Test drove a 981 today...

[986_inquiry]

Originally Posted by mcomet

I got to do a quick drive in a 981 today. I sadly didn't really focus on much speed as the sales person was yacking away and there was traffic. I did get to play with PDK (definitely prefer MT still) and the steering... the latter electronic steering felt totally dead to me compared to the 986. I am used to elec steering on my 2008 Scion xD. (which is similar). Still it was surprising to me how much I noticed it. Overall the car feels bigger and more luxurious...and less raw. Looks amazing, but I was less impressed than I thought at least initially. Anyone else have this experience?

that is exactly how I feel about my 987, that the 986 was smaller, less luxurious and more raw

and..... i hate to say this.... hope i don't get flamed... but... the 2.5 986 is.... faster? I know, it shouldn't be, but it is, my 200 hp 2.5 feels faster than the 245hp 2006 2.7, at least in 3rd gear from 60 up. They changed the gearing, from 2000 986 on, 3rd use to go from 62 to ~93mph, now it goes from about 65 to ~103mph, approximate because I would never travel at those speeds. The 2000+ 2.7s I test drove were even slower, so if you're gonna get one, get a 2.5 or 987 or S, of course.

not only that but the 2.5 got the same gas mileage, if not a bit better, and I spend far more time staring at the mpg now since I have a mpg trip computer and the 2.5 didn't.

Ok, flame me, i'm sorry, it's my opinion only

[pothole]

Originally Posted by 986_inquiry

that is exactly how I feel about my 987, that the 986 was smaller, less luxurious and more raw

and..... i hate to say this.... hope i don't get flamed... but... the 2.5 986 is.... faster? I know, it shouldn't be, but it is, my 200 hp 2.5 feels faster than the 245hp 2006 2.7, at least in 3rd gear from 60 up. They changed the gearing, from 2000 986 on, 3rd use to go from 62 to ~93mph, now it goes from about 65 to ~103mph, approximate because I would never travel at those speeds. The 2000+ 2.7s I test drove were even slower, so if you're gonna get one, get a 2.5 or 987 or S, of course.

not only that but the 2.5 got the same gas mileage, if not a bit better, and I spend far more time staring at the mpg now since I have a mpg trip computer and the 2.5 didn't.

Ok, flame me, i'm sorry, it's my opinion only

I've been thinking lately that the perfect 986 could be a 2.7 with the transmission from the 2.5 fitted. So you get the proper benefit of the 2.7 without it being compromised by the longer gearing.

Then you have the 2.7, which is pretty robust as these engines go (ideally an early 2.7 with double-row IMS), it'll be a bit cheaper to run (smaller brakes etc, cheaper insurance), it looks that bit cleaner and purer without the central air intake.

It'll be plenty quick enough and with the 2.5's gear ratios it should be nice and revvy.

[mcomet]

I've been following all the replies. While there my be some similarities between the 981 and other cars, trust me I don't think they will ever be mistaken when seen in the flesh. I'm still mulling over all the options and plan to test drive the new cayman again this weekend along with perhaps a 911. I've also been looking at an Audi R8 V8 but that might be too much of a stretch especially pre owned with little or no warranty ...

I think our 986's are still stunning. I literally had a guy raising his hands and yelling over to me "nice car man, nice car!" As I drove around the corner from work the other day. Hehe. And definitely the classic Porsche curves and feel is probably stronger in these earlier cars. Still undecided for now...

[stephen wilson]

Now that I've seen a few 981's in person, the exterior is not the drastic change it seems to be in these pictures. It looks like an updated 987, the side vents don't stand out as much as you would think. Just my 2¢

[southernstar]

Especially from the rear, I just don't get the 1999-2007 MR2 versus 981 comparisons. Yes, both are mid-engined 'spyders' and consequently there are bound to be a number of similarites in terms of overall design and packaging. But the 981 has much more rounded (and to my eye, attractive) lines to the front air intakes, front shape of the hood, headlights, wheel arches, side air intakes and especially, rear fender/tail light forms.

Yes the MR2 weighs much less, but it is also a smaller car both in real-lfe appearance and in dimensions. For example, the MR2 has a width of 66.7 versus 70.1 inches (which carries over into interior width/elbow room/increased comfort as well as better handling). The length of the MR2 is 153 versus 171 inches and this contributes again to greater interior room, but also greater trunk space. Finally, the Toyota had a buzzy 1.8 L4 while the 981 has a 2.7 H6 (with not only better acceleration and top speed, but much less vibration and much more glorious exhaust notes).

Frankly, I thought the previous iteration of the MR2 was much more attractive than the final one which, to my eyes, looked small and boxy. Regardless, I am pretty confident that no one is going to confuse the MR2 with the 981 up close.

Brad

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by mcomet

I've been following all the replies. While there my be some similarities between the 981 and other cars, trust me I don't think they will ever be mistaken when seen in the flesh.

Unfortunately, I've had exactly that happen, and with an MR2 Spyder. "Hey, look, it's another car just like yours" (pointing to a silver MR2-S). People who aren't into cars as much as folks like us (and there's many more of them than us) or know a particular car's distinguishing attributes from another in a split-second won't readily see the differences. Plenty of times I get the "well, I don't know that stuff about cars! It looks the same!", and that happens with numerous cars, not just the Boxster/MR2 fiasco.

Originally Posted by southernstar

Especially from the rear, I just don't get the 1999-2007 MR2 versus 981 comparisons. Yes, both are mid-engined 'spyders' and consequently there are bound to be a number of similarites in terms of overall design and packaging. But the 981 has much more rounded (and to my eye, attractive) lines to the front air intakes, front shape of the hood, headlights, wheel arches, side air intakes and especially, rear fender/tail light forms....

....Frankly, I thought the previous iteration of the MR2 was much more attractive than the final one which, to my eyes, looked small and boxy. Regardless, I am pretty confident that no one is going to confuse the MR2 with the 981 up close.

Brad

Just saying, it's happened. I wish I could agree with you, though. Lots of people out there just don't pay as much attention to distinguish things like that. I can see the differences as readily as I see the similarities to the MR2 Spyder. When I first saw the face of the new Boxster it was one of the first thoughts that came to mind how much it looked like the last MR2, sadly.

And I will fully agree with you that the last "MR2" was a bust and somewhat ruined the name of the two cars that came before it. It had the same engine as my Corolla, tuned up with a tiny hp bump, and everywhere else in the world but the US it was just called the MR Spyder and wasn't truly tied to the previous two generations of MR2. The US wanted to use the familiarity of the MR2 name to help sales, which it didn't really do. I like the first two MR2 generations, some of my favorite cars. The MR Spyder...no. And then to have it confused with my Boxster just adds to my dislike.

[Perfectlap]

^ yep. You can argue that it doesn't look like an MR2 but one time I parked in this diner and left the parking light on like I usually do in dark lighting.
A guy comes in and says "Anyone drive an MR2? You left your lights on"
So I said "That's not an MR2! It's a Porsch-a Boxster S!! What are you blind???".

just kidding. I thanked the guy and explained it was a parking light.