986 2.5L vs 996 3.4L Comparison

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by pothole

I like both 911s and Boxsters. Couldn't care less which is better on "time sheets". Why would that matter?

well by inference I assumed "time sheets" would be reference to motorsport and competition.
Here in the U.S., by nature, we are very competitive about everything, and this certainly extends into all types of recreational HPDE: If I had a dollar for every casual first time autcrosser or track novice who came in saying "well I'm just driving for fun today" and by the end of that day or month the driver was obssessing over their laptimes relative to others, or fixated on the cars they had to give point-bys, I'd a payed for my recent $2K rotors and waterpump job with ease. It reminds me of specific instance of a driver I knew who once raced against a former McLaren F1 driver when they were amateurs, "you know all those guys over there they're crazy with their new tires, they want FTD and that stupid $5 trophy, bla bla bla....me I'm just here to enjoy the weather, get out of the house, enjoy the new S2000, etc." Well this guy takes second place in pretty competitive field and it was like I was talking to a different guy by the end of the day. "I'm going to beat that #$*@ next week!" LOL.

I guess here we have "sporty" cars and then we have "sports cars". For the latter, as far as our excited and impatient country, it comes down to the black and white performance numbers. The proof in the pudding if you will.... the quantifiable is just as important as the non-quantifiable. For older cars like a Lotus Elan or 912 for instance, obviously you take a different perspective.

Granted, we're talking the sharp end of the needle here, our country is huge and most sports car and sporty car drivers could care less about learning to drive like the rich guys on TV that do it for a living.

[southernstar]

Good post Perfectlap! And its not just in the USA where people are competitive by nature. Or look to and review the performance numbers before purchasing a car - especially a sports car. The latter is probably becoming more important as we live in an age when cars are rapidly advancing in terms of performance - and to make our assessment of the relative merits of one car over another, most of us look to these numbers as well as the opinions of the motoring press. Yes, our individual subjective impressions and taste will be decisive for most of us. But the objective numbers do matter.

[pothole]

In that case, you guys are following the wrong models and brands. There are cars that will deliver the competitive numbers numbers you seek for a lot less money (or better numbers for the same money). Porsche is about about the experience, not numbers on a piece of paper.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by pothole

In that case, you guys are following the wrong models and brands. There are cars that will deliver the competitive numbers numbers you seek for a lot less money (or better numbers for the same money)..

If purchased new, I would agree. But buying used has a great way of extracting the Porsche tax/premium from the value consideration. Once a Porsche is well-settled into pricing reality (and not the absurd pricing their currently getting away with) it's a pretty good proposition -- as far as the time sheets.
Others, granted are still better but they have their their drawbacks as well.
Recent Corvettes come to mind, out of the box they put up great single laptimes for an insane bargain price, but visit a local track often and you'll see quiet a few of them on the back of a flatbed, some before even lunch time. I guess you pay up dearly for Porsche durability, but certainly not at Ferrari levels. It's a sort of middle ground in the sports car jungle. However, GM is moving aggresively.
A look at the recently released Stingray options sheet reveals that they WANT their cars to be shaken down on track, while Porsche come up with new ways to screw their warranty holders. I guess GM are hoping to use their buyers as part of development to bridge the durability gap to Porsche. GM certainly has my attention. Even if you mitigate the Porsche tax by buying used, the maintenance costs are still an issue. And personally I like it when the cheaper alternative wins.

[shadrach74]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

If purchased new, I would agree. But buying used has a great way of extracting the Porsche tax/premium from the value consideration. Once a Porsche is well-settled into pricing reality (and not the absurd pricing their currently getting away with) it's a pretty good proposition -- as far as the time sheets.
Others, granted are still better but they have their their drawbacks as well.
Recent Corvettes come to mind, out of the box they put up great single laptimes for an insane bargain price, but visit a local track often and you'll see quiet a few of them on the back of a flatbed, some before even lunch time. I guess you pay up dearly for Porsche durability, but certainly not at Ferrari levels. It's a sort of middle ground in the sports car jungle. However, GM is moving aggresively.
A look at the recently released Stingray options sheet reveals that they WANT their cars to be shaken down on track, while Porsche come up with new ways to screw their warranty holders. I guess GM are hoping to use their buyers as part of development to bridge the durability gap to Porsche. GM certainly has my attention. Even if you mitigate the Porsche tax by buying used, the maintenance costs are still an issue. And personally I like it when the cheaper alternative wins.

Hmmm... In my experience, simple GM pushrods V8s are far more robust than Pcar engines.

[southernstar]

Actually Perfectlap, I consider the pricing (apart from options) on the new Boxster to be extremely reasonable - the base price of new 981, when adjusted for inflation, is virtually identical to the base price on the 1997 Boxster and the car is significantly faster, better finished, better equipped and has a better warranty.
The options, of course, are and always have been another matter. Nevertheless, if one is careful it is possible to get a very nice new Boxster or Cayman for a pretty reasonable price.

