carmudgeons.com  

Go Back   carmudgeons.com > Automotive Forums > Car Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-06-2010, 12:33 AM   #21
Sharp11
Vicarious Twitterer
 
Join Date: May 2005
Carmudgeonly Ride: 06 330 cic ZHP
Location: CT
Posts: 7,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by FC View Post
I just may, because I love Fall in NE and it's late in the convertible season. I won't fire sell it if I can still get 3 more months of even sporadic driving. So if it sits over the winter, so be it.

Again, this is the (likely) plan, but who knows. I may just keep it.
I think you're suffering a bit from winter withdrawal syndrome, once spring comes and you drop the top, you'll wonder what the hell you were thinking.

Ed
Sharp11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 12:38 AM   #22
Sharp11
Vicarious Twitterer
 
Join Date: May 2005
Carmudgeonly Ride: 06 330 cic ZHP
Location: CT
Posts: 7,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuka View Post
What? don't like the sledgehammer weight distribution?
That and the fact the engine sits out past the rear axle - outside the car's wheelbase That Porsche has been able to resolve many of the early 911's death-defying handling traits is a testament to the company's painstaking refinement of an antiquated idea and of course, electronics.

The Cayman and Boxster line is inherently superior to any 911, but that's not generally where the ego-compromised male mid-lifers live, so ...
Sharp11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2010, 12:29 PM   #23
JST
195
 
JST's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,040
So, here's a question--what about a 987 non-S?

There are lots of them around, so they're cheap and relatively easy to find. On paper, they look like a sad bet next to the S--no 6th gear, wimpy looking wheels, and only 240 hp from a 2.7L six.

But I just took one for a spin, and I have to say the non-S may really be all you need. It's plenty quick, though certainly not terrifyingly fast, and it handles like you'd expect a Boxster to do. Hell, it's got as much power (though not as much torque) as the 986S did. You have to row the gearbox more than you would in a 987 S, but then again, if you didn't buy a Porsche to row the gearbox, why did you buy one? The lack of a 6th gear is irritating, but it's not a particularly big deal in the kind of driving you are likely to do in a car like this. How many long highway blasts is one likely to take? Finally, the 17" wheels look stupid but that's an easy fix. And the compelling logic is this--even at a dealer, a 2006 with less than 30K miles is in the mid to upper 20s.
JST is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2010, 12:41 PM   #24
SARAFIL
I like BMWs
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: '16 BMW 550i xDrive
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 5,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by JST View Post
So, here's a question--what about a 987 non-S?

There are lots of them around, so they're cheap and relatively easy to find. On paper, they look like a sad bet next to the S--no 6th gear, wimpy looking wheels, and only 240 hp from a 2.7L six.

But I just took one for a spin, and I have to say the non-S may really be all you need. It's plenty quick, though certainly not terrifyingly fast, and it handles like you'd expect a Boxster to do. Hell, it's got as much power (though not as much torque) as the 986S did. You have to row the gearbox more than you would in a 987 S, but then again, if you didn't buy a Porsche to row the gearbox, why did you buy one? The lack of a 6th gear is irritating, but it's not a particularly big deal in the kind of driving you are likely to do in a car like this. How many long highway blasts is one likely to take? Finally, the 17" wheels look stupid but that's an easy fix. And the compelling logic is this--even at a dealer, a 2006 with less than 30K miles is in the mid to upper 20s.
Interesting observation. It just might be the ideal car if you are buying it as a weekend toy and you don't want the cost associated with buying an S. It does seem like the regular ones are more plentiful and can be had for more realistic prices than the S models. Certainly eliminates some of the guilt associated with having a pricey car that does not get driven much.

Some of the regular Boxsters were sold with decent looking wheels, too... they don't all have the wimpy ones.
__________________
2016 550i xDrive Sedan -- Alpine White / Mocha Nappa Leather
SARAFIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2010, 12:43 PM   #25
Sharp11
Vicarious Twitterer
 
Join Date: May 2005
Carmudgeonly Ride: 06 330 cic ZHP
Location: CT
Posts: 7,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by JST View Post
So, here's a question--what about a 987 non-S?

There are lots of them around, so they're cheap and relatively easy to find. On paper, they look like a sad bet next to the S--no 6th gear, wimpy looking wheels, and only 240 hp from a 2.7L six.

But I just took one for a spin, and I have to say the non-S may really be all you need. It's plenty quick, though certainly not terrifyingly fast, and it handles like you'd expect a Boxster to do. Hell, it's got as much power (though not as much torque) as the 986S did. You have to row the gearbox more than you would in a 987 S, but then again, if you didn't buy a Porsche to row the gearbox, why did you buy one? The lack of a 6th gear is irritating, but it's not a particularly big deal in the kind of driving you are likely to do in a car like this. How many long highway blasts is one likely to take? Finally, the 17" wheels look stupid but that's an easy fix. And the compelling logic is this--even at a dealer, a 2006 with less than 30K miles is in the mid to upper 20s.
That's what I drove, it was pretty good. It had the 18's (or maybe they were 19's) and a nice trim package.

