Just curious...

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by seventythree

The 911 is designed and manufactured to higher standards and specifications, hence, the ~70% higher price premium.
Compared to the 911, the Boxster is a niche car and it fills that niche quite wonderfully.
The broader market appeal and perseverance of the 911 compared to its siblings, despite a hefty price premium in most cases, has been time-tested for nearly 4 decades. This level of dominance wouldn't have lasted for so long, had it been based on perception rather than real substance.
As far as what exactly makes the 911 one of the predominant automotive icons of our time, many Porsche specific books are available from some the most respected sources.

All and all, just my 2 cents worth.

This sounds like a PCA public relations handout.

Just what are these higher standards and specifications that you are referring to?

i actually never even considered a 911, i didn't even drive it. i'm tired of the look of a 911. i did look at pricing and i would of found myself in a 2000-01 996, and it just didn't make sense. as great as the 996's are id take a boxster any day. my arm could of been twisted if i could of afforded the 996 turbo.....

i bet that i get more looks in my boxster then any 996 driver gets(lets exclude the 996 turbo)...lol

[Pilot2519j]

Design, functionality, road handling, value engineering there is no quantitive advantage I can see a 1960's design automobile would have over the Boxster. I've driven 911 and that tail is just very happy to go out on you. No Porsche will violate the laws of physics. I see the 911 as an old friend that has kept himself in shape. Being the older brother to the Boxster you can rest assured he will always be on top of the younger sibling all the time. Such is the analogy of the relationship of the 911 and the Boxster. The Boxster being a much better handling car will never be left unleashed so it may best the older designed 911. Recent testing of the Cayman at the Nurburgring besting the 997 Carrera was indicative of the potential of the Boxster Cayman design over the antiquated 911 design. All things being equal if both had the same engine there would be no comparison at all. The Boxster would crush the 911 hands down. All Boxster pilots are looked down by the believers that their 911 is the only true Porsche. The comaraderie that used to exist within the marque is no longer a monolith. These guys are all in the Porsche family for what it superficially represents to them. A "expensive car I have and you don't". It's Ok they don't know anything about the car, they can't drive it enthusiastically, most would have tiptronics, most of the car are garage queens, in short they are all pretenders and are only a bunch of effete snobs. Sure who would not want to have a status symbol that whose image is the epitomy of racing, but then you also have a ferrari, maserati and other more exotics cars to dream about. In spite of it all the Boxster outshines the others in my eyes and soul as a noble designed car that does everything exceptionally well and with lots of elan. The design should be in the MOMA next to the other gorgeous roadster XK-E. Great to look at, but a different animal to maintain and drive.

[seventythree]

Originally Posted by Pilot2519j

Design, functionality, road handling, value engineering there is no quantitive advantage I can see a 1960's design automobile would have over the Boxster. I've driven 911 and that tail is just very happy to go out on you. No Porsche will violate the laws of physics. I see the 911 as an old friend that has kept himself in shape. Being the older brother to the Boxster you can rest assured he will always be on top of the younger sibling all the time. Such is the analogy of the relationship of the 911 and the Boxster. The Boxster being a much better handling car will never be left unleashed so it may best the older designed 911. Recent testing of the Cayman at the Nurburgring besting the 997 Carrera was indicative of the potential of the Boxster Cayman design over the antiquated 911 design. All things being equal if both had the same engine there would be no comparison at all. The Boxster would crush the 911 hands down. All Boxster pilots are looked down by the believers that their 911 is the only true Porsche. The comaraderie that used to exist within the marque is no longer a monolith. These guys are all in the Porsche family for what it superficially represents to them. A "expensive car I have and you don't". It's Ok they don't know anything about the car, they can't drive it enthusiastically, most would have tiptronics, most of the car are garage queens, in short they are all pretenders and are only a bunch of effete snobs. Sure who would not want to have a status symbol that whose image is the epitomy of racing, but then you also have a ferrari, maserati and other more exotics cars to dream about. In spite of it all the Boxster outshines the others in my eyes and soul as a noble designed car that does everything exceptionally well and with lots of elan. The design should be in the MOMA next to the other gorgeous roadster XK-E. Great to look at, but a different animal to maintain and drive.

Configuration wise, the Boxster is a carbon copy of the venerable Porsche 914, also a 60's design. I should know; I own one of each, 02 base Boxster and 73 914-2.0L

[SD987]

Before I got the 987 base and SLK350 I was only going to get one car, and the alternatives I considered were the SL500 and 650iC. The 911 cab wasn't even in the running for me, on account of it being so g-damn ugly.

