Is the 2.5 Boxster too risky and too slow a purchase?

[nckr55]

Hugh74 said:

I've got a 2.7 Cayman (987.1) but now looking at 2.5 986's!

Was just reading this, thinking "I should ping this thread to Hugh..."

[Hugh74]

nckr55 said:

Hugh74 said:

I've got a 2.7 Cayman (987.1) but now looking at 2.5 986's!

Was just reading this, thinking "I should ping this thread to Hugh..."

[nckr55]

boxsey said:

For your info we found bore scoring on my 2.7 986 (MY01). It was just coming up to 120,000 miles. Felt strong as an ox and wasn't using any significant amounts of oil between services. The only symptoms were that it was taking longer to fire up from cold. We then discovered oily plugs at a service so put a borescope in and found the scoring.

Like how much longer? I've a 3.4 Cayman (under Porsche warranty) that has happily used no measurable oil in the 3k miles I've put on it - but which is now coughing (briefly) on start-up.

I've always taken the nice constant oil-level as my first line of comfort (backed up by the OPC warranty).

[boxsey]

nckr55 said:

boxsey said:

For your info we found bore scoring on my 2.7 986 (MY01). It was just coming up to 120,000 miles. Felt strong as an ox and wasn't using any significant amounts of oil between services. The only symptoms were that it was taking longer to fire up from cold. We then discovered oily plugs at a service so put a borescope in and found the scoring.

Like how much longer? I've a 3.4 Cayman (under Porsche warranty) that has happily used no measurable oil in the 3k miles I've put on it - but which is now coughing (briefly) on start-up.

I've always taken the nice constant oil-level as my first line of comfort (backed up by the OPC warranty).

Probably took about twice as long to fire as when it was healthy. So maybe about a couple of seconds longer. This doesn't sound like much but it felt like an age and used to give that 'will it fire?' feeling. There was no coughing but I had to give it some throttle to fire...which you shouldn't have to. A lot of things that could cause poor starting (coil packs, filters, MAF) had been changed. Then we found the oily spark plugs which explained why it was difficult to start. I was quite sad when we discovered the scoring but at the same time the car had given many years and miles of service so was happy to put it down to experience.

[was8v]

do it, the earlier the better, pre 2000

They have the better IMS bearing.
No bore score issues - they changed piston coatings in 2000(?)
RMS might leak a little - but unless its pissing poil out (they don't) its not worth the bother of changing it for the odd drip
Cable throttle
no bodykits, pure shape
Get one with ambers they suit it better
Cheaper parts than anything similar

Porsche did it right first time with the M96, but then they pinched a few pennies (IMS bearing, piston coatings) that then gave it a bad rep.

An M96 really is an epic engine.

In 5 years time we are going to turn around and wonder where all those cheap boxsters went.

[TTwiggy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

much the same thing I'd struggle with I think. I owned a brand new Elise a few years back, but realised a few months in that I bought the 'wrong' engine (134bhp Toyota). It was so frustrating to have such an acomplished car that had so little 'get up and go' the moment the road opened up. I replaced it with a 986S and suddenly it all made sense, with the perfect combo of handling and power.

I must say that an early, minty 986S is starting to tempt me again, but I hate to 'go back' to a car I've owned before and I think I'm going to go down the Caterham route. I was looking at 'budget' 996s, but there are so many dogs about that I've been put off.

[bcr5784]

TTwiggy said:

I must say that an early, minty 986S is starting to tempt me again, but I hate to 'go back' to a car I've owned before and I think I'm going to go down the Caterham route. I was looking at 'budget' 996s, but there are so many dogs about that I've been put off.

While I'm a big Caterham fan - probably the most fun car I've ever owned (including an Elise S1) - I find it an odd alternative to a 986S unless you have other more practical cars at your disposal. (That said I did set out to buy another Caterham and finished up with a 981S, but only because I'd never my other half to go in the Caterham and therefore it would become a track day car only)

[TTwiggy]

bcr5784 said:

TTwiggy said:

I must say that an early, minty 986S is starting to tempt me again, but I hate to 'go back' to a car I've owned before and I think I'm going to go down the Caterham route. I was looking at 'budget' 996s, but there are so many dogs about that I've been put off.

