Upgrade 986 or buy 987?

[Paul]

A seat of the pants dyno always notices which car has more torque, not hp. A motor with 320 horsepower and 200 ft lbs of torque feels like a dog compared with a motor with 320 hp and 295 ft lbs of torque.

[pothole]

Originally Posted by Paul

A seat of the pants dyno always notices which car has more torque, not hp. A motor with 320 horsepower and 200 ft lbs of torque feels like a dog compared with a motor with 320 hp and 295 ft lbs of torque.

Pure nonsense. Obviously if a car's got more mid-range torque then it's going to feel gruntier in the mid-range. But if you're revving the car out it's the peakier engine that can feel more lively while the torquier engine feels flat and breathless towards the top of the rev range.

When you're on it, it's power that makes a car feel quick and indeed makes a car quick. That's why a four-pot diesel car with 200hp but 300lb/ft isn't any quicker outright than the same car with a 200hp, 200lb/ft petrol engine.

What it comes down to is this. What would feel quicker all other things being equal? A car with with 200hp and 300lb/ft, or one with 300hp and 200lb/ft. When you're dawdling around at low revs, the first car would obviously have more guts. But outright, the second car would be hugely quicker. And since we're talking about sports cars, not limos, that's what counts.

The whole torque = acceleration thing is a myth. And that's why F1 cars have 900hp and 250lb/ft and not the other way round!

[Johnny Danger]

Originally Posted by pothole

Pure nonsense. Obviously if a car's got more mid-range torque then it's going to feel gruntier in the mid-range. But if you're revving the car out it's the peakier engine that can feel more lively while the torquier engine feels flat and breathless towards the top of the rev range.

When you're on it, it's power that makes a car feel quick and indeed makes a car quick. That's why a four-pot diesel car with 200hp but 300lb/ft isn't any quicker outright than the same car with a 200hp, 200lb/ft petrol engine.

What it comes down to is this. What would feel quicker all other things being equal? A car with with 200hp and 300lb/ft, or one with 300hp and 200lb/ft. When you're dawdling around at low revs, the first car would obviously have more guts. But outright, the second car would be hugely quicker. And since we're talking about sports cars, not limos, that's what counts.

The whole torque = acceleration thing is a myth. And that's why F1 cars have 900hp and 250lb/ft and not the other way round!

Are you sure about your equation ? It's always been my understanding that torque is a product of horsepower, and the only place that it really matters is what's at the "wheel" and not necessarily at the "crank".

[johnsimion]

Originally Posted by dascar

In the spring, I plan on either selling my 02 Boxster S (Speed Yellow, 33k miles) and getting an 07-08 987 Boxster S (Speed Yellow, of course - budget of around $26k) OR spend $6k in upgrades on my car such as new turbo front bumper, side valances and perhaps an exhaust mod. What do you guys think? Is newer better? More HP, real glass window vs. plastic, a tad more interior room plus all new dashboard, sexier body and it already has the cool front bumper with big air intakes as well as non-fried egg headlights. However, I could save myself $5k or so by keeping my car and have a pretty unique 986.

Your car looks really good and it only has 33K miles. No offense intended, but your car is nevertheless highly depreciated versus a 987. You'd be money ahead to put in the LN Engineering upgrade to the IMS and put on a new convertible top with glass window, and then drive it for a very long time. You will get your money's worth in the form of very low cost driving, but you also won't be losing very much more depreciation. Comparatively speaking the 987 is going to depreciate like crazy. Personally I wouldn't go for all the other mods because you won't see any return on your investment, but if you really like them, you are still far better off financially to do the mods you like and keep the car. You could lose $6000 in depreciation in just a year or two on a 987, not to mention the much bigger original outlay.

Of course the 987 has a lot more power, so you could figure it will go 0-60 a second or two faster. IMHO not worth the extra cost. Same rationale why a Miata is such a popular sports car: Like your car now, a Miata is relatively cheap and you can drive it at 10/10s and enjoy the heck out of it for a low cost. If you have 320 hp, you simply can't drive at 10/10 except on a track. Don't believe me, tomorrow go for a drive and ask yourself how often you could actually take advantage of another 100 hp due to cops and traffic. Around here, I love to take my 08 Cayman around freeway on-ramps ... and have to watch out lest I rear-end some slowpoke!

[Perfectlap]

p.s.

add the PORSCHE decals for $80. In person, it makes a nearly decade old car look totally different. I added the Cayman R front bumper decal.
A nice jolt of classic updating. Ferry Porsche had graphics on his personal one-off 2.7

[dascar]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

p.s.

add the PORSCHE decals for $80. In person, it makes a nearly decade old car look totally different. I added the Cayman R front bumper decal.
A nice jolt of classic updating. Ferry Porsche had graphics on his personal one-off 2.7

Wow! That 986 looks amazing!

[jesseborgelt]

I thought long and hard about what modifications I was willing to make to my 2000 Boxster. I went with modifications that improved the car while not limiting the marketability. The fact is that I am not going to drive the car until either it or I die… I hope. My vehicle ownership history shows that I keep a car about three years, and I doubt this one is going to be different. I have heavily modified cars before, only to get burned to a crisp on trade in. Did the money invested during my stretch of ownership justify the costs involved… that is up to the individual, in my case I would say no (looking back).

