2013 Boxster spy shots

[blue2000s]

We've gone over the styling elements when we got a look at a completely undisguised car last month. But I'll say it again, this car has lost the curves and simplicity of form that made the 986 (and the original concept even moreso) so attractive. The car is evolving by adding tack-on features that designers often do to "freshen" a design. The continued reduction of the rear hips and that fixed lip between the tail lights are the most dissapointing parts for me.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/future-cars/spy-photos/unmasked-2013-porsche-boxster-s/gallery

[pothole]

The problem with the Alfa isn't the build quality. It's the ****************ty FWD shopping car architecture.

ETA: I meant most Alfa's, not the 4C. The problem with the 4C is the ****************ty four-pot turbo engine.

[Overdrive]

If only it were easy to add lightness to Porsches these days without losing driveability. I do have to say though, even Lotus is screwing that mantra up these days in some aspects (virtually every Elise and its derivatives being an exception). I'd much rather see a lot of these companies that built their names and the prestige of some of their models go back to the roots that got them there. I understand that cars will gain weight in the name of more safety, but my potential double-duty DD/Track Day car should not come packed to the gills with feel-good tech and anti-crash nannies. Airbags are one thing, but if the car was built with too much power and/or not enough handling prowess that I can't efficiently handle the car without a half dozen sensors and computers controlling it and trying to bend physics (ABS is an exception here IMO), then to me the auto maker is doing it wrong and needs to fix it. If I want traction control I'll apply less right foot as needed, thanks. It's getting to the point where one doesn't need significant defensive driving skills, reflexes, and knowledge of recovery tactics to save yourself from slamming into a guardrail or unintentionally getting sideways. Instead you get the car doing more work than it's ever had to just so you can distract yourself with all the extra crap that's in the car.

If it's supposed to be a sports car, and it doesn't help to achieve or expand that sportiness...just leave it out please.

When a Corvette is shorter and lighter than a 911, that is indeed a problem...she may be pretty, but things like that kind of take away the appeal of what you expected to come in the total package: sleek, light, agile, fast, and fun...for a price, of course.

[stephen wilson]

I'm afraid cars will never go back in that direction. Features that aren't mandated (I believe stability control is now) will be added due to customer demand. Let's face it, people who want a stripped-down car are a miniscule part of potential new car buyers.

You guys should look into classic or vintage cars. (I have a '65 Mustang, which some day will be driveable!) Though if you want a Porsche, that could get expensive! You can "resto-mod" a vintage car to have modern performance, adding only what extras that YOU want.

[Overdrive]

Originally Posted by stephen wilson

Let's face it, people who want a stripped-down car are a miniscule part of potential new car buyers.

This is true, SW, but that's how companies like Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Lotus, and McLaren got started, and where they found their initial market. People who wanted a car that performed athletically, not necessarily intelligently, on the road. The intelligence came from the brain behind the wheel.

Again, federally mandated stuff is one thing, and it just has to be accepted. But I feel if the companies are looking to expand their market to everyone else who isn't looking for a sports car (what a Porsche almost always was) and is instead going to buy ridiculous things like Cayennes, Rapides, Panameras and Cignets, all with all sorts of glitz and technological bleeding edge crap, then they should still allow for a completely basic, no-frills version of their cars like 911s, Boxsters, Caymans, etc for the people who want their status symbol to also perform like a sports car. They'd be lighter, have less crap to break in them (switches, backlights, electronics, etc), and it should cost less, though the companies would probably figure out a way of charging you more for providing you with less of an office on wheels and more of a CAR, sadly.

To add to that, I wonder how much energy one could save (in terms of fuel burning) for not having to run a bunch of computers, sensors, and additional lights on the car other than the dash lights and exterior lights? Hello, fuel efficiency bump.

[blue2000s]

Originally Posted by stephen wilson

I'm afraid cars will never go back in that direction. Features that aren't mandated (I believe stability control is now) will be added due to customer demand. Let's face it, people who want a stripped-down car are a miniscule part of potential new car buyers.

You guys should look into classic or vintage cars. (I have a '65 Mustang, which some day will be driveable!) Though if you want a Porsche, that could get expensive! You can "resto-mod" a vintage car to have modern performance, adding only what extras that YOU want.

Try driving an old sports car like my '82 RX7, or a 70's Z or a 70's 911. Pure mechanical bliss.

[Zeniablers]

charlie chan movies online, . charlton heston treasure island.
cheapest airfare to toronto canada. childrens play toys, .
choose a wedding dress, . cheap postcard printers.
cheap hd video cameras. cheap pro camera, .
christian screenplay contests, . children s classic books list.

