Think Inside the Box.
 

If you think the Boxster is small... check it out next to my 1966 Triumph Spitfire Mk2.

In every dimension you could entirely fit the Spit inside the Box with room to spare.

What else do you think fits inside the Box?

How about a HOT looking woman...I thinks' that is the best accessory you can have. :cheers:

Does anyone actually think the Boxster is small?

I think it's about a foot too long and about half a foot too tall. There's more bulk than I'd consider ideal. It could keep the same wheelbase and still loose a foot in length with all that front end overhang.

I know everyone has probably already noticed this..
 

A friend of mine has a '69 911T. He had it parked next to my 2kS in the driveway. I have a deck that overlooks the driveway. I was blown away at how much smaller the old 911 was.

All I have to say is I wish my garage looked like yours, fusionist...those are two beautiful machines, and if I had my choice I'd have to drop into the Triumph. I love that classic look the cars had back then.

I used to think the Boxster was small, but very quickly realized it's only small (in some ways) on the inside, and even then it's not so bad. I'm pretty sure it's pretty much close to the same length as my '03 Corolla sedan, and maybe only a bit wider (or its just got fuller hips :p ) a few inches lower to the ground, and certainly several inches lower at the roofline, which would also give it a wider-than-is appearance.

Anyways, I bet that Triumph is a blast. :D

My Boxster is very obviously longer than by brother's Jeep Cherokee!

986 is about the right size for me (6'2", 185lbs), meaning I'm not rubbing shoulders with the passenger. And the car is pretty comfy for day to day driving.

Met a guy on a PCA cruise 2 week ago, he was at least 6'8" and he had to get a 996 Cab because he can't fit in a Boxster and needs to recline the seat back on his 996 to fit.

Miata / S2000 are both too small for me.

http://photos.autoexpress.co.uk/imag...o_347491_7.jpg

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/...-history-1.jpg

You're talking about the size of the passenger cabin. That's not exactly the size of the car. I have alot more room in my Impreza and it's nearly the same footprint as my Boxster.

The Boxster would have the same accommodations if the trunks were smaller to make the car smaller.

I'm about the same size as you are, by the way, and I fit just about the same in a 2nd gen Miata as I do in my Boxster. I tried folding into a 3000GT once and it was very tight, and that's a huge car on the outside.

Well, Jeep does love their short wheelbases, heh.

Exactly, a good portion of the front of the car is that front trunk. They could have packaged the front radiators in a more compact way to shorten the front end. The rear could have been made smaller too. However, I love the trunks on the Boxster. They make the car very practical for a sports car, so personally I like the current design.

Kirk

Amen, Kirk. It's definitely handy having two trunks with a decent amount of space for a car like this.

Totally off-topic, I find it totally awesome that you have a 914. :cheers:

Hahaha... it's a fun little car, you just have to be patient (slow warm up, slow shifting, etc.). I've driven it to work all of this week. I often get comments on it as you just don't see many 914's on the road these days. The younger generation has no idea what it is. BTW, it has two trunks like the Boxster too and so is fairly practical.

Here's my baby:

the only time i think the boxster is "small" is when i happen to park it between family sedans...

http://s180500392.onlinehome.us/posts/smallboxster.jpg

Good point, Tony. Guess the car doesn't really need physical width when it's got wide rubber, though, unlike the fam sedan.

And Kirk, that thing is lovely, and as one from the older end of that younger generation, I do have a very high appreciation for something like a 914, and am horribly jealous, but in a good way. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

If ya ever wanna sell... ;)

Everything's getting bigger. Civics and Corollas now are bigger than Accords and Camrys were 15 years ago. Audis and BMWs do the same thing. It's a trend that sucks if you're a fan of light and responsive cars. Accords used to actually be fun to drive when I was a kid, toss-able even! Now they're closer to 2WD SUVs with trunks.

Amen, Brudder. Amen :cheers: :cheers:

The Jeep's wheelbase is 6 inches longer than the Boxster but the truck is 3 inches shorter.

I don't care if there's anything practical about my sports car. I want it to be designed for the enjoyment of driving and nothing else.

If there's no front & rear trunks, where do I exactly store my guns and ammo when the zombies come?

Everyone knows the best way to kill zombies is with a wooden stake to the head.

You'd only really want to do that when you run out of ammo.

