'98 986 vs 2011 987
 

In the November issue of 911 & Porsche World (a UK publication), there was an article comparing a 2011 987 base model and a 1998 986 base model. They compared the power to weight ratio, and in a very non scientific drag race, showed that the 986 kept up very well (someone yelled “go” and they raced)

The 986 was recently purchased by one of their staff for 5000 pounds ($8000 US), while the 2011 987 cost 35,000 pounds ($56,000 US). They showed that 13 years and $48,000 separated these two cars, yet the performance factor was not near as wide.

Some statements from the article (paraphrasing)

The 2011 987 is the most enjoyable car Porsche current makes. Its not the most capable, fastest, best looking or impressive, but with the roof down, and sliding around a roundabout with the optional LSD, there was nothing more enjoyable in the Porsche stable.

The 986 they got for $8000 is “the most spectacular sports car bargain at the moment”

I agree, I just bought a 2002 base Boxster W/ 68k miles on it last month for only $9,000 it is with out a doubt the best sports car bargain out there, hands down.:)

I like that story.

The story is accurate. The newer Box is superior in electronics and some amenities (including hp) but it is also heavier. That's why I always suggest folks buy the newest Boxster they can afford with the least miles. Afford means (for a toy or second car) one you can pay cash for and afford to keep up properly. If that's a 1998 or a 2008 then that's the way it is. Which ever one is purchased, the owner will have a blast.

I have been told that Boxsters hate extra weight! Thats why I say no to fat chicks. They're never impressed by my car!!! Haha jk jk...

Is there any little places that don't take away for the apperance of the car but take away a significant amount of weight?

Around the waist...... and alittle under the chin :D

it's not a bargain if you have to dump a bunch of caysh into the car.

That Boxster may be a bargain cost of entry but cost of ownership is another matter entirely.

Spending $8-10K in short order on a 13 year old Porsche is nothing unheard of (I just spent that much on 10 year old Porsche).
Then you run the risk of having the car totaled and getting paid only fair market value which means you just took a bath.

There is NO such thing as bargain Porsche. Miata is a bargain sports car. Boxster is not unless you got it for free in a raffle

Yes most car reviews also failed to mention that tire technology have advanced quite a bit. Whatever that they used back in the day are dated and replaced by stickier modern tires.

If you arm a low mileage 993 Turbo with new modern tires I'm sure it can still outrun most new turbos.

I disagree. The used car market doesn't care if a car is well maintained or not. So my car, which has no deferred maintenance, in fact has preventative maintenance like the water pump and IMS upgrade, is barely worth more than a car that looks decent and hasn't had an oil change in 2 years. And there are more Boxsters out there to choose from than any other Porsche ever before (save for maybe the 996). If you find a well taken care of car, the costs are in regular upkeep. Not cheap, but vastly less expensive than a new 987 with which it's being compared.

There is no way I'd buy another M96 motor Boxster, especially used and not knowing the way it was driven. The IMS is only one of several problems with this engine. As for the weight 986 vs 987, we are not talking huge numbers, in fact it's like having a passenger with you if anything. I'm sure the platform has had handling improvements as well. Hopefully, god willing I will be able to one day tell you if the new platform is righteous. I'm leaning toward a certified S, in 09 that's good for 295, I'll take my chances on whether it has better pace than my 98, especially hooked up to a 7 speed. It's funny how these issues recycle, when I got my Boxster the 944 club took it as an affront. They tried to assure me the 944 would feel faster than a base Boxster, you're making a mistake...I loved my 98, loved it, 2.5 was plenty of fun.

All you have to do is look at power to weight to answer that question.

993: 3307lb/400hp=8.27 lb/hp
997: 3487lb/480hp=7.26 lb/hp

The 997 carries around less weight per unit power. It's going to be faster if tires are equal.

:eek:

:troll: HOW DARE YOU!!!! lol

my point is that using the term "bargain" is a misnomer here. major maintenance items that should be replaced on a 13 year old car sooner or later, as everyone knows, do not scale down relative to the "bargain purchase price". you aren't going to escape those costs with any decade old sports car and with this particular car they are significantly higher than most due to expensive parts and specialized labor. And this doesn't take into account the unexpected repairs which are also on the pricey side and further diminish the idea that this is 'bargain' proposition. The Boxster like just about any Porsche is a classic 'pay me now or pay me later but you will pay". Those magazine editors would be doing their readers a great service by pointing this out to a first time Porsche buyer whose attention they grabbed by throwing out the term 'bargain'.

The word bargain has to be put into the correct context. I believe the point of the article is that an older 986 is a bargain for what you get compared to a new 987 considering the relatively small performance difference and other subjective measures. In this view, they are absolutely right, it's a screaming bargain.

The Boxster was never a bargain compared to other convertibles on the market and that remains true as a used car compared to other used cars. No one would argue otherwise. But if you compare what you get between a used Boxster and a new Miata, for example, the story becomes more interesting.

What difference would it make if you knew how it was driven, really?

I'm not so sure that a 98 Boxster is a bargain as much as that you are really paying up for the performance of a new 987. I suppose if you are arguing how you will least pay up for brand and status, things that don't necessarily translate into faster lap times, then I would agree that it's a good value in that strict sense.
I guess it would also be limited to someone who was intent on only exploring Porsche as an option.
I'd be curious to see a performance comparison, in lap times, of a turbo charged second hand miata with the savings over the 2.5 Boxster spent on Miata supsension, braking, intake/exhaust upgrades.

I have to disagree. You don't compare the Boxster to "other convertibles". First of all it's a Porsche - not a Honda or Mazda or other convertible. It is an exotic, mid-engined, performance roadster. There are very few in the world and it is - as agreed by every auto reviewer or auto expert - the best handling performance car available. So given all of its capabilities and relative low purchase price - it is not only a phenomenal car but an excellent value as well.

None to me. I want to know how it is when I inspect it and the maintenance history. The first is on me. The latter is verifiable through the maintaining dealership.

Blue,


As someone who used to teach shifting at the dealership, I know everyone's idea of a smooth shift is different. My brother knicknamed my sister's style "the sanding wheel" see what I mean? I'm not as mad at Porsche as I once was because I think the PO had some hand in the engine failure by driving it hard. As for mile high, the dealer isn't in the car 24/7 and a simple discon of the battery wipes out the bad driver report. Another good example, I would not buy anything I knew was tracked.

i am not sure what you guys are trying to prove. my work pick up truck cost me more in repairs than my boxster. any old used vehicle is a gamble , service history or not. anybody buying a 10 year old porsche should know what they are getting into. it's not hard to figure out just by looking , if a car is half decent or not. i would take a 987 mk2 PDK in a heartbeat over any 986.

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.