Help! Stop me from buying a 911!

[Lil bastard]

It's all about sensory input!

Drive a '66 Lotus Elan at 9/10ths, and you'll be doing all of 92MPH, but starting to see the bright light, hoping your children can cope as orphans, wishing you hadn't peeked under Lovie Broadbottom's dress back in the 5th Grade.

Drive a Boxster at 9/10ths, you'll be doing 135MPH, have time to text your friends, swap CD's, and wonder what you're gonna have for dinner.

As mentioned, it has unfortunately become all about the numbers.

Decades of Video games, slasher movies, bungie jumping and Hustler have dulled our senses. Can you even imagine that the original Frankenstein movie scared people for days back in the '30's?

Classic sports cars had lots of sensory input, but little actual speed.

Modern cars have lots of actual speed... but little sensory input - you have to settle for the number reached by the needle on the Speedo, then go brag to your friends at the Bar that you reached XXX MPH (albeit that you are actually safer than driving half that speed in your father's old Buick).

The classic 911's are simply more visceral, produce waaay more endorphins, even if the Speedo doesn't match a current Boxster.

Drive both, and see which is the more satisfying ride. I sold my wonderful Boxster for a Classic, fearful that I was trading something away. Not so... it was an awakening.

They're older, so may require more maintenance in the beginning to sort it all out. But once done, these are robust cars - the cars Porsche built it's reputation on. They're hand produced, unlike the current assembly-line products ruled over by accountants - the folks who brought you RMS and IMS.

Cheers!

[thstone]

80's 911
Pros - Classic styling. Fun to drive at less than the limit. Super cool.
Cons - 25 yr old car with 25 yr old features. Expensive engine repairs. Hard to find parts. Difficult (dangerous?) to drive at the limit unless you know what you're doing.


2000's Boxster
Pros: Nice styling. Excellent handling. Easy to drive at the limit. Affordable repairs.
Cons: Not a 911. Not a 911. Not a 911. Not a 911.

[jmatta]

First of all, a 1984 911 is not an SC, but a Carrera debuting Motronic DME, which is a modern engine management system. Prior 911s utilized CIS injection, which was fine when working properly, but a bit of a pain otherwise. I've owned many examples of the eighties Carreras and never experienced any major repairs. Cost of parts is certainly not overly expensive due to the massive aftermarket following of these great autos. As I mentioned previously, check for worn valve guides, as this is one area of trouble that could show on these engines. I have many friends that have rebuilt their own engines, as they are not overly complicated nor terribly expensive to repair, compared to the M96 (bang and done). These cars are rock-solid and great fun to drive, but not really a daily driver. AC doesn't work great from the factory, but there are numerous aftermarket solutions that don't alter the physical appearance of the car. If you want a modern ride with your latte and iPod, maybe a Carrera isn't for you; however, if you are longing for a true air cooled experience, this is the ticket. Don't bother with the 996 models, Boxsters are more fun to drive.

[nola911]

The 911 is a great car to add to a collection but not to replace a modern porsche. 25 years is a LONG time in the automotive world.

I respect the "raw" driving experience of the older 911s, but couldn't bear being beat around the track by a kid in a new Hyundai. A good compromise if you want the rawness of an old sports car and the performance of a modern sportscar is the lotus elise.

If it is the porsche experience that you want- you first need to decide which experience that is - aircooled classic or watrercooled modern.

[nola911]

By the way- 20 thousand is 996 territory, which is a whole new debate.

[BMoney5327]

996 Carrera too 1999-2001...Just sayingg

[stephen wilson]

Ignoring which car is "better", You're talking about a 27 year old car with bad paint, it's not likely to be cheap to own. You may end up with a restoration project. IMO a Boxter that is about 20 years newer would be a better choice.

[blue2000s]

Looking at it as a car age issue is misleading. My 30 year old Mazda is more reliable than my Boxster in general. It's electrical system is dead reliable and simple, it's never had any problems with suspension bushings, coolant tanks, or engine ventilation systems. It doesn't even have a MAF sensor. 14" tires are half the price of 17"s. Cars were better built 30 years ago and last much longer if well cared for. And sports cars were sports cars. They were loud, rough, and a blast to drive at any speed. They weren't easy to drive.

[ekam]

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

It's all about sensory input!

Drive a '66 Lotus Elan at 9/10ths, and you'll be doing all of 92MPH, but starting to see the bright light, hoping your children can cope as orphans, wishing you hadn't peeked under Lovie Broadbottom's dress back in the 5th Grade.

Drive a Boxster at 9/10ths, you'll be doing 135MPH, have time to text your friends, swap CD's, and wonder what you're gonna have for dinner.

As mentioned, it has unfortunately become all about the numbers.

Decades of Video games, slasher movies, bungie jumping and Hustler have dulled our senses. Can you even imagine that the original Frankenstein movie scared people for days back in the '30's?

Classic sports cars had lots of sensory input, but little actual speed.

Modern cars have lots of actual speed... but little sensory input - you have to settle for the number reached by the needle on the Speedo, then go brag to your friends at the Bar that you reached XXX MPH (albeit that you are actually safer than driving half that speed in your father's old Buick).

The classic 911's are simply more visceral, produce waaay more endorphins, even if the Speedo doesn't match a current Boxster.

Drive both, and see which is the more satisfying ride. I sold my wonderful Boxster for a Classic, fearful that I was trading something away. Not so... it was an awakening.

They're older, so may require more maintenance in the beginning to sort it all out. But once done, these are robust cars - the cars Porsche built it's reputation on. They're hand produced, unlike the current assembly-line products ruled over by accountants - the folks who brought you RMS and IMS.

Cheers!

Same thing can be said for women isn't it? Nothing gets more attention from me than well maintained 40 year-olds... most 20-something puts me to sleep.

[surf40]

Thanks for all the input. I think the Boxster will better meet my needs/desire to own and drive a Porsche. I’m still a while from actually making the purchase, but have been looking at all the adds every week to get a good take on what is out there and what is available. I’m looking at spending $15-20K on a 2001-2004 S model.

[d18mike]

I've owned a newer 911 and a Boxster. IMHO, the Boxster handles better and 911 has more muscle. Both are great cars. You simply can't go wrong.

The car you showed at the beginning of a thread is a badged as 911 -- but it's more than that now: it's a vintage car. And in that sense it's a different beast entirely. It's tremendous in its own way but also likely not a daily driver.

One thing you might want to consider is the flexibility of having back seats (911) if you have small children. There were a few years when the Boxster was my main car and I found that lack of flexibility pretty restrictive. That 5-7 year period when you can pop the kids in the back seat certainly has value for our family.