Go Back   986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Boxster General Discussions

Post Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-08-2013, 04:42 AM   #1
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernstar View Post
As to styling, as you say 'your choice'. I actually prefer the 986 as IMO the 996, while clean, is perhaps the dullest-looking 911 since the 1960's. The slab sides without the significant flaring for the wheel arches that were used in most later 911's, just don't do it for me, whereas the coke-bottle shape, side air intakes, rear hips and tailights that trace the rear fender form on the 986 do.

Agree and disagree with that at the same time!

One of the things I like about the 996 is its narrowness. Standard 911s were narrow without any flaring from 1963 until the SC in 1978 and even that had only very mild flaring, which continued to be the case until the 993 appeared in 1993 or thereabouts.

It's one reason why I love the 996 GT3 RS so much. It's just so no nonsense with the narrow body. Widebody is sexy, but it's also a bit shouty.

Generally really like the fact that the 996 is clean clean and uncluttered and indeed narrow bodied. For me that actually makes it closer to the original 911 ethos than the cars that have followed. Everyone gets hung up on the lights, but the 997 in manys ways is a step away from 911ness compared to the 996.
__________________
Manual '00 3.2 S Arctic Silver
pothole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 06:42 AM   #2
Homeboy981
 
Homeboy981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Sherman, TX
Posts: 663
Garage
Nice writeup @thstone! You should know. Agree with BruceH, should have compared it to a 3.2 L model S with a sexy 6 speed.

…or you could have the BEST of BOTH WORLDS…a 986 S with 300 HP! A very EYE POPPING driving car.

Your 'toolbag' will shrink up every you drive it! That is when you KNOW the car you have built is fast!

Good to know what model 996 I can pick a fight with! he-he
__________________
2002 Porsche Boxtser S - Silver & Chrome - Died from IMS failure AFTER IMS was replaced!
Homeboy981 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 01:10 PM   #3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 598
I hear you Pothole and I guess I also agree and disagree at the same time. I do find the round headlights/front styling on the 997 to look much more '911'ish' than the headlights/front styling on the 996, especially prior to the 2002 revisions. I agree, however, that the clean sides on the 996 do harken back to the early 911's more than subsequent editions. Personally, I preferred the look of the later air-cooled cars but that is, of course, purely a matter of taste. As to the width of the bodies, while both cars have wider bodies than the air-cooled 911's (its why they were able to eliminate the flares from the 993 on the 996), nevertheless the 997 is somewhat wider still.

I still prefer the styling on the 986 to the 996: while the 986 has numerous historical references to the 550 Spyder, it nevertheless was a very original design. The 996, however, borrowed the sheet metal of the 986 (introduced 2 years earlier than the 996) from the B-pillars forward, blending them with a 911 style roofline and rear fenders. It seems that, after Porsche upgraded performance to the 986 in the 2000 model year (2.7 and 3.2 engines, etc.), most customers also preferred the 986 Boxster until the front styling upgrade to the 996 in in the 2002 MY. At all other times, the sales of the au courant 911 has exceeded, often substantially, the sales of the Boxster, or the Boxster/Cayman combined:

The following sales figures are from: www.autozine.org/Manufacturer/Germany/Porsche/html

1998/1999 (1999 MY) 911 - 23, 090 Boxster - 20, 892
1999/2000 (2000 MY) 911 - 23, 050 Boxster - 25,747
2000/2001 (2001 MY) 911 - 26, 721 Boxster - 27,865
2001/2002 (2002 MY) 911 - 32, 337 Boxster - 21, 897
2002/2003 (2003 MY) 911 - 27, 789 Boxster - 18, 411
2003/2004 (2004 MY) 911 - 23,704 Boxster - 12, 988
2004/2005 (2005 MY) 911 - 27,826 Boxster - 18. 009
2005/2006 (2006 MY) 911 - 34,386 Boxster/Cayman - 27,906
2006/2007 (2007 MY) 911 - 37,415 Boxster/Cayman - 26,146
2007/2008 (2008 MY) 911 - 31,423 Boxster/Cayman - 21,747
2008/2009 (2009 MY) 911 - 27,776 Boxster/Cayman - 14,403
2009/2010 (2010 MY) 911 - 19,663 Boxster/Cayman - 11,717

The 911 has always had a performance edge over the Boxster, although that was reduced substantially in the 2000 model year with the introdution of the 3.2 'S' and 2.7 Base. Since then the performance edge for the 911 has remained roughly constant. What is the reason, then, that sales of the Boxster exceeded the 911 only in those two years? I suggest that it was the appearance of the 996until the 2002 front-end upgrade. Thereafter, and especially after the introduction of the 997, there has been no contest: the 997 outsold the 987 and Cayman by a substantial margin.

I understand that sales numbers/demand when new do not necessarily reflect demand for cars as they become older, but this is another of the reasons that I believe that the 986 Boxster S and Boxster from the 2000 and 2001 MY (especially those with dual-row IMS bearings) will ultimately become the most sought after. They were the only Boxsters that were more popular and sought after in their time than the comparable 911.

Brad

Last edited by southernstar; 05-09-2013 at 03:47 AM. Reason: sp
southernstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 01:52 PM   #4
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernstar View Post
I still prefer the styling on the 986 to the 996: while the 986 has numerous historical references to the 550 Spyder, it nevertheless was a very original design. The 996, however, borrowed the sheet metal of the 986 (introduced 2 years earlier than the 996) from the B-pillars forward, blending them with a 911 style roofline and rear fenders.
Brad
The 996 did not borrow sheet metal from the 986. They're derivations of a single architecture, designed and engineered together. It's just product cycles - one had to be first, they couldn't launch both at the same time for logistical reasons.

They're really the same car - front 2/3rds of body, platform, chassis, the works is a single module, shared by both. Then there's a pair of modules for the rear, one for mid installation, one for rear. Same engine, though. Very little that isn't shared when you get down to it.
__________________
Manual '00 3.2 S Arctic Silver
pothole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 07:55 PM   #5
Registered User
 
BYprodriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: O.C. CA
Posts: 3,709
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by pothole View Post
Agree and disagree with that at the same time!

One of the things I like about the 996 is its narrowness. Standard 911s were narrow without any flaring from 1963 until the SC in 1978 and even that had only very mild flaring, which continued to be the case until the 993 appeared in 1993 or thereabouts.

It's one reason why I love the 996 GT3 RS so much. It's just so no nonsense with the narrow body. Widebody is sexy, but it's also a bit shouty.

Generally really like the fact that the 996 is clean clean and uncluttered and indeed narrow bodied. For me that actually makes it closer to the original 911 ethos than the cars that have followed. Everyone gets hung up on the lights, but the 997 in manys ways is a step away from 911ness compared to the 996.
I agree with you, I never liked any 911 until I saw a 996 up close. Very smooth & purposeful looking.

There are good reasons Ruf uses the NB!
BYprodriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Post Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page