Which one would you get?

[notsureyet]

I am a corvette owner and frequent the corvette forum and was looking for some help from you Porsche guys. I am looking at a boxster for my wife. I am looking at a 2000 s with 23000 miles green in color with stick and most options for 30,500 or a 2001 green stanard boxster with 5000 miles for about the same cost. which is the better choice? Both are equiped about the same. Was there any improvements in 2001 or is the s better even with the higher milage? Thanks for your help.

i wouldnt go with green... but thats me. both deals sound fine.

i would go for the 2001 if i was pushed but i would get a colour change before i went on the road, however if its green met, its not so bad! it will be harder to sell.. thats all.


i am sure what ever you get will be good choice and give your corvette a run for its money...

lol

is your corvette a soft top?

[notsureyet]

Both are dark green metalic not the light green.

dark green is fine, besides you can get a nice shine on a dark green car. phew thought you were going for this colour! its a nice colour just a little too bright for me!

[Tool Pants]

There are several shades of green or blue-green so we can guess all day long. Rain Forest green is 2A2 or 2A1 on the white option sticker under the front trunk lid. It was called Jungle green but when it came to the US the name got changed. The 'green' looks just fine since that was a popular color back then.

Putting aside the price and year I would go with the 2000 3.2 over a 2001 2.7.

[JonnyBGood]

I agree with Tool Pants, I'd go with the 2000 S rather than the 2001 base. I think its a better deal though I think you should be able to get a grand or two off the price.

[Tool Pants]

I now see a picture I posted on the UK board a few days ago of a Ruf with a special order Viper Green paint to sample. Not sure why it is here since it is a color never offered by Porsche.

if your on about the picture above its from a porsche carrera message board. you are correct that the colour is infact not porsche standard. However i dont think you posted it as it was in a gallery..


When i got my boxster the salesman was trying to tell me black is hard colour to keep clean and it fades ect.... just so i would buy his yellow boxster instead. I have had no problems at all with the colour.

[Adam]

I would take the S personally, but maybe the reg boxster would be better if your wife isn't real big on spirited driving. Plus, the 2.7L boxster has way less mileage. If she is into high performance then the S would make her happier.

[Tool Pants]

Guess the Ruf green car has been around the block.

http://forum.boxa.net/index.php?showtopic=4946&hl=viper%20green&st=0

http://forum.boxa.net/index.php?showtopic=4946&hl=viper%20green&st=0

yer i have seen it on many websites... there is also a bright pink one which plays the pink pantha music but i cant find it now... its was emmmm how should i put this ... intresting!! lol

[notsureyet]

Thanks for all the replys. Looks like the 2000 s is the way to go. Whats a good price? the car is certified at a porsche dealer. 1 FL owner with service records. I am not familiar with all the options available but it looks loaded. 23000 miles. I think it could be bought for 29500-30000.

[JonnyBGood]

Well, I was at a dealer only auction, and a 2000 S was going for about 26k-28k depending on the milage. So figure that 23k milage is middle of the range, then 27k is a great price. Assuming that the dealer is going to try to get 2k out of it, then around 29k is about right. Adding in title, tags, taxes, you're looking at 31k or so.

Just a data point for you. Hope you get a good deal.

[Past_VNE]

I can't answer your question very well, as I'm a newbie to the Boxster realm. I am in the process of finding the right 00-02 S.

But, I just wanted to say, "Hello," to a fellow CF member. I'm over there, on Off Topic, a lot. I use the same screen name there. I sold my 94 LT1 6spd last May.

I personally would not buy a standard Boxster, but that is just me. There is certainly nothing wrong with them and, if you wife doesn't care too much about performance, would likely love the standard model. That said, you might get more fun from the S.

I can't speak about the color, except to say I don't really like most green cars. But, hey, we all know what they say about opinions.

I also believe you would find the S to be a little easier to sell, as people to seem to clamber for the used S cars. (Just my own limited experience, though, again.)

--Jaclyn

[Another S in S]

Well, it's been a while since I posted my message about the 2.7L vs. base so here goes... those that have seen it can stop reading now (Although i do have a couple of new quotes), but for people considering the 'S' vs. base, it is crucial reading. While reading the below, keep in mind that Porsche has implicitly admitted there is a problem with the 'S' tranny by having a short shifter standard on the special edition "550 Spyder" version of the 'S'. The short shifter helps a tiny bit, but what really needs to happen is for the gear ratios to be optimised for the 'S' (not 996).


