s2000/boxster

[equ]

After loving the z4 3.0si on friday, I spent yesterday afternoon driving a boxster (in poor shape, non-S, 2001), a z4 (sadly a 2.5) and two s2000's (both in glorious shape, a new 2006 and a service-manager owned 2005) back to back. With the 3.0 z4 out of the picture (and I already have a bmw), I think the porsche and s2000 are ahead but very different. The s2000 was a revelation - though I'm not sure I love the dual character of the engine or its sound. Everything else (build quality, simple effective design, perfect shifting, steering, clutch) is better than the porsche. The boxster seems more practical as it is quieter and torquier - though it loses on pure sporty feel. It has a very nice sound though. Even the base didn't seem so slow and like James in topgear, I liked the well-spaced 5-speed.

I've still not figured out how to keep a second car in NYC - let alone the fact that I drive less than 10,000 miles/yr total. OTOH, I tried only having a sports car once with the 911 and it just didn't work for me.

[rumatt]

Wow. You liked the s2k in every way over the boxster except low end torque?

[ARCHER]

Wow. You liked the s2k in every way over the boxster except low end torque?

I haven't driven a Boxter but it would have to DAMN good to better the S2000, IMHO. Outside of low torque output, I thought everything about the S2000 was fantastic.

[Sharp11]

After loving the z4 3.0si on friday, I spent yesterday afternoon driving a boxster (in poor shape, non-S, 2001), a z4 (sadly a 2.5) and two s2000's (both in glorious shape, a new 2006 and a service-manager owned 2005) back to back. With the 3.0 z4 out of the picture (and I already have a bmw), I think the porsche and s2000 are ahead but very different. The s2000 was a revelation - though I'm not sure I love the dual character of the engine or its sound. Everything else (build quality, simple effective design, perfect shifting, steering, clutch) is better than the porsche. The boxster seems more practical as it is quieter and torquier - though it loses on pure sporty feel. It has a very nice sound though. Even the base didn't seem so slow and like James in topgear, I liked the well-spaced 5-speed.

I've still not figured out how to keep a second car in NYC - let alone the fact that I drive less than 10,000 miles/yr total. OTOH, I tried only having a sports car once with the 911 and it just didn't work for me.

I really liked the S2000 as well.

I could do without its darth vader dashboard and it's a bit cramped, but it's a pure sports car.

I HIGHLY recommend you drive a brand new Miata GT (read my little write-up somewhere here), it's closer in feel to the S2K and has the most perfect engine/gearbox relationship, it's cheap and IMO, makes a perfect 2nd/3rd car.

Ed

[blee]

I absolutely loved the first-gen S2000. Haven't driven a newer one yet, but if the power delivery is at least close then I'd still love it. The thing is built like a Honda, only sexy and fun to drive. Beautiful, inside and out.

[BahnBaum]

Where's Ken? He might have some interesting comments re: Boxster vs S2000.

Alex

[equ]

Wow. You liked the s2k in every way over the boxster except low end torque?

I may still end up with a boxster but I think the s2k has inarguably better build quality and arguably better driving.

I was shocked myself... The seats could be a little tricky, I felt too big at 160lbs! Though porsche seats used to make my butt go numb on long drives. As I said, I don't love the nature/sound of the s2k engine so much - and that's a big beef. Not a huge low torque fan but it's a bit of effort to go fast in this car - maybe that's good for license keeping.

Perhaps because I've driven a boxster once or twice, the novelty value of the s2000 outdid it. I don't know - it felt really solid, simple and right. No options, very reachable under the hood with the engine set way back. Reminded me of a swiss army knife. Great light steering feel as opposed to that hefty german feel. It also drove "sharper" and more "playful" for lack of better words. To be fair the box had 40k miles and not kept up in the least (at a wholesaler) so perhaps the suspension/steering had some float. To its credit even that abused engine was so smoooooth with such a nice soft sound. The gearshift was really loose but still nice - perhaps a lot more worn out than my 996 which was a bit stiff. Progressive porsche clutch etc etc.

