Which Boxster?
Discussion
Ive heard the 2.7 is a better buy over the S. I’m looking at a mrk 1 so price is not the key issue perhaps a few more miles or standard alloys is the only compromise between a 2000S and 2001 2.7.
In terms of performance the S has it on paper who does this compare on a day to day basis?
How is the S rated as a performance car?
In terms of performance the S has it on paper who does this compare on a day to day basis?
How is the S rated as a performance car?
Key differences are the S has a good deal more poke and better brakes. This is not to say it will stop you much faster - but it will do so time and again with no brake fade better than the standard model.
If you will track the car definitely get the S.
If you want a high days and holidays road going roadster I can see why you wouldn't spend the extra - bang for your buck is probably better on the 2.7.
I have only test driven the 2.7, though, and I have owned two Ss.
If you will track the car definitely get the S.
If you want a high days and holidays road going roadster I can see why you wouldn't spend the extra - bang for your buck is probably better on the 2.7.
I have only test driven the 2.7, though, and I have owned two Ss.
OH..
and check the spec of any 2.7 you get. All the privately bought ones have most of the option boxes ticked but you can get "poverty spec" ones with no air-con and no toys - these cars can be bought cheaply but will be hard to sell on. The S came with most of the toys you need as standard. (And many owners, like myself, still raided the Options list with a foolish level of hard-earned.)
and check the spec of any 2.7 you get. All the privately bought ones have most of the option boxes ticked but you can get "poverty spec" ones with no air-con and no toys - these cars can be bought cheaply but will be hard to sell on. The S came with most of the toys you need as standard. (And many owners, like myself, still raided the Options list with a foolish level of hard-earned.)
Fundamentally, the 2.7 is adequately powered, but you need to ring it out to high-revs if you want to access it. The 3.2 is altogether a more relaxed proposition, it's got a lot wider torque spread so you needn't be so diligent with gear selection to keep it in the zone. That said, it does mean that you have to be on your guard a lot more of the time against tank-slappers whilst cornering!
As for price, independents seem to have pre-facelift models of the 2.7 and 3.2 of similar ages at similar prices, as a lot more of the 2.7's have higher spec (satnav etc) than the 3.2's.
I think it basically comes down to what kind of car you're after. If you want a well balanced sports car with adequate power to have some fun and not get dropped by hot hatches, then the 2.7 is more than adequte. But if you're after as much bang as you can get, then it's the 3.2, and that has got serious bang!
As for price, independents seem to have pre-facelift models of the 2.7 and 3.2 of similar ages at similar prices, as a lot more of the 2.7's have higher spec (satnav etc) than the 3.2's.
I think it basically comes down to what kind of car you're after. If you want a well balanced sports car with adequate power to have some fun and not get dropped by hot hatches, then the 2.7 is more than adequte. But if you're after as much bang as you can get, then it's the 3.2, and that has got serious bang!
brm said:
How is the S rated as a performance car?
very highly, trouble with the 2.7 is that it isn't - this is generally people who think JC is a car reviewer rather than an entertainer and is a bunch of claptrap
however I didn't even consider getting a non-S but it depends what you are used to driving - the 2.7 would not have been any quicker than my previous car so didn't see the point
as prices are so close at the age you are looking at I really don't see the point of considering a 2.7 unless insurance/fuel consumption is an issue
the S has aircon as std, so just get one with full leather and 18s and you're good to go
[edited to say and don't add the godawful slushmatic and ruin an otherwise great car]
Edited by Adam B on Monday 19th June 09:51
I thought that I'd brush over the gearbox question, I didn't want to get sucked into the whole Tiptronic S (yes/no) bearpit!
I'm not too bothered about the five speed on the 2.7, because the extra gear is only really an overdrive on the 3.2 and you can't use it legally in the UK anyway!
I'd probably stay clear of the 2.7 Tiptronic S, because it just blunts the acceleration too much. The 3.2 with Tiptronic S is a nice compromise, because the extra power makes up for the transmission losses.
I'm not too bothered about the five speed on the 2.7, because the extra gear is only really an overdrive on the 3.2 and you can't use it legally in the UK anyway!
I'd probably stay clear of the 2.7 Tiptronic S, because it just blunts the acceleration too much. The 3.2 with Tiptronic S is a nice compromise, because the extra power makes up for the transmission losses.
I must say I am leaning toward the S from what I hear and on the performance side, I never knew it had A/C as standard good to know 
I just feel getting the 3.2 I might as well look into going for an early 996 3.4.
Been trawling through the auto mags/websites and there are a few early 996 911s going for around the same money. Ok Im looking at 70+ miles but on paper they are one of the fastest non turbo 911s ever! The 3.4 996 coupe is listed almost 0.5s faster than the 3.6 996/997!
Its prob down to the fact that they are so light, is it true the 996 3.4 coupe is lighter than the 996 GT3?
Ok im sure round a track and braking the newer 911s would shine but the old 3.4 still seems to be up there in terms of performance.
I just feel getting the 3.2 I might as well look into going for an early 996 3.4. Been trawling through the auto mags/websites and there are a few early 996 911s going for around the same money. Ok Im looking at 70+ miles but on paper they are one of the fastest non turbo 911s ever! The 3.4 996 coupe is listed almost 0.5s faster than the 3.6 996/997!
Its prob down to the fact that they are so light, is it true the 996 3.4 coupe is lighter than the 996 GT3?
Ok im sure round a track and braking the newer 911s would shine but the old 3.4 still seems to be up there in terms of performance.
Regarding relatvive performance...
