2001 Boxster 3.2 or 2.7? - 986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners

jb92563 · 05-01-2012, 06:57 AM

I want to buy a boxster as my fun weekend car, midlife crisis car and daily commute (30mi).

I figure that 2000-2002 is my desired price range and avoids the cylinder slipping problem of the earlier models.

I want a Manual 5 or 6 transmission.

My question is should I only look for the 3.2l engine model or is 2.7l just as responsive and sporty.

I'm not concerned about racing (...yet) but do like a sporty ride.

How does the 3.2 compare to the 2.7?

I generally think that more HP is mostly a good thing but with an older car I figure I'll get my chance to replace/upgrade the engine later on when its time for an engine rebuild.

Should I also consider the 2.7 or is there something in the model which would make an upgrade later on difficult in some way.

"S" models are a bit harder to find.

Also if you know of a good deal in CA area, let me know, I'm seriously looking but am being cautious due to the whole IMS & RMS scare.

Ray

Homeboy981 · 05-01-2012, 07:21 AM

There is a reason the "S" models are harder to find….they are MUCH MORE satisfying to drive. The 3.2l S model also will eliminate a D-Chunk problem that could occur. For me, that was enough motivation to put me over the top and get the S. I have programmed my Navigation system to take the "long way" now! Anywhere is fun to drive now!

jb92563 · 05-01-2012, 11:10 AM

That was what I was thinking and your opinion has confirmed it.

I also live near plenty of highways and winding mountain roads in southern California so I have the perfect habitat for tearing up the plentiful twisties with the top down.

I'll have to discover where the other Porsches go on their weekend drives in my area. Seems like there are some tracks nearby as well

I wonder how many 3.x vs 2.x cars were sold in total?

ppbon · 05-01-2012, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homeboy981

There is a reason the "S" models are harder to find….they are MUCH MORE satisfying to drive. The 3.2l S model also will eliminate a D-Chunk problem that could occur. For me, that was enough motivation to put me over the top and get the S. I have programmed my Navigation system to take the "long way" now! Anywhere is fun to drive now!

... I totally disagree.
The "S" model is obviously more powerful and generally more refined (because they are newer models) than the early 2.5s or 2.7s, but there is nothing better than to pass a Boxster S or a 996 on the track with a measly 2.5, or to hang on a Boxster Spyder's rear bumper in a great mountain road with the same measly 2.5 liter engine.
That's satisfaction.
With the higher HP, the "S" is easier to drive, but not more satisfying.
Happy Boxstering,
Pedro

thstone · 05-01-2012, 02:55 PM

If money isn't an issue, I'd suggest getting the 3.2, the extra power does make it a bit more fun to drive. But at the end of the day, either model will be able to put a smile on your face everytime you get in the car.

Steve Tinker · 05-01-2012, 08:41 PM

But it's not just the increased engine capacity you are buying when you get an S model.

When you take into account all the other extras like the 6 speed gearbox, bigger (red) calipers & cross drilled rotors, larger (usually) wheels, silver instruments, 3rd coolant radiator, larger oil cooler, twin exhaust etc, etc, it's money well spent.....

And its not the HP difference that makes the car drive so well, its the increase in torque that really delivers out on the open road.

986_c6 · 05-01-2012, 09:39 PM

This sounds extremely silly, but was definitely my experience when I was test driving both the S and non-S back to back in 02.

I chose the non-S because it actually made better sounds while I was driving it and it actually felt like it had slightly more low end torque. All seat of the pants feeling and $$ really wasn't an issue for me. The S is definitely faster, but I went for the driving experience.

Either way, you can't go wrong.