I could see that the box may make a better daily though I really don't like 986/996 interiors that much. I'll still have to look at a 986S in good condition but those are going to be 10k more than the s2000 and in the back of my mind, even with an inferior engine, I'll keep thinking the s2000 is the better car.

I like it philosophically where this great company made the best sports car they could (light, strong, lsd, no profits on options packages) and did not let it be loaded up with anything. Whereas PAG, also a great company, just tries to sell S models, full leather this and red stitched that and porsche insignia in headrests and on and on.

[ff]

As I said, I don't love the nature/sound of the s2k engine so much - and that's a big beef.

You evidently didn't take the engine up into the 6-8K RPM range? Put it in 3rd gear, blow around a cloverleaf on-ramp, and nail the gas at the top. The engine note is intoxicating all the way around, and from there to redline as you rocket forward.


Not a huge low torque fan but it's a bit of effort to go fast in this car - maybe that's good for license keeping.

I felt the same way when I originally bought mine. It took a few weeks to get used to the short gearing, but you kind of have to accept that the engine is built to rev, and begs to. Constantly. Now that i'm used to it, it's too easy to go fast without any effort. In fact, I can't imagine going back to something more civilized. I simply don't want to.

[lemming]

You evidently didn't take the engine up into the 6-8K RPM range? Put it in 3rd gear, blow around a cloverleaf on-ramp, and nail the gas at the top. The engine note is intoxicating all the way around, and from there to redline as you rocket forward.




I felt the same way when I originally bought mine. It took a few weeks to get used to the short gearing, but you kind of have to accept that the engine is built to rev, and begs to. Constantly. Now that i'm used to it, it's too easy to go fast without any effort. In fact, I can't imagine going back to something more civilized. I simply don't want to.

i feel you, brother.

not that either is a particularly bad choice. both sound fantastic at WOT. it is completely personal preference. i am tending more and more toward torque these days as a decisive factor. but then i drove the solstice and lightweight and revvy engines are fun all over again.

[rumatt]

It took a few weeks to get used to the short gearing,

How fast are you going at the limiter in 2nd gear?

Put it in 3rd gear, blow around a cloverleaf on-ramp, and nail the gas at the top. The engine note is intoxicating all the way around, and from there to redline as you rocket forward.

Now you're making me want an s2000. :ack:

[dan]

good thing I don't post much about the elise

[equ]

You evidently didn't take the engine up into the 6-8K RPM range? Put it in 3rd gear, blow around a cloverleaf on-ramp, and nail the gas at the top. The engine note is intoxicating all the way around, and from there to redline as you rocket forward.


Actually I did take it above 6k multiple times as it is obviously an important region to explore. :D In some ways bmw i6's aren't that different, they come alive at 3,500/4000 onto 6/6500. The difference is a matter of degree, the s2k has a sharper transition, making a hum and feeling very weak at low revs to strong with a full-on scream at high revs. To drive the s2k fast, you need to stay in 6-8000k - a narrow range that goes by very fast with the short gearing.

Blowing around a cloverleaf is not sth I'd do in my first time in that particular car (especially with the owner who just heard that sitting next to me :eeps: ). He was extra cool, if anyone wants a black 05 in the NE, this would be a good one. The guy is a service manager at the dealership and a fanatic about this car - it shows.

First I have to decide whether I can get away with having two cars.

Then I have to see how a boxster S or a newer boxster compare. This is basically a trade-off. I still like the porsche powerplant better for my non-race purposes. I think I like the s2000 better in everything else - most notably how special it feels. There is definitely engineering emotion in that car. I felt that way about the rx8 as well as it handled so well and was so unique, but this time around the feeling is stronger. I think the non-gimmicky simplicity, purity of purpose and solid build add up to something that could become very dear to my heart.

