[Lil bastard]

I think your question is too generic to be answered properly.

THE answer depends almost solely upon what you want the car to do.

If you're planning on any sort of daily driver, don't buy either of them! Get a Civic.

Enlisting a thoroughbred to do draught horse duties is at best a compromise, at worst a disaster. Your cost/mi. is going to be so high that it borders on the impractical (as compared to the cost/mi. of a true daily driver), esp. when you factor in everything incl. ins., tires, MPG, maintenance, etc.

Lots of peeps will chime in and say they drive their Boxsters daily. But, they can't go to the lumber yard with it, pick up an appliance or TV with it, take a month's luggage to the airport with it, carry 2 or 3 friends, etc. - compromise.

If looking for a fun car, the s2k will do, but will lack any visceral feedback. It'll be reliable, cheap to maintain, but boring! Hondas are practical, not sporting. Even the Accura NSX was boringly competent. Lacked any visceral feel and after the 1st 5 mi., you feel you're in a hopped up Civic. Then there's that annoying F22C1 engine in the S2K! If you're not wringing it's neck, making it sound like a scalded cat, it's about as much fun as the 3hp Tecumseh on your lawn mower. In-city driving at 6k+ on the tach gets pretty tiring.

The Boxster is a more pure sports car, has greater visceral response, but it's a sports car. It doesn't do other things especially well. The engineers who designed it, designed it with that in mind. It was the Marketing Dept. that convinced everyone it could be a multi-tasker. It really isn't, at least not without compromise.

Lots of people want sports cars. But true sports cars aren't primary cars. The Boxster isn't a primary car either, not without compromise. Monetary limitations cause many people to force a sports car to do double duty, but that's not what they do well, or were designed for.

Cheers!