Believe it or not the regular 2.7L Boxster is better
than the 'S'. The reason is because of the 'S' transmission (tranny). You see the 6 speed on the 'S' is the same tranny from the 996 bolted on. Think about it, the 996 has completely different powertrain characteristics than the Boxster 'S' (50
more HP) and yet they share the same tranny. The 996 tranny just doesn't fit onthe 'S'. On the other hand, the 2.7L has a 5 speed tranny designed specifically for it and no other Porsche model.

I have collected various quotes regarding the problematic Boxster 'S' tranny from actual honest people, some 'S' owners, from PPBB. I have been banned from PPBB
for posting this information (some of the admins have an 'S', hehehehe).

Don't fall for Porsche marketing. A lot of people automatically assume a 6 speed tranny is superior to a 5 speed. Not if the gear ratios are for a different (996) car! Also remember the 'S' weighs more than the base 2.7L. The extra HP of the 'S' is essentially negated by its extra weight. So what about the faster 0-60 times of the 'S' reported by Porsche and car magazines? It has been suggested that Porsche and car magazines "punished" the 'S' into eeking out a fraction of a second faster 0-60 time to justify the 'S' model. It has been suggested that Porsche took
the fastest of many 'S' 0-60 times and the slowest of many base 2.7L 0-60 times and used those numbers as "official" 0-60 times of the models to justify 'S' price. Never forget the 'S' weighs more than the base 2.7L. That's a FACT.


Also, be sure to read the Excellence magazine article from around two years ago with an article comparing the 2.7L vs. the 'S'. Their conclusion was the 2.7L is a better overall buy. The article had this to say about the 'S' tranny:

"And with the base car's slightly longer gear spacing, you're less likely to shift up to third while driving from light to light - which makes it a bit easier to drive around town. So in an urban environment, the base car may be a better pick than the Boxster S, ..."

Yes, in many ways the regular Boxster is a superior car than
the Boxster 'S'. The main reason is the 'S' tranny problem.

If you don't have access to the Excellence article I would be happy to send you a copy
if you send me your mailing address.

Good luck, Another S in S

Here are the quotes regarding the 'S' transmission:

"Drove 6000 miles in 2 years [Boxster 'S'] and the gearing was horrible in
my opinion....I was unhappy with the Boxster 'S'...
The Boxster 'S' should have gotten the 5 speed gearbox of the 2.7..."
-Chris from Germany (CFG)
Admin for 996 board (http://www.funcarsonline.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php)


"I've read that criticism ('S' tranny) in other reviews of the S over
the years since its introduction. The criticism is based on the fact that
the S 6-speed gearing is the same as the Carrera 6-speed's gearing.
Considering the S' considerably less power & torque than the Carrera's, it's easy
to understand why either the S' engine is too little for its transmission
or its transmission is too much for its engine. Many here & elsewhere have
theorized Porsche did this intentionally, both to save $$ and to keep
the S way below Carrera performance territory IAW their marketing strategy.

All sounds reasonable to me. But the actual gear ratios of the S can
pretty easily be compared to the Carrera specs & then we'll all know for sure.
Data's probably even available on the net."
-John Brown of Northern Virginia




"I prefer the 5 speed over the 6 speed"
-Meredith
An admin on PPBB

"Have to make a comment about the 2.7L, after owning one for 2 years and an
S for 8 months I have to say I wouldn't mine going back to the 2.7. Driving
in the city you couldn't tell the difference, as a matter of fact the
2.7 feels better in the city than the S."
-Shaeetoon(DFW)

"I've own/owned 3 Porsches (01 996, 02 996 and 01 Boxster S). Strangely, the shifter in my
Boxster S is one of its weak points. It feels sloppy, plastic, and it's hard to get into
3rd gear. The dealer service tech tested my car and told me it is typical, and within
normal. "
-Ray Gram

"The gearbox on the S seems mushy, as well as the clutch. The base seemed a lot more
precise. "
-robb in socal

"I still maintain that the 5-spd feels better than the 6-spd. "
-Brian Harrington, 'S' owner

"When I drove the 5-speed it seemed to shifter easier (less balking) than the 6-speed
in the "S"."
-John S

