Cayman vs boxster

[MGYoung]

Is there much difference in handling between the Cayman and the Boxster? If not I don’t understand why the Cayman is more expensive. Am I correct in thinking that they use the same suspension, engines and interior trim?
Is the Boxster lacking in torsional stiffness?

[4sure]

Fight !

[Koln-RS]

Ultimately the Cayman will handle better than the Boxster owing to its greater structural rigidity, although they are both amazingly similar - and fabulous.

Unusually though, the Boxster was developed as a roadster, before the Cayman, so the Boxster isn't a Cayman with the roof chopped off.

It really boils down to whether you want a fixed head coupe or a drop top roadster. Neither should disappoint. But, do agree, the Cayman seems a touch over-priced.

[MGYoung]

The reason for the question was that normally the cabrio version of a coupe is more expensive. This is not the case with the boxster / cayman and I was unsure if the cayman is a 'boxster coupe' or is there is more to it than that. For the kind of driving that I do the boxster would appear to be the obvious choice between the two as it provides the added benefit of top down motoring (when it finally stops raining!) combined with good handling. I don't drive on track and I don't push to the limit on the road.

All the best.

Martin.

Edited by MGYoung on Sunday 17th August 12:17

[heebeegeetee]

Someone will be along soon to tell you they're not 'men's' cars.

[MGYoung]

heebeegeetee said:

Someone will be along soon to tell you they're not 'men's' cars.

Image doesn't really bother me. (although I would draw the line at a barbi pink nissan Micra CC

[ChesterDog]

I've driven more than one of each.

If you don't already know, you will be astounded at the Boxster's rigidity.

It's true the Cayman has the edge here, but that's all it is.

Both handle brilliantly; delicate, lots of finesse, extraordinarily chuckable.

Boxster's rear 3/4 vision not the best. Cayman a touch noisy sometimes.

Either car is a lot of fun to drive and very civilised with it.

Summary: neither perfect, both brilliant.

[Davey S2]

The Cayman has a stiffer suspension than the Boxter which coupled with the more rigid coupe body makes a big difference.

Thestandard 987 Boxter I tried was very nice as well though.

[eowen]

I have a Cayman, and was given a 987 Boxster S the other day as a courtesy car. There was very little in it. The main difference to me was cabin noise (roof up), was a lot more apparent in the Box.

[Gunny Sergeant D]

eowen said:

I have a Cayman, and was given a 987 Boxster S the other day as a courtesy car. There was very little in it. The main difference to me was cabin noise (roof up), was a lot more apparent in the Box.

+1

.....The Cayman is more refined and a bit more communacative.

[jackal]

i drove a boxster recently.. it was all silky and light and sort of sanitised..
all the controls made it feel like any old VAG car tbh

sure, engine sounded quite nice (bugger all torque though) and body control/ride was exemplary but it was all a bit mainstream and non-special. Could just as well have been in a seat leon with a slightly more interesting engine note imo. I'd say go for the Cayman.

[Adam B]

MGYoung said:

I don't drive on track and I don't push to the limit on the road.

in which case you won't appreciate the marginal handling improvement of the Cayman so it boils down to whether you prefer cab over coupe. It sounds like you fancy a cab which is fortunate for you as you don't have to pay the unjustified price premium of the Cayman, which actually costs less to produce.

Do a search for many other threads on this topic

[997GT3]

I'm disappointed that both the boxster and cayman dont have a top of range RS or Turbo version type car with power around 350bhp mark. The new Cayman S Sport will have 303bhp but i still dont think that's enough.

I can see Porsche's reasoning behind this in that they dont want the boxster/cayman to be stepping on the 911's feet, power-wise.

But how popular would a cayman turbo be with a 350 - 400 bhp engine!!!!!!

[noumenon]

I have a 986 S and tried a Cayman. There wasn't enough difference for me to want to part with the extra cash to get one. Given the 987 S will be a lot closer to the Cayman, both should be brilliant. IMHO - save yourself a bit of cash and buy a good boxster. Porsche have enough money already!

[Geneve]

jackal said:

i drove a boxster recently.. it was all silky and light and sort of sanitised..
all the controls made it feel like any old VAG car tbh

sure, engine sounded quite nice (bugger all torque though) and body control/ride was exemplary but it was all a bit mainstream and non-special. Could just as well have been in a seat leon with a slightly more interesting engine note imo. I'd say go for the Cayman.