BTW, I have roots in the country with that flag, however I still cannot decode your avatar. :dunno:

[equ]

i feel you, brother.

not that either is a particularly bad choice. both sound fantastic at WOT. it is completely personal preference. i am tending more and more toward torque these days as a decisive factor. but then i drove the solstice and lightweight and revvy engines are fun all over again.

Well, the saturn sky looks great and is supposed to have a 260hp version. But then it's a saturn and there are so many other things that could have gone wrong in the execution of a sports car that I'd be surprised if it reached s2000/boxsterS company. I guess I have a negative bias - if I do hold out until it comes out I will definitely test it. :)

[rumatt]

good thing I don't post much about the elise

Very thoughtful of you.


If it could take a tow hitch, I might buy one actually.

[dan]

what would you need to tow?

[rumatt]

what would you need to tow?

4 wheels & tires, a jack, a torque wrench, and a helmet.

[dan]

you can fit all of that in/on the elise

[rumatt]

you can fit all of that in/on the elise

Yeah, but it looks seriously painful (http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13879)

Any better ideas? I'm all ears.

[clyde]

The engine note is intoxicating all the way around

Reminds me of a funny story. Way back in high school, I sold a little piece of paper to a kid and told him that it was...well, something that it really wasn't. That was on a Friday. Monday, he asked if I had any more because he had had the best trip of his life.

The lesson here is: Never underestimate the power of positive thinking.

[dan]

Yeah, but it looks seriously painful (http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13879)

Any better ideas? I'm all ears.
mount the wheels and tires on the axles :D

[John V]

You evidently didn't take the engine up into the 6-8K RPM range? Put it in 3rd gear, blow around a cloverleaf on-ramp, and nail the gas at the top. The engine note is intoxicating all the way around, and from there to redline as you rocket forward.

You mean the zone where you feel like the engine is going to explode because of the horrendous metallic thrashing noises occuring in front of you? :ack: If it had a different engine I would own an S2000.

Gonna have to point Ken to this thread. I'm sure he'll weigh in at some point.

[kenkamm]

Interesting thread. I just owned an '03 S2000 for a year and traded for and '03 Boxster S. I could type five pages about why I did it, but I'll make it short. When I first drove the S2000, I was shocked at how much I liked it... I didn't think I would. I actually liked the high-revving nature of the engine and thought it still had enough grunt to outrun traffic without having to go above about 4k RPM. Unlike John I never thought the engine sounded like it was going to explode (I came from an E46 M3 so maybe I was used to the thrashy sound.) Instead from 6-9k I thought it sounded positively incredible and it pulls hard at those RPM. 97% of the time, however, when you are driving around at normal speeds, the engine sounds… not the best. Kind of buzzy, vibrates, I dunno. And that's sort of the issue I had with the car. When you are driving spiritedly, it's a lot of fun. It's small and you feel very connected to it. The part I didn't like about it was the other 97% of driving time. It took me several months to realize this… not something I learned test driving it… but I didn't like it when I was driving it like a normal car. I'm 6' tall, and when I first sat in it, I was surprised I fit. Well I did physically fit in the car and the driving position was decent, but not quite right, and after some time driving I would cramp up. The car is pretty loud… top up or down. Again, at first you don't think it's a big deal. But for me it eventually got to me. With the top up, it's very loud inside… after a while you start to wonder if you should have brought ear plugs. With the top down, there is a lot of wind turbulence… more than the Boxster by far. There are a bunch of other things that bothered me about the car, most of which were little things but added up to produce a general dissatisfaction with the car and the way I wanted to use it. I like to drive my "sports" cars more than to and from the track, and while the S2000 was fine for short trips and great on the auto-x course, when I wanted it to be a semi-normal car, it just couldn't do it.

