986 2.5L vs 996 3.4L Comparison
 

I just bought a 1999 996 C2 after my 1999 986 was totaled while parked in front of my house. Here are my thoughts between the two. My thanks and apologies to 986_inquiry for stealing the format.

1999 986 2.5 5-speed vs 1999 996 3.4 6-speed review

1) ACCELERATION: Well, the 996 has 300hp compared to the 986's 200hp. 50% more hp is a big deal especially when the 996 weighs slightly less than the Boxster. The bottom line is the 996 quite nicely out accelerates the 986.

2) MPG: Don't care. At all.

3) STEREO: Same CDR-220. But let's talk about the REAL stereo - the exhaust! The Boxster rips the 996 a new one here. The 996 exhaust is too quiet and too low toned - and there is no 4000 rpm howl. I'd take the Boxster exhaust any day.

4) AC/HEATING: Same system, good ol' Manuell.

5) HANDLING: Night and day difference. The Boxster has fantastic turn in and balance in corners - dive in, set the suspension, and ride the edge of grip using throttle steering (more throttle to push the arc out, less throttle to pull it back in). No drama, everything stays nice and tidy.

The 996 has a ton of grip, maybe more then the Boxster once set into a turn, but it is slower to turn in and it is more than happy to have the rear come around once things get slidey - especially if you let up on the throttle too much while trying to tighten up the turn like I do in the Boxster. The solution: keep the weight on those huge rear tires!

And let's not forget the 996's light steering feel on hard acceleration out of a turn. Yes, the rear weight bias lets the 996 dig out of a corner like no other car, BUT its a bit uncomforting to have the steering go so light.

6) EXTERIOR: Your choice. I like both designs although the rear of the Boxster always looked a bit awkward to me whereas the 996 is perfectly proportioned front to rear.

7) INTERIOR: Very much the same. Rear seats in the 996 are useless for people but are handy for throwing stuff back there. But I have to admit, I really miss the rear trunk! The 996 is about 100 times easier to see out of the back as compared to the Boxster. While the 996 isn't as quiet as a BMW, it is still quite a bit quieter than the fabric roofed Boxster. But then, the 996 sunroof isn't even close to how nice it is to have the top down on the Box.

8) TRANSMISSION: The 6-spd of the 996 is smoother and the sixth gear is nice to have to reduce rev's on the freeway. The Boxster 5-spd always felt a bit clunky to me.

11) BRAKING: Even though the 996 brakes are bigger, the Boxster brakes are still better. Not sure why, but they are.

12) OTHER: The 996 really feels more like a GT car and the Boxster is IMHO a true sports car. The 996 feels smoother and more refined whereas the Boxster is more immediate and tactile.

13) WOW FACTOR: Everyone likes the 911 so I think that the 996 has an edge here. No more "poor man's Porsche" jokes - instead everyone will think that you're an orthodontist. Not sure which is worse.

Which do I like better? Both. For pure driving excitement, the Boxster can't be beat. But the 996 feels more expensive and is smoother on long freeway drives. Add in the 300hp acceleration and the more balanced styling and the 996 is hard to deny.

I'm glad that I will be able to keep the 996 for the street and build a Spec Boxster for the track. Best of both worlds!

The 996 weighs less than the 986? Is your 996 striped out?

A good driver in a 2.5 will smoke an average weekend warrior dude in a 2.7. Driving these cars in a straight line is like...sorry, nothing witty comes to mind, but you know what I mean. 99% of drivers will never find themselves buried in a four wheel drift is a corner saying I wish I had that extra 5 mph in third.

Great write up Thstone! I wonder what your thoughts had been if your Boxster had been an "S" with the 3.2 which of course has the 6 speed. I love your #2 comment about mpg. I get that question a lot and give the same answer, who cares! I think you nailed it in your last comment though about having the best of both worlds!

fwiw, I just did 1500 kms in two days in a 2006 3.6 x51 and it got better mileage than my 2000 3.2 s. go figure.

Sorry, my error!

1999 Boxster = 1,280 kg or 2,822 lbs
1999 996 = 1,395 kg or 3,075 lbs

Both weights from the same source.