"that was my experience as well."
-al greenborg

"On a test drive of the S 6-speed vs 2.7 5-speed , I loved the S power, could not
tell the difference in brakes but much prefered the 5-speed. It seemed to match the
engine better."
-Iwas There (Toronto)

"but its gear ratios are not particularly well suited to the S' 3.2 liter engine. "
-John Brown of Northern Virginia

Andrew P's observations ('S' owner)
1) Torque delivery in 3rd is lackluster. This isn't a complaint, but I'm used to cars
pulling a lot harder in 3rd. There's plenty of pull in 2nd, but 3rd seems a little anemic.
Having said that, I am faithfully following the break-in guidelines and not taking the
engine past 4200... I have a feeling that the 3rd gear "fun" doesn't start until the 5000
range...

2) The shifter is a little sloppy. I find the throws to be a tad long, but not too long.
It's not spongy (is that a word) like my BMW... it's just... ahh... the best way to
describe it is that the spring that brings the shifer in between the 3rd and 4th gates
while in neutral isn't strong enough. I've missed a number of shifts (fortunately I've
cuaght myself).... It seems that I've been conditioned to work with that spring-load and
I'm just not getting that feedback.

3) The synchros don't always seem to work. I've never "ground" anything, but sometimes I
just can't get it to go into gear (on upshifts). A little bit of double-clutching solves
the problem. I'm not sure what's going on here... hopefully I was just having a bad day...

[Stryke]

All I can say is that after having my S for a while I cannot even imagine a standard since I am not very impressed with the power of the S. Don't get me wrong, I love the car and it's alot of fun, but I guess I just like some more power and acceleration. To a me a true sports car needs to pin you to your seat when you tap the accelerator and make your cheeks hurt and your head light when you really punch it!

[Adam]

I agree with Stryke. I think I would be disappointed in the performance of a 2.7L. Too me, the 03 S seems alittle anemic and could use another 30-40 for a nice round 300hp figure. I think another 40hp in the boxster S would draw away alot more buisness from the vette. I like the vette except for the cheap interior and the fact that they are a dime a dozen. The vette's straightline accleration is probabbly the best thing about it, (unfortunately however, it happens to be the boxster's weakest point). It(the vette) looks pretty good too I guess(but not as good as a box s). I guess if a box s is modded to about 300-310hp the gearbox would be about right(or at least thats what I gathered from S N S's post). It's too bad that most engine mods void the warranty however. I think that if the box S had some more power it would be about perfect. I guess thats what the aftermarket is for.

[Another S in S]

Since when has Porsche cars been about power? P cars have always been about BALANCE. If you want power there are dozens of other sports cars with more power and that are faster. Too bad they also happen to be heavy or don't have as good handling. You can't get a more balanced sports car than the 2.7L. Yes the 'S' has a measly 33HP more than the 2.7L, but it comes at a price: it's heavier and has the mis-matched 996 tranny. If the 'S' doesn't have enough power for you you should not have bought it in the first place. That is a separate topic of conversation and has nothing to do with the 2.7L vs. 'S' comparision.

[jfmillr]

Well I guess I disagree with many of you, but that is nothing new
When I first started looking at 986's I looked at both the 3.2 and 2.7 L 986's and ultimatly considering the price bought the 2.7 since I liked its gearing a little better as well as a few other minor things. I also figred with the price difference I could make mine faster then a stock S anyways and keep the 5 speed tranny.
According to my shop guy(Porsche Pitstop Performance) there are many more tweeks(or mods) for the 2.7 then there are for the 3.2 .After doing a handful of performance mods my 2.7 will outrun any stock S any day of the week. In fact it has more power then the so called anniversary edition. Recently on multiple Dyno passes my HP ranged from 278-283 HP at the crank. So there are plenty of things you can do with that price difference to give yourself the additional HP you might want in your 986.
Again, my 2 cents

[Adam]

Originally posted by Another S in S
Since when has Porsche cars been about power?

Uh, the 911 turbo(reg or x50) is pretty damn powerful and fast. It's as fast or faster than a viper/Z06. The GT2 and even the GT3 are two other examples of a very powerful, but balanced car. I'd say high 11, low 12 sec cars are pretty darn powerful. The boxster could have 300hp and still be completely balanced. Actually the chassis and brakes on the car surpass the motors stock potential. The car is good at 260hp, but it would be better at 300hp. I know porsche doesn't declare it's dominance at the drag strip, but alittle more power never hurt anything.