986 2.5L vs 996 3.4L Comparison

[pothole]

Originally Posted by BruceH

Because he is looking for the "Perfectlap" as are many others. Me, I don't race and I really haven't spent any appreciable time on the track. I would like to however, and yes, I would like to keep track of my times. To each his own

But surely even then what matters is improving your laptime in a given car, not absolute lap time. What does absolute lap time matter?

To give you an example, you might lap faster at a given track in, say, an Audi S4 than a basic 1.8-litre Lotus Elise because the Audi might have just too much of a power to weight advantage (it may not, but you get my point). But the Elise will be miles more enjoyable while you bank slower lap times.

In that context what the hell does the absolute lap time matter? Yes, you might want to improve you time in the Elise, but who the hell cares what lap time the Audi is doing?

And so we come to Boxster vs 911. Who cares which laps faster? Pick the one you enjoy driving the most.

[Crono0001]

Originally Posted by pothole

But surely even then what matters is improving your laptime in a given car, not absolute lap time. What does absolute lap time matter?

To give you an example, you might lap faster at a given track in, say, an Audi S4 than a basic 1.8-litre Lotus Elise because the Audi might have just too much of a power to weight advantage (it may not, but you get my point). But the Elise will be miles more enjoyable while you bank slower lap times.

In that context what the hell does the absolute lap time matter? Yes, you might want to improve you time in the Elise, but who the hell cares what lap time the Audi is doing?

And so we come to Boxster vs 911. Who cares which laps faster? Pick the one you enjoy driving the most.

It's humbling when your Porsche is out-powered by a highly tuned civic, or a stock WRX non-STi. I want more HP every time I take the box over the WRX

[pothole]

Originally Posted by Crono0001

It's humbling when your Porsche is out-powered by a highly tuned civic, or a stock WRX non-STi. I want more HP every time I take the box over the WRX

Why does it matter whether some ricer next to you can accelerate faster? Surely what matters is how enjoyable your car is to drive, period? Never understood this kind of thinking, seems you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. Don't care how fast other cars are, just care what the car I'm driving feels like. If it doesn't have the acceleration you want, fair enough. But don't understand what a Civic has to do with anything...

[shadrach74]

Originally Posted by pothole

Why does it matter whether some ricer next to you can accelerate faster? Surely what matters is how enjoyable your car is to drive, period? Never understood this kind of thinking, seems you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. Don't care how fast other cars are, just care what the car I'm driving feels like. If it doesn't have the acceleration you want, fair enough. But don't understand what a Civic has to do with anything...

Originally Posted by pothole

Why does it matter whether some ricer next to you can accelerate faster? Surely what matters is how enjoyable your car is to drive, period? Never understood this kind of thinking, seems you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. Don't care how fast other cars are, just care what the car I'm driving feels like. If it doesn't have the acceleration you want, fair enough. But don't understand what a Civic has to do with anything...

For me it's a question of value. IS my 02 s fun to drive? Absolutely! Does that make up for the fact that a stock Dodge Neon SRT will give me a run for my money off the line? Not really... This reality is even more dismaying because it was intentional. Every Boxster that has come of the line has been deliberately hamstrung by the company. One could say that my Neon analogy is unfair because it's a blown engine... and that's a good point so then let's compare NA engines:

2002 M3 3.2L makes 333hp and 262ftlbs torque

2002 M roadster makes 333hp and 262ftlbs torque

2002 Carrera 3.6 320hp and 273ftlbs torque

2002 986 2.7 makes 217hp and 192 ftlbs torque

2002 986 S 3.2L makes 250hp and 225ftlbs of torque

HP/torque per litre per car:

M3 = 104.063 HP per Litre and 81.88ftlbs per Litre

M roadster 104.063 HP per Litre and 81.88ftlbs per Litre

Carrera = 88.89 hp per litre and 71.67 ftlbs per litre

986 = 80.37hp per litre 71.1ftlbs per Liter

986S = 78.13HP per liter and 70.313ftlbs per litre

In terms of performance per litre, The 986 S is the worst of the breed. Why??? Could Porsche not get the same HP per liter out for various displacement engines of the same basic engine platform? Sure the could have, but the didn't...