While I'm a big Caterham fan - probably the most fun car I've ever owned (including an Elise S1) - I find it an odd alternative to a 986S unless you have other more practical cars at your disposal. (That said I did set out to buy another Caterham and finished up with a 981S, but only because I'd never my other half to go in the Caterham and therefore it would become a track day car only)

I have a 'white goods' leased Kia Sportage for normal use. This 'toy' car will be just that, a 'toy'. The reason I am leaning towards a Caterham is the cheaper running costs (and I'm buying a P38 Rangey to offset that! )

[bcr5784]

TTwiggy said:

I have a 'white goods' leased Kia Sportage for normal use. This 'toy' car will be just that, a 'toy'. The reason I am leaning towards a Caterham is the cheaper running costs (and I'm buying a P38 Rangey to offset that! )

Running costs can be very low - if you built your own (which I'd strongly recommend - it'll improve your swearing no end) you could once even get away with no depreciation whatsoever. I don't think that's true any more, but they are still a very "wise" buy. In addition, Colin Chapman's mantra might have been to add "lightness" - but it resulted in adding "cheapness" - small tyres and brakes etc mean low cost consumables.

[TTwiggy]

bcr5784 said:

Running costs can be very low - if you built your own (which I'd strongly recommend - it'll improve your swearing no end) you could once even get away with no depreciation whatsoever. I don't think that's true any more, but they are still a very "wise" buy. In addition, Colin Chapman's mantra might have been to add "lightness" - but it resulted in adding "cheapness" - small tyres and brakes etc mean low cost consumables.

I'd love to build one, and one day I might, but this is going to be a second-hand purchase. Thinking of a k-series car, probably the 1.4 with supersport upgrade. As you say, buy well and you'll lose very little, and keeping it on the road is very cheap (when compared to a bit of budget Pork). Knowing my luck however, I'll miss out on all these £11k 996s that are going to be £50k in a few years' time!

[bcr5784]

TTwiggy said:

I'd love to build one, and one day I might, but this is going to be a second-hand purchase. Thinking of a k-series car, probably the 1.4 with supersport upgrade. As you say, buy well and you'll lose very little, and keeping it on the road is very cheap (when compared to a bit of budget Pork). Knowing my luck however, I'll miss out on all these £11k 996s that are going to be £50k in a few years' time!

If you found your Elise lacking at naughty dual carriageway speeds you will probably find the Supersport 1.4 starting to run out of steam there too because of the dire aerodynamics. Top speed is quite a bit less than the your Elise.

[TTwiggy]

bcr5784 said:

If you found your Elise lacking at naughty dual carriageway speeds you will probably find the Supersport 1.4 starting to run out of steam there too because of the dire aerodynamics. Top speed is quite a bit less than the your Elise.

It wasn't so much lack of top speed, it was more a lack of 'go'. I do think the Toyota engine, without the second cam, was ill-suited to the car. It really didn't like to rev and sounded awful if you tried to make it do so. Early road tests praised it's amount of torque - which rather misses the point of a car that's mean't to come alive at high revs. I think the k-series excels in this arena.

[GreenArrow]

It must be the Toyota engine. I remember hiring an original K Series Elise for a day in 1997 and they are not slow, I cleared 4 cars and a coach in one overtaking bound using third gear...speed accumulates slowly over 90 MPH but in the UK that surely isn't an issue?

Anyway just to clarify, I am buying a toy too...I have a Mazda 6 everyday runaround, so if I buy an Elise, Boxster or S2000, it wont be driven every day. I'm mainly attracted to the Honda because there are none of these engine worries that we have with a Boxster.

...so to backtrack, you guys recommend a 2.5 over a 2.7 or 3.2S as the least likely to give major trouble and the most "pure"? And yes, I reckon in time the cheap 2.5 Boxster will disappear, although I think I remember saying the same thing about the original 944 and they don't appear to have appreciated all that much....

