Just curious...
 

I'm sure many of you fellow Boxster owners are in a financial situation where you could have purchased a 911 instead of a Boxster.

I was just wondering how many of you test drove / considered both, and ended up buying a Boxster over a 911, and why ?

Thanks,

Nick

I test drove the Z4, Corvette, 987(base) and 997 before picking the 987S as a clear winner, by far. I tested the 987S last, as I anticipated the result. The first 75mph curve sealed the deal.

Affordability for me was the least important factor, as I tend to be much more conservative there than most (from what I hear and read). Most important was bang for my $ and 987S won there, hands down.

Z.

I prefer the Boxster S to a 911 Cab.

The Boxster S is a true sports car/roadster which combines a number of sublime characteristics in one tiddy package. Looks great too!

If is were more bullet proof and a bit more affordable new, it would be pretty much close to perfect IMHO. Porsche has milked every bit of margin on this car I can tell you.

The 911 Cab is a bit of a compromise, a car that does many things well but not brilliantly. A stock 6 speed Corvette at 45K can hammer a 911 cab for about $30K less, so if I was thinking 911 I would go C6 for sure.

Moreover, personally I am tired of the 911 derivative styling. Can't these guys come up with something fresh and new?

The Box is one in a million from a design and driving perspective.

Oh, it does have a terrible stereo system.

agreed. for me, a driving factor in my purchase was that it HAD to be convertible. i think the box is a lot more fun to drive than the 996/997 cab. that having been said, if i had my choice in hard top, the 997S is unbelieveble.

I have driven a number of 911's, including some on the track, and even though the 997S was tempting, I still preferred the lightness and nimbleness of the Boxster, which has a more organic feel to it than the 911 which is an engineering marvel constantly designed to overcome its organic flaw which is a rear engine design. I always felt the 911 was a comfortable, fast, cruiser - a GT. I prefer a sports car to a GT.

Todd,

Very interesting observation...

Never thought of the 911 as a GT as compared to the Boxster as a true sports car. My only complaint is the Boxster is underpowered compared to the 911 ( by design ). I would love to drive a new Boxster S - can't imagine what 295 hp would feel like compared to my 201...

Nick

One of the most fun experiences I had was driving a 911 turbo with manual transmission. Wow, that was crazy, but still, I felt as if it was a vehicle that was good despite itself - the engineering marvel that it is created a car that performs like it is not supposed to because of the rear engine configuration. I like a lithe car, one I can really feel on the road, and frankly except for the Elise the Boxster is the best at that, and the Elise/Exige really isn't that much better - less than I expected anyway.

It is no surprise that all wheel drive is needed to make the 911 handle with some degree of certainty, ie the back end not coming around to meet you upfront.

That says TONS about the design flaw of the 911.

Give me the balance of the Boxster any old day.

I still remember my old VW having its butt swing out in front of me on one snowy day!!!!!!!!!!

Yep right here. I couldn't make up my mind. did I want a roadster or
a Coupe or something in between.
For a little under an aditional $10K I had spotted a 996 that I was considering.
My loan check from El Banco was good for several times what I ended up spending
on my BoxsterS so it was not at all a situation where the Boxster was purchased because it was the lower cost option.
After driving the BoxsterS and having driven every Porsche but the GT3 and CGT,
I said the BoxsterS makes a 911 Cab redundant, actually a step down if you are a DRIVER. I know this will annoy many 911 Cab owners but I really saw no need for 911 Cab.

Furthermore, the pendulus cornering of the 911 is unacceptable to me.
Some guys think its great to drive a car that they have to master in order to be quick in it. But I frankly see no point in learning how to drive a particular car before you have even learned how to drive at all. If 'mastering' a rear engine
car produced some insurmountable advantage over mid or front engine cars then I think it would be worth it. But it doesn't. Even if you can drive a rear engine car a good driver in a mid engine config. will be always be quicker.

Now if I were buying a sports car to impress people and needed a back seat for my two little kids then I think the 911 is a good choice! just kidding one thing the 911 does have which would have been great in Autocross is that you can fit a race jack and four wheels in the fold down rear. That would have made life much easier.

My reproductive organ is of ample size so I did not fee the upgrade was necessary.
J/K, I gave myself a buget of 30k as was going to buy an 02 Z-06 but went with the Box, I could have bought a used 911 decided to spend 20k instead.

i'm not sure i agree with that. there are some distinct advantages to the 911 configuration. while it is difficult to master and part of the pleasure is mastering these difficult dynamics, the ability of a 911 to enter a curve way too hot, bleed off speed on entry, and rocket out of the apex using the throttle like a rudder is pretty unique. the ability to lay down the power exiting a corner is unparalleled. a seasoned driver in a 911 on an unfamiliar course will have a distinct advantage, in my opinion, over drivers in other cars. on well known courses, the advantage diminishes, but it really depends on the course. some types are very 911 friendly. others are not.

