986 2.5L vs 996 3.4L Comparison

[pothole]

Sorry, old chap, I'm not confused. It's just you're not making any sense. You talk about a slow car being the most fun you've had and then you say speed is everything!

[Crono0001]

Originally Posted by pothole

Sorry, old chap, I'm not confused. It's just you're not making any sense. You talk about a slow car being the most fun you've had and then you say speed is everything!

Having sex with a porn star is the most fun I've ever had.

Having a smart and beautiful wife is everything.

[pothole]

Only thing is, going really fast is pretty one dimensional, like having sex with a porn star.

A car with great all round dynamics is a much richer experience, like a great wife...!

You might have it the wrong way round, with cars, anyway...

'Course, you can have both in, say, a GT3...

Not sure what the womanly equivalent would be, but I'd like a ride!

[southernstar]

Where is this taking us? And how is it relevant to the topic of comparing the 986 2.5 with a 996 3.4? Pothole, you have made clear that to you, the relative performance of your own car to others on the roadway is irrelevant and makes no difference to your enjoyment of your car. I accept that and, as I say, I even tend to share that view. Others have different opinions and find it frustrating when cheaper cars can power by (or away from) them due to the relative lack of power in the 986 2.5. To them, this undercuts their enjoyment in driving what is supposed to be a performance car. I understand and respect that view as well.

I am a sailor and, even though I gave up club racing years ago, I still enjoy the little impromptu races that occur when out on the water. In fact, I know very few sailors who do not, when on the same course/point of sail as another boat, try to 'beat' or outperform them. Who do not trim their sails for a bit more performance and perhaps try to play the puffs a little better than the other guy.

To you that is immature behavior that is beneath you. So what? Who appointed you the final arbitrer of what is appropriate, or what people may find enjoyable in the operation of their cars or boats?

Getting back to the topic at hand, I can virtually guarantee that if one took two drivers of comparable ability and with comparable experience in their cars (comparing apples and apples), that the one in the 996 3.4 would pull away from the one in the 986 2.5 on your classic mountain road. Ultimate cornering grip and braking on both cars would be very similar, but the 996 would be able to pull away from the 986 coming out of the corners, especially onto uphill straights. Does this make the 996 more enjoyable? To some, yes. To others, including myself, I would still prefer the better turn-in and the incredible sound that resonates off the surrounding mountain sides from the Boxster's side air intake.

Is either one of us wrong? No. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I suggest that enjoyment is in the 'minds-eye' of the beholder. I, for one, am thankful that we are not all the same. I prefer the body design of the 986 over the 996, finding the latter dull and uninspired. You prefer the clean, unadulterated lines of the 996. Neither of us is wrong.

The good news is that Porsche gives you the choice between two sports cars (with variations therein) that can address the wants and needs of different people. If my use of my sports car was going to include a regular highway commute, I can tell you that I would prefer the 996. It is quiter and more comfortable in that environment. If I had a small child, I would also prefer the 996 due to the rear jump seats. If I was more status oriented, I would probably also prefer the 996 as, to many people, any 911 is better than any Boxster. If I was more enthralled with acceleration, I would also no doubt prefer the 996 (or at least, would have bought a 986 Boxster S, rather than base 2.7, which is sufficient for my wants and purposes). Finally, yes looks come into the equation. As I have said, I prefer the look of the 986 Boxster - others prefer the 996.

Although the cars share sheet metal and interiors from the front seats forward and share engines but for variances in displacement and tune, they are cars that address different tastes and needs. Terrific sports car both and, as the French say, Vive la difference!

[pothole]

Originally Posted by southernstar

To you that is immature behavior that is beneath you. So what? Who appointed you the final arbitrer of what is appropriate, or what people may find enjoyable in the operation of their cars or boats?

Christ. Talk about putting things into people's mouths! Suddenly I'm calling people immature and telling them what they can and can't do with their boats.

How bizarre!

Also, it wasn't me who brought up mountain bloody roads and I never said a 996 wouldn't be faster. You've got a real knack of reading what you'd like or imagine I posted rather than what I actually did!

For the record, however, in a factual sense, how fast a ricer Civic is has nothing to do with the operation of a Boxster or 996!

Like I said, if your main concern is being faster in a straight line than other people, neither 986 or 996 (assuming we're talking C2) are good choices.

To be honest, I'd love to know where these situations are when straight line speed matters. When I've driven in the US, I've rarely seen anyone going over 80mph anywhere. Even in a 2.5, that's a very modest speed. You're barely at the top of third gear.

On a real road in real world driving, how fast you cover gorund depends mostly on how the extent to which you are first willing to risk you licence, and then life and limb - both yours and others. Even a 2.5 Boxster is up to 100, even 120mph fairly rapidly. I happen to drive a lot of very powerful cars in a work related capacity. A to B pace is really a non issue. It's down to the driver and how fast he is willing to go.

[Crono0001]

I would like to apologize for deviating from the subject for trying to prove my point that some of us find the performance of a vehicle more important than any amount of fun we could have. Apparently, some people are not able to grasp this concept.

Secondly, I would like to point out that I am a Boxster driver through and through, and would rather drop loads of cash making it faster than doing the sensible thing of getting a 911. I've gone through this in my own thread, and I can't give a good reason why a 3.6 Boxster sounds more enticing to me than a 3.6 911. But it's what I'm doing.

But I will be blunt in saying that I found your posts, pothole, somewhat aggressive in forcing my hand to defend my position. After our series of posts, I will simply conclude that you do not understand why some of us value performance over fun. For you, going fast is one dimensional, while fun is having a well-rounded vehicle. For others, it is the opposite, and that fun is second only to performance. It is for the same reason that some people like Corvettes; a vehicle which I abhor. I don't question their love for the car. I don't insinuate that it's them 'trying to show off power' or whatever is comparable to your negative comments, calling us "Bizarre" for wanting a faster car. You also referred to the civic with a derogatory term. Such remarks I found offensive. Not everyone is going to like the same thing, and if you can't understand that different people desire different things, then you're just too stubborn to be accepting. Again, I apologize for trying to defend my argument on someone else's thread, and I will refrain from threadjacking any further.

[southernstar]

Pothole, in post #20 you wrote: "Why does it matter whether some ricer (racist comment about Japanese cars, or...) next to you can accelerate faster? Never understood that kind of thinkiing..."

In post #24 you wrote: "Find this kind of psychology totally bizarre. It basically boils down to keeping-up-with-the-Joneses mentaility, and it doesn't interest me in the slightest."

I was merely attempting to point out that for many people, the relative performance of their cars and their boats to other cars and boats IS of interest to them. It enhances their enjoyment of both driving their cars and sailing their boats. I was wondering what made you feel compelled to describe that interest, or that kind of thinking as 'totally bizarre'. Why not just accept that others may not share your isolationist view of automobiles and their performance? Why describe differing views from your own in such negative terms? What makes you think that your view is not only superior, but that any contrary one is 'totally bizarre'?

I have already said that, like you, I am not terribly concerned when I encounter a faster car on the roadway. But I certainly do not suggest that the psychology of those who do is totally bizarre. Or even unusual. In fact, as I pointed out, when sailing I (and most others I know) tend to very much care about the relative performance of our own boats as against others. So I do not criticize, but fully understand the competitive nature of some people. I understand why their enjoyment of their own cars would be enhanced with more power and performance.

In any event, I also did not (and do not) see how your attack on their thinking advanced the topic of this thread.

Brad