986 2.5L vs 996 3.4L Comparison

[pothole]

In that case, you guys are following the wrong models and brands. There are cars that will deliver the competitive numbers numbers you seek for a lot less money (or better numbers for the same money). Porsche is about about the experience, not numbers on a piece of paper.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by pothole

In that case, you guys are following the wrong models and brands. There are cars that will deliver the competitive numbers numbers you seek for a lot less money (or better numbers for the same money)..

If purchased new, I would agree. But buying used has a great way of extracting the Porsche tax/premium from the value consideration. Once a Porsche is well-settled into pricing reality (and not the absurd pricing their currently getting away with) it's a pretty good proposition -- as far as the time sheets.
Others, granted are still better but they have their their drawbacks as well.
Recent Corvettes come to mind, out of the box they put up great single laptimes for an insane bargain price, but visit a local track often and you'll see quiet a few of them on the back of a flatbed, some before even lunch time. I guess you pay up dearly for Porsche durability, but certainly not at Ferrari levels. It's a sort of middle ground in the sports car jungle. However, GM is moving aggresively.
A look at the recently released Stingray options sheet reveals that they WANT their cars to be shaken down on track, while Porsche come up with new ways to screw their warranty holders. I guess GM are hoping to use their buyers as part of development to bridge the durability gap to Porsche. GM certainly has my attention. Even if you mitigate the Porsche tax by buying used, the maintenance costs are still an issue. And personally I like it when the cheaper alternative wins.

[shadrach74]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

If purchased new, I would agree. But buying used has a great way of extracting the Porsche tax/premium from the value consideration. Once a Porsche is well-settled into pricing reality (and not the absurd pricing their currently getting away with) it's a pretty good proposition -- as far as the time sheets.
Others, granted are still better but they have their their drawbacks as well.
Recent Corvettes come to mind, out of the box they put up great single laptimes for an insane bargain price, but visit a local track often and you'll see quiet a few of them on the back of a flatbed, some before even lunch time. I guess you pay up dearly for Porsche durability, but certainly not at Ferrari levels. It's a sort of middle ground in the sports car jungle. However, GM is moving aggresively.
A look at the recently released Stingray options sheet reveals that they WANT their cars to be shaken down on track, while Porsche come up with new ways to screw their warranty holders. I guess GM are hoping to use their buyers as part of development to bridge the durability gap to Porsche. GM certainly has my attention. Even if you mitigate the Porsche tax by buying used, the maintenance costs are still an issue. And personally I like it when the cheaper alternative wins.

Hmmm... In my experience, simple GM pushrods V8s are far more robust than Pcar engines.

[southernstar]

Actually Perfectlap, I consider the pricing (apart from options) on the new Boxster to be extremely reasonable - the base price of new 981, when adjusted for inflation, is virtually identical to the base price on the 1997 Boxster and the car is significantly faster, better finished, better equipped and has a better warranty.
The options, of course, are and always have been another matter. Nevertheless, if one is careful it is possible to get a very nice new Boxster or Cayman for a pretty reasonable price.

Where base prices become more difficult to justify is once one moves up to the 911 series. When one consider the number of shared parts and the fact the 911 has typically been produced in larger numbers, it is virtually impossible to justify. In order to maintain strong sales (and high profitability) of the 911, Porsche does 'de-tune' the Boxster engines - as has been pointed out in the BHP and torque per liter figures. Still, the Boxster and Cayaman are great cars and if the new ones are still decent 'bang for the buck', the old ones are even better.

It is interesting that the price of early 996's has dropped so much. Stone was able to purchase a nice example for a price in the same range as a 986 Boxster of the same vintage. That makes this debate more interesting, does it not? I suspect that many on this site, if being honest, would have purchased a 996 over a 986 if the prices had been comparable at the time. The 911 has not only more peformance, but also more status than the Boxster; for many, this would be far more important than better turn-in, a better exhaust note for the driver (and for some, a more original design). It will be interesting to see where they shake down in the long-term with respect to values, but at present, it seems that history is repeating itself: as pointed out in an earlier thread, the only time when Boxster (or Boxster + Cayman) sales exceeded the 911 was prior to the front-end redesign on the 996 in 2002. Prior to that, demand for the 986 actually exceeded the demand for the 996 and we may be seeing the same thing in the market today.

[pothole]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Actually Perfectlap, I consider the pricing (apart from options) on the new Boxster to be extremely reasonable - the base price of new 981, when adjusted for inflation, is virtually identical to the base price on the 1997 Boxster and the car is significantly faster, better finished, better equipped and has a better warranty.

What was the 1997 US price, then?

In the UK it was £34,000. It's now £38,000. Adjusted for inflation, my car cost over £60,000 in 1997. 981 is much, much cheaper than the 986 was.

Same applies to the 991 and 996...

981 is a bargain in the UK.

Agree, I would have bought a 996 if I could have afforded it. But in some ways it's a blessing in disguise, because owning a 986 has probably made me more curious about how the 986 and 996 are related and more appreciative of how good a car the 986 is. One, I think, tends to assume a 911 is good. But the 986's virtues are less well appreciated, I think.