"there are some distinct advantages to the 911 configuration."

So when shall we expect F1 teams to move their engines behind the rear wheels? Perhaps, when Schumacher finally masters the "911 technique"? :rolleyes:

Z.

"i'm not sure i agree with that. there are some distinct advantages to the 911 configuration. while it is difficult to master and part of the pleasure is mastering these difficult dynamics, the ability of a 911 to enter a curve way too hot, bleed off speed on entry, and rocket out of the apex using the throttle like a rudder is pretty unique. the ability to lay down the power exiting a corner is unparalleled. a seasoned driver in a 911 on an unfamiliar course will have a distinct advantage, in my opinion, over drivers in other cars. on well known courses, the advantage diminishes, but it really depends on the course. some types are very 911 friendly. others are not."

Unless they have repealed the law of physics in the last few minutes, this is simply a statement not supported by reality.

As pointed out above, if the rear engine car had any distinct advantages, it would be the design of choice in F1 and all manner of road racing.

It clearly is not. In fact, to my memory, the only manufacturer of note to run this design is Porsche.

Could it be that the 911 is so configured due to its origin as a road car, ie. it was what F. Porsche could source when he started his company and could buy components from VW?

To wit, now many VW bugs do we see dominating racing at any level.

C'mon guys, the 911 does well in spite of its design, not because of it.

I can echo a lot of the excellent statements already posted in this thread.

I simply wanted a 2 seater roadster convertible.

I did not want a car I can see everyday passing me in my neighborhood or on the highway. I see tons of BMW's and Vetts. I wanted something a little more unique and "rare".

The 356 prototype was a mid-engine car. Production considerations dictated that the cars sold to the public were rear engine designs. So, if Dr. Porsche had his choice, he would buy a Boxster.

Good post! Definately could have gone for the 911 if I wanted to. My best friend has a 2002 C4S and I have alot of miles in that vehicle. That was a benchmark for me as far as performance and Porsche quality. I would certainly have loved to own that car, but at 70k it was out of my price range. I knew I wanted a convertible. My prior 2 cars were BMW M Roadsters. I drove a 2000 911 coupe, 6 speed. Not all that impressed and was priced at around 40k. Drove a 2002 Boxster S and was very impressed, had more options and felt more nimble and comparably powerful. I drove a 2001 Cabriolet priced at around 44k and was not impressed at all... car was heavy feeling, had a clumbsy top and didnt give me any goosebumps. Finally found a 1 owner 2001 Boxster S with 20 k miles with 99% of the options I wanted at a sub-forty k price! I knew that I was going to buy it and in fact added a B and B exhaust and Evo intake at the Porsche dealer and still came in under budget!

I am sure there are people that will feel completely opposite about the 911. I do love the car, I just cant help feeling more and more positive about my Boxster S purchase every time I drive my buddys C4S. They are totally different and both wonderful cars. I feel that I truely bought the perfect car for me!

Compared to the Boxster, the 911 may not be the better-handling car, but overally, it is the better car without a doubt. So, had my personal affordability equation told me that I could spend more on a car, I would have bought a 911 instead of a Boxster.

First point is that I had to have a soft top.

I priced and drove the 06 Boxster S and the Carrera Cab I could afford either and if I wanted a Carrera S Cab was not out of the question but I really did not investigate that option. The Boxster just seemed to be more balanced and more nimble, for my driving style the 0.2 seconds less on the 0 to 60 did not matter, I will never drive the Boxster to its max speed on the track so I did not care about the higher top end. The fit and finish on the new Boxster is at the same level as the Carrera and I did not need the extra seats (I have other cars). The price difference between the two (for the same options) came to about $26,000 and I just could not see the value for money in the Carrera.

The Boxster is simply a world class driver’s experience that even the average Joe can appreciate and enjoy and that was important to me.

I drove a standard Corvette. This really is a nice car for the money but for me it was not the driving experience I was looking for so even though I could have got one for less than the Boxster (with more options) it simply did not sing to my soul.

