987 2.7 vs 986 2.5 review
 

Here's my preliminary review between the two, I'll update this with more info.

2006 987 2.7 5-speed vs 1998 986 2.5 5-speed review

1) ACCELERATION: 1st and 2nd feel similar, but 986 2.5 pulls harder in 3rd and 4th than 987 2.7, wouldn't be surprised if 986 2.5 has better quarter in real life. I test drove several 2000-2004 2.7 and they also felt slower in 3rd and 4th

2) MPG: Not that it matters but.... it's about the same with everyday city/highway driving (saint louis), even though the 987 2.7 has a trip computer I've been watching religiously and the 986 2.5 didn't. If I'm really good I think I can get another 1 or 2mpg from it, so maybe 5-10% better mpg than 986

3) STEREO: OMFG THE 987 STEREO IS AMAZING! HUGE improvement. Finally there's some bass, sounds great, the buttons are easier to select, looks modern, etc etc etc. But screen is harder to read in sunlight with top down. I have the base model stereo, whatever that is, I'll check later. I see no reason to replace this stereo, but I do plan on purchasing a FM inline modulator so I can connect a ipod when I finally run out of these old CD-Rs :D

4) AC/HEATING: NO climate control! :eek: :eek: Yeah I know, I was shocked and greatly disappointed, just has up and down for heat/cooling and fan. HOWEVER I now have heated seats which are wonderful, top down in 40 degree weather no problem with heated seats

5) HANDLING: seems the same to me, however the 2006 987 comes with Porsche Stability Management as standard equipment. It's amazing in the rain, no matter how bad the roads are or how fast you're going PSM keeps you straight on the road. Those giant puddles on the highway that use to scary me in the 986 are no longer a threat!

6) EXTERIOR: love the headlights, looks much bigger than 986, more modern styling too, and since 981 sales started Summer 2012 (less than a year ago) the 987 still appears to be the newest model to most people.

7) INTERIOR: feels bigger, like in the 986 I would usually rest my left arm over the door with the windows down, but with the 987 it feels like a bit of a stretch, arm can be left on door armrest.

8) IMS: Anyone doing any research on Porsche has heard of IMS failures that total the engine. According to what I've read 2006+ Porsches receive a upgraded IMS, essentially the same IMS Retrofit that LN Engineering sells. I contacted http://www.flat6innovations.com/ before purchasing a 2006 and they said I should be fine. I've also brought the vehicle to Reid Vann and they said it looks good, but I still plan on having the IMS Guardian installed next oil change.

9) CONVERTIBLE TOP: Seems similar to the 986, but it now works at speeds up to ~30mph. It's great having that, especially when it's about to rain

10) TRANSMISSION: The 987 comes standard with a factory short shifter. It will take some getting use to if you are moving from a 986 since the stick just barely has to move to get into the next gear

11) BRAKING: The 987 comes standard with cross-drill vented rotors, and the PSM system on the 2006 987 "precharges" the brakes to achieve better braking

12) AVAILABLE MODS: TPC racing offers a bolt-on turbo kit for the 987, adding ~100whp for $7,500. They offer it for the 2000+ 986 now too but it requires 987 headers and they recommend 987 throttle body.


13) OTHER: The 2005+ 987 has no oil dipstick. From the press release: "Boxster engines feature integrated dry-sump lubrication with two reflow pumps drawing oil from the cylinder heads and with a separate pump supplying oil to engine lubrication points. This setup assures optimum oil supply even under the extreme dynamic conditions of high lateral acceleration. The system also is so precise in monitoring oil that the engines need no dipstick; the electronic monitor measures the oil level and displays the result on the instrument cluster."

More info from press releases:
http://press.porsche.com/archive/products/models/models_2005/boxster.html
http://press.porsche.com/archive/products/models/models_2006/boxster.html

this isn't mine but here's what the interior looks like:
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_...0009_large.jpg

VERDICT:
Should you replace your 986: No, I wouldn't, if it's running fine and doesn't need major repairs I would keep the 986.
New Porsche, buy a 986 or 987: depends on what's important. If you just want pure acceleration and a Porsche, 986 is fine considering they're currently less than half the cost of a 987. If you want more modern styling, engine, PSM, better brakes, better IMS bearing, etc, then 987 is the way to go.

thanks for the compare. I like the looks of the 987 so much more! I've got one of the nicest 986's ever but I long for round headlights and the 997/987 interior.Now that I've started repairing mine and have bought a Bentley manual , I'm learning that virtually every year newer means more things that can go wrong, even from my 2001 to 2002! If only I had the money to buy new and sell when the warranty is about to expire!:ah:

my 2 cents on the 987 styling vs. past and future..

