|
I'm with nogasbiker on this one. The 2.5 engine in the original 986 was lacking in flexibility (especially torque range) compared to the 2.7 in the base 2000 and the 3.2 in the new S. How does that detract from either being a 'sports car', especially since the there were also suspension improvements on both to reduce bumpsteer and, of course, even greater improvements in the suspension and brakes in the S.? As I recall, the wieght difference was marginal from the 99 2.5's, if at all on the 2000 base car (mine is still about 2760 lbs approx).
Cupholders? They add virtually no weight and although the required movement of the HVAC controls behind the shifter and the loss of the cubby hole that was originally there creates an ergonomic downgrade in the later 986's, so what? It seems ergonomics are not part of the definition of sports car to those who are attacking the later Boxsters in this thread.
Glass rear windows in the post 2002 986's? Yes, this does add some weight (and relatively high up in the car), so I can understand the criticism that may be levied by some 'purists'. Still, the ability to put down the top without damaging the window in cooler temperatures greatly increases the opportunities for top-down motoring for those of us who live in cooler climates. And isn't the ability to drive an open-air car a significant part of the 'sports car' experience? By the same token, air conditioning (which adds weight and robs power) also adds to the enjoyment of driving in very hot weather, with both the top up and down. Why aren't the owners of early 986's critical of the fact that all were equipped with air conditioning? Or power brakes? Or power steering? Or power locks? Or reclining seats (instead of light-weight buckets as in the original Speedsters)? Heck, we should also criticize the use of glass side windows, if we are going to criticize a glass rear window in the top, should we not? If any luxury/convenience item is inappropriate in a sports car, then the last true Porsche sports car was proably the 1958 Speedster (the 1959 Convertible D had glass side windows - perish the thought)!
So far as I am concerned, the driving dynamics, sound and performance make ALL Boxsters sports cars. So far as I can see, many of the criticisms of later (or earlier) cars occur because we all tend to "love the one you're with".
As to a new budget Porsche? I would be shocked if it turns out to be a stripped down car. The vast majority of people today want power steering, power brakes, air conditioning, glass windows, stereos, etc. and it would make little sense for Porsche to engineer (except perhaps as a limited edition spinoff) a car devoid of these features. I can't understand the resistance of many in this thread to the notion of another Porsche sports car. Remember, the 986 itself was created as an entry-level Porsche. With the improvements in technology and production over the last decade and a half, I could well forsee a lighter, faster and better handling car than the original 986, that is still reasonably well equipped and that is priced at less than the original Boxster. Certainly less in real dollar terms, consdering inflation. It may prove to be the same kind of breakthrough that the Boxster was in 1996.
Brad
|