Quote:
Originally Posted by JST
See, I've actually come to believe the opposite. The period during which your kids can fit (not even comfortably, just *at all*) in the back of a 911 is really not very long. Maybe 5-7 years, starting from booster age up through like 10 or so? And 10 is optimistic, if they're kinda small.
But putting kids in the back seat of a 911 means no luggage space except the frunk, and I've sort of thought about using the Boxster with only the frunk and it would be tight (especially with a spare up there).
Anyway, with the benefit of hindsight (and now that the kids are old enough to ride in the front of a two-seater), I'm just not sure that owning a 911 is worth the candle for its extra usability as a parent.
The other thing I've been thinking about quite a bit is that it's really pretty weird that the 2 seat Boxster is the "entry level" Porsche, given that it embodies maybe better than anything short of a GT the sort of sporting ethos you expect from a Porsche. It's not a grand tourer, like the 911 has become--it's a sports car. Wild that it's the cheap one.
Porsche's marketing is still so powerful that I want a 911, if only because I've never owned one and it feels like I should. But when I think about actual, day to day usability? I think the Boxster is a better fit. It's more fun and it's arguably better at some daily stuff, because it has two locking trunks. You can't take your 5 year old with you, but you can take your 9 year old, and she'll have a lot more fun than she would jammed in the back of the 911.
|
The whole "young children can ONLY be in a back seat" things was a bunch of bullshit 20 years ago. It's only gotten bullshittier since with newer cars.
There may be a handful of cars with seat belts that can't be properly fitted/routed with boosters seats and some kids and/or have first gen airbags that are too powerful with seats that can't be positioned rearward enough to keep the kid out of crushable range, but they are not plentiful.