I know what you mean, blue, and I agree when it comes to practicality and sporty, hence why I feel you kind of lose the 'sport' label once you start throwing in more than 2 seats, or worse, more than 2 doors. Still, those trunks do come in handy when you take a long ride out to a mall an hour away and end up doing a little shopping, and it's awfully nice to be able to drop the bag or two into that front trunk and drive back home (rear trunk had the car cover in it), rather than have almost no space to put anything in. They may make the car a bit longer than it could be, but I have to imagine it'd look a little wierd with a much shorter front end, kinda like a Toyota MR-S gone wrong. :rolleyes:

On the road to work today I saw a brand new Subaru Outback and I was thinking to myself what ever happened to that small wagon? The brand new one I saw today is more along the size of a SUV or minivan! My company also recently bought a new Taurus that I have to drive sometimes. That thing is just HUGE compared to the old ones. Personally I think it's a shame that everything is getting so big.

I just watched the documentary "Supersize Me" last week. I personally think that explains the main reason for this trend. :rolleyes: It's McDonald's fault!

Kirk

The concept car is much smaller than the 986 and it's the best looking version of the style.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2515/4127493469_647a8b46c9.jpg

http://img99.exs.cx/img99/1347/pconcept8zy.jpg

http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/3158/3301/7894150120_large.jpg

Part of it, and truly only a part, is the improvement in handling that such a setup provides. Wider stance, wheelbase pushed out to the limits, decent size tires, all of which helps to keep the car tracking straighter and overall have good road manners, a bit higher resistance to rolling over, as well as the ability to make quick maneuvers when needed without the car as likely to whip you back around looking the way you came. Average Joe Highway Commuter is not Mario Andretti, and sadly, rather than improve the driver or take away his/her phone and makeup, it's a bit easier to just try and have the car make up for it. Of course, there's only so much you can do to the car to help with that, and in the end, it's still up to the driver to be diligent. Anyways, my point being, some of that is done essentially because a lot (not all or most, just a lot) of people are poor drivers, and very easily distracted drivers, so now we need to make the cars make up for that a bit and stuff them with airbags in places the car doesn't even know it has places. Also, as I believe I mentioned in a different thread about 986 looks vs. 987, some design changes have been implemented of late because of federal regulations regarding crash standards, particularly in the designs of front ends and hoods to decrease the likelihood of killing the foolish person who decides to cross the street in front of a bus where passing drivers aren't as likely to see them. Getting back to the main issue of width and just overall girth, it is indeed sad to see something like the Outback wagon become an actual SUV rather than just a car-(wagon-)based SUV design that just sits a little higher and is slightly more rugged. We used to have one of those early 2000s Outbacks, loved it. Wouldn't get one now, though. I have to say, Porsche seems to have been able to avoid falling into that trap as much as some others, or they're at least being pretty subtle about it. Their cars that aren't the more dedicated street-going track day models still have a wide appearance without actually being too terribly wide in reality, the Cayenne being a possible exception, but even then.

Thanks for the compliments Overdrive!

That Triumph is a blast to drive! It's actually a track car built by a guy named Red LeGrand.. who made lightweight formula track car kits. So it makes about 130 horsepower, almost double what it should stock... and weighs 1500 pounds. It actually feels faster than the Boxster off the line to about 40mph or so. It's smog exempt here in California so it's wide open and loud!!! Great fun!!!

...I think I just drooled a bit there. :D How's it behave on the street as far as the ride? Does it have a serious dislike for bumps?

And maybe it's just the angling of the photo, but man that thing's short! Does the windshield top come to your waist or what? I'm no giant, but the roof of the Boxster's just below chest level for me.

I'm only 5'10" and I sit too high in my 986 with the seat in its lowest position. Must be pretty crap for the genuinely tall.

Regards the size of the Boxster, I think one major factor is the shared architecture with the 911. The front 2/3rds of the two models are basically shared, so a compromise has to be made. Porsche wanted to make the 911 in particular more capacious, so the front end has to look right attached to the larger passenger cell of the modern 911. Sticking the teeny tiny Boxster concept nose onto a largish passenger cell was never going to fly, sadly, and since the production Boxster shares the same front end it couldn't have it either.

Given those limitations, I think Porsche did a pretty good job with the 996 and 986. Not sure they went in the right direction with the 987 / 997, which are even bigger.

There's also crash regs and particularly pedestrian crash regs which is pushing car design towards bulbous front ends.

Anyway, by today's standards, the 986 definitely looks fairly petite.

All very true, pothole. I'm just over 5'7", and initially thought I'd have to have the seat up at its higest to be comfortable. I've actually got it pretty slammed down so that my knees don't hit the wheel while I'm doing my footwork...also why I wish the steering tilted along with or rather than just telescoping.