Boxster "S" vs. 996 911 - help

[23109VC]

I have been on this site researching the boxster and boxster "S".

I've test driven a few boxsters - all base models. Still looking to test drive an S.

I've driven one 996. It was a 1999 model, manual 6 speed.

I am still leaning toward a boxster - partially because this will mainly be a third/toy car and I really want a convertible. I think the boxster is a good looking convertible. The 911, to me is ugly as a cabrio. I think the coupe 911s look awesome. I would be tempted to get a used 996 coupe instead of a boxster.

i have noticed in many of the 911 ads for 1999-2001 models that the owners are commenting that they have new motors. I see that a lot more on the 911 ads than on boxster ads. Is the 911 more prone to engine problems / replacements?

have any of you owned / driven both and what are your biggest observations in the differenes in how the cars feel/handle. they look very similar - i'm looking primarily at 1999-2000 911s or a boxster or boxster S of 2000-2002 model years.

if i got a boxster, I would probably get an S. the 1999 911 that i drove compared to the base 2000 boxster I drove - I felt the 911 was faster, but it didn't seem TONS faster. but clearly faster. also - i felt the boxster was a much better handling car than the 911.

is that just me - or is that universal that a boxster, being midengined is a better handling more balanced car? i woudl think the boxster is a better handling car bu the 911 is "faster".

my questions is - comparing a boxster S of say 2000-2002 vintage vs a 1999-2000 911 - is the 911 really much faster??

i'm honestly more interested in the boxster. being this is a boxster forum, maybe you'll all tell me to get the boxser - but i figure there are probably a lot of peole here who have driven or owend both and may want to chime in.

part of me loves the look of the 996 - especially the ones iwth that factory aero kit and nice wheels - i think they look amazing. but the feel/sound of the boxster with the top down...wow. and the balance.

i'm figuring the boxser will be more affordable in the long run... cheaper to get a newer/lower miled car vs a 996 and maybe chepaer to maintain too?

[nola911]

I can offer another perspective on this issue. I sold my 2000 boxster for a 1999 Carrera. I fought with this for a while before making the trade. My boxster was an incredible looking car and it was a shame to get rid of it. What the boxster lacked in the 2.7 was power.

I bought a 99 996 with full evo intake, lowered, chipped, upgraded flywheel, no cats, custom exhaust, headers.. ect just for the power difference.

Driving perspectives are not comparable. The boxster is so much better handling it is amazing. The boxster is more fun to drive also. The 996 is cumbersome, loud, touchy, and mean. Which sometimes, is exactly what I need.

I honestly think the 3.2 boxster would be a great medium between the two cars, but since I rarely dropped the top, I am just as happy with open sunroof and windows. I recommend test driving the heck out of both of them. When the 987 boxster s/cayman s gets a little more affordable, I will be back in the mid engined platform.

[Quickurt]

I can't say about the 99-2000 996.
However there were two 2004/5 997's with 3.6 motors at the Brumos U event I attended. We had 3 Boxster S, 2 Cayman S and 1 Base Boxster, all 987s. The base Boxster was the only 987 that was slower on the timed road course runs than the 997s. It was very tight and you barely got out of second gear for about 3 seconds before the final complete stop braking box.
The last thing we did was go do some official timed runs on Gainesville Dragway and the two 997s walked ALL of the Boxsters. I had the fastest Boxster time and I ran both 997's. I jumped both of them off the lights and was passed on both runs before I got third gear!
I befriended one of the 997 owners and he said he had looked long and hard for the 2004 997 because the 996s (first water cooled 911) had way too many engine issues.
This isn't gospel, just what he told me.
So the moral of this run on story is verifying what you thought. If you want the best balanced handling, buy the box. If you want to drag race, buy a 93 Cobra Mustang!!

[mylamb]

23109vc -

I think that the earlier 3.4 L 996's had a few more problems than the ones from 2002 on with the 3.6 L motor. If you want, I have an issue of 911 & Porsche World Magazine with a good article on the first batches of 986 & 996 motors - their strengths and just about every problem that went wrong with them, including how Porsche improved them. It's issue # 149 from August of 2006. I can try and scan it & e-mail it to you or photocopy it & send it.

It may be blasphemy but I personally like 911's more, just haven't driven them much. I drove a 993 (barely street legal) for about 1 hour & a 997S for about 45 minutes. I liked them both so I have to imagine I would like a 996 too. But for similar money, the newer Boxster will undoubtedly be in better condition. PM me if you want that article.

[jmatta]

I have driven all the series of 911s on the track as a Chicago Region PCA instructor. The early 996s are very nice cars, but as mentioned, very different from a Boxster. The 996 is a tight car, but still with weight bias to the rear, though you don't feel it as much as the air cooled series. Power is good, though I don't think you'd see an appreciable difference bewteen a 3.4 996 and a 3.2 Box S.

It boils down to the intended use of the car. I drive my 911 on the track, but thoroughly enjoy my '02 Box S for street driving.

BTW, my friend has an immaculate '99 996 in arctic silver/red interior with the aero package for sale. He just bought an aero 997 Carrera S and is selling the 996 for around $39k. He is located near Road America in Wisconsin (car has not been tracked). Let me know if you have any interest...I could get you pics.

[Brucelee]

I have owned a number of both. I prefer the Box as to me, it is simply a much more balanced car. The 911's rear engine is always there to remind you where the power comes from and man, you DONT want to get that bad boy turned around on you.

IMHO.

Good to have a choice.

:dance:

[Perfectlap]

I would scrape up some more funds and get a 2002 996. The 2002 is what the 2000 Boxster is in terms of big changes and updates. Or wait until the 2002 come down which given the credit market situation is dropping the prices of all Porsches.
New Sales are down some 20%. That's allot if you only sell 30K cars a year.

I'm looking for a C4 myself but its really going to be excessive since I only drive weekends. I have no intention of parting with me BoxsterS but I can't continue racking up winter miles on a roadster. Seems pointless. That's why I want the four wheel drive. The falling prices is convincing me its a good time to make a bad decision.

I've driven all the 996 except the GT's (althoug I rode shot gun). I find both the 996 and Boxsters to be underwhelming in the power department. The Carrera in general never had more than 300HP up until a few years ago. You Had to get the Carrera S if you wanted that. The rear engine action of the Carrera is not at all to my liking. I don't feel you should have to learn a particular type of car, before you've learn to drive period. If in the end its not a net gain in terms of speed, it seems like something you learn with no greater benefit than just getting a mid engine sports car to begin with. Some people love making life harder for themselves then it needs to be and they chalk it up to "rewarding". But at the end of the day its personal preference deal.
In terms of which is better for you well since its a third car I'm inclined to go with the BoxsterS. I personally feel that a car at this weight should have at least 240HP, the chasis seems to "come alive" at the power point, ditto for the S2000.

[gball]

I think the question of what you want out of the car is paramount. As others have said, if you want pure straight line speed get the 911, if you want better handling and balance get the Boxster.

For me, the Boxster is perfect for a number of reasons: I have the versatility of a (great looking) convertible for daily driving. I have the superior handling of the mid-engine car for weekend thrashing. The two trunk layout works better for me than the 911's useless back seat. My father in law has three 911's and I can lay my hands on one any time I want...which sort of leads me to another thought - my preference is to have the best handling car I can get (I don't care to drag race people, and even if I did the Boxster can dust 90% of the cars on the road). When we tandem up mountain roads I can hang with my FIL in his 911 Turbo, because I can turn inside of him in the Boxster and carry a lot more speed through the apex of turns. Sure, he shows me his taillights on the straights, but on the roads I prefer to drive they are precious few and short.

[Adam]

I rode in a 2000 996 carrera 4 and it wasn't much faster than my box in a straight line. If you're going to go 996 then I'd definately step up to a 3.6L instead of the 3.4L. The 3.4L might feel quick if your coming from a 2.5L or 2.7L box, but it's not that big of a jump from the 3.2L.

[nola911]

Actually, the 2001 vs. 2002 carreras have the same 4.9 second 0-60, so I recommend the 2002+ for one specific reason, more technology in the 2002.

if it is a price thing, or you fall in love with a 996 gen 1. like I did, buy it anyway, almost all block problems failed within the first 10k miles and have been replaced. Then the playing field is even and you have a porsche engine vs. a porsche engine.