Ghostrider 310 · 05-02-2012, 02:01 AM

The fun part about the 2.5 was winding it over and over, driving it hard you use every bit of the engine. My experience in the Spyder is that you use less of the power-band otherwise you are always speeding. Given the choice? I'd rather have the acceleration and effu, get away from me speed, the Spyder has but driving the pp out of a 2.5 is still awesome fun, too bad doing so sometimes makes the M96 explode. As for one car hanging with another depending on driver ability and road a 944 might be right on the tail of a Boxster, I kind of agree with Pedro on that. However, in general, all things equal, I can't imagine a serious dog fight between a Spyder and 2.5 going any other way than the 2.5 getting a bloody nose in that fight. After all you are giving up over a hundred HP to the Spyder and the vehicle weights are very close.

irag · 05-02-2012, 04:21 AM

I'm in the same boat as you. I just got a 2.7 2001 Artic Silver Boxster in March.
Solely a weekend car. For me it's alway been about the drive rather than pure power. With the weather here in NY warming up, I'm enjoying putting the top down and just taking a nice ride in the country. Yes, I do look forward to finding those twisty little roads and zipping thru in 2nd or 3rd. Driving on the highway in 5th doing 70, I can do that in my truck. If you're just looking to relive some of your youthful days, I think buy the best one you can afford and go from there. I'm sure either model will satisfy your need for speed.

recycledsixtie · 05-02-2012, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irag

I'm in the same boat as you. I just got a 2.7 2001 Artic Silver Boxster in March.
Solely a weekend car. For me it's alway been about the drive rather than pure power. With the weather here in NY warming up, I'm enjoying putting the top down and just taking a nice ride in the country. Yes, I do look forward to finding those twisty little roads and zipping thru in 2nd or 3rd. Driving on the highway in 5th doing 70, I can do that in my truck. If you're just looking to relive some of your youthful days, I think buy the best one you can afford and go from there. I'm sure either model will satisfy your need for speed.

Yes I agree with the above . I have a black 2001 2.7 Boxster. That is sufficient power for me though u should try both.I bought mine a year ago with 34K miles. Now has 40K miles with no problems but will have the ims/rms/clutch done in a year or two.Get a PPI done, ask for receipts, check accident damage. Dont't be in a hurry. Enjoy the search. Most fun I have ever had in a car.

Splitpin · 05-06-2012, 08:14 PM

I had a 3.2 S but now have a 2.7 and I like the 2.7 more, it feels lighter and it revs better. And it drinks less, brakes are cheaper

grubinski · 05-07-2012, 06:54 AM

I just bought my first Porsche, an '00 S, 3 weeks ago. I test drove a regular Boxster first, and then I drove a different S than the one I bought. That was the end of considering the "normal" cars. The normal ones are perfectly fine cars, but the S goes to 11.

Joel-Box-ster · 05-07-2012, 08:49 AM

I also have a 2K 2.7L model 217hp is enough for me in a light car.

And also the gap between torque and HP of the Base model is less than compare to the S model.

jb92563 · 05-07-2012, 09:29 AM

Took a test drive in my first Porsche, it was a 2001 Boxster 2.7l if I recall correctly.

WOW, it was awesome going through the gears and feeling it pull like crazy and sticking flat around the corners...I got an instant Porsche grin.

I asked the dealer to look for the S model for me though in any case as he did not have one for me to test.

The Girl friend did mention that she thought her seat did not tilt back far enough but it probably just needed to go forward a bit I think. Naturally she tells me this AFTER we are leaving the dealer lot.

She also seemed to change here mind on driving a standard, which she had no interest in earlier when I offer to teach her in my regular ride Jeep Wrangler Manual shift. I better not offer again or she might accept and want to borrow the Boxster.... ;-)

She also got me looking at the 996 Carrera 911 due to the extra space in back which admittedly would come in handy for luggage and allow more reclining and elbow room in general.

Guess I have to test drive a 1999 Carrera as well soon, and although its a bit heavier also has a 3.4l engine and is perhaps a little more comfortable and convenient on longer trips.

All your comments have been very helpful and gives some good perspectives on the whole experience.

I'm all ears(eyes) if you have more opinions on my Porsche shopping.

Ray