987 2.7 vs 986 2.5 review

[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

986 inquiry, lower gear ratios are not necessarily better even for 'peformance' driving. I assume we can agree that what is critical is matching the gear ratios to the engine. The 2.5 had less torque, expecially low in the RPM range and hence needed lower gearing. What is more, your analysis fails to take into consideration the fact that the 2.7 and 3.2 had higher redlines - an increase from 6800 rpms to 7200, or roughly 6%. I am quite confident that Porsche, in attempting to improve performance over the 2.5, came up with what they believed were the best ratios to achieve this with the upgraded engines.

Brad

I can not speak for Porsche since I am not them, all I can say is the 986 feels like the faster vehicle past 2nd gear, which is not good, no one should drive the new Boxster and think "Gee, wish it was as fast as my old Boxster"

[986_inquiry]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Pothole, I thought we were talking about comparisons as between 986 Boxsters, not with respect to the 981. I tend to agree about some features on the new 981(such as electric steering and stop/start technology), as being primarily for the purpose of improved fuel consumption rather than performance. As to fuel efficiency in the 986, I checked the brochures that I have at home for the 1999 2.5 and the 2000 2.7 and 3.2 and nowhere is improved fuel efficiency mentioned, whereas the improved performance is. I agree that high-reving 'peaky' engines should be geared so as to have their engines typically running at higher revs; however, the 2.7 was actually less peaky than the 2.5 - i.e., the torque curve was more flat in the sense that it had a greater percentage of peak torque available down low in the rev range than the 2.5. Of course, this is exactly what you would expect with the increase in stroke in the 2.7 over the 2.5. This is all part of matching the engine to the gear ratios and, while I have no doubt that the gear ratios in the 2.5 are ideal for that engine, I also believe that the same is true for the 2.7 and 3.2 engines.

The higher rev limit does contribute to higher speeds in each gear - increases that are greater than one would expect from gear ratios alone. As I have already said, that is a real boon in the cut and thrust of driving around town as well as for autocross, where one need not shift out of second gear (unless the maximum speed on the course exceeds 65 MPH, which is pretty rare in my experience).

Brad

The 987 certainly has more torque at lower RPM, feels like what the 986 S feels like, which is probably why many people say a 987 feels like a 986 S

2nd gear lasts just a little longer in the 987 than 986. 986 red-lined around 63mph, 987 is closer to 68mph. 3rd is a huge difference, 986 red-lined at ~92mph while 987 red-lines closer to ~105mph, approximate because I have never driven those speeds on public roads

[986_inquiry]

Originally Posted by pothole

Thus for a 2.7, I'd want the 2.5 gearing. To recap, there's no such thing as perfect gearing. It's always a compromise. And for my needs the 2.7 gearing is too compromised in favour of MPG and cruising refinement.

this

i'm considering taking the transmission from the 2.5 and putting it in the 2.7

[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!

[Nimbus117]

My favourite quote say's it all:

'the new Boxster 2.7 should settle the embarrassment facing by the old Boxster since the arrival of Honda S2000.'

[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.

[recycledsixtie]

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!

Thanks everybody for the education re the 2.5 vs the 2.7 but have to agree with this last line above!

[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

[particlewave]

I like potatoes.

[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.

[Crono0001]

Originally Posted by particlewave

I like potatoes.

I like scantily clad women.

[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.