986 as a future classic

[southernstar]

So even though they were produced in vastly greater numbers, VW Beetles and early Mustangs are not collectible? Interesting analysis, especially since you acknowledge that the 986 Boxsters will be 'desirable'..... If we are getting into semantics, then I acknowledge that in certain circles, no post-WWII car is considered a 'classic'? But collectible? Certainly.

[ekam]

To me 986 is a great balance between creature comfort, raw driving experience and simplicity. It has very little electronics compare to newer cars, A/C that blows cold air even in hot weather unlike older cars, it handles reasonably well without the cost of a spine surgery after getting in and out of a Lotus Elise.

[Whippy]

Listen, early beetles, oval rear windows for example are collectible & considered a classic. I own a 986 & a cayenne and have had over 30 different Porsche cars, I love them, I'm on your side... but I can tell you they will not be a "classic" as we understand classics to be anyway!

I was in the factory in Stuttgart a few weeks ago and this is their opinion on the matter too....

[particlewave]

The 986 is a fun car, but a future classic? I think not.

I see it as an average/slightly better than average sports car. I like my car, but don't see anything at all spectacular about it.

[southernstar]

Whippy, while the title of the thread uses the word 'classic', I have never used that term in my posts in relation to the 986. IMO 'collectible' is the best status they will ever attain. Is the oval window Beetle truly a classic? In view of the numbers produced up until 1957, I doubt it (alhtough an argument may some day be made in relation to the split window). Of course, the low-light Ghia was made in even smaller numbers and I never referred to mine as a 'classic' (and I owned my 57 until four years ago when, in a spirit of misguided generosity, I gave it to my father-in-law)!

To me the original 986 is rapidly becoming a collectible car in the sense that it was and will continue to be recognized as a significant achievement in automotive design and one that will have a significant place in the history of a recognized marque. Not coincidentally, I also expect the prices for good examples to eventually start climbing from what is, or should be virtually the nadir for the model. To me that is a potentially 'collectible' car, although I am prepared to accept that other's definitions and opinions will vary.

Brad

[pothole]

Originally Posted by particlewave

The 986 is a fun car, but a future classic? I think not.

I see it as an average/slightly better than average sports car. I like my car, but don't see anything at all spectacular about it.

He. Name a few 'average' sports cars which a Boxster is only slightly better than...!

[pothole]

All cars become classics given enough time. 100 years from now, any Boxster will be rare and it will be a classic.

Question is, what will they be thought of in 20 years?

By then, all Porsches for many years will have been auto and turbo and Boxster will probably have been four-cylinder for several years. They may even be electric by then.

The tricky bit is that it will take a really long time for Boxsters to be true classics. Is a regular late 70s or early 80s 911 a classic? Maybe a modern classic, but not a classic in the traditional sense.

My general feeling is that once new Boxsters are all turbo and auto and four-pot, that will begin to pull values of older manual flat-six Boxsters upwards, if only very gradually.

[Whippy]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Whippy, while the title of the thread uses the word 'classic', I have never used that term in my posts in relation to the 986. IMO 'collectible' is the best status they will ever attain. Is the oval window Beetle truly a classic? In view of the numbers produced up until 1957, I doubt it (alhtough an argument may some day be made in relation to the split window). Of course, the low-light Ghia was made in even smaller numbers and I never referred to mine as a 'classic' (and I owned my 57 until four years ago when, in a spirit of misguided generosity, I gave it to my father-in-law)!

To me the original 986 is rapidly becoming a collectible car in the sense that it was and will continue to be recognized as a significant achievement in automotive design and one that will have a significant place in the history of a recognized marque. Not coincidentally, I also expect the prices for good examples to eventually start climbing from what is, or should be virtually the nadir for the model. To me that is a potentially 'collectible' car, although I am prepared to accept that other's definitions and opinions will vary.

Brad

Good post, we agree!

[particlewave]

Originally Posted by pothole

He. Name a few 'average' sports cars which a Boxster is only slightly better than...!

That seems similar to the attitude that Carrera owners have toward us. Honestly, I think most crap bucket tuners or "Mustang Sallies" could probably take me in a straight(of course) and probably with some curves, too. Then again, I'm not an enthusiast and I don't race, street or track, so I don't know for sure. It's definitely not "knock your socks off" performance, though.

[pothole]

Originally Posted by particlewave

That seems similar to the attitude that Carrera owners have toward us. Honestly, I think most crap bucket tuners or "Mustang Sallies" could probably take me in a straight(of course) and probably with some curves, too. Then again, I'm not an enthusiast and I don't race, street or track, so I don't know for sure. It's definitely not "knock your socks off" performance, though.

Ummm, performance is just one relatively unimportant metric of what makes a good sports car.

Mustangs, even the most powerful, aren't nearly as good to drive as a Box.

I've driven the latest GT500 'Stang. Very powerful. But fundamentally a crap drive.

[southernstar]

Speaking of collectible sports cars, do the MGB and Triumph TR6 qualify? I know, they made about 160,000 986 Boxsters. However, they made more than 3 times as many MGB's - approximately 500,000 - and yet excellent mid 60's models (pre the smog devices and safety bumpers which ruined the car) are typically fetching around $15,000.00, or more today. Compare that to their costs when new, let alone to their nadir in the 80's. They produced 91,850 Triumph TR6's (and many other TR4, TR4A, TR250 and TR5's that share the same basic structure) and yet excellent examples from the mid 70's now often fetch $30,000.00! Keep in mind that neither car was exactly state of the art even when new (relatively primitve suspension, ergonomics, etc.). Keep in mind that neither car has design roots in the history of their marque in the way that the 986 Boxster does (and neither marque has the cache of Porsche). Keep in mind also that neither car was the first in the line of a series of sports cars, such as the 911 and yes, the Boxster.

Particlewave, you see your Boxster as being an 'average car', nothing special. I could debate that point and, certainly contemporary reviews had it at the head of its class, rather than in the middle as you suggest. However, even if it is just an average sports car for the time, so too was the Triumph TR6 (in fact, in some reviews by the mid-70's it was considered worse than average). Once again, for those who do not consider their 986's to be future collectibles, so be it.
Even though they are already middle-aged (10 to 17 years old) drive them hard and often. Run them into the ground. Continue to reduce the supply of good examples. If history repeats itself, those of us who intend to keep ours will ultimately be the beneficiaries.

Brad

[particlewave]

Originally Posted by pothole

Ummm, performance is just one relatively unimportant metric of what makes a good sports car.

Mustangs, even the most powerful, aren't nearly as good to drive as a Box.

I've driven the latest GT500 'Stang. Very powerful. But fundamentally a crap drive.

Take away drivetrain and handling performance and what is one left with? What else makes a sports car? Body style? Interior? All are slightly better than average, IMO.
I'm not trying to put down our cars, I'm just saying that I don't thinks its exactly memorable in the long run.

I drive my girlfriends Mustang GT every once in a while and give her crap about it. It handles like a cargo ship, lmao!

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by particlewave

The 986 is a fun car, but a future classic? I think not.

I have to agree. Think about all the times that "classic" has been used.
It's nearly always a situation where a car company made something great and then the company went into decline and made a bunch of inferior or bland cars. See Mustang, a huge number of Mercs, the Bangle era BMWs.

Whether something is a classic often depends not on the car itself but what comes after. Look at the 993 for instance, the handling wasn't anything to write home about and neither was the power, older water-cooled 911's provide much better feed back, 993 is expensive to maintain and repair (unless you're a wrencher). Despite a gang busters U.S. economy the car was nowhere near being a hit. Barely 2,600 sold in the entire U.S. in its final year. Those are bankruptcy numbers.

But after the 993 the Carrera got bigger and its bodywork became more aero dynamic = more boring, ditto for the engine, more power but with less nostalgia. The Carrera took its first step towards becoming the Grand Touring that the 997 and 991 are today. The 993 instantly gets a promotion by default.

The Boxster has pretty much maintained its original dimensions over the last 17 years, it hasn't morphed into a different sports car category like the Carrera has. And the Boxster has simply become better performing even if not everyone likes the styling changes. So how does the 986 become a classic when each new generation improves while maintaining its core identity?

p.s.
I have to disagree that the Boxster is only a slighty above average as sports car. The average sports car is not even really a sports car. Head down to your local track or AX no matter what state you're in, and you'll see the same five or six sports cars despite the market pushing dozens of "sporty"cars. The Boxsters have been bar-setting in the roadster category. I don't think the average owner who might contemplate putting crappy all season tires on the Boxster really understands just how capable these cars are. For instance, take a nearly 20 year old 2.5 Boxster and match it up against a base 987.1 and some random Japanese, German or American "sporty car" with similar output. That old Boxster is going to be on the tail of every other car on the track. It's lightweight, and can be made near Boxster Spec racing weight with some completely streetable tweaks, the engine is responsive, the brakes are excellent and the handling is legit. You don't get all those ingredients in the average 'sporty' car. not even close. Too many commercial and profit considerations that diminsh their cars.

