Costs of Boxter, Z4 and TT

[Gregewazix]

I'm agonising over a choice between a 2003 Boxter 2.7/3.2, 2004 Z4 3.0i and 2004 TT 3.2Q. All are under £12k with less than 40k miles and good histories. They are very different drives, all have pro's and con's but I intend to use it as a 3rd car doing 5k miles per year and will keep it for 3 years or more.
I'm interested in owner's experiences of maintaining these and the likely cost difference of keeping them as they should be and re-selling without losing my shirt. Any advice is appreciated.

[Targarama]

I've just picked up a Z4 3.0L. Was the right car for me. We have owned a TT in the past and I tried several Boxsters. I think the Porsche has the possibility of being the most expensive to run if anything goes wrong. The BMW/Audi should a little cheaper. My BMW is doing 30mpg - I doubt the others will manage this.

I strongly suggest focusing on a 1.8T version of the TT - the V6 will be expensive to fuel and hard to sell.

Resaleability is tricky - all are good cars. TTs are a bit common now, and a V6 TT will be hard to shift. Check out VED costs too - the Boxster is over 225g/KM CO. The 3.0L Z4 is 221 - one of several reasons for my choice.

[a_bloke]

Gregewazix said:

I'm agonising over a choice between a 2003 Boxter 2.7/3.2, 2004 Z4 3.0i and 2004 TT 3.2Q. All are under £12k with less than 40k miles and good histories. They are very different drives, all have pro's and con's but I intend to use it as a 3rd car doing 5k miles per year and will keep it for 3 years or more.
I'm interested in owner's experiences of maintaining these and the likely cost difference of keeping them as they should be and re-selling without losing my shirt. Any advice is appreciated.

I cant imagine you'd rack up massive bills on any of these if you're doing less than 5K per year.

We've put 24K on our z4 3.0si coupe and all has been fine.

Personally, i'd go for the 3.2 boxster though.

[Gregewazix]

Thanks for your comments, I'm not sure why I was looking at the 3.2TT when the 1.8 225 bhp makes more sense, I'll have to drive one to compare now. Researching these three options leaves me a bit more worried about about the costs with the boxster than the Z4 or TT. Lot's of adverts for the Boxster mention sums that have 'just been spent' on clutches, brakes, rear windows on pre-glass models and even gearboxes which is a worry on cars with moderate mileages.

The way I see it after researching & driving them is,
Boxter - Classy, fast, very precise manners, unlikely to lose too much on resale if maintained but that will cost more than the other two. Bit femanine and it's not a 911.
TT 3.2Q or 1.8T 225Q Conv - Still fresh but a classic in the making, great quality, nice drive but a bit 'unconnected' from the road for a sports car. Will be cheaper to run, may lose a little more on re-sale. Lots around and bit femanine still.
Z4 3.0i - Dramatic looks, fast, sporting road manners (bit crashy over bumps though!), easy to keep, running costs are mixed, lots around so may still lose money and the new model is only just out so this may further affect prices. Probably the more 'Healey 3000' of the three.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh choices!

[g7jhp]

Gregewazix said:

I'm agonising over a choice between a 2003 Boxter 2.7/3.2, 2004 Z4 3.0i and 2004 TT 3.2Q. All are under £12k with less than 40k miles and good histories. They are very different drives, all have pro's and con's but I intend to use it as a 3rd car doing 5k miles per year and will keep it for 3 years or more.
I'm interested in owner's experiences of maintaining these and the likely cost difference of keeping them as they should be and re-selling without losing my shirt. Any advice is appreciated.

All 3 should be bullet proof as they're built to be daily drivers.

TT will be old model and rather long in the tooth and although it has the quality interior and looks it isn't as good a drive as the competition.

Z4 is the safe bet, but isn't in the same league in terms of drive or image.

Personally I'd go for a Boxster S which are a great drive, sound sporty and really are amazing value for £12k.

[ExPat2B]

I honesty dont understand the appeal of the TT as a sports car.

It has the engine and drivetrain from a commuter car ( A4 )

It looks great on paper but the 4wd system is wrong for a sports car. Its a FWD system with a clutch that engages to give power to the rear wheels when the front wheels slip.

This is designed to give FWD economy ( low tranmission loss ) with 4WD traction in poor conditions. This works well in the A4.

Of course, as soon as you try to drive it like a sports car, you discover it means understeer followed by the rear wheels being driven and cancelling it. But no oversteer unless you are an utter hooligan. And the V6 has the engine forwards of the front axle making the front tendancy to run wide even worse.

So its like driving a FWD commuter car with more grip, in a sports car body with stiff suspension and no space, the worst of all worlds if you will.

I am given to understand that you can get Haldex controllers and revised suspension to offset some of this. But don't bother, the TT is a sports car for people who dont know the meaning of the word.

[Gregewazix]

A mate has just tried to help by suggesting an MG RV8, says it it's fast, classy, rare, not bad to run over low miles and will go up in value - I've not driven one but pointed out that although it may go up in value it's unlikely to go round corners!

[AdamMitch69]

to through a bit of a wildcard into the equation: Nissan 350Z
3.5 V6, no fancy double clutches or complicated electronics. Just 300 brake, 6 speed box and the rear wheels. ...and if you get the roadster they are a lot rarer (and better looking in my opinion) than the Boxsters/Z4's!

