AN observation

[Brucelee]

Honda and Toyota are not comparable vehicles to the Boxster.

BMW M3s, and in fact, the 3 series have their mechanical issues.

To my knowledge, most if not all performance autos have lower reliability than low performance sedans, such as the Corollas, Civics etc.

[BuffaloBoxster]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

Honda and Toyota are not comparable vehicles to the Boxster.

True for the Civic and Corolla, but the Celica GT-S motor makes 100 hp per liter, and the RSX Type-S makes 105 hp/liter. The S2000 when it was in 2 liter form made 120 hp/liter. These are all very reliable cars. It's easy to think that Honda and Porsche aren't comparable cars, or that it's a Porsche so you must not expect it to be as reliable, but really that's not a valid excuse. Honda and Toyota do have far greater financial resources at their disposal so they may be able to afford more QA measures, but in terms of output and performance many other manufactuers get similar figures from their engines. Remember as well, the Lotus Elise is powered by that 1.8 liter VVT-i Toyota lump and it 's about the most direct competitor that the Boxster has.

Having said that I don't consider the Boxster to be an unreliable vehicle. It's just a fact of life that labor on a competent mechanic who knows how to work on these cars costs more. Parts for these cars cost more.

[dennizxxx]

my personal take on the situation is that , regardless of the car, I will have an extra 'reserve" saved for emergency purposes, fixing the car, etc...POrsche is a marque name and the downside is that any parts or even labor is significantly mroe than any otehr brand like a toyota or honda...

plus I owe a 99 boxster, no problems at all, just the yearly tuneups, oil changes, etc...