I read and occasionally contribute to many Forums (I own a Boxster, a Mercedes CLK and a BMW 3 series that will be sold soon) and I find it strange how many people argue over which car is better (BMW vs. Corvette vs. Porsche vs. Mercedes…). I have driven and owned a number of nice/high performance cars over the years and I have to say that any of the cars you mention (and even some of their less well endowed stable mates) are great cars. The one that is best depends on your needs/wants/budget at the time, I say drive them all and buy what sings to your soul, it is your money and you should not care that you will loose a specification bragging game at the bar one night.

So in a nutshell here is why I bought my Boxster; it is simply a world class driver’s experience that even the average Joe can appreciate and enjoy, it is refined, poised and has more than enough power.

Final thought; I tend to drive either the CLK (a great highway cruiser) or the Boxster (so much fun on the mountain roads where I live) and the real truth is that either car is good; it is just that if I am going to spend a day eating the miles with the cruise control on then the Benz wins, for a fun driving the Boxster is in a class by itself. I will eventually add some US muscle and V8 roar (read Corvette) to my car collection one day and on the days when I want lots of raw power I will drive a Corvette that is the real reason I did not look hard at the Carrera S Cab variety is the spice of life!

"but overally, it is the better car without a doubt"

Well, of course, we have been generating doubt for the last 10 posts or so.

Perhaps you can define the criteria that you used to come up with that "without a doubt" conclusion?

The 911 is designed and manufactured to higher standards and specifications, hence, the ~70% higher price premium.
Compared to the 911, the Boxster is a niche car and it fills that niche quite wonderfully.
The broader market appeal and perseverance of the 911 compared to its siblings, despite a hefty price premium in most cases, has been time-tested for nearly 4 decades. This level of dominance wouldn't have lasted for so long, had it been based on perception rather than real substance.
As far as what exactly makes the 911 one of the predominant automotive icons of our time, many Porsche specific books are available from some the most respected sources.

All and all, just my 2 cents worth. :)

This sounds like a PCA public relations handout.

Just what are these higher standards and specifications that you are referring to?

i actually never even considered a 911, i didn't even drive it. i'm tired of the look of a 911. i did look at pricing and i would of found myself in a 2000-01 996, and it just didn't make sense. as great as the 996's are id take a boxster any day. my arm could of been twisted if i could of afforded the 996 turbo.....

i bet that i get more looks in my boxster then any 996 driver gets(lets exclude the 996 turbo)...lol

Boxster takes it!
 

Design, functionality, road handling, value engineering there is no quantitive advantage I can see a 1960's design automobile would have over the Boxster. I've driven 911 and that tail is just very happy to go out on you. No Porsche will violate the laws of physics. I see the 911 as an old friend that has kept himself in shape. Being the older brother to the Boxster you can rest assured he will always be on top of the younger sibling all the time. Such is the analogy of the relationship of the 911 and the Boxster. The Boxster being a much better handling car will never be left unleashed so it may best the older designed 911. Recent testing of the Cayman at the Nurburgring besting the 997 Carrera was indicative of the potential of the Boxster Cayman design over the antiquated 911 design. All things being equal if both had the same engine there would be no comparison at all. The Boxster would crush the 911 hands down. All Boxster pilots are looked down by the believers that their 911 is the only true Porsche. The comaraderie that used to exist within the marque is no longer a monolith. These guys are all in the Porsche family for what it superficially represents to them. A "expensive car I have and you don't". It's Ok they don't know anything about the car, they can't drive it enthusiastically, most would have tiptronics, most of the car are garage queens, in short they are all pretenders and are only a bunch of effete snobs. Sure who would not want to have a status symbol that whose image is the epitomy of racing, but then you also have a ferrari, maserati and other more exotics cars to dream about. In spite of it all the Boxster outshines the others in my eyes and soul as a noble designed car that does everything exceptionally well and with lots of elan. The design should be in the MOMA next to the other gorgeous roadster XK-E. Great to look at, but a different animal to maintain and drive. :cheers:

Configuration wise, the Boxster is a carbon copy of the venerable Porsche 914, also a 60's design. I should know; I own one of each, 02 base Boxster and 73 914-2.0L ;)

Before I got the 987 base and SLK350 I was only going to get one car, and the alternatives I considered were the SL500 and 650iC. The 911 cab wasn't even in the running for me, on account of it being so g-damn ugly.

When you get to 911 cab money the competitors are different than what the Boxster faces and there are more attractive alternatives at that price point.

Best of Both Worlds
 

I need four wheel drive here in New England. I considered a C4S, but for about the same money I decided to get a Cayenne S AND a 987 S. The Caynenne is more practical than the C4S ever could be, and the 987 S is just as much (maybe even more) fun than the C4S.

