Poor porsche, Rich porsche

[sd_boxster]

There are two groups of people who chant the "Boxster is the poor man's Porsche" mantra: A small subset of high-end Porsche owners who have a superiority complex, and people who don't own a Porsche at all and feel the need to diminish the Boxster.

It's VERY infrequent that I hear anyone malign my Boxster, and I personally have never had another Porsche owner give me anything but props. As for the non-Porsche owners, I ask anyone who makes the "poor man's Porsche" comment if they've ever driven one. The answer is always no - and in my estimation, ignorance and jealously aren't the two best cornerstones for an informed opinion.

[Perfectlap]

e7lew,

I appears you have a very limited knowledge of Porsche. But welcome aboard just the same. The BoxSter was the first design by Porsche designed from the start to be a convertible sports car. So obviously it was going to be popular. All other convertibles before Boxster were coupes that had their tin tops cut off to satisfy the consumer demand for convertible fun. That resulted in a car that shook too much and wasn't rigid enough. The design of Boxster addressed those big complaints of the 911 Cabriolet. More importantly it allowed Porsche to make up for another big demand from the public: a mid engine 911. From the doors to the front bumper the Boxster was EXACTLY the same car as the MK1 996 Carrera. By simply giving it a new name "Boxster" they avoided the embarrasment of having to acknowledge that mid engine sports and LMP cars are superior to front or rear engine sports cars in sprint racing.
Why didn't they put a bigger engine in it? No need. Boxster is a combination of the words Boxer and Roadster. So obviously it's a roadster with a boxer engine.
A Roadster is intended to be light in weight, small and perfectly balanced. Going fast in this car is up to driver skill.... and not relying on the engine to do the work for you. But despite this the 2.7 and 3.2 engines have more power than most of the 911's every built. The Carrera only recently passed the 300 HP mark in standard form. It has never been a powerful car. If you wanted one of the fast 911's you had to pay $$$ and you were already over paying to begin with. But lucky for Porsche they rely on customers who have more money than knowledge, most Porsches never make it to the track or even an autocross. But I guess you can certainly say the same of Lamborghini and Ferrari. They want the most expensive car to satisfy whatever non-driving related goals they want to achieve with their car. Obtaining the Porsche that does the most for your money (Boxster/Cayman) is of no concern to this type of of sports car owner since they won't really be testing that value in the habitat it was designed to perform in.

e7lew,
Now that you have a better understadning of what the Boxster is and of Porsche I can share with you my motivation. I watched Top Gear one night and a former F1 driver was testing the Boxster on a track and was having a great time sliding the car all over. Top Gear proclaimed the Boxster as the best sports car, not just convertible, but best overall pure sports car you could buy new. So the next week I drove one and bought it.

p.s.
I have never understood the idea that the Boxster "is the Porsche I could afford".
If you can't afford a 911 buy an old 911! There are tons of old well maintained 911's in every color and power combination you can imagine. They don't handle as well as a Boxster or are as reliable but you can still buy a 911 if you don't have much money.

[Immortal1520]

I probably would consider the Boxster to be a Poormans 911 had it actually been like a 911. If it looked similar, which it doesn't. If it was rear-engined, which it isn't. If it had backseats, which it doesn't. If it drove like a 911, which it clearly doesn't.

They're two completely different cars and if you're under that mantra that "you only bought a Boxster because you couldn't afford a 911", then you clearly don't know what you're talking about or you're about as ignorant as you can possibly get.

Failing that, you probably drive some lame car that can't compare to the heavily praised Boxster and have an immense feeling of jealousy for it. Pick up any car magazine that says anything about the Boxster, I'll bet you the keys to mine that they're going to say nothing but great things about it.

Porsche made a stellar car in the 911 years ago, and that car is pretty much the brilliant genius amongst its competitors in its range. The same can be said about the Boxster and it's peers. I still think that mantra is stupid, that it's for people who can't afford 911's. You don't hear people with SLK's get flak for their cars because they can't afford SLR's. They're different. Just like the Boxster and the 911.

[Topless]

To ask the question is to miss the point. Both are great cars... very different cars.

[cvhs18472]

That "nice young man" from overseas sure struck a nerve with his uninformed opinion did he not. Ed

[Gent]

Well, I just got out of a 2005 smart ForTwo diesel and into a 2000 Boxster.

They are both great cars, worth about the same and each does some things better than the other. The things they have in common are: shop rates for maintenance, they seat 2, have similar safety features and both can hold a shopping cart full of groceries.

And both make me smile when I drive them.

I'm not saving the planet anymore, but that's never been why I buy a car in the first place. If I like driving it, and I can justify the expense - then I buy it.

I was actually looking for a good ~1967 912 when the boxster came my way.

Am I too poor to purchase a 959? Ummm, yeah.

[Brucelee]

You weren't saving the planet with your last car but you may have been saving some gas.

You must look way better in the box. Glad you came to your senses.

[Gent]

lol, thanks!