[bcr5784]

TTwiggy said:

It wasn't so much lack of top speed, it was more a lack of 'go'. I do think the Toyota engine, without the second cam, was ill-suited to the car. It really didn't like to rev and sounded awful if you tried to make it do so. Early road tests praised it's amount of torque - which rather misses the point of a car that's mean't to come alive at high revs. I think the k-series excels in this arena.

You may well have a point there. I personally didn't find the S1 (K series) notably lacking - sure it's not pushing you back in the seat at highish speeds - but it doesn't feel like a slug or unwilling. A bit marginal on reliability the K series might be (head gaskets in particular) - but it is a nice engine.

[Mario149]

It's not a particularly financially sound buy due to the extras, but I think an S2000 supercharged to ~350bhp, some good brakes and a suspension upgrade would be a lovely thing. I had a regular 2002 one back in 2009 and while a chore for the daily stuff I used it for (lack of torque, cabin noise on the motorway and a ludicrously fictitious mpg claim were the main gripes), when you were ripping the nuts off it it was a hoot. Interior was ageing back then but has now def hit retro cool I think. And who doesn't like 9,000 rpm in a sportscar?

[tjdixon911]

I've just had a good read through this Topic with some interest.

I'm considering purchasing another Porsche, I have previously owned the 2.5 Boxster (Sold almost 10 years ago to the day) and a 968 Sport upto a few years ago.

The 2.5 was a lovely car to drive, it was my daily driver for the 2 years I owned it.

I've been considering a 996 (upto £15k) but reading the stories about the engine problems and potential costs I am getting put off this option and do find myself looking through the pages of (what appear to be good) Boxsters available for Sub £9k.

For me, I am drawn to the power of the S, I am considering taking a look at these as they are local, the 2nd one looks better overall;

http://www.woolpitgarage.co.uk/used-cars/porsche-b...

http://www.andytmotors.co.uk/used-cars/porsche-box...

There are also several Face lift models around which appeal more for the Glass Rear Screen than anything else.

[TTwiggy]

tjdixon911 said:

I've just had a good read through this Topic with some interest.

I'm considering purchasing another Porsche, I have previously owned the 2.5 Boxster (Sold almost 10 years ago to the day) and a 968 Sport upto a few years ago.

The 2.5 was a lovely car to drive, it was my daily driver for the 2 years I owned it.

I've been considering a 996 (upto £15k) but reading the stories about the engine problems and potential costs I am getting put off this option and do find myself looking through the pages of (what appear to be good) Boxsters available for Sub £9k.

For me, I am drawn to the power of the S, I am considering taking a look at these as they are local, the 2nd one looks better overall;

http://www.woolpitgarage.co.uk/used-cars/porsche-b...

http://www.andytmotors.co.uk/used-cars/porsche-box...

There are also several Face lift models around which appeal more for the Glass Rear Screen than anything else.

I would say do it. The only thing stoppiong me from buying a 986S is the fact I've had one before and I would rather sample something else. They really are great cars though with, in my opinion, just the right amount of power for British public roads. Sure, someone in a new BMW 135i or Golf R might outdrag you on a long straight, but so what?

[Fl0pp3r]

tr7v8 said:

Simple lack of use, my 944 gave less issues when being used as my co. car doing 38K in 18 months than when it went on a classic policy & did 2k per year. Slow windows, poor running, sticky instruments, stuck on brakes.
1000 miles a year equates to 3 miles a day, unlikely to get warmed through & if living in surburbia then likely to be slow speed & not up to full temp either. So cold acid laden oil.

I'm with this ^^

I'd rather have a mid-miler that's been used AND correctly serviced (ie oil changed at least every 12 mths) than a low-miler that hasn't.

[edc]

The 2.7 didn't have the centre rad but the tiptronic and S did. I think the silver trim was also only on the S.

[GreenArrow]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Nice, but another grand gets you this one, two miles down the road from me, with 47500 miles and two years newer.

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015...

Did you look at that one in Hampshire, the low mileage one?