Boxster or SLK?
 

I'm interested in renewing my search for a Boxster, and would appreciate any guidance on what to look for. I am a previous 928 owner (loved that car!). A few years back I started researching Boxsters when my wife talked me into an SLK230 as a compromise in the event she had to drive it. The SLK is okay, but I can't seem to shake the Porsche thing. Advice?

get the boxster, styling and performance its above the slk!


remember the motto: " There is no Substitute!" :cool:

Roberto, this is a Boxster owner and enthusiasts web forum.

The answer is obvious, and all 5,000+ forum members will probably say the same thing.

Can you guess what we'd say?

:dance:

get the box
 

checked them both out in january....boxster won hands down.....the mercedes had way to many buttons getting in the way.....just over done.....the box was the way to go....

You owned a 928 and you dare ask this question?!?!

As a recent (2 weeks ago) purchaser of a 2001 Boxster S, I had considered the SLK, and specifically the SLK 32 AMG. I believe the Benz would outrun the Porsche, but would not out-corner or out-brake it. While my daily drive involves more straight-line than curves, I still wanted a car that handled very well.

I was also considering a Porsche 550 spyder replica or a Shelby Cobra replica -- both of those can be had for less money than the Boxster S (I would have kept my Toyota Matrix for a daily driver). I think those are two of the coolest looking cars around, especially the Cobra -- perfect for beach cruising and canyon drives in So Cal. (My top is down 90% the time.)

The Boxster won out --as a modern rendition of the 550. It's the best looking Porsche in my opinion. So far, the performance has been all that I hoped for and I don't personally have a desire for more straight-line speed.

Ummm. Boy this is a tough one. Let's see. Hmmm. Yeah, I'm going to have to go with the ummm, yeah, BOXSTER. Yeah. Weird. Oh right - BOXSTER FORUM!

Seriously, this should not even be a discussion you should be having. There is absolutely no comparison from a performance or looks standpoint.

Nuff said.

As a daily driver the Boxster even has more useable trunk space! Tell her it's great for shopping, that'll help, huh?
2006 SLK 230 LUGGAGE CAPACITY: 9.5 cu. ft.
2006 Boxster Cargo Volume 9.5 cu. ft.

I own both, and if you're interested in the nitty-gritty, I did a fairly detailed comparison of distinct features in both cars, which I won't repeat:

http://986forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4874

Some broader points to consider, from which you can draw your own conclusion:

* I've driven the SLK280, 350, 55...987 and 987S, Cayman..and Z4M, and the SLK55 was the only car of that bunch that felt decisively faster than the others in a straight line (376 lb-ft of torque @ 4000 rpm is a face-bender).

* If the car is in any way shared, as you imply, or your wife will be spending alot of time in the car as a passenger, you may find that the visceral experience of driving the Box eventually wears out its welcome. Women (most, not all) don't seem to share the joy in having a flat-six pounding behind the head all the time, particularly top up, and on the east-coast you're obviously going top-up alot more than us lefties.

On a pure sound-dampening basis I'd actually say the 987s three-layer top is as good as the SLK hardtop. However, the hardtop with the front engine layout makes the SLK cabin much more sedate top up. The different aerodynamics of the two cars result in the SLK cabin also being more sedate with the top down (and it has a mesh windscreen, that obviously doesn't rattle :)). At speed, the Box will definitely give your wife a bad hair-day. The SLK will not.

* I've not driven the manual SLK (hard to find), but the seven speed automatic is quite good and works well, as the power band is in the lower revs. Pairing an automatic with the Boxster engine (or any other engine where the good-stuff is in the upper RPM range) strikes me as disjointed. That being said, many owners on this board enjoy their Tip and Porsche's pseudo-manual mode is considered good. Pseudo-manual in the SLK pretty much blows.

If you get the manual Boxster, make sure you (and your wife) are comfortable operating the "heavy" pedals and shifter which aren't always the easiest to engage smoothly if you're not in good form on a given day.