[southernstar]

Particelwave, its a question of balance and connecting the driver with the road. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. steering feel and feed back.
2. precision on turn-in
3. cornering balance (no excessive understeer or oversteer)
4. cornering balance on bumpy roads (yes, go-carts can handle well on smooth pavement, but....)
5. Braking distances
6. Lack of fade on repeated heavy braking.
7. Brake feel and the ability to modulate.
8. Brake balance (and here a mid-engined car has an inherent advantage over a front-engined one, as the inevitable weight transfer forward under heavy braking does not overwork the front brakes).
9. Pedals set up to enable heel and toe (or ball to side of foot) downshifts on a standard transmission.
10. Relatively close gear ratios and a relatively light shifter effort (snick, snick, rather than slam/slam).
11. Decent acceleration, especially for passing and coming out of turns (drag racing from a standstill does not really matter).
12. An interior that allows a proper driving position with good visiblity of the road and instruments, plus seats that hold the driver in place during hard cornering and braking.
13. A 'sporty' exhaust note.

It all about balance and feel and connectivity between man (or woman), the machine and the road. Ultimately the whole of a good sports car is often greater than the sum of its parts and, the Porsche Boxster is a decidedly good sports car!

Brad

[particlewave]

"Good" I can agree with.

#12, I can't.

[pothole]

Originally Posted by particlewave

Take away drivetrain and handling performance and what is one left with? What else makes a sports car? Body style? Interior? All are slightly better than average, IMO.
I'm not trying to put down our cars, I'm just saying that I don't thinks its exactly memorable in the long run.

I drive my girlfriends Mustang GT every once in a while and give her crap about it. It handles like a cargo ship, lmao!

Your mistake is to measure these things simplistically. There's more to a drivetrain / powertrain than performance.

Boxster engines are well, well above average for things like engine note, smoothness, linearity, response.

The feel and balance of the chassis, brakes and steering are likewise well above average - they're in a territory an 'average' car like a Mustang simply cannot comprehend.

In fact they're in a territory few cars at any price can beat. And that's what makes a Boxster so special and so memorable.

With respect, the bottom line is that you couldn't be more wrong. The Boxster is an absolute stand out sports car. As an overall package taking everything in account (it's even very practical with two decent storage compartments), it's a truly exceptional car, an all time great.

It is, in short, miles better than the average sports car.

[Porsche_Padowan]

Originally Posted by pothole

Ummm, performance is just one relatively unimportant metric of what makes a good sports car.

Mustangs, even the most powerful, aren't nearly as good to drive as a Box.

I've driven the latest GT500 'Stang. Very powerful. But fundamentally a crap drive.

Have to agree. Drove a Shelby GT a few years back on a winding stretch of road I knew very well and, quite honestly, it was a major disappointment; poor handling in the corners and the power was, well, muted is the best way to describe it. Not what i would call a pleasing drive.

[Perfectlap]

delete....

[papasmurf]

on what your definition of "classic" is. I would not expect it to ever approach the return levels of some of the early air cooled cars but at some point once enough of them have been wrecked, junked, and pimped out to no return, the values will stabilize and begin to climb again. I think clean 944 values have bottomed out to some degree and they may even be slightly on the rise in some areas so a "poor man's" porsche is nothing to be scoffed at....look not further than the humble 914 to see evidence of this. Classic to me is a car that is relatively rare (and porsches are rarer than the majority of other makes regardless) to see on the roads today in presentable condition...not necessarily that it is exotic or a massive investment/return or that it was rare when it was in production. The 240z quickly comes to mind as you used to see a ratty one on just about every street corner and now it is only a few times a year I ever see one. The boxster will likely some day follow the same course, but it will take some time.

[fatmike]

FYI - They built 500,000 Karmann Ghias over their production run. The Boxster still has a decade or so of production to catch up. I think it's hard to judge how this car will be viewed down the road because we are too familiar with it.

Either way, I don't ever expect the Boxster to be treated with the "must-have" of an air-cooled 993, that is not a fair comparison. But I do think in the Boxster will find it's way.




/