PS - no Datsun jokes as heard them all before!

Adam

[G_T]

Another vote here for Boxster S.

Don't even entertain the 2.7 though. It's a chick's car.

[scoobydude]

The biggest cost of owning one of these cars will be your dignity. If you like wearing shirts 2 sizes too small (with the collar turned up), too much hair gel, and you frequent clubs with bright coloured neon signs however, youll be just fine.

[G_T]

scoobydude said:

The biggest cost of owning one of these cars will be your dignity. If you like wearing shirts 2 sizes too small (with the collar turned up), too much hair gel, and you frequent clubs with bright coloured neon signs however, youll be just fine.

From your name, presumably you drive a Subaru and you're offering him opinions based on how people perceive him?

I'd rather look like a tart than a chav who couldn't stretch to an EVO.

Pot...Kettle...Black.

[new_bloke]

scoobydude said:

The biggest cost of owning one of these cars will be your dignity. If you like wearing shirts 2 sizes too small (with the collar turned up), too much hair gel, and you frequent clubs with bright coloured neon signs however, youll be just fine.

If you like 'sportswear' and baseball caps, perhaps a Subaru might be in order? Oh...

[scoobydude]

G_T said:

scoobydude said:

The biggest cost of owning one of these cars will be your dignity. If you like wearing shirts 2 sizes too small (with the collar turned up), too much hair gel, and you frequent clubs with bright coloured neon signs however, youll be just fine.

From your name, presumably you drive a Subaru and you're offering him opinions based on how people perceive him?

I'd rather look like a tart than a chav who couldn't stretch to an EVO.

Pot...Kettle...Black.

I'd rather poke my eyes out with blunt carrots than drive a stty evo.

[scoobydude]

new_bloke said:

scoobydude said:

The biggest cost of owning one of these cars will be your dignity. If you like wearing shirts 2 sizes too small (with the collar turned up), too much hair gel, and you frequent clubs with bright coloured neon signs however, youll be just fine.

If you like 'sportswear' and baseball caps, perhaps a Subaru might be in order? Oh...

Unless the aforementioned "Chav" had nicked it, you wouldnt see many driving proper scoobs (ie not clapped out imported classics).

[anonymous-user]

scoobydude said:

G_T said:

scoobydude said:

The biggest cost of owning one of these cars will be your dignity. If you like wearing shirts 2 sizes too small (with the collar turned up), too much hair gel, and you frequent clubs with bright coloured neon signs however, youll be just fine.

From your name, presumably you drive a Subaru and you're offering him opinions based on how people perceive him?

I'd rather look like a tart than a chav who couldn't stretch to an EVO.

Pot...Kettle...Black.

I'd rather poke my eyes out with blunt carrots than drive a stty evo.

I always thought that the Evo was a much more focused car. Especially on the track. Had the impression that it is more of an enthusiasts choice.

[TTwiggy]

I'm having the exact same dilema myself.

I've had a TT roadster before (1.8 225) and I'd have one again. Contrary to what the 'Clarkson gang' will tell you, they're not bad at being sports cars, just a slight lack of feedback - but you could say that of many modern cars

I'm driving an Elise at the moment, so I know that nothing is going to compare on the driving front, although I am told the Boxster is not far off.

Personally, the Boxster S appeals - fast, practical (two decent boots) and great handling

After that I'd maybe go another TT, but it woud need a re-map (£300 quid sees 250-260 bhp)

[a_bloke]

scoobydude said:

new_bloke said:

scoobydude said:

The biggest cost of owning one of these cars will be your dignity. If you like wearing shirts 2 sizes too small (with the collar turned up), too much hair gel, and you frequent clubs with bright coloured neon signs however, youll be just fine.

If you like 'sportswear' and baseball caps, perhaps a Subaru might be in order? Oh...

Unless the aforementioned "Chav" had nicked it, you wouldnt see many driving proper scoobs (ie not clapped out imported classics).

Mate, really, poking a stick at driver stereotypes and driving a Scooby. I mean seriously?

[G_T]

scoobydude said:

I'd rather poke my eyes out with blunt carrots than drive a stty evo.

It was a tongue in in cheek example of misconceptions about drivers.

But out of curiosity, and at the risk of taking the thread monsteriously off topic, why is an EVO st compared to a Subaru?

[scoobydude]

St John Smythe said:

scoobydude said:

G_T said:

scoobydude said:

The biggest cost of owning one of these cars will be your dignity. If you like wearing shirts 2 sizes too small (with the collar turned up), too much hair gel, and you frequent clubs with bright coloured neon signs however, youll be just fine.

From your name, presumably you drive a Subaru and you're offering him opinions based on how people perceive him?

I'd rather look like a tart than a chav who couldn't stretch to an EVO.

Pot...Kettle...Black.

I'd rather poke my eyes out with blunt carrots than drive a stty evo.

I always thought that the Evo was a much more focused car. Especially on the track. Had the impression that it is more of an enthusiasts choice.

The drivers of evos do certain things enthusiasticly, i'll grant you that.

[booner]

Have you looked at the option of a 350z?