987 2.7 vs 986 2.5 review

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by RandallNeighbour

Excellent thread! I wondered if it would be worth moving up to a 987.

I shall keep saving my dollars and get the 991S I want in 4 years. That will have a sizable power difference over my 2.5!

i wonder what those will be worth in four years..
Porsche have completely lost the plot in their nearly absurd over-pricing of cars.
But I guess Chinese billionaires and Brazilian trust fund babies want to price out the wannabe's. Once the upper echelon of money-dropping no longer want to be seen in a 2 year old car, those 991/Panameras take a frightenign drop in depreciation. Especially the Turbos. These cars will end up losing more value in three years than what a decently maintained 997.1 S will go for now.

[recycledsixtie]

Cf you are always welcome here. Anything to do with Boxster is good and who knows I might be interested in a Cayman/ newer Boxster in a few years.

[southernstar]

Recycledsixtie, does that refer to your age or the 'sixties' (where as has been said, if you can remember them you weren't there)? Just asking cuz you posted this on the wrong thread - lol!

Cheers!

Brad

[recycledsixtie]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Recycledsixtie, does that refer to your age or the 'sixties' (where as has been said, if you can remember them you weren't there)? Just asking cuz you posted this on the wrong thread - lol!

Cheers!

Brad

Thanx Brad!

[runjmc2]

My understanding is the 2.7 is not a bored 2.5, rather it has a longer stroke (3.07in vs. 2.83in). All things being equal the shorter stroke 2.5 would have a lower piston speed (FPS) and allow for a higher red line than the 2.7.

Are all things "not equal" in this comparison, e.g. the design/materials on the crank/etc of the 2.7 better and allow great piston speed than the 2.5.....or is the 2.7 just rated at a higher redline "less conservatively" than the 2.5? Sure this has been covered, just have not come across it.

Question being does the 2.7 really have greater RPM capability over the 2.5 or is it a spec illusion?

[pothole]

Originally Posted by runjmc2

My understanding is the 2.7 is not a bored 2.5, rather it has a longer stroke (3.07in vs. 2.83in). All things being equal the shorter stroke 2.5 would have a lower piston speed (FPS) and allow for a higher red line than the 2.7.

Are all things "not equal" in this comparison, e.g. the design/materials on the crank/etc of the 2.7 better and allow great piston speed than the 2.5.....or is the 2.7 just rated at a higher redline "less conservatively" than the 2.5? Sure this has been covered, just have not come across it.

Question being does the 2.7 really have greater RPM capability over the 2.5 or is it a spec illusion?

Good questions. Yes, the 2.5 is shorter stroke. But it's a fact that the 2.7 has a higher rev limiter and produces peak power higher. You could, of course, fairly easily tweak the 2.7 with a lower rev limiter and to produce peak power lower down.

God knows if the 2.7 has a better crank, I doubt there are dramatic engineering differences. The difference in peak revs isn't huge anyway.

Neither engine is terribly stressed, if you ask me.

[southernstar]

Pothole, you are suggesting (without any evidence) that Porsche changed the gearing on the 2.7 to improve fuel economy at the expense of performance. My point about the 981 was that, yes I agree that Porsche has made some changes in the Boxster for the purpose of improved fuel economy - e.g., electric steering and start/stop technology in its most recent model, and they have acknowledged that this was the principle reason for those changes. But I thought we were talking about changes made to the 986 Boxster series, where they made no such claim about the changed gearing that came with the introduction of the 2.7.

What is interesting about the gear ratios on the 2.5 as opposed to the 2.7 is that, while the ratios for the the first three gears are identical, the ratios for fourth and fifth gear are actually closer in the 2.7 than the 2.5. I assume you will agree that for the purpose of performance driving, a close-ratio gearbox is generally considered better (after a shift, it enables one to keep the engine RPM's in the sweet spot in the middle of the power band). Put in practice, a shift into fourth from third, or fifth from fourth in the 2.7 will drop the rpm's less than in the 2.5.

It is obvious that we will never agree on this point and that's fine. You say that Porsche changed the gearing solely for the purpose of improving fuel economy. You say that in spite of the fact that Porsche never made such claims and indeed, you offer no fuel consumption figures to prove that there was any such improvement. I say that Porsche introduced that 2.7 and 3.2 in order to improve performance and thereby address the biggest criticism of the 2.5 - that it was lacking in power, torque and flexibility. I am saying that Porsche altered the gearing in order to match and optimize it with the improved peak torque and horsepower as well as the flatter torque and horsepower curves that came with the increased displacement and improved fuel injection in the new engine.