On short tracks, I have been able to keep up with 3.2's with two people on board in my 2.7 without a passenger so I would say that the performance advantage of the S must be small in these circumstnces. I have also driven a 2000 S on a few occasions and have not felt a significant difference in power or torque (over my 2002 2.7)
Although the braking performance of the 2.7 is still very good, the brakes on the S are going to be stronger. I have been a little disapointed with the low biting point on my 2.7's brakes - as this does not help heel&toeing but it is possible that new pads and fluid might help here.
I have the feeling that I will never get the rock-solid pedal that I would like and wonder if the S models are always better in this regard as the last one I drove certainly was. I am amazed though as even some reviews of Cayman S that I have read have complained of a mushy brake pedal...
Regarding other issues...
One thing I noticed when looking at 2000 S models was that the interiors were let down by shiny plastics etc. but this was improved with the 2001 model year I believe.
Overall, I would favour a well specced 2.7 over a standard 3.2 for the same money as I like my cars that way.
However the trouble with Porsches is they have an annoying ability to get you to keep upping your budget as there are incremental improvements available in every model year as I'm sure you well know!
An early MY2003 (glass rear window model) 2.7 would surely be worth pushing the budget for, as not only do you get the better rear window, the engine was improved...
The 2.7 will also be marginally cheaper to run (brakes, insurance, consumption etc.)
There is an undeniable stigma issue to deal with though. Down 'the pub' if you say you have a Boxster, someone will surely ask you... "Is it an S?" It would be very boring to list all of the above reasons why it can be a sensible choice....
You can't argue with PAG's marketing department: S models are "better" !
On short tracks, I have been able to keep up with 3.2's with two people on board in my 2.7 without a passenger so I would say that the performance advantage of the S must be small in these circumstnces. I have also driven a 2000 S on a few occasions and have not felt a significant difference in power or torque (over my 2002 2.7)
Although the braking performance of the 2.7 is still very good, the brakes on the S are going to be stronger. I have been a little disapointed with the low biting point on my 2.7's brakes - as this does not help heel&toeing but it is possible that new pads and fluid might help here.
I have the feeling that I will never get the rock-solid pedal that I would like and wonder if the S models are always better in this regard as the last one I drove certainly was. I am amazed though as even some reviews of Cayman S that I have read have complained of a mushy brake pedal...
Regarding other issues...
One thing I noticed when looking at 2000 S models was that the interiors were let down by shiny plastics etc. but this was improved with the 2001 model year I believe.
Overall, I would favour a well specced 2.7 over a standard 3.2 for the same money as I like my cars that way.
However the trouble with Porsches is they have an annoying ability to get you to keep upping your budget as there are incremental improvements available in every model year as I'm sure you well know!
An early MY2003 (glass rear window model) 2.7 would surely be worth pushing the budget for, as not only do you get the better rear window, the engine was improved...
The 2.7 will also be marginally cheaper to run (brakes, insurance, consumption etc.)
There is an undeniable stigma issue to deal with though. Down 'the pub' if you say you have a Boxster, someone will surely ask you... "Is it an S?" It would be very boring to list all of the above reasons why it can be a sensible choice....
You can't argue with PAG's marketing department: S models are "better" !
Can someone clear up the 3.4 996 performance and weight stats for me – I was sure I read thos figs in evo last night although I was quite tired having spend a couple of hours researching the engine problems in the 3.4!
With regard to mentioning the car down the pub im not sure what’s worse saying you have a boxster because it’s a sensible choice over an old 911 or saying you have a 2.7 cus it’s a sensible choice over the S – either way its obvious porkers will never be on the COOL wall!
With regard to mentioning the car down the pub im not sure what’s worse saying you have a boxster because it’s a sensible choice over an old 911 or saying you have a 2.7 cus it’s a sensible choice over the S – either way its obvious porkers will never be on the COOL wall!
MogulBoy said:
I have the feeling that I will never get the rock-solid pedal that I would like and wonder if the S models are always better in this regard as the last one I drove certainly was.
The brake pedal in the S is solid, pre- and post-facelift. That said take a surprising amount of pressing to really get the brakes to bite and take your face off! Although I have to say that I'm comparing it to a TT and a Z4, in which it's less of a pedal, more an on/off switch! Feel isn't their strong point. A facelift 2.7 is a very good car, the valve timing was significantly modified so it revs higher, has a more "air-cooled" sound, and more importantly has a lot wider torque spread. Unfortunately this is reflected in the used prices, they're the same as facelift 3.2's.
The 996 3.4 looks good on paper, but there aren't many on the market that haven't been to the moon and back, so you're asking for trouble getting one for Boxster S money.
Thanks for all the info guys, originally I was all for an E46M but there’s just too many around and the lower range BMW coupes are making a mockery of the M3 at this stage.
Dare I mention the Z4? Great to drive but not my cup of tea in the looks dept as are all Beemers for that matter.
Your right about the 986 any 3.4s I’ve seen for S money have big miles but they are over 7 yrs old at this stage 90% of them get driven everyday so getting a low miler is an expensive exercise.
MogulBoy as far as soggy pedals go Ive had a soft pedal on my corrado ever since upgrading the brakes they take a bit of getting used to at first but for track it does give good feedback.
I considered getting a bigger MC but felt Id be looking at an on off switch which is the last thing I wanted for track use – no traction control or ABS in these ol skool VWs
Dare I mention the Z4? Great to drive but not my cup of tea in the looks dept as are all Beemers for that matter.
Your right about the 986 any 3.4s I’ve seen for S money have big miles but they are over 7 yrs old at this stage 90% of them get driven everyday so getting a low miler is an expensive exercise.
MogulBoy as far as soggy pedals go Ive had a soft pedal on my corrado ever since upgrading the brakes they take a bit of getting used to at first but for track it does give good feedback.
I considered getting a bigger MC but felt Id be looking at an on off switch which is the last thing I wanted for track use – no traction control or ABS in these ol skool VWs
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff