boxster. I have never pushed it to the limit and i got the chance to do so. The car was amazing. If you are going to drive the car every day both cars are just fine. There is one not better than the other. You have to make the decision that suits you and you only. The s2k is sensible and worth every dollar. If either car that you would be purchasing needs any repair the boxster will most likely cost 2-3 times more to repair. If you really get stuck, buy both

[jlucas]

I owned a street car S2000 for 3 years before eventually buying a 986S (and a Miata before the S2000). I still race a S2000 in the SCCA Touring 3 class.

S2000
positives: unmatched chassis rigidity for a convertible, Civic of RWD cars (reliability, build quality, low maintenance, low parts & labor costs), best shifter (THE benchmark period!)
negatives: Civic of RWD cars (not as inspiring as 986), lack of torque, less steering feel than 986, tight cockpit, pitching stock ride on concrete, limits beyond street legal speeds

986S
positives: torque, telepathic handling, cabin space, frunk, status (doesn't' matter to me), more comfortable ride
negatives: rigidity/cowl shake, reliability, high maintenance/repair costs (parts & labor), interior build quality behind the S2000, limits beyond street legal speeds, easy bake oven (trunk), no std LSD

If money is at all an issue, you can't beat the S2000. 2004 & 2005 are my favorite years; you get the 2.2L, wider 17" wheels, and glass rear window but not the drive by wire and higher seating position that started in 2006 (2000-2003 was 2.0L and 16" wheels).

Power/torque is the main reason I wanted to go with the 986S over the S2000.

If you want to know more, feel free to PM me for my phone number.

[WhipE350]

Sounds obvious which you want. I bought a brand new Miata Sport in 2000 and loved it, but it just felt way to small to me when I tried to use it for a daily driver so I only ended up driving it on weekends. If a Honda s2k feels as small there is no question which I would choose. Are you good at working on cars, do you like to, is money not an issue for parts, then don't worry about 'total ownership'. Go drive both and buy the one you love, not the logical one...assuming this is a toy. I got several logical cars in my life and I kept the best care of them and loved them best I could, I still however traded them 2 years later, logic didn't make the 4 year mark.

Post pics of your Boxster once you get it

[fatmike]

My other car is a Honda (not an s2000 - family truckster). I read your comments -- you should get the S2000.




If you buy the Porsche, you'll love it (it is the car you actually want). You will be convinced if you drive one. But, in the back of your mind logic will eat at you. You'll never be comfortable that the Porsche won't just explode in a million pieces on the side of the road one day. You'll constantly worry about money and reliability.



No, you should get the Honda.





ps -- JLUCUS -- Cowl shake in a boxster? huh?

----

[jlucas]

Originally Posted by fatmike

ps -- JLUCUS -- Cowl shake in a boxster? huh?

Generic term for body flex in a convertible and yes the 986 is noticablely less stiff than the S2000. Both are light years better than the Miata for torsional stiffness.

Added note: when we had the S2000 it was a daily driver including winters (with snow tires if course), our BoxS is not.

[ekam]

It all comes down to this.

Do you like Asian or European women?

[Johnny Danger]

I've had the occasion to drive a few S2000's over the years, to include a friend's that has been mod'd to the max . Here's my ditty :

Pro's : reliability, relatively inexpensive to maintain, and a world of JDM aftermarket
performance products if mods are your thing .

Cons : performance and handling that are uninspiring, aesthetically boring, an engine
that feels like a "mouse on a pulley", and devoid of any kind of cachet .

p.s. None of the S2000's that I drove felt any more solid or rigid in the chassis
department than the boxster. In fact, most of the S2000's that I drove were far more
prone to creaks and squeaks, cowl shake and cabin/wind noise than any boxster
that I've driven . Oh, and despite all of the concerns surrounding IMS failure with
the boxster engine, it's my understanding that the S2000 has some problems of
it's own .

[Topless]

Originally Posted by ekam

Do you like Asian or European women?

Yes I do thank you!

[fatmike]

Originally Posted by jlucas

Generic term for body flex in a convertible and yes the 986 is noticablely less stiff than the S2000. Both are light years better than the Miata for torsional stiffness.

Added note: when we had the S2000 it was a daily driver including winters (with snow tires if course), our BoxS is not.

I drive my Boxster year round in the northeast winter. It does just fine in the snow with proper tires.

There are lots of reasons not to buy a Boxster, but cowl shake isn't one of them...

[Idaho Red Rocket 3]

My wife wanted a Miata for years....untill I talked her into test driving several. No way, way to small. Then we test drove several Thunderbirds. They are nice but no umph. Then we test drove a couple of S2000. Nice, Honda quality and easy care for me. Then we test drove 1 Boxster and bought it on the spot. We now have 2 Boxsters.

Nuff Said ?

[laphan]

S2000 was one of my choice before I bought the boxster. They are fun to drive. The styling is not that great IMO but neither the boxster.

I thought Honda should have bulletproof reliability but when I went to their forums all they talked about are transmission issues (more like how we talk about IMS issue here).
S2000 has issue with their transmission (2nd gear) popping out and synchro issues.
And our boxster is not in much better shape with engine blowing up issues too.

After knowing both cars have their own major and expensive to fix issues, I went with whatever I like better (which I picked the boxster).

[jlucas]

Originally Posted by fatmike

but cowl shake isn't one of them...

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.

[WhipE350]

What happen to Surf?

[ASpec818]

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.

[Lil bastard]

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!

[ekam]

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

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.

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.

[blue2000s]

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

...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.

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.

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by blue2000s

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.

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!

[BYprodriver]

Originally Posted by surf40

I’ve been reading this forum for 6 months to get educated on buying a 986 (2001-04 S). I’m still not 100% decided on the Porsche. My families Daily Drivers have all been Honda Accords and Civics. They are great cars, and I have a great independent Honda guy that I’ve been taking my cars to for 20 years.

The question for this esteemed group is: have any of you owned a Honda S2000? If so, what do you think about them? How do they compare to the Boxster (for those that have owned both)

My heart says Boxster, but my logical side says S2000. I believe the Honda would be more reliable, cheaper Total Ownership cost for a much newer one (2006-9), but still a blast to drive.

Your thoughts?

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.