While it is unclear whether Porsche improved fuel efficiency with the 2.7 (and I suspect they did not), it is clear from Porsche's own figures and from comtemporary tests that it did improve performance over the 2.5.

Cheers!

Brad

[paintboy]

Experts like Pete Townshend, Tim Curry and Paul Williams all agree that the 2.5 is the engine to own. Many 911's have had their new motors replaced with 2.5s that have upwards of 100k miles on the clock. A spokesman for NASA, B. J. Smegma, stated that if the 2.5 was available in the 1960s, it would have powered the Apollo rockets into space, instead of those silly American made Saturn 5 things. And had 2.5 been available to the German war machine in WWII, who knows how things would have turned out....a Tiger tank doing 0-60 in six seconds would have been unstoppable.....

[southernstar]

Thanks Paintboy - you have brought us back to earth! While much less interesting and fun than contemplating the world order if the Germans had the 2.5 in WWII, I just checked the EPA site re: the fuel economy numbers for the 1999 2.5 versus the 2000 2.7:

1999 Boxster 2.5 manual: 17 MPG city, 24 MPG HIghway, 20 MPG combined
2000 Boxster 2.7 manual: 17 MPG city, 25 MPG Highway, 20 MPG combined

Wow, if Porsche changed the gearing on the 2.7 for the purpose of improved fuel economy, they failed dismally! The combined number is identical and the 1 MPG improvement on the highway cycle could probably be explained by anything from varainces in individual cars to the improved fuel injectioin system. Even worse, while trying to improve fuel economy at the expense of performance, they actually by their own admission in the brochures (and as confirmed by contemporary tests) IMPROVED performance. Porsche got it all wrong!

Brad

[paintboy]

I did not realize the Boxster was a muscle car....better to be able to keep right foot buried in the corners. Straight line speed is not what these cars are about. If you don't do twisties, you are waisting a great car.

[southernstar]

I'm in complete agreement Paintboy - twas just responding to a request for the 0-60 times (and the suggestion that the gearing in the 2.7 was intended to improve fuel mileage at the expense of performance).

I NEVER do burnout starts or stoplight drag races. To me they are immature and not in keeping with the car and its intended use (and if all you care about is acceleration, there are a ton of other cars that will be better at that for less money). In addition, of course, it puts unnecessary strain on the drivetrain, CV joints, axles, clutch and rear tires. To give you an idea of where I am coming from, in the past I purchased two Fiat X-19's - completely gutless cars, but ones that handled better than anything else even remotely close in price at the time.

In addition, it seems that I am one of the few here who finds the power in the base Boxster to be more than enough to get me into trouble. Then again, I don't track my car and have no desire to do anything more than autocross. Having driven virtually every model of the 986, from 1997's through 2004, both base and S models, I reiterate that I think that all of them are incredible driver's cars. In terms of base models, I prefer the 2.7 over the 2.5 largely because of the increased flexibility due to the improved torque curve and due to the need to shift less in order to optimize performance. This improved flexibility (and I suspect the closer gear ratios above third gear) mean that the car is much easier to drive quickly as one need not be as concerned about keeping the car in as narrow an RPM range as the 2.5 in order to optimize performance. The actual difference in 0-60 and quarter mile times really doesn't matter one iota to me.

I guess what I need to do is find some of the contemporary articles that came out on the introduction of the 2.7 which speak to this improvement and, as to how the car actually feels quite a bit quicker than it is (and than the 2.5 it replaced). Certainly that has been my experience.

Brad

[southernstar]

I'll have to look for my old Porsche Excellence Magazines tonite, but in a quick check on the net I found the following in relation to the 2.7 versus the 2.5:

Porsche Boxster 986 / 987

"The displacement of 2687 cc was made by means of lengthening the stroke to the same 78 mm as the Boxster S. Therefore they share the same connecting rods. Bsides, two-stage variable intake manifolds are added to improve mid range torque. Electonic throttle is adopted."

"Instead of 204 BHP and 181 lb/ft, the enlarged engine pumps out 220 hp and 192 lb/ft. Not big numbers, but in reality the difference is more than that. From 4,000 RPM to 7,000 RPM, the increase of punch is more noticeable, as seen by the 0-100 mph of 15.5 seconds. That is far quicker than the old car's 18.0 sec. and not far behind Boxster S's 14.2 sec."