Quite a fair review stone and one that largely mirrors my own experience. Prior to buying my 986 2.7 Boxster I also tried a couple of 996's and, status issues aside, I found that the handling (and exhaust note - no doubt helped by the side air intake) on the 986 to literally scream 'sport car', whereas the 996, while faster, seemed more muted and GT'ish. Of course, the impression was likely accentuated by the fact that the Boxster is a convertible and I had not driven a 996 Cab.

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.

Porsche had (and has) it right - they really do appeal to different buyers (or if you can afford multiple Porsche's - different uses by the same buyer).

Brad

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.

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 :D

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

As far as mid vs. rear, The Carrera has always struck me as a car that requires the driver to learn a new way of driving to end up with no net advantage on the time sheets.

Some folks find learning how to master a new thing "rewarding" but if at the end of the day the competition are all going quicker in mid engine cars it all seems more like a novelty to me.

If you look at the history, the Porsche 356 #1, the 911's precursor, that rolled off the assembly was at first a mid-engine drop top. But for sales reasons the engine was moved to the rear to allow for a backseat and thus more sales. Function followed form.
OTOH, the Porsche 550 Sypder that came later was made for racing without regard to sales. Form followed function.

Porsche got way too stuck on a car that was pretty late to the party, decades after Porsches were winning races in mid-engine form. There should have been a whole line up of midengine Cayman type cars entering the same races the 911 found success in. It would have shaken out as: Endurance racing to push floor sales of the Carrera and sprint racing to push sales of a mid-engine sports coupe/roadster.
Why the need to choose one over the other if the public today is willing to pay upwards of $1 million for an original Spyder?
Clearly they loved all things Porshce -- done well.

I just upgraded to 18" wheels with Pilot Super Sports 225's up front and 265 in the rear and all I can say is the grip is nuts. This car can turn and stop on a dime. I was powering through an exit ramp when I hit some traffic and she stopped without a hiccup. Although ABS did kick in a little.

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.

Sorry, what does it matter how fast you're going? Surely it matters how much you are enjoying the drive?

I never time myself on the road. Nor on track days. I don't enter races, so lap times don't matter.

I like both 911s and Boxsters. Couldn't care less which is better on "time sheets". Why would that matter?

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:cheers:

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.

Brad - you couldn't have said it better. I hate those huge side slabs - but I do like the rear better on the 911. Hey, guys have had different opinions about "rear ends' for ages so nothing new here! :D

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

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!

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...

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

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

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.

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.

Well, you can drop in a 300hp 3.4 into a 986 no problem. 986s are pretty light, so will be very quick. A very cheap compared to a new 981, a five-year-old 987, whatever.

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.


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.

I've already said that I can understand people wanting more acceleration.

What I don't understand is what a Honda Civic has to do with anything? How does a Honda Civic that you don't own or drive impact the feel and dynamics of your Boxster?

This statement is very odd, too:

"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."

How does that make sense? I infer from this you prefer faster. But I also infer that faster for you doesn't equal more driving enjoyment or fun. As you say, you've yet to drive a car more fun that the BRZ/86.

If you don't enjoy "faster", what benefit is it giving you? Are you mainly worried about what other people are doing?

Again, this is where I say you are close minded.
Enjoying a car while driving is fun. Being able to do it while going faster will always be better.

You may not care that your car is slow as hell as long as you're having fun driving it. But to me, speed is everything.

Sorry, but you are contradicting yourself. You say you haven't driven a car more fun than a BRZ, but you wouldn't own it because it's not fast.

Then you say going faster will always be better. That speed is everything! So, speed is everything but you haven't driven a car more fun than a BRZ, which is slow. Do you not see the contradiction?!

Also, if speed is everything, neither a 996 or a 986 is even close to being the best bang for your buck. You need to go buy something with a turbo and get it chipped / remapped.

At the track, my boxster s was better, but in terms of day to day comfort, my 911 won. It was a little wider (like me) and much softer of the bumps.

Hmm.. I get why you are confused.

Perhaps you could relate it to marrying a good wife as opposed to marrying a porn star. Which would be more fun?

EDIT: Also, I have something turbocharged and fast. It's my WRX

Sorry, old chap, I'm not confused. It's just you're not making any sense. You talk about a slow car being the most fun you've had and then you say speed is everything!

