C&D Roadster comparo

[FC]

I like the new Boxster S. By the time I can seriously look at one, it will probably be putting out 300hp. Seems like a very balanced, refined, rewarding, and fun-as-hell driving machice.

Porsche factory European delivery in 2009-2010 sounds good to me. I like the black forest. :D RMS be damned. My wife is sold. Now I just hope we have the money by then.

[clyde]

Aren't you done with the 5 year plans yet? :roll:

[lemming]

i thought that it was highly informative (re: boxster S) that it is down about 130hp to the c6 but was only about 1 second behind the c6 on the track lapping --look, i know 1 second is a lot on the track, but 1 second back is better than 2 seconds back (slk and crossfire).

but i'd still buy the c6. i love the way porsche engines sound but i like insanely fast v8s better. you can tune handling (eventually) but you cannot tune more power.

[Jason C]

but i'd still buy the c6. i love the way porsche engines sound but i like insanely fast v8s better. you can tune handling (eventually) but you cannot tune more power.

Actually, I've heard the opposite quite often - in that it's easier to get a great-handling car to go faster than it is to get a fast straight-line car to handle well.

:scratch: :dunno:

[lemming]

but i'd still buy the c6. i love the way porsche engines sound but i like insanely fast v8s better. you can tune handling (eventually) but you cannot tune more power.

Actually, I've heard the opposite quite often - in that it's easier to get a great-handling car to go faster than it is to get a fast straight-line car to handle well.

:scratch: :dunno:

likely true, but the corvette is still a good handling car but the OEM setup is not as balanced as, for example, the T1 SCCA setup. especially the convertible, even though it's the z51 package in the comparison test, it's likely diluted out because people who buy convertibles place a higher priority on comfort than they do all out performance. i may eat my words, but it's why there isn't, for example, a z06 convertible. weight plus loss of rigidity = cruiser.

the lesson i learned from my own c5 experience is that it is soft for what my needs are and it's about $1200 in parts to upgrade the suspension, but to upgrade from the base c5 to get to z06 levels of performance is about $4k to $5k because you needs the heads and the headers --an example where it's cheaper to start out with as much OEM power as you can get and then dial in teh suspension which is invariably cheaper than engine tuning parts.

IMO, it's a waste of money to spend too much time and money on engine upgrades. you should spend it on the suspension and buy as much HP as you can initially. it's money more effectively spent than you will benefit from more.

with all due respect to the boxster, with the M3 as a reference point for power, the 3.2 boxster mill is a tad soft --porsche should just use the 3.4litre from the first year 996 and put it into the boxster for a solid 300hp with more torque.

[FC]

Aren't you done with the 5 year plans yet? :roll:

That is still the same plan as before. :?

[FC]

i thought that it was highly informative (re: boxster S) that it is down about 130hp to the c6 but was only about 1 second behind the c6 on the track lapping --look, i know 1 second is a lot on the track, but 1 second back is better than 2 seconds back (slk and crossfire).

but i'd still buy the c6. i love the way porsche engines sound but i like insanely fast v8s better. you can tune handling (eventually) but you cannot tune more power.

If I were to buy a car to become a track junkie, then the C6 is the one to get (coupe). But I'd only take that car to the track occasionally, and I value engineering refinement a lot. Seems like the C6 will give you better numbers but the Boxster gives you more of everything else.

Of course this is all speculative because I've not driven any of these cars.

[ayn]

I test drove both new Boxsters, and didn't think the S was worth the extra money at all.

[FC]

I test drove both new Boxsters, and didn't think the S was worth the extra money at all.

Interesting.

[lemming]

I test drove both new Boxsters, and didn't think the S was worth the extra money at all.

Interesting.

don't think that there has been a porsche worth the money brand new (other than m64-block vehicles) since 1998.

it also means, though, that buying them pre-owned can be quite an adventure. if some of the technology is lowest cost-bidder brand new, how well does it fare over time? makes me nervous if buddies of mine want to dive into used 996s or 986s.

[FC]

I test drove both new Boxsters, and didn't think the S was worth the extra money at all.

Interesting.

don't think that there has been a porsche worth the money brand new (other than m64-block vehicles) since 1998.

it also means, though, that buying them pre-owned can be quite an adventure. if some of the technology is lowest cost-bidder brand new, how well does it fare over time? makes me nervous if buddies of mine want to dive into used 996s or 986s.

Boxsters are a CR best pick in reliability. And those were the 986's. I assume the 987 will fare better. Especially after 3+ years of production. The RMS is a pain, tough.