I saw a guy on 6 speed with a 3.8 x50 gt3 engine blow with 7k miles the other day.. same ole story in the porsche lottery.

[23109VC]

lots of great input! thank you!

*IF* I went the 996 route, I'd probably wind up looking at someting arounda 2000 given my budget. I honestly think that from looking more closely at pricing of boxsters vs 911s - I'd be able to get a MUCH nicer boxster for the same money.

for example - for a 2000 model 911 I could easily spend $30k. For a boxster of the same year and mileage, I'd be closer to $20k for an S and even less for a base. For that same $30k, I'd be able to find a boxster far newer still under factory warranty.

I am looking for something fun. i'm not looking to drag race. I will probably take whatever I buy to a track on a RARE occasion. I can see myself doing a newbie track day event ONCE a year - something like that. I'd probably try to join the local porsche club and do some fun runs, or other driving events where you meet up, caravan around, drive some really cool roads, and eat lunch... i could take my 6 year old with me, drive the speed limit, but have a lot of fun on twisty roads, etc. the top down aspect of the boxster is a HUGE part of the appeal to me.

driving my dad's boxster - with the top down, on a sunny day, and listening to hte motor sing - with the wind blowing - was driving nirvana. i've never had more fun in a car than in his boxster - and his is just a 2.7. granted he has nice sticky 18" tires and M030 suspension..so it handles great...but it was just so much fun.

i think I'm going to focus on a boxster. the 996 would be "upscale/expensive" but I honestly don't know if it woul be more fun. I've driven my brother in law's 996 and i didn't like it as much as the boxster. his 996 is a 1998 or 1999 model...the interior is identical to my dad's boxster (my dad's 2000 has an upgrad 3 spoke steering wheel like the 911) - the 996 has more punch when I got on the gas...but the 996 did not feel as planted/glued down around turns. I felt like if I got on it too hard and too hot into turns that I was going to lose it. I also think his 996 had suspension that felt worn..the car pitched/dired under accel/braking whereas my dad's boxster is just planted hard no matter what. the 996 has less miles than the boxster too... maybe it was driven harder? dunno..

fun factor for twisty driving and top down fun _ i think a used boxster would give me way more bang for my buck than a used 996. and maybe cost me a LOT less to not only buy but maintain too.

pricewise - I am also probably going to have a hard time finding a clean nice 996 in my price range. i'd like to spend 25k or less. that would get me into a decent boxster. i'd LOVE tos pend about 20k and I know i can get a decent boxster - a 2000-2002 model in that range..maybe not an S..but a nice base for sure.

i'm going to do a bunch of research to see just how cheap I could find a nice S for. I'd be looking at 2000-2002 models. I *could* also look for 2003 base models, as they have a slight hp bump, would be a bit newer, and would somewhat in between a base and 00-02 S in terms of power.

thanks again guys!

[nola911]

20k will get you a very fine 2000-2002 boxster (or S) right now, and based on your requirements, I recommend that route. The boxster really is more fun to drive for daily pleasure.

DO not rush to buy, the market is very very very very very soft.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by maxferran

Actually, the 2001 vs. 2002 carreras have the same 4.9 second 0-60, so I recommend the 2002+ for one specific reason, more technology in the 2002.
I saw a guy on 6 speed with a 3.8 x50 gt3 engine blow with 7k miles the other day.. same ole story in the porsche lottery.

I think you're putting to much stock into 0-60 times. Most people do. 0-60 times don't tell the whole story. 0-100 and 1/4 mile times give a more accurate depiction of what a car is capable of. Even better passing test like 50-70 in 3rd gear paint a more accurate picture of what the car has in the midrange. Two cars can have identical 0-60 times yet one can be signifactly faster in other tests due to wheelspin/traction issues, gearing ect during the 0-60 test. Also, the GT3 is only available with a 3.6L from the factory. The 3.8L is only available on the Carrera S models.

[nola911]

That's odd, why do the GT3s not come with a 3.8? Anyway, the point is that all watercooled Porsche engines are plagued with the lottery even this fella's new Porsche.

Also, I'm not arguing about the speed, everyone should want the latest and greatest, no doubt, I was just saying that if your one a tight budget, the speed difference is not a HUGE factor. Hell, if we can shove price aside, I would recommend a f430, which I am sure is more fun to drive than any of the above.