I really like the back of the 987. Even better than the rear of the 981. But the front of the 987 I personally like the least. It has a sort of Japanese character about it. while the 981 seems like a straight copy of the Ferrari California, sort of what I was expecting would come immediately after the 986. From the side I didn't care for the odd shape of the 987 intake. I really don't care for the 981 side intake, seems very gimmicky to me and anything reminiscent of the Carrera GT just reminds you that its not a CGT and frankly shouldn't be on a roadster in the first place as the scale is too small to be that busy.

I guess my perfect car would have a 987 rear, 981 front end, 986 side (or more like the 996 Turbo side).

As for interiors, I literally don't like a single thing about the Panamera interior in the 981. It's like they shoe-horned another car's interior into a roadster. The 986 interior just lacked better quality materials but I think the 1993 concept car design/theme was genius... a sort of bare minimalism like on previous Carreras that was not remotely Audi/VW'esque like the 987/997/991.

I'd like a minimalist boxster S with no luxurious at all--a spyder would do nicely. I think about starting with a bare-bones S and then building a track/street car with no HVAC,stereo,power accessories or sound insulation-- no comforts , just pure speed including slammed coilovers and WAY more power- oh , and cayenne (GT2 6 piston) brakes! And then, another boxster that's loaded, comfortable and quiet(like the one I now have ) and IMPRESSIVE. All I need is the money. Maybe a GT3 could be BOTH! :cool:

I get regular seat time in my mother's '06 987. Here's my take:

1. Acceleration: It feels quite similar to my '04 986, just a smidge peppier due to the increased output. I drove it last a few nights ago and inadvertently made racket off the stop. Oops.

2. MPG: Seem to be about the same, 24-25mpg.

3. Stereo: Oddly, mine sounds better in terms of bass depth. Neither one of our cars has the rear speaker package installed, and with the radios at the same audio settings mine just sounds better.

4. A/C: Hers doesn't have auto climate (I rarely use that feature in mine), equal in terms of output. Hers has heated seats, though.

5. Handling: Equal.

6. Exterior: I prefer the 987's lines over the 986. There, I said it. :p The panel gaps are much tighter, the revised door handles, and the aluminum frunk/trunk lids are nice touches. Still love me some 986.

7. Interior: Disappointed the center console cannot be removed a la 996 GT3. Room seems improved with better packaging, especially in the driver's footwell. Material quality is a bit higher though some surfaces seem more prone to premature wear than in 986s. Door pockets are narrower and more difficult to use in the 987. The centrally-located spoiler switch is a nice touch, as is the Homelink.

I know what you mean. Looks similar to a early 2000s Infiniti G35 or Toyota MR2.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...11-26-2011.jpg

what I don't get is the boxster is ~700 lbs heavier than the toyota MR2 yet they look so similar and are mid-engine RWD. If the Boxster was 700 lbs lighter it would be a beast!

Here's the interior of a 2009 987, with the PDK, touch screen, etc., just for comparison's sake. I'm thinking I might like those white gauges.

On the 986: I saw 1998 Boxster the other day, and I was surprised at how nice it was! It's really a pretty car. Since it was my color, I asked the guy about it and apparently he had driven it all the way down from Canada. The paint still looked good, and he says he just washes and waxes when needed.

http://986forum.com/forums/uploads01...1367183045.jpg

986inquiry, thanks for your review. I suspect that the 2.7's you were testing were running poorly, because upon introduction Porsche's notoriously conservative numbers and all contemporary reviews of the 2.7 determined that it was quicker and that the improved torque (and flatter torque curve) meant that it was mcuh more flexible. Indeed, some reviewers felt that the improvements were greater than the numbers suggested.

The gear ratios in the 2.5 had to be higher than ideal as the engine just didn't pull very well at low RPM's. The increased stroke and improved fuel injection addressed those issues.

Brad

I test drove a couple of 2.5L models and have to say they were noticeably slower than the 2.7L facelift I eventually bought. I didn't try a 987 2.7L but I cant imagine a 2.5L ever keeping up with one in good running order.