* Boxster boarders favorite rebuttal to any comparison is "wait till you drive the twisties." However, the steering on the SLK is quite crisp, and the turn-in is excellent. It's only when compared to the one of the best handling cars in the world does it seem lacking, but obviously a front-engined car can't match the Physics of one that's mid-engined. But how-often does one encounter these "twisties" without seeking them out? And does the marginally enhanced performance of the Box in the twisties alone, justify purchasing it over the SLK? In my mind, the answer is no.

* Servicing the two is a wash. Over a given 65K period, you'll be doing the Box 3 times (20K intervals) and the SLK 6 times (1k which is free, then every 13k). However, your running cost will be roughly comparable in that the Box chews PS2s faster than the SLK chews ContiSports. If spending an average of $1,500+ every 20-25K concerns you in any way, then get neither and head down to the BMW dealership where they're offering 4yrs/50K of free maintenance. I can't stress enough to prospective "luxury/sport" car buyers the importance of factoring in running costs.

* If I was a Crash Test Dummy, I'd want to be driving the Boxster over the SLK. The ability of the Box to avoid accidents and the stupid shenanigans of other drivers is flat-out amazing. It's pretty much the combination of the handling with the phenomenal brakes. The Box also has more airbags in the event you or a loved one do collide with something, and I have more faith in the top-down roll-over protection of the Box than the SLK, although I suspect a top-down roll-over in either would be fatal. Top-up, obviously the SLK would fare better.

* My parents are in the age bracket just above yours (not attempting to stereotype you on your age, just giving you a third party opinion). My dad is a softcore car enthusiast (SC430, 750i), my mom, not so much, but they have driven both cars extensively when they come out to do the Cali thing. There is no discussion any more. Neither have any interest in driving the Box (but then again, the SLK is more similar to the Lexus roadster than to the Porsche).

* Let me conclude on something of a tangent by saying that I view the Boxster and the 911 convertible to be two separate driving experiences, and the statement that the "Boxster is the poor man's 911" to be misinformed rubbish that would only come from someone who hasn't personally experienced both. I would however, say that the SLK is in fact the poor man's SL, in that there is nothing the SLK does that the SL class doesn't do better.

yeah what he ^ said.

So Mr. "Porsche and a Merc in my garage", which of the two do you get more compliments on? After driving a Miata in PCA events so often I got used to seeing
Porsches and thought they weren't really anything uncommon, despite rarely seeing them on the road after the PCA event. Once I actually made the switch to the BoxsterS I realized how many people drool for this car and the brand. Its like literally EVERY SINGLE TIME I drive this car I get a question, compliment or glazed staring eyes following me as I turn a corner or pull in for gas. I just don't seeing it happening this much with a Merc, if ever.
The numbers of Porsches and Mercs on the road probably explains the bigger interest by the 'spectators'.

p.s.
the Miata was more fun. Which is one reason I'm considering an Elise when they aren't ludricously expensive (MR2 engine $40-50K :confused: )

Guys, thanks for the inputs. The SLK does indeed get looks, however, there is no comparison to Porsche. I test drove a Boxster many times back in 2002, totally admiring the gearbox and the way it handled; a little disappointed in some interior components (compared to my 928), but heh. My wife has a total aversion to manual transmissions, which was the final straw that drove the selection to the SLK. The SLK is in no way a sports car, and I realize asking for a comparison on either forum is simply weird. However, I asked this group in the event the 986 was a dog, having been in production now for several years. By the sound of your e-mails it's obviously not, and I will set my sights on looking for a Boxter.
Again, thanks!

The Tiptronic is no slouch
 

Driven in the right way by the right person, it is very competitive in a racing venue! See past issues of Panorama.

She can have the auto mode and you can play fantasy F1 driver. Push it hard and watch how the shifting changes and the car takes on a whole different feel.

I live in a very crowded metropolitan area and the TIP makes it possible for me to have a Porsche. I'm just not up to rowing through the traffic. But get me free and in the twisties and I love how the character of the car changes.

I drove the SLK, S2000, TT Convertible, Z3 & Z4 and several others whilst shopping for a car.

