did you guys read the $20K showdown in Excellence?

[Ghostrider 310]

The 911 should not have been allowed to have S Car Go suspension modifications to keep it a fair comparison. Yeah of course it has more grunt than a 2.5 boxster, let me get in on the next trip and give me an S to drive, I'll spank both of the other vehicles.

[horizontally-opposed]

Why shouldn't the 911 have been allowed to go to S Car Go, exactly? It's a 10-year older sports car based on (and still VERY close to) a design that's 30+ years older than the 986.

The 911 benefitted from re-valved Bilsteins a lowered ride height, and a performance alignment. And that's about it and just about exactly what the 986 had -- re-valved Bilsteins, stiffer springs, bigger anti-roll bars, a (slightly) lowered ride height, and a (semi) performance alignment. Actually, the 986 is sounding a little more "prepared" to me, all of a sudden. Plus, there's the small matter of fresh 225s/265s on 18x8s and 18x10s on the Box and old, hard 205s/225s on 16x6s and 16x8s the 911.

The 911 had (a little) more grunt, but not more pace. The two cars were neck and neck in most situations, especially whenever the 2.5 could take advantage of its second-gear ratio. A lot of 911 3.2 owners would have been very discouraged to see the 2.5 so large in their mirrors so much of the time. The 911 had a bit more power, but it also weighed within one pound of the Box -- a point emphasized in the article.

I dunno, you guys can Monday morning quarterback me all you wish (and, believe me, the 968 crew has -- and fairly so), but I am comfortable with the 986 and 911 I chose. Any advantage in one area was canceled out in another. Sadly, the 968 was another matter....

Finally, 986S 3.2 doesn't compute in the pricing sweet spot -- and I've got to be extraordinarily careful about who comes out on these things. As I'm sure you'll understand, anybody with "something to prove" on the road is automatically out. Then you work in logistics, weather, etc. and it gets, well, interesting!

I don't mind criticism, as we're certainly nothing more than a human enterprise, but I can't agree with your assertions.

pete

[Adam]

All very interesting commentary. It would have been interesting to see how things would've stacked up on a closed circuit track between the 3.

[djomlas]

pete, thx for chiming in here.

i LOVED the article, i just read it and i was cheering for 986, but i kinda knew it wasnt gonna win, but its great to see that a 'top line 986 S " wasnt used, but a simple 2.5

i read it on the train (best train ride so far heheh)

[stucatz]

Originally Posted by horizontally-opposed

Why shouldn't the 911 have been allowed to go to S Car Go, exactly? It's a 10-year older sports car based on (and still VERY close to) a design that's 30+ years older than the 986.

The 911 benefitted from re-valved Bilsteins a lowered ride height, and a performance alignment. And that's about it and just about exactly what the 986 had -- re-valved Bilsteins, stiffer springs, bigger anti-roll bars, a (slightly) lowered ride height, and a (semi) performance alignment. Actually, the 986 is sounding a little more "prepared" to me, all of a sudden. Plus, there's the small matter of fresh 225s/265s on 18x8s and 18x10s on the Box and old, hard 205s/225s on 16x6s and 16x8s the 911.

The 911 had (a little) more grunt, but not more pace. The two cars were neck and neck in most situations, especially whenever the 2.5 could take advantage of its second-gear ratio. A lot of 911 3.2 owners would have been very discouraged to see the 2.5 so large in their mirrors so much of the time. The 911 had a bit more power, but it also weighed within one pound of the Box -- a point emphasized in the article.

I dunno, you guys can Monday morning quarterback me all you wish (and, believe me, the 968 crew has -- and fairly so), but I am comfortable with the 986 and 911 I chose. Any advantage in one area was canceled out in another. Sadly, the 968 was another matter....

Finally, 986S 3.2 doesn't compute in the pricing sweet spot -- and I've got to be extraordinarily careful about who comes out on these things. As I'm sure you'll understand, anybody with "something to prove" on the road is automatically out. Then you work in logistics, weather, etc. and it gets, well, interesting!

I don't mind criticism, as we're certainly nothing more than a human enterprise, but I can't agree with your assertions.

pete

You seem to be saying the age of the 911 makes it fair to modify it to compete, that changes the parameters of the comparison. Unless I misread the article, the Boxster was bone stock. I think it's totally untrue to give the edge to the Boxster simply because it's newer, or to insinuate the older car cannot keep pace due to it's age.. I'll bet there are some vintage Ferrari's out there that would need no tweaks to show all three of these cars the short way around the track. For that matter, ask any 944 owner how many times they have taught an eclipse or some other Jap wanna be the short way through the curve much to the surprise of the owner of the newer sports car.