I see the Boxster S as a S2000 with a touch of civility. You can put the top up and it's almost like driving a fixed-roof car, which is nice when you want to take your sports car to work when you're tired, annoyed, and stuck in traffic. Then later when you get off work, you put the top down and blast through the back roads, and it's a wonderful sports car. I feel the Boxster doesn't give up performance to the S2000, but adds some refinement. Of course, you pay more for such a car. The Boxster still feels light on its feet, maybe not quite as much of a go-kart feel as the S2000, but I had my fill of that. It feels more solid than the S2000 over rough roads. The ergonomics of the Boxster aren't quite as good as the S2000, but not bad by any means. I didn't love the digital dash in the S2000; it's nice to get back to some regular gauges. And when it really comes down to it, the lower-redline, torquier Boxster engine is just as fun as the 9k revving S2000 engine… just fun in a different way… and the Boxster's engine note is awesome, all the time.

Ken

[John V]

Ideally, I'd combine aspects of both cars. I like the torquey, nice-sounding engine of the Boxster. The S2000 engine doesn't do it for me at all, though that's really a matter of taste as both cars are pretty quick. I don't like the slightly jiggly handling of the Boxster as much as the knife-edge feel of the S2000, but I think I can partially fix the Boxster by adding the M030 suspension. I like the S2000's small steering wheel, but not its cramped cockpit. Overall the Boxster's practicality (two good-sized trunks), refinement, and torque won out. :dunno:

[ff]

How fast are you going at the limiter in 2nd gear?

57 MPH, before it bounces violently against the limiter. Like we've talked about a few times before, the engine is still pulling stronger at the redline, which means that it has a more to offer.

[ff]

however, when you are driving around at normal speeds, the engine sounds… not the best. Kind of buzzy, vibrates, I dunno.

while the S2000 was fine for short trips [...], when I wanted it to be a semi-normal car, it just couldn't do it.

Agree. At lower RPMs, the S2000 engine sounds very....4 cylinder. Like you can hear the constant sewing machine chatter of the valve train bouncing off a neighboring curb or fence as you leisurely drive by.

And the S is a horrible "normal car". Even simple road trips leave you tired from the firm ride and roar of the engine + road noise. For what I have it for, it's perfect. But if I had to do long commutes to work, I'd be driving something else.

[kenkamm]

I don't like the slightly jiggly handling of the Boxster as much as the knife-edge feel of the S2000

Funny I kind of have the opposite impression, but I might be thinking of "jiggly" a different way than you are. The AP1 (first gen) S2000 has a lot of rear bump steer, which means the rear end is always dancing around in turns that aren't glass smooth. The Boxster seems rock solid except for the lateral jump you get when hitting a sharp bump at higher g loads. But most cars do that. The S2000 would soak up the bump better (taller side wall tires?) but then the rear end would weave back and forth. Personally I had the crap scared out of me a couple of times because of that.

[John V]

Funny I kind of have the opposite impression, but I might be thinking of "jiggly" a different way than you are. The AP1 (first gen) S2000 has a lot of rear bump steer, which means the rear end is always dancing around in turns that aren't glass smooth. The Boxster seems rock solid except for the lateral jump you get when hitting a sharp bump at higher g loads. But most cars do that. The S2000 would soak up the bump better (taller side wall tires?) but then the rear end would weave back and forth. Personally I had the crap scared out of me a couple of times because of that.

I was referring to the skittishness over bumps in corners and also the soft (in comparison to the S2k) spring rates. I liked the S2k's firm ride and more controlled body motions.

But like I said, I think M030 will solve most of that. It's a minor nit.

Should just add real quick that we're comparing the 3.2L Boxster "S" to the S2k. I imagine the standard 2.7L Boxster would be much less satisfying.

[rumatt]

How do you guys get tires to the event when you autox your boxsters?

Lack of LSD isn't pissing you off yet?

[kenkamm]

Actually the 2.7L Boxsters are just as fast because they're like 500 pounds lighter. I read that on the internet so it must be true. :dunno:

[bren]

How do you guys get tires to the event when you autox your boxsters?
Porsche makes a nice (removable) hitch for the Boxster.

[John V]

How do you guys get tires to the event when you autox your boxsters?

Lack of LSD isn't pissing you off yet?