When you get to 911 cab money the competitors are different than what the Boxster faces and there are more attractive alternatives at that price point.

[Rome]

I need four wheel drive here in New England. I considered a C4S, but for about the same money I decided to get a Cayenne S AND a 987 S. The Caynenne is more practical than the C4S ever could be, and the 987 S is just as much (maybe even more) fun than the C4S.

[Pilot2519j]

Originally Posted by seventythree

Configuration wise, the Boxster is a carbon copy of the venerable Porsche 914, also a 60's design. I should know; I own one of each, 02 base Boxster and 73 914-2.0L

I beg to differ I don'st see the 914 as the genesis of design for the Boxster. That does not mean that some of the parts where used from previous models, which I think is what you mean. The 986 design is beautiful I would say the design inspiration is the RSK Spyder 718. My two cents.

[racer_troy]

...mostly...almost fully...i second pilot's feelings...although...i may have choosen a little different retoric...to 73's and Pilot's point, the 911 continues to do well precisly due to: 1. status, 2. ledgend, 3. refinment...it's a great car...no doubt...and has been engineered to be so (out of necessity) despite itself...

i considered a 1999-2002 996 in lieu of the my current 986...as this is primarily a play car for me...the feeling and feedback from the road is what pushed me in the direction of the boxster...

...also, i do also agree that the 718RSK was the inspiration for the 986...mid engined...light, responsive....these are all good characteristics in a sports car...

cheers,

--troy

[seventythree]

Originally Posted by Pilot2519j

I beg to differ I don'st see the 914 as the genesis of design for the Boxster. That does not mean that some of the parts where used from previous models, which I think is what you mean. The 986 design is beautiful I would say the design inspiration is the RSK Spyder 718. My two cents.

Actually, my point was based on fundamental design aspects and didn't have anything to do with component sharing. Fundamentally, the Boxster is very much a continuation of the 914. Mid-engined two seater, longitudinally mounted engine/trans-axle combo, boxer engine for lowered center of gravity, almost 50/50 weight distribution, very similar driver position and driving dynamics, front and rear storage compartments, etc., etc.

There are only a couple of significant changes that differentiate the Boxster from the 914.

First, the 914's targa top configuration as opposed to the Boxster's convertible top, which is trade-off between having much easier top-side engine access and a more open air ride.

Second, the 914's torsion bar front suspension as opposed to the Boxster's coil-overs. In fact, since the early 911's had torsion bars on all four corners, the Boxster has undergone less evolutionary change than the modern 911.

[thomschoon]

I actually was looking for 911 for a daily driver as I already have an '81 SC that has a few too many mods. But then it was a sunny day and I saw the Speed Yellow "S" Boxster and it was all over, and I dont even like rag tops. I now prefer to drive the Boxster and the SC hasnt been out except to be washed in 2 months as the Boxster is better handling, more comfortable and probaly faster and has working AC. It is a great car and I am now thinking of selling my SC and buying another Boxster as a project car/money pit.

[Rail26]

I'm only driving a Boxster because I am saving up for a Bugatti Veyron. I only need $999,859 more.

[David N.]

As I recall Veyrons are at least $1.2 million or so. So you've already got 200k? If it were me, I would just buy a 911 Turbo and save the rest to buy track-time and tires.

[NickCats]

Originally Posted by Pilot2519j

Design, functionality, road handling, value engineering there is no quantitive advantage I can see a 1960's design automobile would have over the Boxster. I've driven 911 and that tail is just very happy to go out on you. No Porsche will violate the laws of physics. I see the 911 as an old friend that has kept himself in shape. Being the older brother to the Boxster you can rest assured he will always be on top of the younger sibling all the time. Such is the analogy of the relationship of the 911 and the Boxster. The Boxster being a much better handling car will never be left unleashed so it may best the older designed 911. Recent testing of the Cayman at the Nurburgring besting the 997 Carrera was indicative of the potential of the Boxster Cayman design over the antiquated 911 design. All things being equal if both had the same engine there would be no comparison at all. The Boxster would crush the 911 hands down. All Boxster pilots are looked down by the believers that their 911 is the only true Porsche. The comaraderie that used to exist within the marque is no longer a monolith. These guys are all in the Porsche family for what it superficially represents to them. A "expensive car I have and you don't". It's Ok they don't know anything about the car, they can't drive it enthusiastically, most would have tiptronics, most of the car are garage queens, in short they are all pretenders and are only a bunch of effete snobs. Sure who would not want to have a status symbol that whose image is the epitomy of racing, but then you also have a ferrari, maserati and other more exotics cars to dream about. In spite of it all the Boxster outshines the others in my eyes and soul as a noble designed car that does everything exceptionally well and with lots of elan. The design should be in the MOMA next to the other gorgeous roadster XK-E. Great to look at, but a different animal to maintain and drive.

