That's not a Porsche.

I understand what you're saying, but what I hear is: "I get the ugly duck now so some lucky bast*rd down the line can get the really good looking and refined one..." And of course that's a supposition that the 987 will get 'better'.

IMHO, if you look back through the years, rarely is an initial car design ever improved or bettered. The freshness and momentum of an initial design captures the attention whereas future 'refinements' lack that type of 'POP'.

The 986 was new, fresh and (having not been seen before) WOW... while the 987 is just another Boxster. You can argue about the degree and value of the changes, but not about it being just another Boxster. It's definitely different. Better? Meaner? Better looking? These are all subjective.

Once in a while a model does definitely improve over it's initial design, take the the Toyota MR2. Back in the mid-80's, it was chiseled and odd looking. The 3rd Gen of the mid-90's was definitely better design-wise. Then, Toyota tried cashing in on it's reputation and success by simply naming a totally new design (the mid-engine whatever) as an MR2. This little trick never succeeded and the last MR2 fell with a THUD! Had Toyota simply introduced it as a new car, it's history may have been much different, which begs the question: How much can the design vary from the original concept and still be a Boxster?

Cheers!

2004 986 5 sp vs 2010 987 PDK
 

Welcome
I traded in my 986 w/5 speed on a 987S with PDk. First time in the 987 I got the impression of a bigger heavier car. The raised front fender line reminds me of my 81 corvette. The 986 IMHO is a light steering whip it around the corner slot car that says I am light, fast and nimble so lets scream. The 987S is feels more sophisticated, steering a little heavier but more precise. The suspension is very good is stiffer being an S but it absorbs uneven road bumps. The S says I have 65 more horses a transmission that you or it can and will shift down in a turn and not upset the suspension. TAKE ME TO THE LIMIT! It can and I do.
I find the PDK to be a tool that me to be a better driver. PDK challenges you to compete with it. I have had 5 Porsche 5 speeds but the PDK gives me an edge that you may or may not need. When I first got the car it was a little less responsive the dealer reprogrammed both ecu's and it works great.
I don't know if it s good or not but now my wife demands her wheel time. :matchup:

RE: PDK


My best friend works directly for Hyundai, the last time I saw him he had the 6 cyl Genesis coupe. The car had manual shift paddles, I'm not sure it shifted anywhere near as quick as a PDK can shift but it was way faster than my other friend's Malibu. Anyhow, I always thought I'd love PDK, the perfect shift every time, no need to drop a transmission to learn heal/toe... I didn't leave the Genesis in that mode for five minutes, I felt bored and detached from the drive versus rowing my own manual. It's just my opinion but even though I view PDK as an awesome advance I prefer manual. I feel the same way about the direct cabled clutch over hydraulic.

For a car driven on the road, it's still an automatic transmission. One that actually reacts to driver inputs as needed (as opposed to a normal auto) but it's still doing the shifting. I've driven a number of manual shifting autos and after playing with the manual buttons I realize that there's really no point to it and just leave it in drive and go about my business. I HOPE they never stop offering a real manual transmission because it's the way sports cars should be experienced.

I think there's little question that the PDK is somewhat of an engineering marvel.

That said, I recently had the opportunity to drive the Boxster Spyder w/ PDK both through an auto-x course as well as a half dozen hot laps on a 2.8 mi. road course, and I did not like it. I didn't just not like it, I mean I Seriously didn't like it! And, that after a half dozen years with a 2.5 Tiptronic.

I would have much preferred to have had the Tip S. The launch control/throttle response of the PDK seemed to lag like a 1st gen SAAB Turbo and the car shifted twice at the apex. I felt like screaming: "Open the Pod Bay doors HAL...!!!"

It always defaults to saving the motor and you as if it were programmed by the Risk Management Team rather than Test drivers and engineers. The last time I remember being so far removed from the driving experience was in my Great Aunt's old '61 Coupe de Ville. And that's not to say that every other car I've driven didn't have their own disappointments, they all do. But the PDK equipped car was one of the few cars I've driven that actually annoyed me.

I agree with blue2ks, if I owned one, I'd just leave it in 'D' and accept my role as systems monitor and semi-interactive passenger. But, to me at least, this has never been what sports cars were all about.

And, I apologize in advance to those who may think I'm dissing their ride, I'm not. This is one case where perspectives are everything, mine have led me to these conclusions, yours may take you elsewhere. There is no right or wrong here.

Cheers!

The only surprising thing about your post IMO is your sentence that you prefer the Tip over the PDK. That's where we part ways, the tip is heavier and makes the car slower.

LB, I have a thought after reading your comment. Isn't the PDK adaptive like the Tip?

Could the car's computer be at fault here because your driving style is different from the previous drivers in the hours and days before?

Just wondering if they had reset the system or if you drive it on the track for a couple of days by yourself if it might adapt more to your driving style.

That double-downshift in the apex does sound annoying though. Makes one wonder.

I hear what you're saying.

But, consider that with it's definite lag on launch and having to lift unexpectedly in turns, it may not offset it's weight advantage. I wasn't on a radar gun, nor did I have my car making the same run to compare, so I just don't know.

But, I have run my car on the same track and at the very least, it felt much faster.

In the past, that was always one of the things about sports cars. Despite their often small displacement and low to average HP ratings, they always seemed faster than they really were. But, that didn't matter to your adrenal gland, as far as it was concerned, you got the impression and the thrill that you were really flying!

Cheers!

The paddles becomes a gimmick quickly because the computer is smarter than the driver - it knows exactly when to down/upshift and it'll do it faster than you. It's better to leave it in auto for it to do its work.