Which model was that - a 2.5 or 2.7?

It certainly doesn't describe the 3.2/3.4'S'.

I often drive a 987'S' back to back with a 2.7RS and a 997GT3, and I've never been disappointed.

IMO, £ for £, the Boxster 'S' is one of the best cars Porsche has ever made. Of course it's now 10 years old, and so familiar that I suppose most people take it for granted.

[Adam B]

997GT3 said:

But how popular would a cayman turbo be with a 350 - 400 bhp engine!!!!!!

very - which is why Porsche will never make it

they make 3x profit on a 911 as they would do on such a car. why do people still not get this?

[shoestring7]

Koln-RS said:

Ultimately the Cayman will handle better than the Boxster owing to its greater structural rigidity, although they are both amazingly similar - and fabulous.

Unusually though, the Boxster was developed as a roadster, before the Cayman, so the Boxster isn't a Cayman with the roof chopped off.

It really boils down to whether you want a fixed head coupe or a drop top roadster. Neither should disappoint. But, do agree, the Cayman seems a touch over-priced.

Correct, although the Cayman has >2x tortional stiffness of the Boxster, so suspension is tuned slightly differently.

If you're worried about 'over-priced' then don't buy any 997, which contributes a massive margin to Porsche's bottom line compared to any Boxster or Cayman. I

f you're not worried, they are respectivly the best sports coupe/cabriolet under £50k by a huge margin.

SS7

[heebeegeetee]

shoestring7 said:

Correct, although the Cayman has >2x tortional stiffness of the Boxster,

Are you sure, is that right? Given than manufacturers have been making cars stiffer and stiffer from day 1, i'm surprised to learn that they are still able to make such leaps and bounds with road cars using conventional materials. Given that we are talking road cars here, with road suspension and tyres, i really would think that there comes a point where increased rigidity of the structure is not going to make much difference anymore. Is the roof of the Cayman stressed? if not, it won't be adding any major difference to the rigidity of the structure. (Porsche being Porsche though, i would imagine that it is indeed a stressed skin).

Had the Cayman come out first, and Porsche had lopped the roof off to make the Boxster, then the cayman might be twice as rigid as the Boxster, but as that's not the case i'm surprised to hear that there's such a difference. Or, as the Boxster is getting a bit old now, had the body shell been substantially re-engineered to make the Cayman, i could understand the difference, but again, i don't think that is the case.

[Adam B]

heebeegeetee said:

shoestring7 said:

Given than manufacturers have been making cars stiffer and stiffer from day 1, i'm surprised to learn that they are still able to make such leaps and bounds with road cars using conventional materials.

always amazed when the new version of a BMW/Audi etc comes out and they claim 30-40% extra rigidity version after version. Presumably cars were made from jelly in the 70s

[shoestring7]

heebeegeetee said:

shoestring7 said:

Correct, although the Cayman has >2x tortional stiffness of the Boxster,

Are you sure, is that right? Given than manufacturers have been making cars stiffer and stiffer from day 1, i'm surprised to learn that they are still able to make such leaps and bounds with road cars using conventional materials. Given that we are talking road cars here, with road suspension and tyres, i really would think that there comes a point where increased rigidity of the structure is not going to make much difference anymore. Is the roof of the Cayman stressed? if not, it won't be adding any major difference to the rigidity of the structure. (Porsche being Porsche though, i would imagine that it is indeed a stressed skin).

Had the Cayman come out first, and Porsche had lopped the roof off to make the Boxster, then the cayman might be twice as rigid as the Boxster, but as that's not the case i'm surprised to hear that there's such a difference. Or, as the Boxster is getting a bit old now, had the body shell been substantially re-engineered to make the Cayman, i could understand the difference, but again, i don't think that is the case.

Road & Track (Sept 2005) said: "Compared with the Boxster, the big difference of course is that the Cayman is a closed car......Porsche engineers have retained the Boxster’s strong floorpan without modification with the result that the close car is only 11lb lighter that the comparable Boxster.

On the other hand the Caymans S's torsional stiffness is 2.5 times higher that the Boxster S (which ranks as one of the structurally stiffest contemporary open cars) and only 5% lover that the 997 series Carrera. The beam stiffness is also doubled compared with the roadster’s."

Porsche must hve slipped this information into the Cayman press packs. I've seen it reference in a number of press articles, but the actual figures are not, as far as I can tell, published.

SS7