Having sex with a porn star is the most fun I've ever had.

Having a smart and beautiful wife is everything.

Only thing is, going really fast is pretty one dimensional, like having sex with a porn star.

A car with great all round dynamics is a much richer experience, like a great wife...!

You might have it the wrong way round, with cars, anyway... ;)

'Course, you can have both in, say, a GT3...

Not sure what the womanly equivalent would be, but I'd like a ride!

Where is this taking us? And how is it relevant to the topic of comparing the 986 2.5 with a 996 3.4? Pothole, you have made clear that to you, the relative performance of your own car to others on the roadway is irrelevant and makes no difference to your enjoyment of your car. I accept that and, as I say, I even tend to share that view. Others have different opinions and find it frustrating when cheaper cars can power by (or away from) them due to the relative lack of power in the 986 2.5. To them, this undercuts their enjoyment in driving what is supposed to be a performance car. I understand and respect that view as well.

I am a sailor and, even though I gave up club racing years ago, I still enjoy the little impromptu races that occur when out on the water. In fact, I know very few sailors who do not, when on the same course/point of sail as another boat, try to 'beat' or outperform them. Who do not trim their sails for a bit more performance and perhaps try to play the puffs a little better than the other guy.

To you that is immature behavior that is beneath you. So what? Who appointed you the final arbitrer of what is appropriate, or what people may find enjoyable in the operation of their cars or boats?

Getting back to the topic at hand, I can virtually guarantee that if one took two drivers of comparable ability and with comparable experience in their cars (comparing apples and apples), that the one in the 996 3.4 would pull away from the one in the 986 2.5 on your classic mountain road. Ultimate cornering grip and braking on both cars would be very similar, but the 996 would be able to pull away from the 986 coming out of the corners, especially onto uphill straights. Does this make the 996 more enjoyable? To some, yes. To others, including myself, I would still prefer the better turn-in and the incredible sound that resonates off the surrounding mountain sides from the Boxster's side air intake.

Is either one of us wrong? No. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I suggest that enjoyment is in the 'minds-eye' of the beholder. I, for one, am thankful that we are not all the same. I prefer the body design of the 986 over the 996, finding the latter dull and uninspired. You prefer the clean, unadulterated lines of the 996. Neither of us is wrong.

The good news is that Porsche gives you the choice between two sports cars (with variations therein) that can address the wants and needs of different people. If my use of my sports car was going to include a regular highway commute, I can tell you that I would prefer the 996. It is quiter and more comfortable in that environment. If I had a small child, I would also prefer the 996 due to the rear jump seats. If I was more status oriented, I would probably also prefer the 996 as, to many people, any 911 is better than any Boxster. If I was more enthralled with acceleration, I would also no doubt prefer the 996 (or at least, would have bought a 986 Boxster S, rather than base 2.7, which is sufficient for my wants and purposes). Finally, yes looks come into the equation. As I have said, I prefer the look of the 986 Boxster - others prefer the 996.

Although the cars share sheet metal and interiors from the front seats forward and share engines but for variances in displacement and tune, they are cars that address different tastes and needs. Terrific sports car both and, as the French say, Vive la difference!

Christ. Talk about putting things into people's mouths! Suddenly I'm calling people immature and telling them what they can and can't do with their boats.

How bizarre!

Also, it wasn't me who brought up mountain bloody roads and I never said a 996 wouldn't be faster. You've got a real knack of reading what you'd like or imagine I posted rather than what I actually did!

For the record, however, in a factual sense, how fast a ricer Civic is has nothing to do with the operation of a Boxster or 996!

Like I said, if your main concern is being faster in a straight line than other people, neither 986 or 996 (assuming we're talking C2) are good choices.

To be honest, I'd love to know where these situations are when straight line speed matters. When I've driven in the US, I've rarely seen anyone going over 80mph anywhere. Even in a 2.5, that's a very modest speed. You're barely at the top of third gear.