It's great if you're living in a city like NYC, London or Hong Kong. Otherwise I'll take the manual thanks.

Randall,

Yes, you're right, the PDK is adaptive.

It is possible that it was in 'limp' or 'default' mode, or even faulty. But considering that these were Porsche Sport Driving School cars, I would think they were in top shape and given their running environment, that the adaptive memory would have stored a whole bunch more 'YeeHah!!" than drivin' to church.

The real issue to me wasn't so much that the car seemed slower, it was more one of control (or lack of), that the car wasn't doing the things I told it to do and did some things I never told it to do. Travelling at 100+ feet/sec., the last thing you want to contend with is the unexpected, especially from $70k+ sports cars.

This may not have the same effect on younger generations who have grown in an environment where trust in the machines is more normal and lifelong than in my generation.

But the point of the event was to introduce people to the new Porsche lineup with the objective to get the people to go out and buy new Porsches. When I came away, I was unimpressed and truly wouldn't have gone out and bought any of them with the possible exception of the Pananmera (except it's too expensive). Not because of it's performance (there's something wrong with a Land Yacht handling like a missile), but more for it's refinement, appointments and build quality.

Cheers!

I have never driven a PDK, so I am probably not in the best position to comment. I have driven a 996 turbo with tip however, and it was, in my opinion, not a sports car experience in the least. For a start, due to the massive torque of the turbo, the tip always starts in 2nd gear. If you give it enough gas it then drops back to first, but being in 2nd obviously wastes valuable time, and is just plain annoying. Not to mention the whole changing at inappropriate times etc...

The PDK certainly sounds very appealing in theory. The fast shift times are impossible to match even by an experienced driver. It is most likely the perfect thing for traffic light drags and highway racing. On a track however, it could well be a different story.

I'll keep my manual box for now, and when the guy in the car next to me flies past with his PDK he might smile for a second or two because his car is faster. I can promise you that I will be smiling the whole way, with every perfect shift and heel-toe down-changing and balancing the clutch just right to get the perfect launch.

Ultimately, I own sports cars for the thrill of driving. Take out the shifts, then all I do is accelerate, brake and steer. Perhaps in years to come some technology will be available that reads the corner and steers the perfect racing line to the 1/32". Give it a few more years and cars will accelerate and brake all by themselves too. No doubt cars will be much faster, but where does that leave driving enthusiasts, on a Disney ride??

Good points. But, FYI, the TipS is programmed to start in 2nd, even in the 2.5 Boxster. This is mostly to increase range (MPG). You can manually shift into 1st at launch, or mash the wow pedal and the car will downshift.

Cheers!

Just wanted to drop in my $.02 on the 986 vs 987 debate.. The 986S is my first Porsche. When I was looking at Boxsters, I was hoping to somehow be able to swing a 987 as I thought it was far better looking. After owning the 986S for some time I've come to truly appreciate the shape and styling. Looking at it from different angles I constantly find new things about the design that I hadn't previously noticed.

I thought the 986 didn't have any presence next to a 996 but I was completely wrong, it has presence - just in it's unique, unassuming way.

After owning thirty or so vehicles, all I have to say is "Thank you, Porsche." I now understand why people own Porsche after Porsche.

It's strange because my wife's Audi A4 S-line has a Tiptronic also, but it always starts off in 1st gear (I can see it on the dash display), even in regular driving mode. To save gas, in D mode, it just upshifts faster than in Sport mode, but it starts off in 1st. Wonder why the Porsche tip or pdk starts in 2nd.

The only thing the Porsche and Audi Tiptronics have in common is the name. Starting in 1st or 2nd is a software programming difference and a manufacturer's preference. GM is very good a getting vastly different behaviors out of the same transmission in different cars. They all suck, but to different degrees :)

That's why I thought it strange that Porsche, the more performance oriented car, would have their Tip programmed to start in 2nd.

You could drive a Viper in just 3rd gear in just about any situation, 0 mph to whatever.

Maybe Porsche felt it's not detrimental to driving dynamics to start in 2nd in all but the most heavy footed situations. Turbocharged engines like the Audi 2.0 are usually pretty weak at lower RPM, so maybe Audi felt driveability wasn't acceptable from a start in 2nd gear. I know I'd hate it in my WRX.

I found this interesting from cars.com. The 986 has more occupant space than the 987. Maybe they're wrong?

Specifications- 2010 Porsche Boxster S - 2000 Porsche Boxster S
Exterior length - 172.1 " - 171.0 "
Exterior body width - 70.9 " - 70.1 "
Exterior height - 50.9 " - 50.8 "
Engine - 3.4L H-6 - 3.2L H-6
Horsepower - 310 @ 6,400 rpm - 250 @ 6,250 rpm
Torque - 266 @ 4,400 rpm - 225 @ 4,500 rpm
Fuel economy - city - 19 mpg - 18 mpg
Fuel economy - highway - 26 mpg - 26 mpg
Bore-and-Stroke - 3.80 / 3.10 " - 3.66 / 3.07 "
Curb weight Standard: - 2,987 lbs. - 2,855 lbs.
Wheelbase - 95.1 " - 95.2 "
Front track - 58.5 " - 57.3 "
Rear track - 60.2 " - 59.4 "
Turning radius - 18.2 ' - 17.9 '
Drag coefficient - .30 - .32
Front legroom - 41.6 " - 44.0 "
Front headroom - 38.1 " - 38.4 "
Front hiproom - 53.4 " - 53.4 "
Front shoulder room - 51.7 " - 51.7 "
Luggage volume - 9.9 cu.ft. - 9.1 cu.ft.
Fuel tank - 16.9 gal. - 17.0 gal.