Boxster vs S2000

[thstone]

"... I believe the Honda would be more reliable, cheaper Total Ownership cost for a much newer one (2006-9), but still a blast to drive."

You are correct on all counts.

However, here are the Top 5 reasons why I chose a Boxster over an S2K:

1. Boxster had better handling in my opinion. S2K wants to slide everywhere.
2. Boxster had much nicer and larger interior. S2K wasn't much bigger than my Miata.
3. Boxster had more low RPM torque. S2K needs to rev high to move.
4. I can move up the Porsche line to a 996/997 as I need/want more performance. No sports car growth path with Honda.
5. Cost wasn't a big concern (purchase or maintenance)

[Overdrive]

Sorry that my post isn't a contribution, as I don't own and have never planted my butt in an S2000 (yet)...

I just wanted to say that I've actually enjoyed reading this so far, and I'm glad the members on here have enough decency to not turn it into a flame session against one of Honda's better accomplishments of late. Overall very good, objective comments from membes who have owned or otherwise experienced both cars.

[blue2000s]

Originally Posted by thstone

"... I believe the Honda would be more reliable, cheaper Total Ownership cost for a much newer one (2006-9), but still a blast to drive."

You are correct on all counts.

However, here are the Top 5 reasons why I chose a Boxster over an S2K:

1. Boxster had better handling in my opinion. S2K wants to slide everywhere.
2. Boxster had much nicer and larger interior. S2K wasn't much bigger than my Miata.
3. Boxster had more low RPM torque. S2K needs to rev high to move.
4. I can move up the Porsche line to a 996/997 as I need/want more performance. No sports car growth path with Honda.
5. Cost wasn't a big concern (purchase or maintenance)

Why do you need to own a Boxster before you buy a 911? But following your thinking, Honda made the NSX up to 2005. Although I don't think you have to have owned an S2000 to buy one.

[thstone]

Originally Posted by blue2000s

Why do you need to own a Boxster before you buy a 911? But following your thinking, Honda made the NSX up to 2005. Although I don't think you have to have owned an S2000 to buy one.

Sorry, I just meant to say that part of my thinking was that a used (cheap) Boxster was an easy way to try the Porsche owners experience and if I liked it, then I could easily upgrade to a higher performance (and more expensive) 996/997 later.

Mainly I was trying to avoid sinking a big investment into something that I'd sell in 6 months for a big loss if I didn't like living with it.

But there is no sensible reason why someone couldn't go straight into a 996/997. Many people do that all of the time.

[JAAY]

Your statement is wrong.

You would be down grading to a carrera from a Boxster. Boxsters ger a bad wrap being cheaper and slower. The difference in the two are a motor and extra seats. Go buy a any other super car. Where's the motor? In the middle. The Boxster is way better balanced than any 911. If you want to upgrade get a cayman s. This is just my opinion. I have driven everything that has been talked about so far and the mid engine pcar is the way to go. Heck. Why didn't they make the cgt rear engine? .
My .02

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by thstone

Sorry, I just meant to say that part of my thinking was that a used (cheap) Boxster was an easy way to try the Porsche owners experience and if I liked it, then I could easily upgrade to a higher performance (and more expensive) 996/997 later.

Mainly I was trying to avoid sinking a big investment into something that I'd sell in 6 months for a big loss if I didn't like living with it.

But there is no sensible reason why someone couldn't go straight into a 996/997. Many people do that all of the time.

It is no cheaper to own a Boxster than it is a non-Turbo, non-GT Carrera. Perhaps slightly less but not enough to back up your notion that Boxster is a more economical way of testing the Porsche waters. Particluarly with the Boxster S since it has nearly the same transmission, suspesion and cockpit instruments, 18 wheels, staggered tires, basically everything from the doors forward are the same.

Also, if by higher performance you mean lesser handling, then I would agree. That's somewhat of an important element in a Porsche.

The other thing about the Carrera is that it's in a unique (and not in a good way) category of sports car. One that you have to learn how to drive even in you already know how to drive a high performance sports car -- for no measureable lap time advantage. In other words you could climb into a Boxster and set a fast lap right out of the box because of its neutral balance. If you climbed into the Carrera you'd have to learn how to manage the pendulus cornering of a rear engine car and modify your line accordingly. Some think this is "rewarding" but that's not demonstrated as a lap time advantage over a similarly powered mid engine car. Put it this way, If both Boxster and Carrera had identical engines this pendulus cornering of the Carrera would still not produce a faster lap time. I suppose this is good for a driver who is prone to making mistakes since it gives him some advance warning. But why plan on making a mistake in the first place?

Another interesting thing is that I once started two polls in another web forum along the lines "If Porsche offered a mid engine Carrea today would you buy it?".
One poll ran in the GT3/GT2 forum and the other in the Standard/S/C4 forum. Obviously the GT3/GT2 forum is more likely to have drivers who venture onto the track or regulary autocross. 75% of these guys said they WOULD definitely buy the mid engine Carrera. In the standard Carrera/S/C4 forum 75% said they WOULD NOT and cited all sorts of comments about how rear engine was superior.