I haven't competed in the thing on R-comps yet, but on street tires with the GT3 front bar, corner-exit wheelspin is not a problem. It has nice, easily controlled power-on oversteer. :)

Now when I put the R tires on, it may be a completely different story. :lol:

edit: Porsche doesn't make a hitch that I know of, but there are some aftermarket hitches that people use. For the one event that I'm doing in the car (DC Pro), the tires and wheels are going to be delivered to the event for me. If I run the car next year, I'll buy a tire trailer and hitch, S2thousand style.

[kenkamm]

Alternatively, Geo Prizm + GF's + Jewelry = tires and tools magically follow us to the events. :lol:

[Sharp11]

I see the Boxster S as a S2000 with a touch of civility. You can put the top up and it's almost like driving a fixed-roof car, which is nice when you want to take your sports car to work when you're tired, annoyed, and stuck in traffic. Then later when you get off work, you put the top down and blast through the back roads, and it's a wonderful sports car.
Ken

Bren alert: slight "fan-boy" content, read at your own risk.

Good write up, I went through much the same thing when I was shopping sports cars, I test drove (and loved) the S2k, but it was pretty evident this was a high-strung car (actually, its around-town power plant's demeanor seemed a little too 'normal' to me) which needed to be driven fairly aggressively for maximum enjoyment most of the time.

I tried a friend's BoxterS, but I hated the large steering wheel (pre-interior facelift model), the fact that I couldn't see the engine and the overall squashed-froggy-look styling.

I ended up with the Z4, I'm a happy camper, though the ride could be better on standard run-flats ( I may try the Koni FSD's), it's a car you can drive all day - I took it on a 350 mile round trip through the Catskills on Saturday, past the old artist communities, trout streams and famous (or infamous depending on your POV) 1969 woodstock festival grounds and I arrived back home refreshed and none the worse for wear.

I'd imagine the Boxter's much the same wrt to giving up a bit of visceral charm for refinement, but I couldn't imagine the same trip in an S2K.

Ed

[John V]

I tried a friend's BoxterS, but I hated the large steering wheel (pre-interior facelift model), the fact that I couldn't see the engine and the overall squashed-froggy-look styling.

It's very easy to see the engine in a Boxster. Only takes about two minutes.

[kenkamm]

...and the overall squashed-froggy-look styling.Ed

I hear ya. Some like it, some don't. Looks 1000 times better with the top down. I have never even driven a Z4, because I can't get past the fact that it looks to me like a car that's been in an accident, with all the creases etc. and blunt nose. :D

[kenkamm]

It's very easy to see the engine in a Boxster. Only takes about two minutes.

Or you can peer into the rear wheel wells. :eeps:

[John V]

Actually, now that I think about it, it's easier to see the engine in the Boxster than it is in most cars. Remove the front access cover behind the front seats ~ 1 minute, and you can see the belts, pulleys, etc. Remove the engine top access cover ~ 2 minutes, and you can see the throttle body, air filter, power steering fluid, manifolds, etc. Wheel wells give easy access for the spark plugs and coils. etc, etc....

[ff]

Actually, now that I think about it, it's easier to see the engine in the Boxster than it is in most cars. Remove the front access cover behind the front seats ~ 1 minute, and you can see the belts, pulleys, etc. Remove the engine top access cover ~ 2 minutes, and you can see the throttle body, air filter, power steering fluid, manifolds, etc. Wheel wells give easy access for the spark plugs and coils. etc, etc....


Yeah, that sounds easier than popping the hood on any front-engine vehicle ;)

[John V]

Yeah, that sounds easier than popping the hood on any front-engine vehicle ;)

LOL, I meant easier to see more of the engine. It's easy to get to stuff.

[bren]

edit: Porsche doesn't make a hitch that I know of, but there are some aftermarket hitches that people use.
My bad, I thought Mick told me his was from Porsche...either way it is a cool setup.

[ff]

LOL, I meant easier to see more of the engine. It's easy to get to stuff.