[milliemax]

Originally Posted by dascar

In the spring, I plan on either selling my 02 Boxster S (Speed Yellow, 33k miles) and getting an 07-08 987 Boxster S (Speed Yellow, of course - budget of around $26k) OR spend $6k in upgrades on my car such as new turbo front bumper, side valances and perhaps an exhaust mod. What do you guys think? Is newer better? More HP, real glass window vs. plastic, a tad more interior room plus all new dashboard, sexier body and it already has the cool front bumper with big air intakes as well as non-fried egg headlights. However, I could save myself $5k or so by keeping my car and have a pretty unique 986.

Keep your Porsche !! You loved it when you bought it ??? Save and invest your money as you will need it sooner than later. Time Flies !!! You can take this advice......to the BANK.

[KevinH1990]

I'm just going to buy a 981.

Since I'll probably use the same strategy I used when I bought my 986 (wait until it is 7 years old) I have some time to kill.

Lately, when I get the itch for a new car, I just add a mod to the one I have. It makes the car seem fresh to me. If fact, my 04 glass window top is on the way from a dismantler right now. I hope this "fix" lasts a couple of years.

If I run across a well-priced set of clear headlamps, I may add those too.

That stripe looks nice as well.

[jacabean]

Every time i get the bug for a 987 S 3.4 (more power) . I take a ride in my EVO X gsr with 2,500.00 in mods it makes 325hp at the wheels and god help the boxster if i ever do the Ohlins and Akrapovik .

[ChrisZang]

As someone who just went over to "the dark side", why don't you also look at a 997?

[mcomet]

What the heck..I am not i understand where this thread is going now.

On a related note, and maybe I need to repent for this, I test drove a 996 this past weekend. Have to say I liked it a lot...mostly the extra power it had. I am not sure about the rear engine tho vs the boxster, I really like the precision of the boxster. Best tho was the car I drove had a PSE. I LOVED it ...especially compared to my stock boxster s exhaust. I might have to get a borla or something soon to keep me happy with the box.

Comet

[stephen wilson]

Johnny, it's actually the opposite, H.P. is a function of Torque x RPM:

HowStuffWorks "How do you convert engine torque to horsepower?"

[Johnny Danger]

Originally Posted by stephen wilson

Johnny, it's actually the opposite, H.P. is a function of Torque x RPM:

HowStuffWorks "How do you convert engine torque to horsepower?"

They're really one in the same aren't they ? Anyway, my point was that hp at the wheel
(i.e. ft./lbs of torque) is a more critical indication of a vehicle's power output than hp at the crank. .

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by mcomet

What the heck..I am not i understand where this thread is going now.

On a related note, and maybe I need to repent for this, I test drove a 996 this past weekend. Have to say I liked it a lot...mostly the extra power it had. I am not sure about the rear engine tho vs the boxster, I really like the precision of the boxster.
Comet

This makes me think back to when I first autocrossed the BoxsterS. I was matching and in some cases beating the times of guys with the standard 996. Granted they weren't the best drivers present but that's sort of the point.

I drove all the 996s. I found the standard to be the most agile. The Turbo, C4S the least. Actually the C4S felt like a boat. C4S Cabriolet felt like a wet noodle boat. 996 Cabriolet I would not even bother to drive -- cutting the roof off that car of all cars makes as much sense as putting chrome spinners on a F430. and I was once a passenger in a 996 GT3 during a downpour that came out of nowhere. Not safe. Out of alignment: dangerous

[jacabean]

Torque is what gets your car moving and lets you pull things (move weight) . a large torque number will help you down low in the revs . if a motor does not have a good balance between torque and horse power it will feel slow. typically motors than rev well have lower torque numbers. our Boxsters could use i bit more in the torque department.

[shadrach74]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

This makes me think back to when I first autocrossed the BoxsterS. I was matching and in some cases beating the times of guys with the standard 996. Granted they weren't the best drivers present but that's sort of the point.

I drove all the 996s. I found the standard to be the most agile. The Turbo, C4S the least. Actually the C4S felt like a boat. C4S Cabriolet felt like a wet noodle boat. 996 Cabriolet I would not even bother to drive -- cutting the roof off that car of all cars makes as much sense as putting chrome spinners on a F430. and I was once a passenger in a 996 GT3 during a downpour that came out of nowhere. Not safe. Out of alignment: dangerous

I suppose it's all relative to what comparisons you're drawing. It's likely just your incredible driving abilities that give you the ability to see the drastic differences between these cars. However, I've spent a notable amount of time wringing out a 02 996 C4S Cabrio and to say it's a "wet noodle boat" is just well...silly. No , it's not as precise as my Boxster S. It's really not that much quicker in a straight line. But a "wet noodle boat"??? Negative...Perhaps you need to slum it for a bit and relearn what a "wet noodle boat" is, because saying such a thing about any 996 stinks of petulance.

[Perfectlap]

Sorry the higher the asking price the higher the bar. As for slumming it, I've driven plenty of convertible cars that were not meant to be minus a rigid roof. The C4S reminded me of them. I'd add one convertible M3 to that as well.
However, I have driven properly set up Cabs and C4s that were totally different but that's not the same in my book because of the expense required to make them what other much less expensive cars are right out of the box.

[Johnny Danger]

Is this the "second coming" ?

[Jager]

Originally Posted by Johnny Danger

Is this the "second coming" ?

Yep, on the 21st of the month.