Boxster vs 911 cab--claustrophobic?

[CRCGuy]

no...not another one of those threads (I don't think). I've driven both and definitely prefer the boxster based on test drives. More balanced, more useable as a DD due to dual trunks and seemingly easier to get in and out of.

My question is (to those that have owned both) is which do you prefer on long hauls? I'm now living in Switzerland permanently and will be taking long trips through the alps, deep into France and maybe even italy. Just wondering if the Boxster ever gets too claustrophobic with top up and if I would be better off with a 911 for the extra space behind the seats. the only thing I preferred in the 911 was the steering, otherwise, it just wasn't as fun to me. I could care less about performance differences. I think I drive at 5/10ths most of the time.

any advice?

[landrovered]

I have not owned both but I have driven the 2010 Boxster, Cayman and Carrera S.

If I could only have one car then the choice would be the Carrera S. It has more cabin room, a more upright seating position and better visibilty. For long trips it would be a more comfortable interior. It is taller and thus other drivers seem to see it more than with the Boxster/Cayman.

For winter driving the 4S would be my choice.

For me I don't have only one car, I have six (not bragging, just don't like to sell stuff, I am a hoarder) so the Boxster/Cayman was my choice.

I like sitting lower to the ground, I like the fact that it feels like more of a sports car than the Carrera S.

I have done five hour trips in my Boxster and found it to be quite comfortable. Best thing to do is go to the dealership and drive them all. Then decide.

[Perfectlap]

I was going to point out that the bath tub with the big butt has seats that fold down and that you might want to take that into account if you participate activities for which you will need the space like cycling and an extra set of wheels for a driving event. But then I remembered it's not a coupe....nevermind.

[RandallNeighbour]

Why would you think a 911 cab would be claustrophobic? From the seat backs forward it's the same car in a sensory "this is how I feel in it" kind of way.

You know, you should definitely pose this question on a 911 forum. Those guys would know far better than us, and they are not biased toward the 986/987.

[mikefocke]

And are you the only one on the trip and how much stuff is the other passenger going to want to be bringing along? Do you value top down driving? Are you going to get a hardtop which does provide more headroom and cut down noise a bit? Aren't the 996 and 986 almost identical in firewall-forward design and so why would the steering be that different (could it have been alignment)? What years are you considering for both cars?

I've taken several 400km trips in the Boxster and I find it comfortable. Lots of luggage room, not much room for stuff inside the cabin which I find OK but my wife likes her things cluttered around her. OTOH, my wife doesn't like it as she feels she is sitting on the road.

[ARModen]

I've done a few 800-1200 mile trips in the Boxster. I spent a good 30 hours in it during a hurricane evacuation. I don't think claustrophobia is so much of an issue. I'd be more worry about what sort of shape your tailbone is in at the end of the trip. I'd take both out on the highway and see which has the smoother ride. I choose the boxster for zipping around town, but the 911 might be better for cruising on the highway. That and depending on what year you're looking at you might need to opt for the 911 so you have cupholders and a glove compartment.

[CRCGuy]

thanks all for the insight. any trips would be just me and a cute thin swiss girl

I didn't say the 911 was claustrophobic, I was referring to the boxster since there's kinda just a wall behind ya the entire time.

I wasn't disappointed in the ride comfort in the boxster, I could probably handle that. it was just that feeling of a small space for long periods. top down the entire time on highways is not an option most likely due to speeds involved, esp on the autobahn (my hairline is already half gone. or is it half full?). otherwise, i'll pretty much have the top 99% of the time in town. ability to put top down is absolutely a must. Life's too short for a hardtop for me. I never have and never will be timed on a track.

I'm also looking at latest models (987 and 997). I drove both back to back last Nov. there is definitely a difference! the boxster steering felt totally numb by comparison--yes the 911 has that much road feel (or at least, the new ones). but def not a deal breaker. The comments about 4S are well-noted. it can get slippery here in winter, esp at higher alititudes. awd would certainly provide some peace of mind.... as long as it didn't make me too complacent.

I was confused about comments regarding room with seats folded down. doesn't it work the same in the cab vs coupe?

good idea to post in 911 forum. I just figured there'd be lots of folks here who'd done several XXXX mile trips in a box and wanted to see if it got annoying because of interior room.

thanks again
crcguy

[vipola]

I'v done a 2720 km (almost 1 700 miles) trip (Ottawa - Prince Edward Island - Ottawa) in a 99 boxster and never feelt like missing space behind me :P most of the time the top was down, but It was very confortable and nothing to complain.. Space in the two trunk was just perfect for me and my girlfriend. I would do it again anytime!

