Boxster vs S2000
 

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 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
:cheers:

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.

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 ;)

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?

----

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.

It all comes down to this.

Do you like Asian or European women?

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 .

Yes I do thank you! :)

I weighed the S2000 vs. Boxster S vs. Carrera proposition after autocrossing a Miata for a few seasons. I ruled out the Carrera because I had to have a roadster and 911 Cabriolet just ruins the look for me. I was about to pull the trigger on the S2000 (yellow :) ) until I spoke a buddy at the local autocross who drove an S2000 himself but pushed me toward the Boxster. He was a former junior formula racer who at point raced against a former F1 driver (McLaren). He was emphatic about the Boxster being the perfect roadster from a driver's point of view. Balance, torque, steering, responsiveness, seat position, braking and those intangible things like the induction sound. Okay so he got my attention. Top Gear ran an episode with Tiff Needell trying to determine what was the best 'pure sports car' you could buy today and drive every day. They decided on the Boxster. After watching him slide the Boxster S around the test track, laughing the whole time, I was convinced.
A week later the EXACT Boxster I was looking for appeared at a local Acura dealer as a trade in. The minute I put the car in drive and heard that induction and listened to the revs come up well even the salesman's (young guy) eyes went like this: :eek: The car was spotless. Bought it a week later. Little did I know how hard it would be to come by a low mileage, silver/red, 3.2 garage queen.

The thing about the S2000 is that its perfect for autocrossing although I hear the repairs aren't as cheap as they are made out to be. In that respect I really regret selling my Miata. I should have kept it as my dedicated autocrosser. BUT...autocrossing the Boxster the first time was confirmation of everything my former racer buddy said. That car is perfectly set up right out of the box. You have to pretty experienced behind the wheel to find faults. And most of those are cured with a few modifications. That's something you can't do with the S2000's short coming (torque). I eventually hooked up Toyo R-compounds on the Boxster and it was on rails. But the IMS concerns at the time (pre-LN Engineering) cooled me on beating on the car too hard given the low mileage after four years. Now that I've done the upgrade and have consistently put 10K miles on the car every year I'm not so concerned but for what I spent on the big "major maintenace" items I could have picked up gen 2 Miata with extensive supsension, exhaust, wheel/tire mods with a few bucks to spare. Still thinking about it though but I doubt I'll ever sell the Boxster S, the money I would get would never ever put me into something on par that didn't need repairs. Not to mention I still get compliments, thumbs up, hot girl pulling over to tell me my car is "soooo sexy", and one black dude who pulled up in bumper to bumper traffic sayin "F*ck yeah! Now that's what I'm f*cking talkin' about.". Okay....What do you say that? I've also had many senior citizen guys come up to me and say "you have the dream car I always wanted but could never afford before startinga family". I guess people take this car for granted.

I do not own an S2000
 

but drove a friends briefly ('03 model I believe) several years back before I bought my boxster. The S2000 has a sweet short throw shifter stock....that was probably my favorite part. The power is strong but you have to constantly dog the car to keep it in the power band so alot of times it does not feel as fast as it is. I was never fond of the styling of the S2000 and less so the interior (bar graph tach/speedo) as it seemed kind of monotone to me. The 986 interior is better IMO *when you have some of the upgrades like the sport design package and optional items like painted console, etc...stock it is probably not any better but I do prefer the analog gauges. Also, if you take the snorkel off the 986, the sound is amazing and the S2000 just can't compare. If the reliabilty thing is a big concern to you, I would get the S2000...peace of mind while driving is hard to find a substitute for.

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...

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 ?

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).

I had this debate too. I went with a boxster clearly. I drove an S2000 yesterday around the shop to pull the bumper off. It didnt impress me much even in the short ride i was in it. I thought not having a headliner was primitive.

Also not that i do it very often, but you cant beat the amount of cargo room from and back that a boxster has. I've gone on a few weekend trips with the ex and it works out great. The "her" trunk is up front, mine is in the back. I don't like how little room the S2000 has

I think the S2000 is a couple hundred pounds lighter than the Boxster. Which is a big + for sports car fans.

Not true.

Weight is 2809lbs for MY 2000. 2835lbs for MY 2005. Less than 100lbs lighter than a base 986.

http://www.autos.ca/car-test-drives/test-drive-2000-honda-s2000
http://www.autos.ca/car-test-drives/test-drive-2005-honda-s2000

Read this too, while the motor won't blow up it's hardly trouble free.

http://www.autos.ca/used-car-reviews/used-vehicle-review-honda-s2000-2000-2007

Surf, did you post this same question on a Honda forum...if so I would love to read..send us the link.

The 'autos.ca' site had a 2000 Boxster 'S' review too and they listed it at $71k! What's up with that, I have the sticker for my 2000 'S' and it was $55k. Interesting.

"... 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."

You are correct on all counts.

However, here are the Top 5 reasons why I chose a Boxster over an S2K:

1. Boxster had better handling in my opinion. S2K wants to slide everywhere.
2. Boxster had much nicer and larger interior. S2K wasn't much bigger than my Miata.
3. Boxster had more low RPM torque. S2K needs to rev high to move.
4. I can move up the Porsche line to a 996/997 as I need/want more performance. No sports car growth path with Honda.
5. Cost wasn't a big concern (purchase or maintenance)

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.