986 2.5L vs 996 3.4L Comparison

[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.