Pilot, great big brother / little brother analogy !

MNBoxster, I'm suprised you haven't chimed in on this yet ???

[Rail26]

Damn, I thought they were only a mil...I guess I have to add another 200k.

Originally Posted by David N.

As I recall Veyrons are at least $1.2 million or so. So you've already got 200k? If it were me, I would just buy a 911 Turbo and save the rest to buy track-time and tires.

[Pilot2519j]

Originally Posted by NickCats

Pilot, great big brother / little brother analogy !

MNBoxster, I'm suprised you haven't chimed in on this yet ???

Muchas gracias amigo! Rail what about a couple of TOW's strapped on the Boxster for extra performance a la JATO, not only will you be ahead but whoever is behind will be toast.

[Rail26]

TOW's don't provide much thrust and hellfires reach 600 g coming off the rail (which it needs to reach to arm the warhead). which would give you one heck of a headache. I think JATO bottles are your best bet or the afterburning engines like "Shockwave". Have you guys ever seen that truck at the airshow?

[jeffsquire]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

This sounds like a PCA public relations handout.

Just what are these higher standards and specifications that you are referring to?

_________________________

I was just thinking the same thing. It sounds like one of those pat legal responses from K&N.

[insite]

Originally Posted by z12358

"there are some distinct advantages to the 911 configuration."

So when shall we expect F1 teams to move their engines behind the rear wheels? Perhaps, when Schumacher finally masters the "911 technique"?

Z.

even though F1 engines are mounted in a 'mid-engine' configuration, the weight distribution of an F1 car is closer to 40/60 than 50/50. FYI, a 997 is 38/62.

[insite]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

Unless they have repealed the law of physics in the last few minutes, this is simply a statement not supported by reality.

here's an example: braking. without getting TOO deep into the physics, imagine a shift in weight of 20% toward the front of the car during braking:

a front engined car (60/40 front - rear weight distro) becomes 80/20. the front 2 tires do 80% of the work

a mid engined car (50/50) becomes 70/30. the front 2 tires do 70% of the work.

a rear engined car (40/60) becomes 60/40; the front 2 tires do 60% of the work. maximizing the work done by each tire is one reason that 911s typically have outstanding brake systems.

another example: when a 911 hits the gas and weight shifts rearward over the back tires, the grip achieved generally surpasses that of mid or front engined cars. look at a dragster: engine WAY back over HUGE rear tires. the downside is, of course, that the front gets VERY light....

Originally Posted by Brucelee

As pointed out above, if the rear engine car had any distinct advantages, it would be the design of choice in F1 and all manner of road racing.

F1 cars tend to have weight distributions closer to those of a 911 than to a boxster despite their mid-engine configurations, although aero IS used at speed to overcome this

Originally Posted by Brucelee

C'mon guys, the 911 does well in spite of its design, not because of it.

it has distinct advantages and distinct disadvantages. its disadvantages have been VERY difficult to overcome, but there ARE some advantages.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by seventythree

The 911 is designed and manufactured to higher standards and specifications, hence, the ~70% higher price premium.
Compared to the 911, the Boxster is a niche car and it fills that niche quite wonderfully.
The broader market appeal and perseverance of the 911 compared to its siblings, despite a hefty price premium in most cases, has been time-tested for nearly 4 decades. This level of dominance wouldn't have lasted for so long, had it been based on perception rather than real substance.
As far as what exactly makes the 911 one of the predominant automotive icons of our time, many Porsche specific books are available from some the most respected sources.

All and all, just my 2 cents worth.

You've been brainwashed. Don't feel bad your are one of many. Porsche spends millions of dollars each year to keep you brainwashed. Porsche wants you to think you are getting more for your money despite being an inferior design. Hell, the 996 and the 986 boxster are the same cars from the front seat forward. The quality of the 996 is no better than a 986 and the water cooled 911's are mass produced just like the 986. Btw, Mid-engine > rear engine.