987 owners...no offence

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by fusionist

I love them both.... they are my favorite and second favorite cars in the world... but I agree the 986 is the purest expression of a roadster.

The Boxster's evolution reminds me of the original Nissan Z. The 986 is a lot like the 240z. It's smaller, lighter, slower, simpler, less refined than the 260z or 280z that followed.... but somehow the 240z is the purest expression of a sports car.

I have to agree entirely with your logic there on the vehicle's evolution, and it could be said about many a sports car from that era, and even into the 80s and 90s, such as the (Celica)Supra, RX-7, and certainly the Fairlady (240Z), to me each in its first or other early renditions much more appealing than what they eventually became. More powerful, but bigger, bulkier, heavier, more expensive, and slowly losing that simple character that made them appeal to people.

[fatmike]

Originally Posted by Burg Boxster

LOL - Let me know how that works out for ya.

Until then I'll take either Boxster to drive and enjoy as often as I can and not worry about what it might sell for, for someone else a long time from now.

Or, who knows, maybe some decade from now I'll buy your "good" one to help me re-live memories I'm creating today. Please keep up w/ the maintenance for me will ya?

It will work out very well. Keep in mind that 40 years ago houses cost $10K. We are living in an age of inflation -- take off the blinders.

There is a nice Karman Ghia (ugly orange) near my house. I see it a lot sitting in a garage all the time hooked up to a battery charger. What do you think that car would sell for these days??? $10K? What do you think it cost new? Maybe $2K?

There is no question that the 986 will be collectible 30 years down the road. No question at all. It has everything that the Karman Ghia has and more. Don't forget 30 years from now, there will be far fewer 986s available. By then most (like mine) will be long gone...

[fatmike]

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

Admittedly, trying to pick future collectables is like trying to read Tea Leaves.

But, there are several good indicators such as Brand, Convertibles, 1st Gen (Think Pontiac Tempest/GTO, '64,'65 Mustangs, early vs. late BMW 2002's, etc.). Low production - Lotus Elans now in the mid-$20's and Elites in the $75-$90k range. And then there is the unknown factor - who would ever have thought that VW Beetles would go in the $30-$40k range, or that Ramblers would ever see the far side of $20k?

But, there are also two distinct types of collectibles; Investment potential (which are few) and collectible drivers for the masses (think Mustangs, MGB's, Triumphs, assorted muscle, original Mini's, etc.).

In most cars with potential, there comes a point where the depreciation bottoms out, and after a few years, the good original examples and those which are restored tend to start to climb in value.

Investment? Well not in the true sense because even if you sell for more than you paid, what would have been the return if that money were placed in other intsruments for the same period of time? Again, a bit of Tea Leaf reading here too.

But, imagine all the things you own and use and being able to sell them later for more than you paid? You'd have essentially gotten their use for free.

The early Boxsters have to be at or near the bottom of their depreciation curve - the right time to buy. Then, imagine that VW/Audi/Porsche decides to kill production in 2016 as has been mentioned - even in Panorama, not at all an unreal scenario given the 914, 924, 944 and 928. Now Boxsters are available only in limited numbers. Now suppose something like a popular movie incorporates one or it appears in some other aspect of future Popular Culture. This would also fuel demand and raise prices.

I'm not saying to liquidate your retirement savings and fill a warehouse with 1st Gen Boxsters now that they are on the cheap. But, one of the guys interested in my Boxster describes his use as a sunny sunday driver w/ less than 2k mi./yr. Given it's curent shape and low miles, if that guy maintains it and decides to sell it in 10 yrs. or so, I'm certain he'll make out pretty well. I too have considered simply retiring it, properly mothballing it and waiting 10 yrs. or so. But, my main issue is one of space which I am now out of. Were I to pay to store it, any future appreciation would be gobbled up by the storage charges. But for the right buyer, it's a pretty safe bet they'll get their money back in future years and have a nice Sunday droptop to play with in the meantime.

Cheers!

Agree on this. How's your other "collectible" car working out so far? Happy to see your still posting here.

[Pat]

Mike, you failed to take into account time, and have assumed collector car markets today will act the same as they did 30 years ago. There are many variables you have not taken into account that could make them more collectible or less collectible. One cannot always predict the future simply by looking at the past.

