blue2000s, you hit the nail on the head, Porsche built some fast lightweight cars that were built like tanks and were simple.

I love the lines on my 986, I can not say the same about the new 2013 Boxster, hopefully it will look better in-person.


As for the Elise, I own a 2006, it is an assume Little car, but not a car for everyone, I bought mine because it was and is everything that I was looking for in a sports car. My boxster is my DD and my Lotus is my weekend toy and track car. I feel I have the best of both worlds.:)

The new small roadster is a shared project with other members of the VAG group so I've a feeling it will disappoint. There's talk of flat fours, but if I am honest I would only be interested in a naturally aspirated flat six. And I doubt it will get that.

I'm not even sure if it's even plausible for it to have even a flat four. That would basically require it to be fitted longitudinally and I reckon the other sister models will have transverse three and four-pot engines. Can't see them spending the money on engineering both longitudinal and transverse installations.

But that's OK. Plenty of nice early 986s to choose from. Relatively compact, relatively light. Lovely flat six. Job done.

If only it were easy to add lightness to Porsches these days without losing driveability. I do have to say though, even Lotus is screwing that mantra up these days in some aspects (virtually every Elise and its derivatives being an exception). I'd much rather see a lot of these companies that built their names and the prestige of some of their models go back to the roots that got them there. I understand that cars will gain weight in the name of more safety, but my potential double-duty DD/Track Day car should not come packed to the gills with feel-good tech and anti-crash nannies. Airbags are one thing, but if the car was built with too much power and/or not enough handling prowess that I can't efficiently handle the car without a half dozen sensors and computers controlling it and trying to bend physics (ABS is an exception here IMO), then to me the auto maker is doing it wrong and needs to fix it. If I want traction control I'll apply less right foot as needed, thanks. It's getting to the point where one doesn't need significant defensive driving skills, reflexes, and knowledge of recovery tactics to save yourself from slamming into a guardrail or unintentionally getting sideways. Instead you get the car doing more work than it's ever had to just so you can distract yourself with all the extra crap that's in the car.

If it's supposed to be a sports car, and it doesn't help to achieve or expand that sportiness...just leave it out please.

When a Corvette is shorter and lighter than a 911, that is indeed a problem...she may be pretty, but things like that kind of take away the appeal of what you expected to come in the total package: sleek, light, agile, fast, and fun...for a price, of course.

I'm afraid cars will never go back in that direction. Features that aren't mandated (I believe stability control is now) will be added due to customer demand. Let's face it, people who want a stripped-down car are a miniscule part of potential new car buyers.

You guys should look into classic or vintage cars. (I have a '65 Mustang, which some day will be driveable!) Though if you want a Porsche, that could get expensive! You can "resto-mod" a vintage car to have modern performance, adding only what extras that YOU want.

This is true, SW, but that's how companies like Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Lotus, and McLaren got started, and where they found their initial market. People who wanted a car that performed athletically, not necessarily intelligently, on the road. The intelligence came from the brain behind the wheel.

Again, federally mandated stuff is one thing, and it just has to be accepted. But I feel if the companies are looking to expand their market to everyone else who isn't looking for a sports car (what a Porsche almost always was) and is instead going to buy ridiculous things like Cayennes, Rapides, Panameras and Cignets, all with all sorts of glitz and technological bleeding edge crap, then they should still allow for a completely basic, no-frills version of their cars like 911s, Boxsters, Caymans, etc for the people who want their status symbol to also perform like a sports car. They'd be lighter, have less crap to break in them (switches, backlights, electronics, etc), and it should cost less, though the companies would probably figure out a way of charging you more for providing you with less of an office on wheels and more of a CAR, sadly.

To add to that, I wonder how much energy one could save (in terms of fuel burning) for not having to run a bunch of computers, sensors, and additional lights on the car other than the dash lights and exterior lights? Hello, fuel efficiency bump.:rolleyes:

Dude, reading this, it's like finding my soul mate. :D

It looks like Porsche is in charge of development for the project, at least I've read that VAG is putting Porsche in charge of sports car platforms.

I'm totally OK with a 4-cylinder engine. In fact, I've enjoyed all of my cars with 4-bangers, the Mitsubishi and Subaru 2.0 turbos are great. My favorite though was my 1.7L v-tech. In a small, light car, that engine would be a gem. Hmm, sounds suspiciously similar to the Elise that we have in the states with the Toyota engine.:)

Try driving an old sports car like my '82 RX7, or a 70's Z or a 70's 911. Pure mechanical bliss.

Hey, we may not agree on everything, blue, but I can at least agree with you on things like this. :cheers: If there were a sports car bible, I'd expect everything I mentioned, maybe excepting sleekness as an absolute requirement, to be in there.

Going back to the purpose of the thread, I can't say the Boxster looks terrible. It doesn't, but it doesn't evoke that same tug on the heartstrings that Porsches can get from people the older you get with model years. Knowing that it's likely bigger, most assuredly heavier, and likely more posh while also likely being less engaging, I feel I'd be disappointed with it overall even if it outperforms my 97 on paper.

The flat-six is central to the specialness of Porsches for me. I love the way the 968 drives, for instance, but the four banger means I wouldn't ever buy one.

There are plenty of four pots out there. It would be a real tragedy if Porsche started to phase the flat-six out.

What about the 356 or our dear 550 spyder? It all started with hopped up VW bug engines.

Pretty much for any new generation of 911 you can say the exact same thing. But people still buy them and that's how the company survives.

I think I can still see a clam shell in those pictures....

y'know...Paul may be right...

http://images.thecarconnection.com/m...00373593_m.jpg

It definitely looks like there's a seam on the right, in line with the upper brake light. I didn't notice that before, but it also looks like it could just be reflection because I can't trace it all the way out to the quarter panel...

http://images.thecarconnection.com/l...00373598_l.jpg

Then I look at this one and it seems non-existent again...

Didn't say I favoured the six due to any specific historical precedent. It's just a ****************ing nice engine configuration. Frankly, I think both the 356 and the 550 would be much more attractive propositions with little 2.0 flat sixes. The four banger isn't my bag.

This is my bag:
Ronde du Ventoux - YouTube

I am with you guys also on this one...uninspiring for me.:confused:

this car looks great to me . you can tell it is a boxster , right away. it still has 986 elements. it looks way more muscular and modern than the 987. i really like the side vents and door lines (picture an aero kit on this thing). i don't understand why anyone would want it to look like a 986 that car is old ! i will bet anyone that it will out perform the previous car in every way. Porsche has had 15 years to think about this all new car. I just wish I could afford one :(

You can see a clam shell seam in this picture:

http://images.thecarconnection.com/m...00373588_m.jpg

looks like a whole new mechanism for the roof. i don't see a clam shell at all.

Paul I think what you're considering the clamshell seam is actually the trunk seam. If you look at the pictures I attached, the trunk lid looks like it runs right up to the point where the top meets the metal. And jacabean's picture seems to show that there is nothing really covering the top. I think they did make it like many other convertibles and simply have it fold onto itself and sit behind you without any coverage. I don't see that as a bad thing, it's less hardware to break and wear.