Power to weight ratio:

M3 3415 P/W 10.8

M Roadster 3084.3 P/W 9.3

Carrera 2910 P/W 9.1

986 2788 P/W 12.8

986 S 2855lbs P/W 11.4

Do you think the M roaster is in a class above the Boxster S? Because it is performance wise... Porsche did manage to charge 15% more than BMW so hey in terms of MSRP numbers, Porsche er uh wins... Resale? M roadster with comparable miles will bring as much as an S or more...

Porsche builds great driving cars, but that does not make their short comings any less annoying. All of there cars could have been show stoppers if they had just managed to keep up with BMW. On a side note the Boxster gets lousy mileage compared to its heavier and higher powered competitors... Lose/lose

Add in IMS issues and customer service issues which has been beaten to death. My soon to be uncle in law has bought 2 CPO 911s from the dealer. His last, a 2006 997 Carrera grenaded last fall because of IMS failure. The dealer told him to pound sand. He'll never by another P-car.

So yeah, I love P-cars, but I'm not in love with their corporate decision making.

It's kind of like watching a great sports franchise loose because the coach has his head up his a$$.

All of this is a bitter pill when I get smoked off the line by a car that costs less to buy, maintain and feed.

But hey, it goes around corners nice so that should make up for all of the other failures - riiiiiiight...

I love my car, but I have no illusions about it's or it's manufacturer's short comings...

[southernstar]

Pothole, I think that Crono's point is that for HIS own driving enjoyment, he would prefer more power. Performance is relative and while we can enjoy our car's performance in an abstract way, occasionally reality will bring us back to earth. For example, you are taking a hard run down your favourite mountain road - pushing your own limits and the limits of your car. Suddenly you look in your mirror and see a car catching up with you rapidly from behind. What is this incredible sports car that is, seemingly effortlessly, catching up with your Porsche? Why, its a slightly modified Honda Civic! To you that might not matter, but to many the reality of their car's performance would make the experience a little less enjoyable and make them lust after a little more power. Crono is saying that he is one such person.

The 996 has significantly more power than the 986 2.5 and, on our hypothetical mountain road (where uphill acceleration would be much better in the 996), I have little doubt that the 996 would be faster - and for some - much more fun to drive than the 986 2.5. Other's opinions may vary (including my own, by the way - I love the turn-in on the 986 and the engine sounds through the side intake and, well I am much less 'racey' than I used to be). But I can fully understand those who, like Crono, would find the 996 a more enjoyable drive than the Boxster 2.5.

For me - I would just back-off a little so that the Honda didn't think I was pushing the car's limits, wave him past and go on my merry way!

Brad

[southernstar]

Shadrack, I agree that Porsche deliberately kept the performance of the Boxster S down in order to ensure that they are not taking sales from the much more profitable 911. However, I disagree with your suggestion that the BMW Z3 and Z4 were superior cars. Road tests at the time almost invariably preferred the Boxster. Why? Apart from inferior acceleration (and not much inferior), the Boxster:
- had better braking and brake balance (an advantage to mid-engine placement as a smaller percentage of braking has to be done by the front brakes)
- the Boxster had clearly superior handling (lower Cg, better weight transference due to mid-engine placement, etc.).
- the Boxster had superior steering (the Z4 had relatively numb - and ultimately, quite unreliable electric power-assist steering).
- the Boxster was better able to get the power down out of turns (again, greater percentage of weight over the rear tires)
- the Boxster had superior aerodynamics, making the performance at higher speeds better than the BMW in spite of the horsepower/torque deficit.
- the Boxster was more attractive (I know, subjective - but most people seem to prefer the lines of the 986 over the cartoon character, stubby look of the X cars).
- the Boxster had a wider, more airy and comfortable interior.
- the Boxster had more trunk space for those who wished to take road trips.

Everyone hs their own set of priortites in the purchase of a car. For many (including me), the horsepower and torque advantages of the BMW X series do not begin to compensate for the other characteristics of the Boxster. Your opinion may vary.

Brad

[pothole]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Pothole, I think that Crono's point is that for HIS own driving enjoyment, he would prefer more power. Performance is relative and while we can enjoy our car's performance in an abstract way, occasionally reality will bring us back to earth. For example, you are taking a hard run down your favourite mountain road - pushing your own limits and the limits of your car. Suddenly you look in your mirror and see a car catching up with you rapidly from behind. What is this incredible sports car that is, seemingly effortlessly, catching up with your Porsche? Why, its a slightly modified Honda Civic! To you that might not matter, but to many the reality of their car's performance would make the experience a little less enjoyable and make them lust after a little more power. Crono is saying that he is one such person.