[RandallNeighbour]

Originally Posted by CRCGuy

thanks all for the insight. any trips would be just me and a cute thin swiss girl

I'm sure there's a few fat ugly chicks in Switzerland (quality control workers in chocolate factories?) but I've never encountered one on my trips to your part of the world.

Same thing goes for the girls in Norway and Sweden.

[husker boxster]

Have you thought about a Cayman? Might be the best of both worlds.

[ARModen]

The interior size difference really isn't that much. The 911's barely a 4 seater. I'd bet the difference between the volume of the back seat in the 911 and the boxster's rear trunk+area on top of the engine is pretty small. My dad and I did 1400 miles from Arizona to Louisiana and never had any claustrophobia issues. We're both decent sized guys, and we had the top up the second half to minimize our skin cancer. I think my dogs get claustrophobic after about 8 hours of traveling.

[CRCGuy]

Originally Posted by ARModen

The interior size difference really isn't that much. The 911's barely a 4 seater. I'd bet the difference between the volume of the back seat in the 911 and the boxster's rear trunk+area on top of the engine is pretty small. My dad and I did 1400 miles from Arizona to Louisiana and never had any claustrophobia issues. We're both decent sized guys, and we had the top up the second half to minimize our skin cancer. I think my dogs get claustrophobic after about 8 hours of traveling.

good stuff! that's quite a trip. hell, 8hrs would take me all the way down to Tuscany I think! quite reassuring. thanks

As for fat chicks...I must say that one of the reasons I really like it here is that in general women (and men) are much better looking, esp w.r.t weight. My last trip back to the states was a real eye opener. I went to pay for gas and there was a 300lb+ woman with two fat kids (no more than 5 or 6yrs old). she was buying pork rinds and a 32oz coke (not diet). The fat hanging off her arms almost knocked the coke over when she went to pay. My taxes will be paying for her triple by-pass in a few years. it just disgusted me. There is little incentive to be healthy in the states. here in switzerland, one's health insurance (which is mandatory for everyone) is cheaper the better shape you're in. what a concept. yes, you'll find seriously overweight people here, but it's very rare. you won't see someone circle a grocery store parking lot 3 times waiting for that spot 20ft from the door, burning dino oil instead of burning body fat by walking a hundred feet. In fact, you see business men in full suits riding a bike to work rather than driving. of course, it's not so feasible in the states giving the infrastructure, but even if bike paths were present everywhere, you'd still never see such a thing. when gas is cheaper than milk, there's little incentive to do the right thing. gas here is over $6/gal. I will only use this boxster (or 911) for occasional trips, not daily use. But I digress---that's a whole other thread....

[Perfectlap]

^ I find it interesting that the countries with the highest per capita GDP in Europe (Scandinavia, Belgium, Switz, Lux, etc. are the countries that invest the most on healthcare and education...all possible with far less manufacturing than the rest of the economic powers. I guess a highly educated and very fit worker tends to be more valuable than a 300 pounder with skills that don't go beyond stocking shelves at Wal-Mart and Target. A big reason why we are fat aren't just the bad food choices, its the bad food. The sugar content in everything off the charts here. Diet alternatives are worse for you, as is anything created in a lab by evil scientists.
And eating healthy in this country is now considered a luxury.

p.s.
Have you considred a 996 Turbo? You get your all wheel drive, don't have worry about gas mileage because you don't drive much, you get one of only two Porsches with a real dry sump race engine and lots of comfort for long rides.
Not to mention a car that can be parked next to any Ferrari.

[ARModen]

Since this thread has already divurged off topic...

You know people always talk bad about the food and motivation of Americans, but I'd bet money that it's our cars that are killing us. So much of this country is so spread out, and so little is covered by any real mass transportation, that you really have to drive everywhere.

I wonder if anyone has done a study comparing the health of the population with how far they live from their jobs, and how they get to and from work. For example manufacturing jobs tend to happen away from city centers. So those countries you listed may have a large advantage health-wise just because a lot of the population can walk to work.

When I was in college I was in decent shape even though I ate fast food, drank lots of booze, and never worked out. Between walking around campus and walking to and from the bus stops, I probably did 4-5 miles of walking a day. I also rode my bike to school (~5 miles) every so often because it was faster than the bus. This was out in Tucson, and it's the only town I've lived in that has both good mass transit, and bike friendly streets.

[RandallNeighbour]

ARModen, you were much younger then too. Don't forget that your metabolism rate reduces as you age.