[Zeniablers]

christmas mini books, . charcoal t shirts.
cheap van for sale. cheapest food stores, .
cheapest price for nikon d90, . cheapest xbox 360 slim.
choosing art for your home. cheapest cosplay, .
cheap women s clothes, . christmas songs by artists.

[Zeniablers]

c game programming book, . cheap days out london.
classical music shop. christmas shopping pictures, .
cheap book websites, . charlie brown tv specials list.
cheapest london. cheap trendy clothing stores, .
cheap broadway tickets nyc, . chinese weapons.

[blue2000s]

Originally Posted by Overdrive

If only it were easy to add lightness to Porsches these days without losing driveability. I do have to say though, even Lotus is screwing that mantra up these days in some aspects (virtually every Elise and its derivatives being an exception). I'd much rather see a lot of these companies that built their names and the prestige of some of their models go back to the roots that got them there. I understand that cars will gain weight in the name of more safety, but my potential double-duty DD/Track Day car should not come packed to the gills with feel-good tech and anti-crash nannies. Airbags are one thing, but if the car was built with too much power and/or not enough handling prowess that I can't efficiently handle the car without a half dozen sensors and computers controlling it and trying to bend physics (ABS is an exception here IMO), then to me the auto maker is doing it wrong and needs to fix it. If I want traction control I'll apply less right foot as needed, thanks. It's getting to the point where one doesn't need significant defensive driving skills, reflexes, and knowledge of recovery tactics to save yourself from slamming into a guardrail or unintentionally getting sideways. Instead you get the car doing more work than it's ever had to just so you can distract yourself with all the extra crap that's in the car.

If it's supposed to be a sports car, and it doesn't help to achieve or expand that sportiness...just leave it out please.

When a Corvette is shorter and lighter than a 911, that is indeed a problem...she may be pretty, but things like that kind of take away the appeal of what you expected to come in the total package: sleek, light, agile, fast, and fun...for a price, of course.

Dude, reading this, it's like finding my soul mate.

[Overdrive]

Hey, we may not agree on everything, blue, but I can at least agree with you on things like this. If there were a sports car bible, I'd expect everything I mentioned, maybe excepting sleekness as an absolute requirement, to be in there.

Going back to the purpose of the thread, I can't say the Boxster looks terrible. It doesn't, but it doesn't evoke that same tug on the heartstrings that Porsches can get from people the older you get with model years. Knowing that it's likely bigger, most assuredly heavier, and likely more posh while also likely being less engaging, I feel I'd be disappointed with it overall even if it outperforms my 97 on paper.

[ekam]

Originally Posted by Overdrive

It doesn't, but it doesn't evoke that same tug on the heartstrings that Porsches can get from people the older you get with model years.

Pretty much for any new generation of 911 you can say the exact same thing. But people still buy them and that's how the company survives.

[Paul]

I think I can still see a clam shell in those pictures....

[Overdrive]

y'know...Paul may be right...



It definitely looks like there's a seam on the right, in line with the upper brake light. I didn't notice that before, but it also looks like it could just be reflection because I can't trace it all the way out to the quarter panel...



Then I look at this one and it seems non-existent again...

[Paul]

You can see a clam shell seam in this picture:

[jacabean]

looks like a whole new mechanism for the roof. i don't see a clam shell at all.

[Overdrive]

Paul I think what you're considering the clamshell seam is actually the trunk seam. If you look at the pictures I attached, the trunk lid looks like it runs right up to the point where the top meets the metal. And jacabean's picture seems to show that there is nothing really covering the top. I think they did make it like many other convertibles and simply have it fold onto itself and sit behind you without any coverage. I don't see that as a bad thing, it's less hardware to break and wear.

[ekam]

Umm I didn't realize clamshell = UFO.

[stephen wilson]

I agree, getting rid of the clam-shell and mechanism is a good thing. It may be part of what allowed them to keep the weight the same with a larger car.

[pothole]

Originally Posted by stephen wilson

I agree, getting rid of the clam-shell and mechanism is a good thing. It may be part of what allowed them to keep the weight the same with a larger car.

I doubt it. That's mostly down to the move to aluminium construction.

Don't think the clam adds much weight. The rear deck is now seamless, but it's no smaller than before, and there will no doubt be some me mechanism and complex hinges and servos to allow the rear to lift at one end automatically for the roof and open at the other for luggage access.