Why do people seem to think cupholders were brought up as a matter of weight addition? Take the time to read things. Goodness, there's no need for people to get that bent out of shape over this stuff, either. If you want to talk ergonomics for a sports car, the only things I think should matter there is the driver's position to the important things. That is, the controls that actually affect the motion of the vehicle, like pedals, steering, shifting, and the view out of the glass (and the necessary street stuff like signals and wipers, etc., too of course), and give the driver some adjustability to set themselves up comfortably to work it all and see.
By no means did I try to say the 2.5 is the best thing since sliced bread and curly fries...come on, now. I didn't just focus on one particular aspect like the engine, I'm talking overall how an early 986 is compared to where we are now with the latest in the 981, and the idea of making something apparently lower in tier than the Boxster for an entry-level car, which I think we can all expect is not going to be a well-performing sports car with the corners that will have to be cut and compromises made to net a low price to attract people. Look at all the compromises (and restrictions) that have been made and done to make the Boxster cost what it does and perform where it does in the current vehicle range. Do we really want to go even further than that?
I am talking about the car altogether, not just the engine, or just the looks, or just the suspension, or just putting in unnecessary items for a sports car, so look at it that way instead of just picking one thing out of all said and trying to find some way to trump it. Sure, you're not going to get quite the same weight out of the car when you're adding in a larger engine like the 3.2, but it also has power to offset that and doesn't throw off the car's dynamics overall because the engine's still in the same place, and the car was optimized to run with that extra grunt behind it...brakes, suspension, all of that. The car could have remained very unchanged otherwise, though, and it would only be better than it already is. I feel the S should have been what the Boxster base debuted as, and then create something Spyder-like as the S model, perhaps while still making it something that's not strictly an open top, fair weather only car. Again, just my opinion, but I don't think many would disagree with that, as plenty have said the 250hp and other tweaks that the S came with was just enough of a boost to put the car where it should have been from the start, and I think that makes sense.
Yes, I want the car to be fast, but I also want to really enjoy the experience of having it go fast and reach its limits. No, my little 200hp (on a good day 15 years ago) car isn't going to strip the paint off of a Carrera as I fly by
, but I will have all sorts of fun trying to keep up with someone in one of those to see what the car, and I, can really do at such a disadvantage.
And of course, I want it to look good, too.
And for all the hatred the fried-egg lights receive, I still feel that the 986
does carry the more timeless parts of the Porsche design language better than the later generations do. I don't want a midget Carrera GT or an overgrown last-gen MR2, I'd like a car that looks like a modern classic.
:dance: