Boxster - classic or not?

[IceBoy]

Hi All,

Thinking of getting a Boxster to join the fleet as a 5th car. Would you consider the early cars as classics yet or not?

Any advice on purchase?

I'm looking at those sub £3750, 2.5 cars. Not sure about manual or auto?

IceBoy

[m444ttb]

I'm absolutely sure this will divide opinion. For me the 986 Boxster will absolutely be a classic but is too new now and there are still way too many of them. i think by then it will get over it's 'not a 911' problem.

[boxsey]

Not sure whether they will achieve classic status but I think that as time goes on they will be looked on very fondly. They were a great drive from the day they were released. Maybe on a quiet sunny day in 10 years time when you take it out for an hour long blast through country lanes, at moderate speeds, you'll think to yourself 'this is how cars used to drive and sound!. This is of course assuming that anything using fossil fuel and doesn't drive itself hasn't been banned from using the public highway by then.

[g7jhp]

The 987 Boxster Spyder is a future classic (as the 981 Spyder will be).

Give it 25-30 years and the more common Boxster models may start to gain a following!

[mollytherocker]

IceBoy said:

Hi All,

Thinking of getting a Boxster to join the fleet as a 5th car. Would you consider the early cars as classics yet or not?

Any advice on purchase?

I'm looking at those sub £3750, 2.5 cars. Not sure about manual or auto?

IceBoy

What does it matter whether some people think its a 'classic'? What does that even mean exactly?

[Hard-Drive]

OK, biased view here but yes, for sure. The 986 has a proper flat 6 and associated noise, hydraulic steering, quirky Porsche interior, impeccable handling, sensible running costs, practicality, a decent enough turn of speed, but it's still "thrashable" on road without doing silly speeds and it's a size that works in the UK too. Use it for the commute or track it. What's not to like?

And, IMHO in the right colour/spec/wheel size it's the last "pretty" Porsche ever built, especially roof down. For some reason even the fried eggs work on the 986 much better than the 996. I reckon the 987 loses some of the purity of the lines with the squared off arches, hood shape, intakes, spoiler and a few other details. And everything afterwards looks more purposeful and aggressive...still gorgeous designs, but not "pretty" which I reckon is a prerequisite for a "classic".

[wjb]

986 will be a classic in about 5-10 years, as by then it will be almost 30 years old and most of the cheap ones will be off the road.

[2.5pi]

Hard-Drive said:

OK, biased view here but yes, for sure. The 986 has a proper flat 6 and associated noise, hydraulic steering, quirky Porsche interior, impeccable handling, sensible running costs, practicality, a decent enough turn of speed, but it's still "thrashable" on road without doing silly speeds and it's a size that works in the UK too. Use it for the commute or track it. What's not to like?

And, IMHO in the right colour/spec/wheel size it's the last "pretty" Porsche ever built, especially roof down. For some reason even the fried eggs work on the 986 much better than the 996. I reckon the 987 loses some of the purity of the lines with the squared off arches, hood shape, intakes, spoiler and a few other details. And everything afterwards looks more purposeful and aggressive...still gorgeous designs, but not "pretty" which I reckon is a prerequisite for a "classic".

I agree, I had a 2.5 manual just after launch but sold it in haste. I reckon in 15 years it'll be as desireable as an early 911E is now..

[griffter]

I'm not sure it's as simple as numbers remaining and appreciating values. Plenty of bread and butter classics are still common and have static values.

For me the Boxster is a classic because it broke new ground when new and still does it well today. For all the 911s status, the Boxster returned Porsche (albeit on the second attempt) to lightweight usable mid-engined roadsters. It's impossible to define a classic, but as far as I'm concerned, if people own a car because of, or despite its characteristics, because of what it did when new and how that contrasts with today, its a classic. Boxster ticks the boxes for me.

[loafer123]

I think a Cayman is prettier, more "focused" on the Porsche experience and there are fewer of them, so that is more likely to evolve into a classic.

Not to say Boxters won't eventually, however.

[matsoc]

Early ones start to look classic to me, more related to the beautiful 1993 concept. But I have some doubts about interior quality and materials. Been in a 964 yesterday, despite simple and dated the a 911 interior 25 years old still looks very solid.

