987 2.7 vs 986 2.5 review

[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.

[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!