"The additional punch gives the driver more opportunity to enjoy the at-the-limit balance and communication of the wonderful chassis."

"The bottom line is, Porsche has cured the only weak link in the Boxster." And take note - they were not talking about fuel consumption!

Again, I am merely trying to point out that the 2.5 needed a lower final drive ratio and gearing than the 2.7 precisely because it had less overall torque and a torque curve that was less flat. As is mentioined above, because of the tuned runners in the 2.7, the difference is greater on the road than the peak torque numbers alone would suggest.

Tomorrow I will try to find excerpts from an article in Porsche Excellence which points to the significant improvements to the performance/driving experience in the 2.7 over the 2.5 as a result of both the changes to the engine AND the new gear ratios.

Brad

[pothole]

I would generally recommend one thinks for oneself and use experience rather than basing your opinions on magazine articles and marketing.

I would also point out that Excellence have not driven a 986 2.7 with the 2.5's ratios, so nobody knows exactly how it would feel. However, I have driven a 2.7 and I would like shorter ratios in first through third. The 2.5 box gives that, so I take the view it might be a nice upgrade. Can't know absolutely for sure, obviously.

I also guarantee you that fuel consumption and long distance cruising refinement were the main reasons they increased the ratios on the 2.7. What Porsche said about it in the marketing material is neither here nor there.

They made lots of decisions re engine design to save cost that ended up creating weak spots that lead to failure. But funnily enough, you only read about how the design was all about wonderful sporty driving or whatever in the marketing material. Don't take the marketing material literally, for goodness sake!

[986_inquiry]

Originally Posted by southernstar

I'll have to look for my old Porsche Excellence Magazines tonite, but in a quick check on the net I found the following in relation to the 2.7 versus the 2.5:

Porsche Boxster 986 / 987

"The displacement of 2687 cc was made by means of lengthening the stroke to the same 78 mm as the Boxster S. Therefore they share the same connecting rods. Bsides, two-stage variable intake manifolds are added to improve mid range torque. Electonic throttle is adopted."

"Instead of 204 BHP and 181 lb/ft, the enlarged engine pumps out 220 hp and 192 lb/ft. Not big numbers, but in reality the difference is more than that. From 4,000 RPM to 7,000 RPM, the increase of punch is more noticeable, as seen by the 0-100 mph of 15.5 seconds. That is far quicker than the old car's 18.0 sec. and not far behind Boxster S's 14.2 sec."

"The additional punch gives the driver more opportunity to enjoy the at-the-limit balance and communication of the wonderful chassis."

"The bottom line is, Porsche has cured the only weak link in the Boxster." And take note - they were not talking about fuel consumption!

Again, I am merely trying to point out that the 2.5 needed a lower final drive ratio and gearing than the 2.7 precisely because it had less overall torque and a torque curve that was less flat. As is mentioined above, because of the tuned runners in the 2.7, the difference is greater on the road than the peak torque numbers alone would suggest.

Tomorrow I will try to find excerpts from an article in Porsche Excellence which points to the significant improvements to the performance/driving experience in the 2.7 over the 2.5 as a result of both the changes to the engine AND the new gear ratios.

Brad

I will agree that 0-100mph is probably faster in a 2.7 because 3rd gear goes past 100mph while a 2.5 would need to shift into 4th to reach 100mph

the 2.5 has a 3.89 final drive ratio while the 2.7 has a 3.56.
Improving base Boxster gearing or 6 speed upgrade? - 986 Series (Boxster, Boxster S) - RennTech.org Forums

again, i know what the articles say, that the 2.7 is way better than the 2.5, but when I drive them the 2.5 feels like the better vehicle.

[Nimbus117]

A 2.7 is faster to 100 by 2.5 seconds, quote:

'Not big numbers, but in reality the difference is more than that. From 4,000rpm to 7,000rpm, the increase of punch is more noticeable, as seen by the 0-100mph of 15.5 sec. That is far quicker than the old car’s 18.0 sec and not far behind Boxster S’s 14.2 sec. What a pity it still drive through a 5-speed manual from the old car, without Boxster S’s 6-speeder to choose from.'

What a nonsense thread!

