My take on all of this is that 986's are truly bargains even when the expensive maintenance and repairs are factored into owning a 10+ yr old car. You can do a LOT of repairs for $56,000.

As I understand it, and I've read similar articles that stated the same, the difference in the cars, off the track isn't as great as the $45k+ price difference.

It's not about track times to everyone, or even most people.

Boxster vs Boxster is the idea. What's changed in 15 years? It's a Porsche magazine, after all.

Grassroots Motorsports often does these kinds of comparisons. Usually it's an entertaining read.

I'd like to think I drive an exotic car. But they've made more of these than most Japanese sports car models ever sell. They're just not rare or exotic cars. The truth is that this car is absolutely cross shopped with Japanese sports cars as well as other Europeans, especially on the used car market.

The 2.5 used for the article was my '97 2.5 and I was at the wheel during the "unscientific" side by side rolling start acceleration comparison. The car had about 85k on it at the time.

To put it mildly, we (the author of the article who was helming the 2.9 press car at the time and I) were both very surprised. The drill was to roll at roughly 1.5k rpm in 2nd (obviously the two cars weren't rolling at exactly the same revs as have different gearing), drop the hammer up through 2nd and 3rd (can't remember if we went into 4th).

From 1.5k to 6k in 2nd, there was very little in it. By 6k, the two cars were still mostly side by side. The difference, of course, is that you then change up in the 2.5 (you could hold maybe another 500rpm) but the 2.9 has another 1 to 1.5k to give. IIRC, by the time we got to the top of third, the rear of the 2.9 was about half a car length ahead of the front of the 2.5 (might have been a full car length, I can't actually remember that clearly - but it definitely wasn't multiple car lengths). But overall, overriding memory was that it really not what either of us were expecting given the 2.5's reputation for being dog slow.

For the record, I bought the 2.5 in May last year. I've had a few niggles, but doing most of my own labour kept maintenance costs over that period to about £1,500, which includes wear items inc. disks and pads all round and tyres.

Actually, add another £200 to that - I had the rear screen replaced a few weeks ago!

Here's a couple of images I took on the day:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-W...52520today.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-u...ay%2525202.jpg

Of course, the other thing I learned on the day (but probably knew anyway) was that my 2.5 is pulling well. It's always felt healthy, which is one of the reasons why I bought. Subjectively, it felt as quick as the 2.7 I also looked at buying.

Thanks Pothole for chiming in with your thoughts. Isn’t the internet great! I post a few words about an article I read in a magazine, and a day later the guy who’s car was used in the article post about it. Very cool!

I think it could be argued that Brits take better care of their vehicles than North Americans... after all it's not cheap to own a car there.

And Americans generally trade in for a new car every 3-4 years.

For the money, you can't beat what you are getting when buying a used 986. I would always get a PPI on one prior to buying.

These funny sounding Brit guys were the reason I opted for the Porsche over the S2000. After watching Tiff Needel on Fifth Gear laughing so Britishly as he was spinning (without skipping a beat) the Boxster around the track I was sold. I'm not sure it was the better value as a low cost daily driver but there is only one way to know for sure. Even if I had opted for the S2000 I would have ended up behind the wheel of a Boxster sooner or later. Aside from the Honda the list of potentials (for me at least) was rather short, from the Celica-engined Lotus (talk about head-scratching value), Cooper S (not sure if the Works was yet available), or an STI. When you really think about it the list of practical sports cars that don't have the engine in the wrong place, is rather short.

p.s.
The Boxtser Spyder styling is starting to grow on me in a way that the standard 987/Cayman has not.

I agree and disagree, Hands-down, the Boxster is the best performing best priced mid engined convertible money can buy. I just bought a 2002 Base Boxster W/68K mils on it all 60K maintenance done,+

New clutch and Flywheel
New water pump
New RMS
New Plugs
New CV Shafts
New Belt
New Idle Control Valve
New Tires W/ Four Wheel Alignment.

Over $5,500.00 in work done on the car and all work done by a very well known Loc. Indy shop, and I have all the paperwork,I paid $ 9,000.00 for the car. That is one hell of a deal.

As for it being the best handling car performance car available? that title go;s to the Lotus Elise. I own a 2006 Lotus Elise and it out handles, out brakes and out accelerates the Boxster plus it has a bullet prof Engine and drive-train. but I paid allot more then $9000.00 for it.:)

Yeah, I'm not at all sure about that.

Also, the weather here is totally filthy for 9 months of the year. I would take a SoCal Boxster over a UK Boxster all day long. ;)

Indeed!!!!

And I think the 986 is a great deal!!

I can't say whether a blanket average statement like this is true or not. I can say that nobody, on any continent, takes better care of their cars than I.

IMO you can't beat a sorted 986, especially an S, bang for the buck. My partner has an S2000, bought it new, you have to rev the poor thing mercilessly to get it to do anything, not to mention it's tiny inside. JMHO.......besides, the 986's curves look much better than the 987's :matchup:

Speaking from experience, Asian girls make too much noise, don't go anywhere...

German girls however makes the right kind of noise and are made to go high speed...

I don't have any problem with revving an engine out in a sports car - that's the whole point, surely.

I also don't want a big cabin in a sports car. I want something that feels tight and snug.

Despite that, the Boxster is a lot more attractive as a driver's car than an S2000. And I agree the 986 is much better looking than the 987.

I had a choice of alot of cars when I was shopping around....
here are the cars I drove/looked at/considered

E46 M3
3.2 carrera
SC
996
E39 M5
C32 AMG
C55 AMG
CLK55 AMG

I had plenty of money set aside, I ended up with a 64k miles private owner '02 Boxster S because it just felt THAT good compared to all those other cars

That's because they still know what a sports car is in England. In the US, anything smaller than a Chevy Tahoe is too small, if it doesn't have the torque of a 6 liter v8 it's too slow and if it doesn't have cup holders, it can't be driven (exaggerating, but not much). The bigger is better attitude has ruined the market segment and killed off most of the best driver's cars.

That's an interesting list. Mostly GT status symbols.

Really? E46 M3, 3.2 Carrera, SC, 996 and E39 M5 are all proper driver's car, if you ask me - that's over half the list.

I read ya.

Sadly, however, true sports cars are dying over here, too. Even most car enthusiasts are happy with flappy paddle robot gearboxes and horrid turbo charged engines. Proper naturally aspirated driver's cars with good manual gearboxes are almost extinct if we're talking new cars for sale. BMW, for instance, has now pretty much given up on naturally aspirated engines. Once again, the new M5 in not available as a manual in the UK - and it's turbo.

Ironically, the US market is getting a manual M5, which is kind of the opposite of what you expect. I think there's still a niche of hard core customers in the US - and because the US is so huge, it's big enough to be worth selling into.