[BYprodriver]

Originally Posted by pothole

What was the 1997 US price, then?

In the UK it was £34,000. It's now £38,000. Adjusted for inflation, my car cost over £60,000 in 1997. 981 is much, much cheaper than the 986 was.

$40,000 was the pricepoint the Boxster was promised to be under, simular to the reintroduced 924"S" @ $19,990 in 1988?

[southernstar]

Perfectlap, I too would not have purchased a 996 over my 986 even if they were priced roughly the same at the time. I tried both, but my heart was with the 986. I have already indicated that I prefer the design, the handling (which is more precise) and the incredible sound that the driver gets underway because of the side air intake on the driver's side. I remember when the 986 was introduced - I WANTED one badly, but household expenses (and a young son) made it impossible. I loved the 550 influences in the design. I loved everything about it and was even prepared to put up with the relative lack of power. As to the 996 - when it was introduced, I had no similar feelings. It seems that I was not alone fin that regard for, as has been pointed out below, until the upgrades to the 996 in 2002 it was outsold by the Boxster - the only time that has ever happened. And Pothole, I am in complete agreement that for many, the 986 Boxster is an under-appreciated car. I love mine and would not trade it for a 996 of the same vintage.

Pricing? In around 2000 the Boxster started at close to 60K in Canada; due to the improved value of our currency, it remains at roughly the same price today. So yes, I consider the 981 to be 'reasonably' priced for what it offers and a relative bargain. I also suspect that the new 981 Boxster and Cayman may well reverse the trend of 911's outselling the Boxster/Cayman (or at least, dramatically outselling them) since 2001. In spite of Porsche's best efforts to avoid leeching off sales from the 911, I believe that the new Cayman especially will do exactly that; and, I believe that the Boxster will continue to sell in large numbers due to the roadster experience and its lower price. Time will tell.

With reference to future prices, however, the fact that demand was greater for the 2000/2001 Boxster than the same years of 996, bodes well for their ultimate resale value. They were, to many, a more desireable car. The more dramatic depreciation on the early 996 (they started with a significantly higher price), suggests that this remains the same. IMO, that and the new 986 Boxster spec series (which keeps the original Boxster in the public eye), can only help.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by shadrach74

Hmmm... In my experience, simple GM pushrods V8s are far more robust than Pcar engines.

street or track? The issue seems to be with long stints pushing the car 10/10's.

Originally Posted by southernstar

Actually Perfectlap, I consider the pricing (apart from options) on the new Boxster to be extremely reasonable - the base price of new 981, when adjusted for inflation, is virtually identical to the base price on the 1997 Boxster and the car is significantly faster, better finished, better equipped.

I could not disagree more. I don't think there's anything reasonable about new Porsche pricing since they became profitable again -- insanely so. After all of those immense profits these cars have hardly been Lexus quality and they surely haven't been putting rivals to shame on track. So its pretty clear where the Porsche tax isn't going... into the cars. Granted the rate of mark up has not been as bad on the Boxster as other models but that's nothing more than common sense by Porsche because a roadster is always the toughest sell -- unless no one wants to buy any of your other cars like when Porsche were near bankruptcy selling air-cooled Carreras. Also, I hardly think the 986 Boxster was a good barometer for reasonable pricing back in 1997 with what was widely criticized as an underpowered engine and a bare bones interior. But I'll grant you they've been consistently over-priced relative to cars of similar perfomance, reliability and sigificantly lower running costs.

p.s.
I find it interesting that a Boxster rival like the Honda S2000 with moderate mileage of the same time period as a Boxster (2000 year in the link below) is commanding very similar prices to what was once a such an expensive car like the Boxster.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/00-HONDA-S2000-Convertible-Manual-Transmission-Leather-Low-Miles-We-Finance-/400484239259?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item5d3eb8879b

p.p.s.

I would NOT have purchased a Carrera if they were priced the same when I purchased the Boxster S because price was not the deciding factor. In fact it was my intention to buy a Carrera (only $10K more than the Boxster S at the time and well within my budget) but after watching Tif Needel on 5th Gear declaring a Boxster the best sports car money could buy I had to go drive one to see for myself. I had to agree 100%, once the Porsche tax was done away with by second-hand market reality, I saw no point in spending the extra $10K for the base Carrera. The 986 S was nearly perfect in bone stock trim. I'd never really driven a mid-engine car like that. I was instantly sold before I even returned from the test drive. And I certainly wasn't going to buy a Cabriolet 911. If I wanted a convertible this was the Porsche to buy. I'm no worshiper of the 911, for me Porsche racing history goes further back than than the 1970's. When I think of Le Mans, the Carrera is not what comes to mind. I simply thought why not give a tin top a shot this time but then I made the fortunate mistake of driving the Boxster S and it was no longer a debate. Although I certainly would never buy either new, it's just financially illogical given the obvious effects of mass production on depreciation not to mention the need to budget for the over-priced parts and specialized labor, no room for any Porsche taxes as far as I'm concerned.