987 2.7 vs 986 2.5 review

[paintboy]

I did not realize the Boxster was a muscle car....better to be able to keep right foot buried in the corners. Straight line speed is not what these cars are about. If you don't do twisties, you are waisting a great car.

[southernstar]

I'm in complete agreement Paintboy - twas just responding to a request for the 0-60 times (and the suggestion that the gearing in the 2.7 was intended to improve fuel mileage at the expense of performance).

I NEVER do burnout starts or stoplight drag races. To me they are immature and not in keeping with the car and its intended use (and if all you care about is acceleration, there are a ton of other cars that will be better at that for less money). In addition, of course, it puts unnecessary strain on the drivetrain, CV joints, axles, clutch and rear tires. To give you an idea of where I am coming from, in the past I purchased two Fiat X-19's - completely gutless cars, but ones that handled better than anything else even remotely close in price at the time.

In addition, it seems that I am one of the few here who finds the power in the base Boxster to be more than enough to get me into trouble. Then again, I don't track my car and have no desire to do anything more than autocross. Having driven virtually every model of the 986, from 1997's through 2004, both base and S models, I reiterate that I think that all of them are incredible driver's cars. In terms of base models, I prefer the 2.7 over the 2.5 largely because of the increased flexibility due to the improved torque curve and due to the need to shift less in order to optimize performance. This improved flexibility (and I suspect the closer gear ratios above third gear) mean that the car is much easier to drive quickly as one need not be as concerned about keeping the car in as narrow an RPM range as the 2.5 in order to optimize performance. The actual difference in 0-60 and quarter mile times really doesn't matter one iota to me.

I guess what I need to do is find some of the contemporary articles that came out on the introduction of the 2.7 which speak to this improvement and, as to how the car actually feels quite a bit quicker than it is (and than the 2.5 it replaced). Certainly that has been my experience.

Brad

[southernstar]

I'll have to look for my old Porsche Excellence Magazines tonite, but in a quick check on the net I found the following in relation to the 2.7 versus the 2.5:

Porsche Boxster 986 / 987

"The displacement of 2687 cc was made by means of lengthening the stroke to the same 78 mm as the Boxster S. Therefore they share the same connecting rods. Bsides, two-stage variable intake manifolds are added to improve mid range torque. Electonic throttle is adopted."

"Instead of 204 BHP and 181 lb/ft, the enlarged engine pumps out 220 hp and 192 lb/ft. Not big numbers, but in reality the difference is more than that. From 4,000 RPM to 7,000 RPM, the increase of punch is more noticeable, as seen by the 0-100 mph of 15.5 seconds. That is far quicker than the old car's 18.0 sec. and not far behind Boxster S's 14.2 sec."

"The additional punch gives the driver more opportunity to enjoy the at-the-limit balance and communication of the wonderful chassis."

"The bottom line is, Porsche has cured the only weak link in the Boxster." And take note - they were not talking about fuel consumption!

Again, I am merely trying to point out that the 2.5 needed a lower final drive ratio and gearing than the 2.7 precisely because it had less overall torque and a torque curve that was less flat. As is mentioined above, because of the tuned runners in the 2.7, the difference is greater on the road than the peak torque numbers alone would suggest.

Tomorrow I will try to find excerpts from an article in Porsche Excellence which points to the significant improvements to the performance/driving experience in the 2.7 over the 2.5 as a result of both the changes to the engine AND the new gear ratios.

Brad

[pothole]

I would generally recommend one thinks for oneself and use experience rather than basing your opinions on magazine articles and marketing.

I would also point out that Excellence have not driven a 986 2.7 with the 2.5's ratios, so nobody knows exactly how it would feel. However, I have driven a 2.7 and I would like shorter ratios in first through third. The 2.5 box gives that, so I take the view it might be a nice upgrade. Can't know absolutely for sure, obviously.

I also guarantee you that fuel consumption and long distance cruising refinement were the main reasons they increased the ratios on the 2.7. What Porsche said about it in the marketing material is neither here nor there.

They made lots of decisions re engine design to save cost that ended up creating weak spots that lead to failure. But funnily enough, you only read about how the design was all about wonderful sporty driving or whatever in the marketing material. Don't take the marketing material literally, for goodness sake!

[986_inquiry]

Originally Posted by southernstar

I'll have to look for my old Porsche Excellence Magazines tonite, but in a quick check on the net I found the following in relation to the 2.7 versus the 2.5:

Porsche Boxster 986 / 987

"The displacement of 2687 cc was made by means of lengthening the stroke to the same 78 mm as the Boxster S. Therefore they share the same connecting rods. Bsides, two-stage variable intake manifolds are added to improve mid range torque. Electonic throttle is adopted."

"Instead of 204 BHP and 181 lb/ft, the enlarged engine pumps out 220 hp and 192 lb/ft. Not big numbers, but in reality the difference is more than that. From 4,000 RPM to 7,000 RPM, the increase of punch is more noticeable, as seen by the 0-100 mph of 15.5 seconds. That is far quicker than the old car's 18.0 sec. and not far behind Boxster S's 14.2 sec."

"The additional punch gives the driver more opportunity to enjoy the at-the-limit balance and communication of the wonderful chassis."

"The bottom line is, Porsche has cured the only weak link in the Boxster." And take note - they were not talking about fuel consumption!

Again, I am merely trying to point out that the 2.5 needed a lower final drive ratio and gearing than the 2.7 precisely because it had less overall torque and a torque curve that was less flat. As is mentioined above, because of the tuned runners in the 2.7, the difference is greater on the road than the peak torque numbers alone would suggest.

Tomorrow I will try to find excerpts from an article in Porsche Excellence which points to the significant improvements to the performance/driving experience in the 2.7 over the 2.5 as a result of both the changes to the engine AND the new gear ratios.

Brad

I will agree that 0-100mph is probably faster in a 2.7 because 3rd gear goes past 100mph while a 2.5 would need to shift into 4th to reach 100mph

the 2.5 has a 3.89 final drive ratio while the 2.7 has a 3.56.
Improving base Boxster gearing or 6 speed upgrade? - 986 Series (Boxster, Boxster S) - RennTech.org Forums

again, i know what the articles say, that the 2.7 is way better than the 2.5, but when I drive them the 2.5 feels like the better vehicle.