At the time, I felt it too pricey for what it was (3 years ago), but today, they're way cheaper than S's.

Personally, I'd rather row through a gearbox and work the engine - it's more of a traditional sports car thing for me (it's the way all sports cars I grew up with were).

What kept me from pulling the trigger was the noise and the cramped, narrow interior, and ultimately, the price (at the time). Also, Boxsters are pretty ugly IMO - I still can't get used to the push-me, pull-you styling and large overhangs, from some angles, it's downright weird looking.

Says the man who loves Z4's
Sharp11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2010, 12:58 PM   #26
FC
Solving problems
 
FC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: '18 M3 ZCP, '13 LR4, '11 Miata
Location: Greater Boston
Posts: 21,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
I think you're suffering a bit from winter withdrawal syndrome, once spring comes and you drop the top, you'll wonder what the hell you were thinking.

Ed
I think you are right. I decided to use it yesterday and today and I find it tough to think I'd want to get rid of it. Also, on the 4th day with the nanny, we are realizing how helpful she is in the mornings. We may just keep her an extra year (after 9/2011 we really will have no use for her given our kids ages) and pay for part time schooling for the socialization part of it. Or maybe keep her 3 days a week, etc.

Anyway, I'd love an extra year of driving the 987S daily plus nanny help. That's worth something to me. By 2012, used M3's and my 987S may be cheap enough that I could even have both. Who knows. I'll wait and see.
FC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2010, 01:01 PM   #27
FC
Solving problems
 
FC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: '18 M3 ZCP, '13 LR4, '11 Miata
Location: Greater Boston
Posts: 21,392
Vanilla 987's are great cars. They are also lighter by ~100lbs. Same brakes and suspension too. If on a budget, I'd really look at an early 987 over 986S'. They must be in the mid 20's by now.
FC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2010, 01:35 PM   #28
clyde
Chief title editor
 
clyde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 23,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by JST View Post
So, here's a question--what about a 987 non-S?
Mental.

It's about not being happy with X because X+Y or Z is available...even if X would be suficcient to meet the objective criteria.

Three items of note directly related:

1. A couple years ago when John and I were running his 986S, we talked a good bit about the 987 non-S. What we kept coming back to was that the non-S just wouldn't do it because the S was available and it was "better" even though what made it better also made it useless for a very narrow application. Move on to the next idea.

2. When I was looking hard at the G8, the GXP was the only choice. With the exception of transmission avialability, the GT should have been perfectly suitable. The GXP doesn't make *that* much more power than the GT, but you can't get the GT with a stick. The price difference between those trims made for a very difficult mental block to get over (IIRC, the premium was often in the 40% neighborhood).

The other part on that car became clear to me in a conversation with Bren. For both of us, our fathers had never bought the top of the line bad ass motherfucker car. In the late 70s, my dad bought a 356B Coupe, not a speedster. In the early 80s, when looking for a GTO in the early 80s, bought a 1970 Olds Cutlass S, not a 442 (or GTO as originally intended). When he and I bought the '69 Vette, it was a 350, not a 427. The '89 Vette we bought was a non Z51 slushie. Etc.

If buying a G8, anything other than the GXP would have failed to satsify a basic mental need that was purely subjective and without redeeming objective value that would have made mental satisfaction with the car impossible even if the GT could be had with a stick...although it would have been perfectly fine if the GXP did not exist.

3. My experiences with my dad's newly acquired 2005 C6 Corvette last week was eye opening in some ways and perhaps a confirmation of a shift I suspected was going on in my outlook on cars. I still have to write up what it was like with the car for a week, but the short version is this: It's not a Z06 (it's not even the improved 2008+ LS3), it's kind of numb, it's far from perfect...but so what? It's fucking good enough as it is. Surprisingly so, in fact (even before considering autocross). It also went a long way towards confirming for me that I'd likely be quite happy with a Camaro 2SS despite the improvents coming on the '11 Mustang GT.
__________________
OH NOES!!!!!1 MY CAR HAS T3H UND3R5T33R5555!!!!!!1oneone!!!!11

Team WTF?!
What are you gonna do?
clyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2010, 01:41 PM   #29
bren
lawn boy
 
bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: e46m3, f25x3,C5 Z06, C4 Vette, 06 CTD Ram, and a trailer
Location: Maryland
Posts: 14,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by JST View Post
But I just took one for a spin, and I have to say the non-S may really be all you need.
Says the guy who traded out a perfectly fine 335 for an M3.

I bought a 325 under this same logic. It lasted less than a year before I ordered the M3.

I'm with Clyde. It's mental.
bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2010, 02:01 PM   #30
JST
195
 
JST's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,040
The mental thing is a good point. And the marketers, with their red brake calipers and so forth, are very good at stoking the "you don't really want to settle for the base model" feeling.

It is purely irrational, but that doesn't make it less real. I just wonder whether it's something I could work around.
JST is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sweet E36 TD Car Talk 50 08-25-2006 03:33 PM
Sweet WRC vid Doug Going Faster 2 11-12-2003 11:38 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Forums 2003-2008, 'Mudgeon Enterprises - Site hosting by AYN & Associates, LLC