Where base prices become more difficult to justify is once one moves up to the 911 series. When one consider the number of shared parts and the fact the 911 has typically been produced in larger numbers, it is virtually impossible to justify. In order to maintain strong sales (and high profitability) of the 911, Porsche does 'de-tune' the Boxster engines - as has been pointed out in the BHP and torque per liter figures. Still, the Boxster and Cayaman are great cars and if the new ones are still decent 'bang for the buck', the old ones are even better.

It is interesting that the price of early 996's has dropped so much. Stone was able to purchase a nice example for a price in the same range as a 986 Boxster of the same vintage. That makes this debate more interesting, does it not? I suspect that many on this site, if being honest, would have purchased a 996 over a 986 if the prices had been comparable at the time. The 911 has not only more peformance, but also more status than the Boxster; for many, this would be far more important than better turn-in, a better exhaust note for the driver (and for some, a more original design). It will be interesting to see where they shake down in the long-term with respect to values, but at present, it seems that history is repeating itself: as pointed out in an earlier thread, the only time when Boxster (or Boxster + Cayman) sales exceeded the 911 was prior to the front-end redesign on the 996 in 2002. Prior to that, demand for the 986 actually exceeded the demand for the 996 and we may be seeing the same thing in the market today.

[pothole]

Originally Posted by southernstar

Actually Perfectlap, I consider the pricing (apart from options) on the new Boxster to be extremely reasonable - the base price of new 981, when adjusted for inflation, is virtually identical to the base price on the 1997 Boxster and the car is significantly faster, better finished, better equipped and has a better warranty.

What was the 1997 US price, then?

In the UK it was £34,000. It's now £38,000. Adjusted for inflation, my car cost over £60,000 in 1997. 981 is much, much cheaper than the 986 was.

Same applies to the 991 and 996...

981 is a bargain in the UK.

Agree, I would have bought a 996 if I could have afforded it. But in some ways it's a blessing in disguise, because owning a 986 has probably made me more curious about how the 986 and 996 are related and more appreciative of how good a car the 986 is. One, I think, tends to assume a 911 is good. But the 986's virtues are less well appreciated, I think.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by shadrach74

Hmmm... In my experience, simple GM pushrods V8s are far more robust than Pcar engines.

street or track? The issue seems to be with long stints pushing the car 10/10's.

Originally Posted by southernstar

Actually Perfectlap, I consider the pricing (apart from options) on the new Boxster to be extremely reasonable - the base price of new 981, when adjusted for inflation, is virtually identical to the base price on the 1997 Boxster and the car is significantly faster, better finished, better equipped.

I could not disagree more. I don't think there's anything reasonable about new Porsche pricing since they became profitable again -- insanely so. After all of those immense profits these cars have hardly been Lexus quality and they surely haven't been putting rivals to shame on track. So its pretty clear where the Porsche tax isn't going... into the cars. Granted the rate of mark up has not been as bad on the Boxster as other models but that's nothing more than common sense by Porsche because a roadster is always the toughest sell -- unless no one wants to buy any of your other cars like when Porsche were near bankruptcy selling air-cooled Carreras. Also, I hardly think the 986 Boxster was a good barometer for reasonable pricing back in 1997 with what was widely criticized as an underpowered engine and a bare bones interior. But I'll grant you they've been consistently over-priced relative to cars of similar perfomance, reliability and sigificantly lower running costs.

p.s.
I find it interesting that a Boxster rival like the Honda S2000 with moderate mileage of the same time period as a Boxster (2000 year in the link below) is commanding very similar prices to what was once a such an expensive car like the Boxster.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/00-HONDA-S2000-Convertible-Manual-Transmission-Leather-Low-Miles-We-Finance-/400484239259?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item5d3eb8879b

p.p.s.

I would NOT have purchased a Carrera if they were priced the same when I purchased the Boxster S because price was not the deciding factor. In fact it was my intention to buy a Carrera (only $10K more than the Boxster S at the time and well within my budget) but after watching Tif Needel on 5th Gear declaring a Boxster the best sports car money could buy I had to go drive one to see for myself. I had to agree 100%, once the Porsche tax was done away with by second-hand market reality, I saw no point in spending the extra $10K for the base Carrera. The 986 S was nearly perfect in bone stock trim. I'd never really driven a mid-engine car like that. I was instantly sold before I even returned from the test drive. And I certainly wasn't going to buy a Cabriolet 911. If I wanted a convertible this was the Porsche to buy. I'm no worshiper of the 911, for me Porsche racing history goes further back than than the 1970's. When I think of Le Mans, the Carrera is not what comes to mind. I simply thought why not give a tin top a shot this time but then I made the fortunate mistake of driving the Boxster S and it was no longer a debate. Although I certainly would never buy either new, it's just financially illogical given the obvious effects of mass production on depreciation not to mention the need to budget for the over-priced parts and specialized labor, no room for any Porsche taxes as far as I'm concerned.