If drag times 1/4 mile is our topic of conversation in 2001, the difference between the boxster and carrera is 1.1 second, which happens to also be the same as the difference between the carrera turbo and naturally aspirated. The S comes in at only .6 slower than the 996. I don't know any info on passing power ect., which does not seem important to the original poster's quest for his new car. None of this changed my opinion of what car to own, my 986 was too slow for my butt dyno after I drove the MUCH more powerful 996.

I am not picking sides, in fact for his use I already recommended the boxster, which is admittedly the most fun car I have ever owned. I promise I will be back into the boxster/cayman when the 987 platform becomes affordable to me.

[LoveBunny]

I was looking at a Cayman, Boxster and 911 when I was making up my mind. I liked all three when I drove them. I narrowed it down to the Cayman and Boxster due to price. As soon as I put the top down on the Boxster I knew that's what I had to have. I'm happy with my choice. I get to put the top down a lot and I like the fact that I have a trunk in the back. I think it would be much more of a pain to always have to go in the front for the trunk and I use my trunk whenever I work. I'm thinking since you are in CA you'll probably have a lot of nice top down weather, so I think a Boxster is a good choice. And I agree that the 911 cabrio doesn't look as nice as the Boxster with the top down.

I do have to say that maxferran's Carerra is utterly beautiful and drool-worthy though!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by maxferran

That's odd, why do the GT3s not come with a 3.8? Anyway, the point is that all watercooled Porsche engines are plagued with the lottery even this fella's new Porsche.

Porsche didn't need the extra displacement to hit their hp target. The 3.6L in the GT3 is highly tuned and has the highest hp/liter output of any mass produced naturally aspirated engine built ever. Even higher than anything coming from Italy. It has 415 hp compared to 355hp on the 3.8L giving it a hair over 115hp per liter. Even the 381hp X51 version of the 3.8L is less powerful than the 3.6L in the GT3. They used higher flowing heads/intake and extra high compression along with very trick, extremely light internals. It's a very special engine. The boxster and standard 911 engines are very detuned by comparison. My 258 hp 3.2L boxster only has about 81hp per liter for example. If it was tuned in a similar fashion as the GT3 motor it would have more like 368 hp!

[Perfectlap]

^ also a true dry sump. You dont get that with the other NA Carreras.

[Brucelee]

Interestinlg discussion. I had a 2002 Turbo coupe 911 for a while. I never liked it.

I really loved the various Boxster S models I have had.

Go figure.

[23109VC]

the used 911 is out. i've decided. if I go porsche, i'm going with a boxster.

more than likely a 2000-2002. anything newer than that starts to get out of my price range. although honestly, i've had the idea of just looking at some of the cars that I think are "far" above my 20k ceiling and lowballing some private sellers or dealers.

given how soft the market is - i would think that there woudl be SOME, Not all, but some sellers who will just throw the towel in the move the car due to financial pressures.

a guy listing his car for 28000 probably wont' sell it for 20000, but you never know. if it's at a dealer - they might go down more if they took it in trade and paid low wholesale and now need to move it. a private seller may own the car outright and need cash bad to make a mortgage payment. who knows.

i'm in no rush. I have my credit union "blank check" sitting on my desk and i'm patient as can be to look for the right color, right car, etc.

i already know what i want. deep blue exterior like ocean blue, black interior, black top. manual. boxster S. 18" wheels. sport suspension. heated seats. litronics. i saw one online that was a 2002 i think..30k miles,asking 28k. if he'd sell for 20k i'd jump..but i think some of these private sellers that list at say 28000 are gonna hold solid at 25000 and will hold out a while until they find that right buyer...

out of curiosity - do many of you share my optimism at how desperate some sellers will be? think i canf ind people willing to knock almost 8000 off of a 28000 asking price? or am i in fantasy land?

[Brucelee]

On the price issue, you can ALWAYS ASK for whatever price you want. I would suggest you be willing to PAY that price if the person says yes.

You should consider what might be wrong with the car if the person says yes. Some price concessions are driven by personal needs for cash or desperation. However, some are driven by what the seller knows and what he/she won't tell you.

So, you need a thorough purchase process AND a warranty.

IMHO.

Good luck.