[pothole]

Originally Posted by Nimbus117

A 2.7 is faster to 100 by 2.5 seconds, quote:

'Not big numbers, but in reality the difference is more than that. From 4,000rpm to 7,000rpm, the increase of punch is more noticeable, as seen by the 0-100mph of 15.5 sec. That is far quicker than the old car’s 18.0 sec and not far behind Boxster S’s 14.2 sec. What a pity it still drive through a 5-speed manual from the old car, without Boxster S’s 6-speeder to choose from.'

What a nonsense thread!

Except the 2.7 doesn't have the 5-speed from the 2.5. It has its own gearbox.

[southernstar]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. That the gearing in the 986 2.7 was chosen in order to optimize performance in conjunction with the characteristics of the new and improved engine, rather than to improve fuel consumption, is proven by the fact that, in spite of more advanced fuel injection, the EPA conbined fuel consmption numbers remain the same while acceleration figures and top speed improve. My experience in driving numerous 2.5 and 2.7 986's, often back to back when I was shopping for my car, support not only the improved performance, but also the dramatically improved flexibility.

I see this thread not as a real 'review' of the 2.7 versus the 2.5, but as an effort at revisionist history by some owners of 2.5 Boxsters that, while being tremendous cars in their own right, are clearly not as quick as the 2.7's 986's that replaced them. Whether the experience/opinions of pothole and 986 inquiry are based upon bias or having compared bad-running examples of 2.7's with good running examples of 2.5's, I cannot say. But lets look at some contemporary reviews of the 2.7 by writers with experience with both cars when they were new.

In his review of the 2000 base Boxster in the article entitled "White Water,' at p. 114 of the May 2000 edition of Excellence magazine, Peter Stout wrote the following:

"We're happy to report that the new engine, with 16 extra horses and 11 more ft/lbs of torque feel even stronger than those numbers would suggest. The engine now pulls with sufficient urge to make us believe the complaints of too little power when the Boxster was first introduced are no longer applicable to the base car."

"The changes are enough to reduce Porsche's estimated 0-60 mph time to just 6.4 seconds (from 6.7). In practice, the newfound power is even more impressive, because the torque band is broader and usable power is available immediately."

Pete Stout was not only an experienced automotive journalist, but the editor of Excellence magazine. He is also the editor of Panorama, the magazine of the PCA (Porsche club of America), so one would not expect his opinions to show a bias as against members who own 2.5's versus members who own 2.7's.

David Coleman was not only an automotive journalist, but also the owner of a 1998 Boxster 2.5 (which he had purchased new) when he wrote the ariticle entitled '2001 Boxster 2.7' that appears at p. 60 of the May 2001 edition of Excellence magazine. He started his review with the following rather telling passage:

"It's not often that I feel grumpy after driving a brand-new Porsche on loan for a week. But that's exactly how I felt after spending seven days behind the threee-spoke wheel of a 2001 Boxster. What could possibly account for such an adverse reaction? The realization that my own 1998 Boxster is now as obsolete as an Oldsmobile dealership."

He then went on to describe the mechanical changes as well as the improved torque curve and wrote the following:

"Put the old Boxster next to the new one, drop the throttles, and the 2.7 will absolutely waste the 2.5 every time. In fact, the 217 hp version feels a lot closer to the 250 hp Boxster S than it does to the 201 hp original." Far from mere hyperbole, I would suggest that the 0-100 mph times reported below support the propostion that the 2.7 is closer to the S than to the 2.5.

"The 2.7 liter engine endows the basic Boxster with a meaty midrange that is lacking in the original car. The 2.7 jumps with the kind of authority that was distinctly lacking in the first-generation Boxster."

"Internal gearing changes to the 2.7's five-speed manual help make the base Boster the outstanding performer that it is when compared to its predecessor."
He then goes on to list the respective gear and final drive ratios, as well as the top speed in each gear.

"The beauty of the 2.7 liter engine and gearbox combination is that its 11 ft/lbs of extra torque and 16 additional horsepower not only endow it with better grunt throughout the rev range, but also allow it to achieve considerably higher speeds in each gear thanks to that taller final drive ratio."

In relation to 'driving the twisties', if I can refer to it in that way, he says the following:

" Notice that the 2.7 will reach 66 mph in second gear versus 55 mph for the 2.5. The 2.7 will not only come off the last corner quicker than the 2.5 liter thanks to greater torque, but it will also eliminate the upshift from second to third gear that the 2.5 liter car often requires."

The 2.5 liter car was geared as it was because the relative lack of torque (and the much less flat torque curve) required it to be geared in that way, not because those ratios were somehow the ultimate for any car's performance, regardless of the characteristics of its engine.

Please note, I am comparing the gearing in the 986 2.5 with the 986 2.7 (rather than the 987); by the time the 987 was introduced, fuel consumption was a bigger consideration for all manufacturers and likely played a greater part in determining gear ratios in that car. However, at the introduction of the 2.7 in 1999 (2000 model year in North America), Porsche's clear aim was at improving performance rather than fuel consumption - and this is precisely what they achieved by means of the changes to both the engine AND the gear ratios.

Furthermore 986inquiry, while I will not argue with your subjective feeling that your 2.5 is faster above second gear than the 987 2.7, the numbers do not support that proposition when comparing your 986 2.5 with the 986 2.7 (comparing apples and apples). The gear ratios above third gear are actually closer in the 2.7 than the 2.5 and, combining that with the improved horsepower and torque, it is not surprising that a .3 second advantage from 0-60 becomes a 2.5 second advantage by 100 mph.

In sum, I believe that in terms of overall performance driving, the best gear ratios for both the 2.5 and the 2.7 986 Boxsters were the ones that Porsche specified. The transmissions both optimize performance for the engines with which they were mated and that, whether the owners of some 2.5's wish to acknowledge it or not, resulted in a car that was significantly quicker, faster, more flexible and responsive than their own.

Brad

[pothole]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. That the gearing in the 986 2.7 was chosen in order to optimize performance with the characteristics of the new and improved engine, rather than to improve fuel consumption, is proven by the fact that, in spite of more advanced fuel injection, the EPA conbined fuel consmption numbers remain the same while acceleration figures and top speed improve.

Unfortunately, you still don't understand how this works, Brad. Had they kept the ratios the same, the 2.7 still would have had increased acceleration and top speed, but the fuel consumption numbers would have been worse than the 2.5. Maintaining fuel consumption with a larger more powerful engine is effectively improving it in like for like terms.

Put in really simple terms, if you want to make a car fun and exciting, you do not make the gear ratios taller. But in the real world you have to compromise other demands, namely efficiency and refinement. Few people want a car that buzzes along at high revs when cruising. But if all you cared about is having fun, you'd have even shorter ratios than the 2.5's.

As for the rest, you're just going round in circles and choosing to take notice of things that fit your view and ignore those that don't.

Far from being biased towards the 2.5, I'd rather have the 2.7 and have little doubt it's quicker than the 2.5. I don't agree with the characterisations that the difference is dramatic. It's a sub 10% increase in power offset by taller gearing. The differences are in fact subtle. Nevertheless, I repeat that I'd still rather have the 2.7.

Moreover, I've only have made two claims. Firstly that the taller ratios in the 2.7 are about fuel efficiency and refinement, which they very obviously are. And secondly that since I'm not hugely bothered about either of those things (within reason), I'd like a 2.7 with the shorter 1-3 gear ratios of the 2.5.

[986_inquiry]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. That the gearing in the 986 2.7 was chosen in order to optimize performance in conjunction with the characteristics of the new and improved engine, rather than to improve fuel consumption, is proven by the fact that, in spite of more advanced fuel injection, the EPA conbined fuel consmption numbers remain the same while acceleration figures and top speed improve. My experience in driving numerous 2.5 and 2.7 986's, often back to back when I was shopping for my car, support not only the improved performance, but also the dramatically improved flexibility.

I see this thread not as a real 'review' of the 2.7 versus the 2.5, but as an effort at revisionist history by some owners of 2.5 Boxsters that, while being tremendous cars in their own right, are clearly not as quick as the 2.7's 986's that replaced them. Whether the experience/opinions of pothole and 986 inquiry are based upon bias or having compared bad-running examples of 2.7's with good running examples of 2.5's, I cannot say. But lets look at some contemporary reviews of the 2.7 by writers with experience with both cars when they were new.

In his review of the 2000 base Boxster in the article entitled "White Water,' at p. 114 of the May 2000 edition of Excellence magazine, Peter Stout wrote the following:

"We're happy to report that the new engine, with 16 extra horses and 11 more ft/lbs of torque feel even stronger than those numbers would suggest. The engine now pulls with sufficient urge to make us believe the complaints of too little power when the Boxster was first introduced are no longer applicable to the base car."

"The changes are enough to reduce Porsche's estimated 0-60 mph time to just 6.4 seconds (from 6.7). In practice, the newfound power is even more impressive, because the torque band is broader and usable power is available immediately."

