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.