986 or 987 Boxster S

[edc]

Comparing 986 vs 987 is not always going to be an apples vs apples comparison. The problem you have is that comparatively the 986 suspension will typically be older with more miles on it. It's fair to say this is how the cars will be in the market though but if you are a do-er upper then a cheaper 986 and a few £100 may make the difference. On my first Boxster I replaced all the suspension arms/bushes, springs, dampers and arbs, top mounts. On the current ones just the suspensions arms/bushes. An older one with useable but tired suspension doesn't handle terribly but there is a significant and noticebale difference to fresh suspension on otherwise the same car.

[jakesmith]

NicD said:

I know your views on this as you have made them many times.

Each time I read them, I wonder if yours (or mine) is a true and deep analysis, or merely rationalisation.
I do admire people who are very happy with older and cheaper. Unfortunately, I was born with consumer spoon in my mouth.

Moving on, one thing that got me about my 2.5 (and to a lessor degree, the 3.2), the minimal torque below 2k. If I wasn't concentrating, could easily stall it during manoeuvres.

Nic

That's not lack of torque, that's down to a mechanical issue that most of the 2.5's suffer from, I use to know what it was but can't remember, sticking solenoid or valve or something like that, but it makes pulling away at tickover impossible, as you lift the clutch and revs get to about 1000 it will stall so you need revs to stop it stalling. Not lack of torque but still really annoying & caught the Mrs out a few times