[Burg Boxster]

Originally Posted by fatmike

It will work out very well. Keep in mind that 40 years ago houses cost $10K. We are living in an age of inflation -- take off the blinders.

There is a nice Karman Ghia (ugly orange) near my house. I see it a lot sitting in a garage all the time hooked up to a battery charger. What do you think that car would sell for these days??? $10K? What do you think it cost new? Maybe $2K?

There is no question that the 986 will be collectible 30 years down the road. No question at all. It has everything that the Karman Ghia has and more. Don't forget 30 years from now, there will be far fewer 986s available. By then most (like mine) will be long gone...

LOL - My blinders are off Inflation is a completely different animal than what was implied as an increase in "value" all for having a "good" one, which one hopes will reach collectible status and be in demand.

Point was more directed at it being a less than stellar move to have spent $50k ten years ago hoping to turn it into ONLY $100k 20-30 years from now (even if you exclude the other sunk costs of storage, maintenance, insurance, etc. for 20-30 years).

Or to use your example...
Suppose you took your $2k back in the late 1950s and instead invested it. How excited would you be to have $10k from it today (again even excluding sunk costs for storage, maintenance, insurance, etc. for 50+ years). Ready to retire?

In all sincerity, there's one truth and that is 100% of cars are depreciating assets. A very very very very rare few after depreciating in value may end up being be "worth" something, some day, somewhere. However, there are way too many countless outside influences which will cause most everyone who wants to make this bet lose $ in the long haul as opposed to making it. This is especially true if hedging w/ just one model vehicle let alone one with high production #s.

As I said before, until then I'll take either Boxster to drive and enjoy as often as I can and not worry about what it might sell for, for someone else a long time from now.

[fatmike]

Originally Posted by Burg Boxster

LOL - My blinders are off Inflation is a completely different animal than what was implied as an increase in "value" all for having a "good" one, which one hopes will reach collectible status and be in demand.

Point was more directed at it being a less than stellar move to have spent $50k ten years ago hoping to turn it into ONLY $100k 20-30 years from now (even if you exclude the other sunk costs of storage, maintenance, insurance, etc. for 20-30 years).

Or to use your example...
Suppose you took your $2k back in the late 1950s and instead invested it. How excited would you be to have $10k from it today (again even excluding sunk costs for storage, maintenance, insurance, etc. for 50+ years). Ready to retire?

In all sincerity, there's one truth and that is 100% of cars are depreciating assets. A very very very very rare few after depreciating in value may end up being be "worth" something, some day, somewhere. However, there are way too many countless outside influences which will cause most everyone who wants to make this bet lose $ in the long haul as opposed to making it. This is especially true if hedging w/ just one model vehicle let alone one with high production #s.

As I said before, until then I'll take either Boxster to drive and enjoy as often as I can and not worry about what it might sell for, for someone else a long time from now.

We agree Burg. No worries.


Cars are always a depreciating asset (about the only thing worse is a boat!).
Boxster as an investment? Ummmm, no. I didn't mean to imply that. Just that it will take more dollars 40 years from now to buy a car (any car) because of constant inflation.

[fatmike]

Originally Posted by Pat

Mike, you failed to take into account time, and have assumed collector car markets today will act the same as they did 30 years ago. There are many variables you have not taken into account that could make them more collectible or less collectible. One cannot always predict the future simply by looking at the past.

I think the world may look very very different in 40 years. I wonder if gasoline will be readily available and inexpensive. If it's not -- say because we've moved onto other fuels -- would you choose to keep a 'retro' automobile? Maybe any gasoline car will be prohibitively expensive in time, effort and cost. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if they were "illegal" because of environmental issues (like lead paint).

If you were going to keep a "retro" car in a world like this -- what type of car would you want to keep? Maybe a mid-engine, convertible Porsche? That might be on my list to consider...

[Norminhouston]

Originally Posted by fusionist

I love them both.... they are my favorite and second favorite cars in the world... but I agree the 986 is the purest expression of a roadster.

The Boxster's evolution reminds me of the original Nissan Z. The 986 is a lot like the 240z. It's smaller, lighter, slower, simpler, less refined than the 260z or 280z that followed.... but somehow the 240z is the purest expression of a sports car.

I bought a new 240Z in 1973. Probably the worst car I have ever owned. I had to keep a tow drivers card in my glove compartment to use when I broke down. Those hitachi carbs were the pits. I think the 1972 240's were pretty good. They had SU's.

[keithl]

Originally Posted by extanker

no offence taken but isnt gen 1 parking around the servants entrance or dumpster

I'm offended by the spelling of offense.

[edbelton]

believe it or not, the owner of the 987 thought my 1998 was the newer model... sorry about the offenCe

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by Norminhouston

I bought a new 240Z in 1973. Probably the worst car I have ever owned. I had to keep a tow drivers card in my glove compartment to use when I broke down. Those hitachi carbs were the pits. I think the 1972 240's were pretty good. They had SU's.

I had a '70 and a '72, loved them both, couple of the best cars I ever owned. Not perfect, but not a lot to complain about. My biggest peeve was the rubber iso mount on the differential. When that rubber tore, it was like you threw a motor mount. The 'THUD' was so loud you swore the diff was coming through the floor!

Agreed about the Hitachi emissions carbs. They actually weren't that bad when they were set up right, but not many knew how to do it, most notably most Datsun Dealers. Kinda like the early Bosch Jetronic, if eveything wasn't absolutely perfect, they no workey.

Surprised you didn't swap them out, no one had emissions testing back then.

Cheers!

[pothole]

Originally Posted by blue2000s

What I find interesting is how much better the 986 looks have held up than the 996. They have the same face but it's not right on the 911, while it's got alot of character on the Boxster. I think partially I expect a 911 to have flared fenders and the car looks dumpy without them. Both the 993 and 997 look so much better. For some reason, the 986 doesn't need the flared fenders.

The 986 does have flared rear fenders, it's just a fairly subtle flare, particularly in pictures. Sit in one and look rearward through the wing mirrors, however, and it's fairly apparent.

Anyway, I agree re the 986. It's the much purer, lither design. The 987 is over styled and fussy by comparison. Personally, I think the 986/996 front end will eventually be recognised as a very clever reinterpretation of the Porsche design vibe. It's growing old very, very gracefully (except the facelift 986, which I never really really liked and is looking increasingly tacky).

An early 986 S complete with orange indicators will be the model to have 20 years from now, I reckon.

[Dragonwind]

I like them both, but I don't see many 97-99's around my area. Most are 00 on up.
I got mine to drive not to collect, but I did dress it up so as not to look like every other silver Boxster out there. Traditionalists may not like it but most people do, and I just hit 97k! A friend of mine just got a new BoxsterS and as long as it starts they love it (keeps draining the battery). I'm either going to get a Cayman, a 993 or a 997c4 when I 'add' to the family. They are all nice IMO!
Chris

[blue2000s]

Originally Posted by pothole

The 986 does have flared rear fenders, it's just a fairly subtle flare, particularly in pictures. Sit in one and look rearward through the wing mirrors, however, and it's fairly apparent.

Strictly speaking, I suppose you're right, but I consider a flared fender one that juts out from the bodywork, not one that is part of the car's curve. A flared fender is one that has a distinctly different angle out the the wheel wells from the rest of the body. There's a pretty big difference between the 986 and 987 (and 997) when you look from the top.

986:

http://www.autointell.com/sports_cars/porsche/porsche-boxster/Muf794l3.jpg

987:

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/vehicle-pictures/2009/porsche/boxster/6052-125-convertible-overhead-view-480.jpg

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2005/2005-Studio-Torino-RK-Spyder-Top-1920x1440.jpg

997:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_71VYESfu88A/S7vjWAgE1UI/AAAAAAAAEGU/l6DPyli-37w/s1600/6319-117-overhead-480.jpg

The Carrera GT barely has rear flares and none in front:



But the 918 concept definitely does.

http://img.wallpaperstock.net:81/porsche-918-top-view-wallpapers_17732_1920x1440.jpg

[SoCalKen]

Originally Posted by Mauiboxster

By the way if history repeats itself than the original 2000 Boxster S with rare options will most likely be the "car to have"

I like your thoughts, that's the one I presently have,
Ken

[SoCalKen]

have any of you heard of the rule of 72?
Rule of 72 is that you divide 72 by the percent of return and that's how long it takes to double our money.
IE 6% return would take you 12 years to double your money.
So lets say you invest $15K
@12 years its $30K
@24 years its $60K
@36 years its $120K
Ken

[pierre shags]

"Today I parked my white 1998 boxster next to a similar white 2009 987...
more agressive lines, lower, so much sleeker, sexier... the 986, of course"
edbelton

Aesthetic preferences are personal, of course, but I think the word 'aggressive' could be more objectively applied to the 987. Aggressive should be applied primarily to cars that look fast.

Wider and thinner tires do look fast and increase the size of the 'shoulders' and 'hips' of the car. This makes the 987 less smooth and rounded, but more muscular - definitely more aggressive looking.

The taller, tapered side vent looks more like supercars that are really fast; the little round one of the 986 looks like a throwback to some slower time. The vent is more angular; sharp edges look more aggressive than rounded ones and this has been the design trend for the last ten years. So yes the 987 looks more modern than classic. The line of the front & rear bumpers below the plates where it turns under is smooth on the 986 but has a definite crease on the 987 - muscle car looking if you must - but aggressive.

"I must say there is not a single point of the 986 I preferred...986 headlights looking "more Porsche" I have to roll on the floor laughing." says Kurt the Quick, and for once we agree.

The first thing that distinguished the two models for me was the vent, the second was the squatty L-shaped headlights of the 986. For aesthetics the 986 lost me right there. They are - I hope strong language won't get me kicked off the list - UGLY. They mess up the beautiful clean lines of the hood and fenders typical of all new Porsches - a real mistake.

[pothole]

Originally Posted by pierre shags

The first thing that distinguished the two models for me was the vent, the second was the squatty L-shaped headlights of the 986. For aesthetics the 986 lost me right there. They are - I hope strong language won't get me kicked off the list - UGLY. They mess up the beautiful clean lines of the hood and fenders typical of all new Porsches - a real mistake.

Hmm, speaking of objectivity...the fact is that the 986 lights, like them or loathe them, actually integrate more smoothly and neatly with the bodywork than the 987's units. Look at shut lines and intersections around the light units, the hood, the fender/wing and the front bumper on a 986:



Now look at the 987. Just inside the headlight unit, it's all very busy/messy/clumsy where the fender, hood, bumper intersect (I'm particularly talking about the awkward looking slither of fender that extends down to meet the bumper):



I do agree that the 987 looks more "aggressive". But for my money the 986 is so much cleaner, lither and prettier - it's a clever update of what it is to be Porsche. The 987 is relatively unsubtle. That said, I do very much like the rear end of the new gen 2 987:



My perfect Box would probably be front 3/4 of the 986 with the 987.2 rear 1/4. Actually my perfect Box is the original concept:





Stunning. Shame neither the 986 nor the 987 is as pretty. But the 986 comes a lot closer.

[chaudanova]

Cool pics! always love seeing that original concept boxster...

[blue2000s]

Originally Posted by pothole

Hmm, speaking of objectivity...the fact is that the 986 lights, like them or loathe them, actually integrate more smoothly and neatly with the bodywork than the 987's units. Look at shut lines and intersections around the light units, the hood, the fender/wing and the front bumper on a 986:



Now look at the 987. Just inside the headlight unit, it's all very busy/messy/clumsy where the fender, hood, bumper intersect (I'm particularly talking about the awkward looking slither of fender that extends down to meet the bumper):



I do agree that the 987 looks more "aggressive". But for my money the 986 is so much cleaner, lither and prettier - it's a clever update of what it is to be Porsche. The 987 is relatively unsubtle. That said, I do very much like the rear end of the new gen 2 987:



My perfect Box would probably be front 3/4 of the 986 with the 987.2 rear 1/4. Actually my perfect Box is the original concept:





Stunning. Shame neither the 986 nor the 987 is as pretty. But the 986 comes a lot closer.

I agree, the concept car is by far the best looking Boxster. Note how much further forward the driver sits than in the production cars, more exotic proportions, like a Lamoborghini. The concept is a much smaller car than the production car too. Maybe the new rumored "baby Boxster" will bring things closer to the original concept.