|
Pothole is correct - the sales numbers in post 10 are global, not for the USA. Did the 996 sell many more cars than the 993 it replaced? Yes as by the mid 90's sales of the 993 were hurt by ergonomics, HVAC etc. that had become positively archaic. However, if the original 996 had created the 'buzz' that the 986 did upon its introduction, one would have expected greater sales than the Boxster in the 1999 and 2000 model years. However, it was not until the upgrades in the 2002 MY that sales of the 996 finally surpassed the Boxster.
Was this because the 911 fraterntiy had finally accepted a water-cooled engine? I doubt it - as has already been pointed out, sales of the last air-cooled 911's had already hit rock bottom. Why then the sudden increase in sales of the 996 in the 2002 MY? While the 986 and 996 were developed jointly, the fact that the sheet metal and interior from the doors forward was indentical on both cars clearly hurt sales for the 996. Rather than seeing the 986 as having borrowed from the more expensive 996, since the 986 was introduced two years before the 996, the natural impression was that the 'new' 911 was an overpriced car that borrowed heavily from the significantly cheaper Boxster.
The 2002 MY front revision finally ensured that from every angle, the 996 could not be confused for its less-expensive brother. Lets face it, status is a significant factor for many of the purchasers of 911 Porsches and in that connection, the 911should be readily distinguishable from the 'lower-priced spread'.
Perfectlap, I still believe that the new 981 (so long as one is careful with options) is priced quite reasonably for what it delivers. For those looking to buy a roadster, I am not sure where you would be able to find a new Stingray convertible for $50,000. Even if you could, I (and I suspect many others) would still prefer the Boxster as:
1. To me, the new Stingray with its wedgy shape and Camaro tailights already looks dated. The new 981, however, is a well-balanced, modern design with elements drawn from various mid-engined 'supercars'.
2. Similarly, to my eye the dashboard faciia and steering wheel in the Stingray are overstyled and frankly, tacky. The interior of the 981 Boxster, on the other hand, is both ergonomically sound and understatedly elegant.
3. In an era of dwindling resources and over-reliance on oil from the middle-east (not to mention what most believe is the need to reduce greenhouse gases), the Boxster is dramatically more fuel-efficient. Some of us want to enjoy performance cars while still being seen as 'green', or at least respectful of the environment.
4. The fiberglass body on the Stingray is bound, over time, to develop the creaks and groans that have befallen evey Corvette (and every other car) constructed in the same way. This detracts from driving enjoyment.
5. Mid-engined placement is not merely a styling gimmick - all pure racing cars have used this layout for decades because it is superior than front (or rear) engine placement for vehicle dynamics including turn-in, braking and balance.
6. The ride and cruising comfort in the Boxster is also superior to the Stingray.
Porsches have always cost more than Corvettes and their performance in terms of acceleration, and often braking distances and skidpad numbers, have often been inferior. IMO nothing has changed - one (the Corvette) is a very blunt intstrument, whereas the other (the Boxster) is more like a surgical instrument.
Choose whichever weapon you prefer, but remain thankful that we still have the choice.
Brad
Last edited by southernstar; 05-13-2013 at 07:50 AM.
Reason: sp
|
"Bernie" - PONZI that 'made off' with my money!
Hybrid Mode