[m444ttb]

I entirely agree with cmoose here. Silver over Boxster red would be my pick. As close to the concept car as possible. Generally I'm a red car guy though, despite an awful run of silvers and blues. I was, for a while mulling over ways to get my wife a Boxster but my 911s impending visit to Hartech has put that one to bed.

Thinking about a 986 'Cayman', can you imagine the horror of he Porsche 'purists' at the time if they'd launched that?! They barely survived the fact the 'not a proper Porsche' shared as much as it did with the 996.1.

When it comes to classics I don't think cars being run of the mill, which the Boxster really isn't IMO, matters anyway. Plenty of cars that early 80s children like me remember as ancient rusty bangers (mk1 & 2 Escorts being a great example) are now commanding strong money. just takes that time for the crap to vanish and the rose tinted spectacles to come out.

[The Red Devil]

mollytherocker said:

What does it matter whether some people think its a 'classic'? What does that even mean exactly?

It means just that, the chap is looking for a low starter classic, Boxsters are now nearly 20 years
old, the question is very clear, English lessons are next door pal..Of course its important what other people
think, that's what makes the world go round.......The guy is on looking for advice about a car
and gets smart arsed.....

[The Red Devil]

IceBoy said:

Hi All,

Thinking of getting a Boxster to join the fleet as a 5th car. Would you consider the early cars as classics yet or not?

Any advice on purchase?

I'm looking at those sub £3750, 2.5 cars. Not sure about manual or auto?

IceBoy

My man, look for an early manual Boxster, the pick of the bunch being the understressed
2.7 car that is rarely worked hard, I know I have owned and fixed scores of them. The
early cars are looking great now with orange lenses. Source a sub 60k car if you
can and in a colour preferably and concentrate heavily on originality and a solid history
with plenty of bills of late, there are bargains to be had, for how long is the question as the
word cheap and Porsche no longer go together.

[Chris Type R]

Should the OP not look at the 3.2 in terms of desirability as a classic in the future ?

[mollytherocker]

The Red Devil said:

mollytherocker said:

What does it matter whether some people think its a 'classic'? What does that even mean exactly?

It means just that, the chap is looking for a low starter classic, Boxsters are now nearly 20 years
old, the question is very clear, English lessons are next door pal..Of course its important what other people
think, that's what makes the world go round.......The guy is on looking for advice about a car
and gets smart arsed.....

Hi Pal

I am not attempting to be a smart arse, I am giving my view that it doesn't matter and is pretty much irrelevant.

Boxsters are fabulous value and a great ownership proposition. If you like them, buy one!

Who cares whether they are consider classics by some people or not?

I certainly don't.

[edh]

Not classics (yet). They might become an low cost classic like the MGB did.

Great cars - I jumped in my 3.2S on Saturday, an hour or so after driving a friend's new M4. There's no doubt which was the more connected and stimulating drive, even though the M4 is a stunningly good (and fast) all rounder.

A really cheap one could cost you the same again to make it into a good one. Buy from an enthusiast who has evidence of plenty of recent maintenance / parts replacement.

[andy97]

Depends on your definition of classic, I suppose.

Mine is that a car has to be a genuinely good car, that offers a rewarding driving experience, or something innovative like the Audi Quattro, or maybe it takes a familiar concept and improves upon it. Cars can be classics from brand new, others will never be classics no matter how rare or old they are.

So, I reckon the Boxster is a classic. Prices have nothing to do with how it should be perceived.

They are genuinely good cars that handle very well and look the part. They are well engineered and put together and helped save Porsche at a difficult time. And there are few other affordable mid engined convertibles around that I can think off at its price point (either new or now) that can be genuine everyday cars.

[ooid]

Boxster's design and driving experience still quite impressive considering its age. They have produced a great number of it and there has been loads available in the second hand market but that number started to drop lately. Coming back to its scary engine problem (IMS or RMS), the new engine build currently costs around 4-5k due to the availability of parts and there are loads of specialists out there who could do this job much easier than before. According to some experienced owners, a new built engine will also get you at least 40-50k miles without any problem. Not to mention its almost strong and rust-proof bodywork, porsche boxster (986) will probably see rapid price rise in the next few years, depending on availability again.