On a real road in real world driving, how fast you cover gorund depends mostly on how the extent to which you are first willing to risk you licence, and then life and limb - both yours and others. Even a 2.5 Boxster is up to 100, even 120mph fairly rapidly. I happen to drive a lot of very powerful cars in a work related capacity. A to B pace is really a non issue. It's down to the driver and how fast he is willing to go.

I would like to apologize for deviating from the subject for trying to prove my point that some of us find the performance of a vehicle more important than any amount of fun we could have. Apparently, some people are not able to grasp this concept.

Secondly, I would like to point out that I am a Boxster driver through and through, and would rather drop loads of cash making it faster than doing the sensible thing of getting a 911. I've gone through this in my own thread, and I can't give a good reason why a 3.6 Boxster sounds more enticing to me than a 3.6 911. But it's what I'm doing.

But I will be blunt in saying that I found your posts, pothole, somewhat aggressive in forcing my hand to defend my position. After our series of posts, I will simply conclude that you do not understand why some of us value performance over fun. For you, going fast is one dimensional, while fun is having a well-rounded vehicle. For others, it is the opposite, and that fun is second only to performance. It is for the same reason that some people like Corvettes; a vehicle which I abhor. I don't question their love for the car. I don't insinuate that it's them 'trying to show off power' or whatever is comparable to your negative comments, calling us "Bizarre" for wanting a faster car. You also referred to the civic with a derogatory term. Such remarks I found offensive. Not everyone is going to like the same thing, and if you can't understand that different people desire different things, then you're just too stubborn to be accepting. Again, I apologize for trying to defend my argument on someone else's thread, and I will refrain from threadjacking any further.

Pothole, in post #20 you wrote: "Why does it matter whether some ricer (racist comment about Japanese cars, or...) next to you can accelerate faster? Never understood that kind of thinkiing..."

In post #24 you wrote: "Find this kind of psychology totally bizarre. It basically boils down to keeping-up-with-the-Joneses mentaility, and it doesn't interest me in the slightest."

I was merely attempting to point out that for many people, the relative performance of their cars and their boats to other cars and boats IS of interest to them. It enhances their enjoyment of both driving their cars and sailing their boats. I was wondering what made you feel compelled to describe that interest, or that kind of thinking as 'totally bizarre'. Why not just accept that others may not share your isolationist view of automobiles and their performance? Why describe differing views from your own in such negative terms? What makes you think that your view is not only superior, but that any contrary one is 'totally bizarre'?

I have already said that, like you, I am not terribly concerned when I encounter a faster car on the roadway. But I certainly do not suggest that the psychology of those who do is totally bizarre. Or even unusual. In fact, as I pointed out, when sailing I (and most others I know) tend to very much care about the relative performance of our own boats as against others. So I do not criticize, but fully understand the competitive nature of some people. I understand why their enjoyment of their own cars would be enhanced with more power and performance.

In any event, I also did not (and do not) see how your attack on their thinking advanced the topic of this thread.

Brad

well by inference I assumed "time sheets" would be reference to motorsport and competition.
Here in the U.S., by nature, we are very competitive about everything, and this certainly extends into all types of recreational HPDE: If I had a dollar for every casual first time autcrosser or track novice who came in saying "well I'm just driving for fun today" and by the end of that day or month the driver was obssessing over their laptimes relative to others, or fixated on the cars they had to give point-bys, I'd a payed for my recent $2K rotors and waterpump job with ease. It reminds me of specific instance of a driver I knew who once raced against a former McLaren F1 driver when they were amateurs, "you know all those guys over there they're crazy with their new tires, they want FTD and that stupid $5 trophy, bla bla bla....me I'm just here to enjoy the weather, get out of the house, enjoy the new S2000, etc." Well this guy takes second place in pretty competitive field and it was like I was talking to a different guy by the end of the day. "I'm going to beat that #$*@ next week!" LOL.

I guess here we have "sporty" cars and then we have "sports cars". For the latter, as far as our excited and impatient country, it comes down to the black and white performance numbers. The proof in the pudding if you will.... the quantifiable is just as important as the non-quantifiable. For older cars like a Lotus Elan or 912 for instance, obviously you take a different perspective.

Granted, we're talking the sharp end of the needle here, our country is huge and most sports car and sporty car drivers could care less about learning to drive like the rich guys on TV that do it for a living.