In fact a friend of mine has a 2001 Boxster S and to his disgust, I can keep up with him. He spent a fortune recently replacing spark plugs etc. etc. as he assumed his must be down on power but I still keep up or he doesn't have enough grunt to overtake me if I'm in front. 2.7L engine is often overlooked but I think it's a cracker.

Nimbus, that's my experience as well (although in my case, a friend's 3.2 S is quicker than my 2.7). We should also keep in mind that the redline for the 2.7 was increased from 6800 to 7200 RPM's - a 6% increase that also contributes to higher top speeds in each gear.

Brad

Totally agree; before buying my 986S, I test drove every model I could find, 987 base & S included. the 987 base felt very close to the 986 S in terms of power, and I would have bought one instead if not for the $15 - $20K premium...

I used to autocross a Miata and had a few laps in this MR2 (weird sight lines from the cockpit). When you then step into the 986 the first thing you notice is that unlike the other two the 986 acutally feels like a full-sized car and not a tight fitting sardine can. Actually if I'm not mistaken from wheel to wheel the 986 is slightly longer than the 996 Carrera. And of course the cockpits themselves are identical. This may sound sort of weird but in that respect the 986 is kind of big for a traditional roadster.

One of advantage of the earlier 986's was weight. SCCA autox C-stock under ~2,800 lbs, in STR rules allow a drop of another 200 lbs which is just a whisker from a SpecBoxster at ~2,500. Which is why you don't see such a dramatic difference in lap times (and not just "seat of the pants" feel) from a 2.7. And this is before taking any serious lightweight measures that could be applied to a 2.5 like an Optima battery, light weight exhaust/headers, losing 2 cats, cut out the airbox and radio, light flywheel/race clutch, ultra light magnesium wheels and light rotors. Even now after nearly 17 years in bone stock form the 2.5's are practically in the mirrors of a base 987 over a lap.
Or in the case of the light weight Boxster Spyder a well prepared example (tires/suspension) from TC Kline without a single engine modification was able to outlap a modified 997 GT3 with nearly 130 HP advantage. Still the lightest water-cooled Porsche.

i owned a 98 and test drove another 98 and a 99, all felt the same. Test drove several 2000-2004 2.7 and two S, 2001 and 2004, and a 99 911. About a dozen porsches within a few months. All the 2.7 felt slower past 60 mph, and the S's were the only cars that felt similar to the 2.5. 911 was in a different league.

maybe all the 2.7's i drove were bad and maybe all the 2.5's i drove were running strong, but from my experience the 2.5 is faster than a 2.7 past 60. Even the 2006 2.7 I purchased does not feel as fast as the 98 IMHO

1980s BMW Convertibles - Top Gear - BBC - YouTube

The top gear guys all buy the same 1980's BMW... which turn out to be all VERY different. The difference in power alone was astonishing.

Not all used cars are equal.

Ratios in the 2.5 higher than ideal? How do you work that out? The 2.5 has nearly 10% lower ratios 1-3. They changed the ratios for the 2.7. So both had ratios to suit the engine, though I'd actually say a 2.7 with the 2.5's ratios would be ideal.

All these cars are great drives and the reality is that there's really not that much in 2.5 through 2.7 and 2.9.

Take 2.5 v 2.7. it's only another 200c and 20-odd hp. Plus the 2.7 has a little more weight to drag around and taller ratios. I'm not saying the 2.7 isn't any faster. But I've driven one and it's not a dramatic difference. How could it be?

I've also compared a 2.5 with a late 2.9, side by side with a rolling start from about 2,00rpm in second through to about 90 or 100mph ish. Think you lot would be surprised at the modest difference in performance. The 2.9 is quicker, but the gap wasn't huge, maybe a car's length by the top of fourth.

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!

Pothole, you are of course correct re: the transmission gear ratios. When I posted I was thinking of the differential/rear axle gear ratios, where a higher ratio of course means that the engine is revving higher at a given speed. I should also say that I agree that the gear ratios for both the 2.5 and the 2.7 were well-suited to the engines: my reference was to the suggestion that the gear ratios in the 2.5 would be ideal with a 2.7, something with which I disagree. The 2.5, with less torque and a narrower torque band than the 2.7, needed lower transmission ratios and more shifting than the 2.7.

I should also point out that there was virtually no weight increase as between the 1999 2.5 and the 2000 2.7 (about 20 lbs as I recall - although as I have the actual published curb weights for both from Porsche somewhere, I will check and report back if significantly higher). The subsequent base models did increase in weight with the addition of the padded top/cupholders etc. in 2001 and more significantly, the extra top bow, glasss rear window and glove box in 2003.

For the 2000 2.7, as I recall Porsche listed a 0-60 MPH time that was .3 seconds quicker than the 2.5 and the following site shows relative performance in both 0 - 60 and 1/4 mile times.

Porsche 0-60 Times & Porsche Quarter Mile Times | Porsche 911 Carrera 0-60, 944 Turbo, GT2, Boxster S, Cayman R, GT3 and Porsche Cayenne 0 to 60 stats!

This confirms that the 2000 2.7 is .3 seconds faster to 60 MPH and the time differential in the 1/4 mile is nearly 3/4 of a second: 14. 8 seconds for the 1999 2.5 and 14.1 for the 2000 2.7. Not huge, but significant IMO. What is more significant from a driving perspective, however, is the flatter torque curve and its impact on driveability. I'll try to dig up some tests of the 2.7 from back around 2000 by Porsche Excellence magazine, but as I recall the author of one of those tests was the owner of a 2.5. He indicated that, from his hands-on experience in both, the 2.7 seemed closer in performance to the 3.2 than the original 2.5.

The 2.5 is an incredible car, make no mistake about it. However, I believe that it is important that we don't try to get into revisionist history. The changes that Porsche made to the displacement, fuel injection and gear ratios in the 2.7 were done in order to improve both performance and flexibility and, in conjunction with the 3.2 'S' that was introduced in the same year, to answer some of the criticisms of the performance of the 2.5.

Brad

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.

Firstly, my point re using the 2.5 gearbox is that I reckon it would allow the advantages of the 2.7 (including higher rev range) to really shine through. One of the reasons for the taller ratios in the 2.7 is better mileage. And I couldn't care less about that. I also don't care whether I lose 5mph at the top. I'm not doing 150mph too often.

Re weight, the book weights only tell half the story. Apparently the early 2.5s are measurably lighter than later 2.5s, and the 2.7s a bit heavier again.

Also bear in mind that Porsche had planned to release more powerful versions of the Boxster earlier, but demand for the 2.5 was massive, so they held out and cashed in. Yes, some mags criticised it for lacking power, but so what?

I've driven pretty much all the 986/987/981 engine options and they're all fantastic. But are the more powerful cars more fun? Not really.

Anyway, the reality is that the performance difference between the 2.5, 2.7 and 2.9 isn't massive. The new 2.7 is a bit of a step up, but even that isn't in a completely different ballpark.

Pothole we are almost in complete agreement - I have not driven a 981, but all of the 986's and 987's I have driven are a blast to drive. I found the early tiptronics to be a bit sluggish for my tastes, but then again, I vastly prefer a standard transmission in a sports car regardless of performance (and yes, if I were to buy a new 981 it would be a standard, even though it is actually marginally slower)! So yes, marginal performance improvements are only a marginal part of the story.

Yes, there were weight increases over the life of the 2.5's as a result of the addition of side air bags and the strengthening of the rear suspension mounting points. Probably not enough to be really noticeable, but likely in line with the differences in weight between a 1999 2.5 and 2000 2.7. So yes, I am pretty sure that a 1997 2.5 would be little quicker than a 1999 (lets face it, racers will spend a fortune to lose 20 pounds off the weight of a car)!

With respect to the gearing on the 2.7, I do however differ from you. As I recall, the fuel consumption for the 2.7 was only marginally better than the 2.5 ( only on the highway and possibly even worse in the city cycle?). Indeed, upon its introduction I don't recall that Porsche even advertised better fuel mileage (but I have original brochures for both the 1999 2.5 and the 2000 2.7, so I can check and report back if I am mistaken).

To me, the improvements due to the revised gearing on the 2.7 have virtually nothing to do with the increased top speed - as you rightly point out, when do we get a chance to take advantage of that? In conjunction with the improved torque curve, however, it does reduce the amount of shifting that is required to optimize performance in the cut and thrust of daily driving and allows one to attain speeds in excess of 100 kph in second gear. The latter can also be important for those who autocross their vehicles.

Cheers!

Brad

The 2006 2.7 is 240hp, 20% more HP than the 201 hp in the 2.5. That's quite a jump and should be very noticeable to drivers.

but your experience is similar to what I have experienced, the 2.7 (or 2.9 in your case) is not much different than the 2.5 once you're past second gear.