Pete Stout was not only an experienced automotive journalist, but the editor of Excellence magazine. He is also the editor of Panorama, the magazine of the PCA (Porsche club of America), so one would not expect his opinions to show a bias as against members who own 2.5's versus members who own 2.7's.

David Coleman was not only an automotive journalist, but also the owner of a 1998 Boxster 2.5 (which he had purchased new) when he wrote the ariticle entitled '2001 Boxster 2.7' that appears at p. 60 of the May 2001 edition of Excellence magazine. He started his review with the following rather telling passage:

"It's not often that I feel grumpy after driving a brand-new Porsche on loan for a week. But that's exactly how I felt after spending seven days behind the threee-spoke wheel of a 2001 Boxster. What could possibly account for such an adverse reaction? The realization that my own 1998 Boxster is now as obsolete as an Oldsmobile dealership."

He then went on to describe the mechanical changes as well as the improved torque curve and wrote the following:

"Put the old Boxster next to the new one, drop the throttles, and the 2.7 will absolutely waste the 2.5 every time. In fact, the 217 hp version feels a lot closer to the 250 hp Boxster S than it does to the 201 hp original." Far from mere hyperbole, I would suggest that the 0-100 mph times reported below support the propostion that the 2.7 is closer to the S than to the 2.5.

"The 2.7 liter engine endows the basic Boxster with a meaty midrange that is lacking in the original car. The 2.7 jumps with the kind of authority that was distinctly lacking in the first-generation Boxster."

"Internal gearing changes to the 2.7's five-speed manual help make the base Boster the outstanding performer that it is when compared to its predecessor."
He then goes on to list the respective gear and final drive ratios, as well as the top speed in each gear.

"The beauty of the 2.7 liter engine and gearbox combination is that its 11 ft/lbs of extra torque and 16 additional horsepower not only endow it with better grunt throughout the rev range, but also allow it to achieve considerably higher speeds in each gear thanks to that taller final drive ratio."

In relation to 'driving the twisties', if I can refer to it in that way, he says the following:

" Notice that the 2.7 will reach 66 mph in second gear versus 55 mph for the 2.5. The 2.7 will not only come off the last corner quicker than the 2.5 liter thanks to greater torque, but it will also eliminate the upshift from second to third gear that the 2.5 liter car often requires."

The 2.5 liter car was geared as it was because the relative lack of torque (and the much less flat torque curve) required it to be geared in that way, not because those ratios were somehow the ultimate for any car's performance, regardless of the characteristics of its engine.

Please note, I am comparing the gearing in the 986 2.5 with the 986 2.7 (rather than the 987); by the time the 987 was introduced, fuel consumption was a bigger consideration for all manufacturers and likely played a greater part in determining gear ratios in that car. However, at the introduction of the 2.7 in 1999 (2000 model year in North America), Porsche's clear aim was at improving performance rather than fuel consumption - and this is precisely what they achieved by means of the changes to both the engine AND the gear ratios.

Furthermore 986inquiry, while I will not argue with your subjective feeling that your 2.5 is faster above second gear than the 987 2.7, the numbers do not support that proposition when comparing your 986 2.5 with the 986 2.7 (comparing apples and apples). The gear ratios above third gear are actually closer in the 2.7 than the 2.5 and, combining that with the improved horsepower and torque, it is not surprising that a .3 second advantage from 0-60 becomes a 2.5 second advantage by 100 mph.

In sum, I believe that in terms of overall performance driving, the best gear ratios for both the 2.5 and the 2.7 986 Boxsters were the ones that Porsche specified. The transmissions both optimize performance for the engines with which they were mated and that, whether the owners of some 2.5's wish to acknowledge it or not, resulted in a car that was significantly quicker, faster, more flexible and responsive than their own.

Brad

it's my opinion, but the difference between the two is pretty large, large enough that anyone can drive a 2.5 and then drive a 2.7 and say the 2.5 accelerates faster in 3rd according to butt dyno.

Also, the 2.5 hits 60 in 2nd before red-line, so whoever you're quoting, not sure if that's a good source, since he clearly doesn't know these cars.

[Crono0001]

Originally Posted by 986_inquiry

it's my opinion, but the difference between the two is pretty large, large enough that anyone can drive a 2.5 and then drive a 2.7 and say the 2.5 accelerates faster in 3rd according to butt dyno.

I've driven a 2.7 986 vs. my 2.5 986
My 986 does not seem faster in 3rd.