The 996 has significantly more power than the 986 2.5 and, on our hypothetical mountain road (where uphill acceleration would be much better in the 996), I have little doubt that the 996 would be faster - and for some - much more fun to drive than the 986 2.5. Other's opinions may vary (including my own, by the way - I love the turn-in on the 986 and the engine sounds through the side intake and, well I am much less 'racey' than I used to be). But I can fully understand those who, like Crono, would find the 996 a more enjoyable drive than the Boxster 2.5.

For me - I would just back-off a little so that the Honda didn't think I was pushing the car's limits, wave him past and go on my merry way!

Brad

The odds of a modified Civic catching up with a well driven Boxster of any kind on a really good mountain road are very, very slim.

But even if it happened, why on earth does it matter. What impact on your enjoyment can a car that you don't own and you are not driving possibly have. Find this kind of psychology totally bizarre. It basically boils down to a keeping-up-with-the-Jonses mentality, and it doesn't interest me in the slightest.

Re the 996 comparison, you're confused. The point made earlier that we are discussing was the contention that a 911 would only be even as quick as a Boxster once the driver had learned to adjust to the 996's handling characteristics.

I totally understand the point re the feeling of acceleration. If that's what you're after primarily, then you are always going to want more power. But that's still got nothing to do with what other cars are doing or times on a sheet. Again, it's what the car feels like, not what another car is doing or lap times.

[stephen wilson]

I understand his point, and agree. The Boxster is so close to the "perfect" car for me, but for a slight lack of power. It's frustrating because it would be easy for Porsche to fix for little additional $$$, but for market placement. You can't tell me it would be hard for them to get 100 HP per Litre. Even better, make the base enging a 300 HP 3L, and the S a 350 HP 3.5L. That would be a perfect car for me!

P.S. I don't care about other cars, this is just what I would like to drive.

[Crono0001]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Pothole, I think that Crono's point is that for HIS own driving enjoyment, he would prefer more power. Performance is relative and while we can enjoy our car's performance in an abstract way, occasionally reality will bring us back to earth. For example, you are taking a hard run down your favourite mountain road - pushing your own limits and the limits of your car. Suddenly you look in your mirror and see a car catching up with you rapidly from behind. What is this incredible sports car that is, seemingly effortlessly, catching up with your Porsche? Why, its a slightly modified Honda Civic! To you that might not matter, but to many the reality of their car's performance would make the experience a little less enjoyable and make them lust after a little more power. Crono is saying that he is one such person.

Thanks Brad, this is completely my view. That's why I had a poll up not too long ago regarding my next steps in upgrades. I feel like the Boxster was castrated when it was made, and I plan to transplant its balls back.

Originally Posted by pothole

The odds of a modified Civic catching up with a well driven Boxster of any kind on a really good mountain road are very, very slim.

But even if it happened, why on earth does it matter. What impact on your enjoyment can a car that you don't own and you are not driving possibly have. Find this kind of psychology totally bizarre. It basically boils down to a keeping-up-with-the-Jonses mentality, and it doesn't interest me in the slightest.

I totally understand the point re the feeling of acceleration. If that's what you're after primarily, then you are always going to want more power. But that's still got nothing to do with what other cars are doing or times on a sheet. Again, it's what the car feels like, not what another car is doing or lap times.

On a mountain pass, the skill of driver weighs waaaay more than the car you drive. If you put a pro in a Civic vs. a regular driver in a Boxster, I guarantee you the Civic would win.

Then again, that wasn't what I said. It's humbling when your Boxster is overpowered by a highly tuned Civic, which happens quite easily for old 2.5 Boxsters.



Personally, I think you're trying to argue your point so much that you're missing the bigger picture. You're very stubborn, and you can't seem to understand that for some people, being able to go faster is better. If you wanted PURE driving experience, go get an FRS/BRZ/86. I have yet to drive a car that's more fun than that, but it's not a car I would ever own because... let's be honest, it's not very fast.

The Boxster is a good car. For me, if it were faster, it'd be better. Period.
It doesn't interest you in the slightest; more power to you (haha if you caught that). Make sure you move to the right when we go by.