The thing about the SLK for me personally was the seats. They lack support and actually made my back HURT after about 20 minutes behind the wheel. Not good.
I drove the manual tranny and it wasn't bad. Also, I was looking at a very lightly used ones, and I tried 3 different SLK's and every one of them had issues with the roof.

I am happy with my Box. I think it handles better and has a better feel than the SLK. I enjoy the sound of the engine right behind me, too.

You let your wife decide the type of car. Are you nuts?! :o

Great read, SD987. Found your comments really interesting, having gone thru the comparison when I was shopping last fall. I was actually favoring the Mercedes-- less of a cult car, more inocuous, and i have loved all my mercedes and wanted to carry on the tradition.
However, I was completely turned off by the exterior and interior styling. From the outside it looks like a cartoon car (remember the Dick Tracy film?). The inside looked like a vegas casino. Ii was so turned off by the overdesigned bling, I didn't even want to test drive it.
The Box drives impeccably, if somewhat quirkily, and the design both inside and out can't be faulted (aside from the exaggerated haunches).
Obviously, everyone's criteria for selecting a car is somewhat different. I bought the Box for its styling, but have enjoyed it's other attributes immensely.
I don't think you'd go wrong with either car

What if you add the "M" roadster into the mix? That is my issue. Boxster S or M roadster. I've driven both and love them both. The SLK is out for me due to lack of cargo space. The M doesn't have much more and the Box has the most. But the box is the most expensive, the more popular ( I see them everywhere), and probably depreciates the most. But boy does it handle well. It can't top the M in straight line power, but around curves it shines.

What do I do. :confused:

I think the thread is a little confusing in that we seem to be talking about cars over two generations.

Roberto: I didn't realize you were comparing the SLK230/320 with the 986/s. In this comparison I'd agree that there is nothing sporting about the older SLK but woud agree with myeboxsters that the AMG engine in the older car certainly improves the acceleration. However it's the handling and braking that makes the older SLK a dog.

Shellbmb: If you're talking about the Z3M, I can't comment from personal experience but did review the Z4M here, and some folks with Z3M experience commented:

http://986forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5598

TVC15: Although different than the Z4, I don't think the styling of the new SLK is any less controversial and you love it or hate it. IMHO it looks great from the front, phenomenal from the back and not so much from the side. My primary beef with the interior styling is the orange creamsicle lighting scheme, with the white LEDs ala the 987 combined with orange backlit buttons, like a BMW.

Perfectlap: The Porsche gets more compliments, but raising and lowering the hard-top of the Merc always draws a crowd due to the intricate 475 step process executed with German precision. However, I get more "hmm...this is a nice ride you have" comments from passengers in the Merc. I think people who haven't driven in a Porsche before are expecting more of a luxury car environment than the brutal assault on the senses that driving in the Box can be, or maybe they're just too scared to get a word out.

Thank you for the link to the review. Very detailed and very accurate compared to my personal experience.

I think the bump in hp for MY07 will certainly help those who are hp-hungry and are considering the Z4M over the Box-S for that reason. But I'm not sure I can justify paying a lot more over the M on a car that depreciates faster just for a few extra hp. I think my decision is more between a M or a 2005/2006 Box S. I guess I'll just have to go test drive some more. Darn! :D

But again, thank you for that detailed review.

after everyone else, could i mention the Boxster...maybe too, oh and i you can add an S to it

Automobile mag just did a head to head with the Box S and the Z4 M. May issue. Bottom line the Z4 is faster in a straight line. Boxster wins overall.

I too am a former 928 owner (89 S4 Auto) and I too loved that car. Best high speed car ever. I love our Boxster but it's a different animal.

Years ago a comparison was made between the 928 and the 911 for a several hundred mile high speed blast. The bottom line was the 928 driver will arrive relaxed and refreshed at the end of the journey, while the 911 driver will be a little beat. Same is true for the 928 vs. Boxster, perhaps more so. GT vs. roadster.

Def. both sporting Porsches, at completley different ends of the spectrum.

Rick Lindquist
06 Boxster S
White / Blue / Blue