As I said in my review, if you just want fast and you're comparing a 2.5 and 2.7, they're about the same, either is good

Now how do i get the gearing from my old 2.5 into the 2.7? :D :dance:

seems I'm right, the 2.5 had the best gearing while the 2.7 has the worse

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

It wasn't just about performance. It was about fuel efficiency, too. Ditto features like stop-start and electric steering in the latest Porsches.

If you don't care about fuel efficiency, the 2.7's ratios will be suboptimal.

Also, you've misunderstood the higher redline of the 2.7. With a higher rev range, you can have shorter gearing. In fact, that was part of my point. With the higher redline of the 2.7, the 2.5's gearing will be seriously sexy. You don't want tall gearing with a high revving engine. You want tall gearing with a torquey, low revving engine.

Geddit?

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 2.5 is the BEST engine Porsche has ever produced! It is the very BEST in everything that matters! Anything else is just not as AWESOME! Why even discuss any other motor that Porsche has ever produced??? All the best drivers know that if you don't have a 2.5.....you ain't got nothing. Also the best year Porsche Boxsters were ever produced, hands down, 1998. Porsche should have just stopped there when they achieved perfection.





Of course, I could be a little biased because that is the motor in my 1998 Boxster.:D

:matchup:

Do I sense a subjective bias here by the owners of the 2.5 motors?
If they sold them and owned 3.2 motors then they would be the best in the world!

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?

Dude, what on earth are you talking about? Where did I mention the 981 in my last post? I was talking about swapping gearboxes over, you can't possibly think I meant putting an early 986 box in a 981, can you?!

Forget the marketing bumpf. The taller gearing in the 2.7 was for refinement and efficiency, not to make the car better for enthusiast drivers. The end.

Companies put all kinds of "sporty" bull**************** in material for all kinds of cars, most of which aren't even 1/100th as sporty as a Boxster. But they still make efficiency a priority. Blame human psychology. When people are reading the marketing bull****************, they want to read about sportiness. Then they look at the MPG numbers and gag on them if they're too high. So they have to engineer in better MPG within reason. That's life.

As for the gearing helping in "cut and thrust driving in town," sorry but gimme a break. And finally autocross? Sorry again, but **************** that. OK, if you care about autocross it may be a benefit. So that's great. For everyone else, it's utterly irrelevant.

The gearing in ALL of these cars is a compromise balancing off several factors, some of which you will care about others you won't. I'm not that bothered about MPG, so up to a point I'd want lowering gearing. However, I wouldn't want it crazy low as that makes the car tiresome for long journeys.

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.

Of late there hasn't been much bias towards the 2.5, we've been talking about gearing.

I own a 2.5, but I suspect my perfect 986 would be a 2.7 with gearing from the 2.5. hardly biased in favour of the 2.5 engine.

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.

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

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.....

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

I have not read all the responses in this forum but I understand that the 2.7 Boxster base(2001) does 0-60mph(0-100kph) in 6.5 seconds. So what is reported time for the 2.5 litre engine?

Porsche 0-60 Times & Porsche Quarter Mile Times | Porsche 911 Carrera 0-60, 944 Turbo, GT2, Boxster S, Cayman R, GT3 and Porsche Cayenne 0 to 60 stats!

The above site posts 0-60 and 1/4 mile times for various cars, apparently based upon averages from contemporary magazine tests. They show the following:

1999 Boxster 2.5: 0-60 6.3 seconds, 1/4 mile 14.8 seconds
2000 Boxster 2.7: 0-60 6.0 seconds, 1/4 mile 14.5 seconds

http://www.howstuffworks.com/porsche-boxster-history4.htm

The following is a quote from the above web page in connection with 0-60 times:

"Porsche pegged the 2000 base Boxster at 6.4 seconds in the benchmark 0-60 dash, a modest .3 seconds up on the 2.5 litre original. The real-world time was probably more like 5.9...."

The actual times vary, although it would seem clear that the difference in 0-60 times is at least .3 seconds as between the 2000 2.7 and the 1999 2.5. I don't have my brochures here with me (and I don't have one for a 2001 Base which was a bit heavier than the 2000 due to the lined top and cupholders), but the 6.5 second figure you refer to may reflect 0-100 kph (which is actually a little over 62 MPH), or it may have increased slightly due to the additional weight.


Brad

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. :)

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

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.

Thanx Brad!