I beg to differ I don'st see the 914 as the genesis of design for the Boxster. That does not mean that some of the parts where used from previous models, which I think is what you mean. The 986 design is beautiful I would say the design inspiration is the RSK Spyder 718. My two cents. :)

911 v. 986
 

...mostly...almost fully...i second pilot's feelings...although...i may have choosen a little different retoric...to 73's and Pilot's point, the 911 continues to do well precisly due to: 1. status, 2. ledgend, 3. refinment...it's a great car...no doubt...and has been engineered to be so (out of necessity) despite itself...

i considered a 1999-2002 996 in lieu of the my current 986...as this is primarily a play car for me...the feeling and feedback from the road is what pushed me in the direction of the boxster...

...also, i do also agree that the 718RSK was the inspiration for the 986...mid engined...light, responsive....these are all good characteristics in a sports car...

cheers,

--troy

Actually, my point was based on fundamental design aspects and didn't have anything to do with component sharing. Fundamentally, the Boxster is very much a continuation of the 914. Mid-engined two seater, longitudinally mounted engine/trans-axle combo, boxer engine for lowered center of gravity, almost 50/50 weight distribution, very similar driver position and driving dynamics, front and rear storage compartments, etc., etc.

There are only a couple of significant changes that differentiate the Boxster from the 914.

First, the 914's targa top configuration as opposed to the Boxster's convertible top, which is trade-off between having much easier top-side engine access and a more open air ride.

Second, the 914's torsion bar front suspension as opposed to the Boxster's coil-overs. In fact, since the early 911's had torsion bars on all four corners, the Boxster has undergone less evolutionary change than the modern 911.

I actually was looking for 911 for a daily driver as I already have an '81 SC that has a few too many mods. But then it was a sunny day and I saw the Speed Yellow "S" Boxster and it was all over, and I dont even like rag tops. I now prefer to drive the Boxster and the SC hasnt been out except to be washed in 2 months as the Boxster is better handling, more comfortable and probaly faster and has working AC. It is a great car and I am now thinking of selling my SC and buying another Boxster as a project car/money pit.

I'm only driving a Boxster because I am saving up for a Bugatti Veyron. I only need $999,859 more.

As I recall Veyrons are at least $1.2 million or so. So you've already got 200k? If it were me, I would just buy a 911 Turbo and save the rest to buy track-time and tires.

Pilot, great big brother / little brother analogy !

MNBoxster, I'm suprised you haven't chimed in on this yet ???

Damn, I thought they were only a mil...I guess I have to add another 200k.

Muchas gracias amigo! Rail what about a couple of TOW's strapped on the Boxster for extra performance a la JATO, not only will you be ahead but whoever is behind will be toast. :rolleyes:

TOW's don't provide much thrust and hellfires reach 600 g coming off the rail (which it needs to reach to arm the warhead). which would give you one heck of a headache. I think JATO bottles are your best bet or the afterburning engines like "Shockwave". Have you guys ever seen that truck at the airshow?

_________________________

I was just thinking the same thing. It sounds like one of those pat legal responses from K&N.

even though F1 engines are mounted in a 'mid-engine' configuration, the weight distribution of an F1 car is closer to 40/60 than 50/50. FYI, a 997 is 38/62.

here's an example: braking. without getting TOO deep into the physics, imagine a shift in weight of 20% toward the front of the car during braking:

a front engined car (60/40 front - rear weight distro) becomes 80/20. the front 2 tires do 80% of the work

a mid engined car (50/50) becomes 70/30. the front 2 tires do 70% of the work.

a rear engined car (40/60) becomes 60/40; the front 2 tires do 60% of the work. maximizing the work done by each tire is one reason that 911s typically have outstanding brake systems.

another example: when a 911 hits the gas and weight shifts rearward over the back tires, the grip achieved generally surpasses that of mid or front engined cars. look at a dragster: engine WAY back over HUGE rear tires. the downside is, of course, that the front gets VERY light....

F1 cars tend to have weight distributions closer to those of a 911 than to a boxster despite their mid-engine configurations, although aero IS used at speed to overcome this

it has distinct advantages and distinct disadvantages. its disadvantages have been VERY difficult to overcome, but there ARE some advantages.

You've been brainwashed. Don't feel bad your are one of many. Porsche spends millions of dollars each year to keep you brainwashed. Porsche wants you to think you are getting more for your money despite being an inferior design. Hell, the 996 and the 986 boxster are the same cars from the front seat forward. The quality of the 996 is no better than a 986 and the water cooled 911's are mass produced just like the 986. Btw, Mid-engine > rear engine.