That's what I figured, but still felt it necessary to give ya' a hard time about it. :)

[clyde]

Yeah, that sounds easier than popping the hood on any front-engine vehicle ;)
let's see...

1. pop hood
2. secure hood with prop
3. remove "engine cover"
4. peer around, look at some hoses and wires and cables and plastic stuff and ask "where the f is the engine?"

This applies to a Mazda RX-8. YMMV.

[ff]

let's see...

1. pop hood
2. secure hood with prop
3. remove "engine cover"
4. peer around, look at some hoses and wires and cables and plastic stuff and ask "where the f is the engine?"

True that. Not sure where automakers got the idea that it's necessary to cover the engine bay with a bunch of plastic. If it's so that owners can think it looks nice, that's a load of crap because there's probably only .000001 of the driving population that even opens the hood of their car to begin with. Out of sight, out of mind.

I'd rather that they stopped dressing up the engine bay, take the money they saved and either lower the price of the car, or, maybe develop carpeting that doesn't bunch up around the gas pedal.

[Alan]

Yeah, that sounds easier than popping the hood on any front-engine vehicle ;)

LMAO ... I wan thinking the same exact thing :lol:

[Rob]

let's see...

1. pop hood
2. secure hood with prop
3. remove "engine cover"
4. peer around, look at some hoses and wires and cables and plastic stuff and ask "where the f is the engine?"

This applies to a Mazda RX-8. YMMV.

You forgot "remove strut bar" before you can remove the "engine cover" in my case. On the other hand, I don't have to use a hood prop. But that strut bar looks really cool!! And it's HOLLOW so it must be really good at what it does, too!

[clyde]

part of what I said was related to the fact that the engine is so tiny that it's hard to see if you dont know what it looks like.

[lemming]

Bren alert: slight "fan-boy" content, read at your own risk.

Good write up, I went through much the same thing when I was shopping sports cars, I test drove (and loved) the S2k, but it was pretty evident this was a high-strung car (actually, its around-town power plant's demeanor seemed a little too 'normal' to me) which needed to be driven fairly aggressively for maximum enjoyment most of the time.

I tried a friend's BoxterS, but I hated the large steering wheel (pre-interior facelift model), the fact that I couldn't see the engine and the overall squashed-froggy-look styling.

I ended up with the Z4, I'm a happy camper, though the ride could be better on standard run-flats ( I may try the Koni FSD's), it's a car you can drive all day - I took it on a 350 mile round trip through the Catskills on Saturday, past the old artist communities, trout streams and famous (or infamous depending on your POV) 1969 woodstock festival grounds and I arrived back home refreshed and none the worse for wear.

I'd imagine the Boxter's much the same wrt to giving up a bit of visceral charm for refinement, but I couldn't imagine the same trip in an S2K.

Ed

barring subjectivity (which is really personal preference --> styling mainly), the Z4 is a damn good car. i think it has enough of the s2000 sharpness without the dearth of torque (my OPINION). at its pricing point, however, the s2000 is really intriguing and that makes up for a lot. however, i would also opine that the solstice GXP (260hp turbo) would be more livable from the power delivery standpoint (lower pricing point, decent build quality, more peak power and more power under the curve).

i agree that the boxster S is a fine car that could use some tweaking using standard RoW parts (M030 package), but good lord is that an expensive car as typically equipped. ea$ily 60k to drive off of a dealer lot.

[Sharp11]

at its pricing point, however, the s2000 is really intriguing and that makes up for a lot.

You get an extra layer of refinement in the Z4/ Boxster class.

The Z4 (and Boxster) have lined tops, perhaps I'm getting old, but I like the feeling one gets when the top goes up, it's relatively quiet and it keeps the cold out - I can't see the point of the optional hardtop. I'd imagine the Boxster top-up experience to be similar.

Of course, now that it's spring, the top's down most of the time and I've collected a layer of pollen three feet deep in the interior;).

I hope the GM continues to refine the Solstice/Sky, it competes in the Miata class and although I've yet to drive one, I got a good look at one at the car show. It's pretty (except from the rear view), but the gimmicky flying butress design means many compromises in the folding top department, one has to leave the car and lift the trunk lid before manually folding the top. After the top's in place, there's no trunk left (practically speaking, there's not much to begin with, given the engineers plopped the fuel tank right in the middle).

Also, the interior, which looks nice in the magazine shots, is pretty depressing close up, it reminds you of its GM corporate roots - where does GM get its plastics anyway?

I can't get excited over a bland corporate engine that calls itself "eco-tech" either, turbo or no.

In this class, it's the Miata that has great appeal (IMO), the thing's noisy as hell with the top up and a bit light at high speed, but it feels like a really well bolted together and sorted out MGB from the early 70's - it's got real character and there's a ton of third party stuff available from interior trim bits, to engine and suspension performance mods.

Unlike the Solstice, which is the sports car dujour (more power to 'em), you can get a deal on the Miata.

Ed

[lemming]

You get an extra layer of refinement in the Z4/ Boxster class.

The Z4 (and Boxster) have lined tops, perhaps I'm getting old, but I like the feeling one gets when the top goes up, it's relatively quiet and it keeps the cold out - I can't see the point of the optional hardtop. I'd imagine the Boxster top-up experience to be similar.

Of course, now that it's spring, the top's down most of the time and I've collected a layer of pollen three feet deep in the interior;).

I hope the GM continues to refine the Solstice/Sky, it competes in the Miata class and although I've yet to drive one, I got a good look at one at the car show. It's pretty (except from the rear view), but the gimmicky flying butress design means many compromises in the folding top department, one has to leave the car and lift the trunk lid before manually folding the top. After the top's in place, there's no trunk left (practically speaking, there's not much to begin with, given the engineers plopped the fuel tank right in the middle).

Also, the interior, which looks nice in the magazine shots, is pretty depressing close up, it reminds you of its GM corporate roots - where does GM get its plastics anyway?

I can't get excited over a bland corporate engine that calls itself "eco-tech" either, turbo or no.

In this class, it's the Miata that has great appeal (IMO), the thing's noisy as hell with the top up and a bit light at high speed, but it feels like a really well bolted together and sorted out MGB from the early 70's - it's got real character and there's a ton of third party stuff available from interior trim bits, to engine and suspension performance mods.

Unlike the Solstice, which is the sports car dujour (more power to 'em), you can get a deal on the Miata.

Ed

i agree with your points. i'm not really a fan of the ecotec motors --but they do tend to make the Ford zetecs and DC motors look pukey (it's all relative, mano!).

as much as i think the interiors need some more work, i really don't think there is a huge delta between the miata/s2000 interiors (if there is a difference at all) because is tons of hard plastic in all 3 cockpits.

[Sharp11]

as much as i think the interiors need some more work, i really don't think there is a huge delta between the miata/s2000 interiors (if there is a difference at all) because is tons of hard plastic in all 3 cockpits.

These are all small interiors, I can't understand why manufacturers can't do a better job laying them out. There must be materials that are cheap but more interesting than hard plastics.

The Miata has a cool dash, the instruments are right there behind the nice-feeling steering wheel.

I really disliked the S2k's circa y2k video-game instruments, but thought the rest was finished a grade or two better than either the Miata or certainly the Solstice.

Ed

[lemming]

These are all small interiors, I can't understand why manufacturers can't do a better job laying them out. There must be materials that are cheap but more interesting than hard plastics.

The Miata has a cool dash, the instruments are right there behind the nice-feeling steering wheel.

I really disliked the S2k's circa y2k video-game instruments, but thought the rest was finished a grade or two better than either the Miata or certainly the Solstice.