CRCguy, I have take four very long trips in my boxster now. When I'm by myself there's plenty of interior room because I throw stuff in the passenger side. However, when the wife is along there's no place for her purse, the mini cooler, the small blanket for when she's cold (I'm never cold... typical man I guess) and so forth.

It's only on long trips with my wife that I wish I had a 911 coupe. Driving long distances on the freeway with the top down is really noisy and not what it's cracked up to be in my mind. I usually keep the top up on long trips to regulate temperature in the cabin, lower the noise, and be able to hear my stereo or my passenger speak at normal tones.

Of course, the other time I wish I had a 911 coupe is when I want to put my foot in it and get the same acceleration I have in my BMW 550i—and that's when I am totally underwhelmed by my boxster's puny motor. Even the 3.4 S motors in the newer boxsters don't have the torque of my V8 Bimmer motor. For that reason, having a C4S or a Turbo is what I'd trade up to if I had oodles of cash.

... and I would never look back and wish I still had a convertible. Might be different if I lived in SOCAL where it's 75 degrees most of the year, but that ain't the case here in Sauna City, USA.

[Perfectlap]

^I'm not sure if metabolism slows due to age. I think it's more the effects of 'getting old' as in not staying active and lettting muscle mass shrink away in favor of sitting on the couch. I used to cycle in a park where this one rider was a regular. He was ripped like Lance Armstrong during the last week of the Tour. The first time I came up on him I noticed that while he was keeping a good pace he wasn't really cranking it. His dyed black hair threw me off because when I looked over to say I hi I realized this was a guy was easily 70 years old. He later told me he was like 72 or something and ate a can of corn every day.
Once the average American hits 35 he sets himself up for the double whammy, weight goes up (more money to eat bigger) and his activity goes down. The metabolism also gets bombarded with more stress, less sleep, more sugar, more acohol, more refined flour carbs, more animal/cheese fat vs the good mono unsaturated fats or in some cases ALL OF THE ABOVE! I think the average human on Earth today can live much longer and healthier than was ever possible but we seem to be be going in the other direction.

[dallison]

in a few years i hope to pick up a 996/997 to compliment the boxster. I don't like the boxster on long runs since i want to keep the top down since it is obviously a convertible.

Also my right leg is crooked when on the gas in the boxster since it rests along the center console.

I don't know if the 911 is the same same since it has an identical interior.

I like the boxster since it has a front and rear trunk.

[CRCGuy]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

^ I
And eating healthy in this country is now considered a luxury.

p.s.
Have you considred a 996 Turbo? You get your all wheel drive, don't have worry about gas mileage because you don't drive much, you get one of only two Porsches with a real dry sump race engine and lots of comfort for long rides.
Not to mention a car that can be parked next to any Ferrari.

you know, I haven't. It's an interesting option. I wonder what the clutch is like to operate. I really like the clutch feel and pedal effort of the newer models. but I guess Ill know in about 10 secs during a test drive. thanks for the suggestion

[CRCGuy]

Originally Posted by ARModen

Since this thread has already divurged off topic...

You know people always talk bad about the food and motivation of Americans, but I'd bet money that it's our cars that are killing us. So much of this country is so spread out, and so little is covered by any real mass transportation, that you really have to drive everywhere.

. Between walking around campus and walking to and from the bus stops, I probably did 4-5 miles of walking a day. I also rode my bike to school (~5 miles) every so often because it was faster than the bus. This was out in Tucson, and it's the only town I've lived in that has both good mass transit, and bike friendly streets.

Since I started this thread Ill indulge the divergence. I believe you're spot on. you really do have to drive everywhere in the states. having the public transport setup they have here would be a monstrous undertaking. You can literally go anywhere here by tram, train and foot. And you can set your watches by the trains. insanely reliable. as you suggest, the walking really does pay dividends. What the US lacks most are sidewalks, which you only find in neighborhoods and even then not everywhere. Here, pretty much every road has sidewalks on both sides. I walk about 3 to 4 miles a day all told. mostly by choice. I even walk past three tram stops just because it's so easy here and everyone does it. when you come to a yellow crosswalk (sans crossing light), you do NOT wait for cars. The law says peds have the right of way and cars must stop. It's an eerie feeling, but I'm so used to it now I almost never even look both ways any more (sorry mom!). They really encourage as little use of dino oil and as much walking as possible. At some stop lights, you are asked (read required) to turn your motor off while it's red. Of course, some US cities are doing a decent job with subway lines. It's the urban sprawl that screws things up. If you think the USA is bad, try living in England for a spell. It's a total nightmare to get anywhere.