Ed

:dunno:

i don't expect much in sub 30k cars, Ed. i've been in a brand new RX330 and i still thought that there was too much plastic. it was nice plastic, but still acres of plastic that wasn't much nicer than any GM product i've been in recently.

there are a lot of things i admire about the s2000. but to me, the solstice GXP and the upcoming miata mazdaspeed make it obsolete.

personally, i couldn't buy a boxster for the same reason that i couldn't buy a cayman.

if it was my decision, i'd opt for the M roadster at this point.

[John V]

part of what I said was related to the fact that the engine is so tiny that it's hard to see if you dont know what it looks like.

Off topic, I did plugs on Learic's RX-8 a few weeks back. It wasn't too bad and only took about 20 minutes start to finish.

[FC]

i agree that the boxster S is a fine car that could use some tweaking using standard RoW parts (M030 package), but good lord is that an expensive car as typically equipped. ea$ily 60k to drive off of a dealer lot.

The whole M030 thing is applicable to the 986, not the 987. I just want to make the distinction because the 987 is a better-handling, faster, higher quality car. Yes, you do pay through the nose for it. But not ONE review on the new M roadster was able to refrain from bringing up the fact that the Boxster S is still the better car despite being short 50hp. That says something.

Still, no doubt 60K is a lot to pay for a Boxster. But again, I rather pay 60K for a Boxster than pay 80K for a vanilla 997. And now that it's out, I rather buy a GT3 (at whatever it costs) than a 997S at 90K+.

[lemming]

The whole M030 thing is applicable to the 986, not the 987. I just want to make the distinction because the 987 is a better-handling, faster, higher quality car. Yes, you do pay through the nose for it. But not ONE review on the new M roadster was able to refrain from bringing up the fact that the Boxster S is still the better car despite being short 50K. That says something.

Still, no doubt 60K is a lot to pay for a Boxster. But again, I rather pay 60K for a Boxster than pay 80K for a vanilla 997. And now that it's out, I rather buy a GT3 (at whatever it costs) than a 997S at 90K+.

if money wasn't an issue, i'd for sure look into the car that was effortlessly faster in your driving hands. very subjective, but that's what helps me. the S2000 has a lot going for it because it's pure but it gets to that point where you have to work hard to achieve speed. after awhile, that gets tiring for me. can't speak for others.
________________
i think the 997 is a lot better car than the 996 ever was, especially in the "base" or "standard" models. the 997S is alluring because it's very fast but it's really expensive for an incremental gain over the 997 base car --people who buy the 997S and don't just pony up the extra money to get the 997 Turbo are either stupid, crazy or both. at that pricing point, i'd have a hard time believing money is really an object or a concern.

[FC]

if money wasn't an issue, i'd for sure look into the car that was effortlessly faster in your driving hands. very subjective, but that's what helps me. the S2000 has a lot going for it because it's pure but it gets to that point where you have to work hard to achieve speed. after awhile, that gets tiring for me. can't speak for others.

That is VERY true. And that is why given my not so expert driving skills and the fact that I would not be autoxing/tracking that kind of car often, more easily attainable grins a la MZ4 roadster for less money still holds some appeal. I still just can't cope with the MZ4 front-end though.:( I've come to terms with just about everything ese about that car aft of the front wheels.

...you know, if they built it in das Vaterland and I could do ED on one, I would probably pull the trigger despite the looks.:rolleyes:

i think the 997 is a lot better car than the 996 ever was, especially in the "base" or "standard" models. the 997S is alluring because it's very fast but it's really expensive for an incremental gain over the 997 base car --people who buy the 997S and don't just pony up the extra money to get the 997 Turbo are either stupid, crazy or both. at that pricing point, i'd have a hard time believing money is really an object or a concern.

:+1 Upgrading to a 997S is a no-brainer. A bargain in Porsche-dollars, particularly at those levels.

[Jason C]

MZ4 roadster

Stop calling it that. Just say "M Roadster", kthx. :rolleyes: :p

[FC]

Stop calling it that. Just say "M Roadster", kthx. :rolleyes: :p

lol. I swear I went back and "fixed" it from M roadster to MZ4. I dunno, I just felt maybe some would be confused.:?