MX5 or Boxster S ?
Discussion
I haven't driven an MX5 - although I wanted a cheap-ish fun car in the Spring, and I ended up with a convertible (Alfa Spider), the MX5 styling didn't appeal to me (although I really like the look of the current ones).
However - in the Summer, I started seeing a girl who had a Boxster, same kind of age you're considering. For various reasons, I borrowed it for about a week - and at the start I wondered if I'd wish I'd bought one. After a week, I really didn't.
In my opinion the Boxster isn't a pretty car anyway - at least not that age of them. It was certainly quicker than my Alfa - and RWD which is a big plus. But I much prefer driving the Alfa - it has style which the Boxster lacks, and it's simply more fun and engaging to drive. And I've no doubt that the MX5 would be even more fun. The Boxster was simply dull for me - but to be fair, I think I drove it when I'd reached the end of my interest in Porsche sports cars (had a 996 variant for 5.5 years until a couple of years ago).
Porsche cars are good at plenty of things, but for me they really do lack something. I think you'll have more fun in the Mazda.
However - in the Summer, I started seeing a girl who had a Boxster, same kind of age you're considering. For various reasons, I borrowed it for about a week - and at the start I wondered if I'd wish I'd bought one. After a week, I really didn't.
In my opinion the Boxster isn't a pretty car anyway - at least not that age of them. It was certainly quicker than my Alfa - and RWD which is a big plus. But I much prefer driving the Alfa - it has style which the Boxster lacks, and it's simply more fun and engaging to drive. And I've no doubt that the MX5 would be even more fun. The Boxster was simply dull for me - but to be fair, I think I drove it when I'd reached the end of my interest in Porsche sports cars (had a 996 variant for 5.5 years until a couple of years ago).
Porsche cars are good at plenty of things, but for me they really do lack something. I think you'll have more fun in the Mazda.
Glad you started this thread as I'm having the same dilemma.
Unfortunately after reading the replies I'm no nearer reaching a conclusion! My take on it is that if I buy a 5 and like it I'll probably improve it and keep it for a while, if I don't like it it's cheap and even if i lose a bit of money buying a lemon, no biggie. If that happens with the Porsche it's a lot more potential loss. So I'll probably start with the 5, see how much we use it and then potentially upgrade after some fun tuning/odd track day etc.
Probably.
Unfortunately after reading the replies I'm no nearer reaching a conclusion! My take on it is that if I buy a 5 and like it I'll probably improve it and keep it for a while, if I don't like it it's cheap and even if i lose a bit of money buying a lemon, no biggie. If that happens with the Porsche it's a lot more potential loss. So I'll probably start with the 5, see how much we use it and then potentially upgrade after some fun tuning/odd track day etc.
Probably.
true story:
many years ago i had spare cash to burn, and so naturally wanted to "upgrade" my mx5 fun car to a Porsche. natural thought.
I had a Boxster on loan for a few days and decided to stick with the 5 for my needs (pure fun short trips). It wasn't about the money, the funds were there and mentally allocated.
The desire to upgrade from 5 to Boxster to Lambo to McLaren is understandable if you have the cash. the upgrades are in many ways "better" cars. It's just that for putting a smile on your face on a B-road blast little beats the lightweights of Lotus, Caterham, MR2, S2000 etc.
Overall my garage did get more expensive and a little German. BUT here are the words of wisdom and experience: If i had my time again i would spend more cash sooner on track cars. And for road cars you always need a fleet.
many years ago i had spare cash to burn, and so naturally wanted to "upgrade" my mx5 fun car to a Porsche. natural thought.
I had a Boxster on loan for a few days and decided to stick with the 5 for my needs (pure fun short trips). It wasn't about the money, the funds were there and mentally allocated.
The desire to upgrade from 5 to Boxster to Lambo to McLaren is understandable if you have the cash. the upgrades are in many ways "better" cars. It's just that for putting a smile on your face on a B-road blast little beats the lightweights of Lotus, Caterham, MR2, S2000 etc.
Overall my garage did get more expensive and a little German. BUT here are the words of wisdom and experience: If i had my time again i would spend more cash sooner on track cars. And for road cars you always need a fleet.
The Mk.3 MX5s need some work to make them properly fun in my book - the Boxster is a better starting point. The Box will cost more to run though.
Down at that budget I'd be looking elsewhere I suspect - either cut the budget and get an older MX5 (maybe with a turbo), or something much more raw (you can afford a 2.2 VX220 for example and that won't depreciate much or at all).
If you are absolutely set on one of those two cars, it'd have to be the Porker for me (I've owned a newer Boxster and an older MX5 and new tyres and a service on the Porsche cost the same as the '5 cost to buy outright).
Down at that budget I'd be looking elsewhere I suspect - either cut the budget and get an older MX5 (maybe with a turbo), or something much more raw (you can afford a 2.2 VX220 for example and that won't depreciate much or at all).
If you are absolutely set on one of those two cars, it'd have to be the Porker for me (I've owned a newer Boxster and an older MX5 and new tyres and a service on the Porsche cost the same as the '5 cost to buy outright).
mikal83 said:
culpz said:
mikal83 said:
Theres no comparison between the 2.........
They're not direct rivals but there are enough similarities between the two that makes a comparison valid.Wheel in each corner
Rag top
No back seat.
ermmmmmm that's it.
Both cars are:
Low-seated
Fairly desirable
RWD
Engaging
Manual
Highly-praised
N/A
Seem similar enough to me. The main differences lie in the performance, running costs and practicality, which is what OP is asking on here.
I have an 2000 Boxster S and step Daughter has an 02 MX5 which I drive occasionally. Boxster on 75k and MX5 on 85k miles, the Boxster is used once a week and does about 2.5k a year and the MX5 does about 5k a year. So far the MX5 has cost a lot more than the Boxster in repairs/servicing and is rusting away underneath at a rapid rate (the Boxster did cost 3 times as much to buy though).
I drive the A roads around Warwickshire/North Oxfordshire and on a quiet road both are good but if you come across the '40mph everywhere' brigade the Boxster is the one to have.
IMHO it depends on the type of roads you plan to be driving on.
I drive the A roads around Warwickshire/North Oxfordshire and on a quiet road both are good but if you come across the '40mph everywhere' brigade the Boxster is the one to have.
IMHO it depends on the type of roads you plan to be driving on.
I would say it depends on your driving attitude, ask yourself:
"will I be racing anyone / trying to keep up with hot hatches / get drawn into TLGP's/ proving the cars speed etc = Boxster
"will I be driving sensibly to the speed limits and want to have fun/sense of involvement whilst doing so?" = mx5
You don't start to appreciate the MX5 until you get some years of driving other under your belt, it is all the "fun car" you require on a public road - that's why they are mostly owned by older people! (sweeping generalisation...)
The real answer is to spend a quarter of your budget on a mk1 mx5 with no rust :-) Word is spreading on them becoming a future classic.
"will I be racing anyone / trying to keep up with hot hatches / get drawn into TLGP's/ proving the cars speed etc = Boxster
"will I be driving sensibly to the speed limits and want to have fun/sense of involvement whilst doing so?" = mx5
You don't start to appreciate the MX5 until you get some years of driving other under your belt, it is all the "fun car" you require on a public road - that's why they are mostly owned by older people! (sweeping generalisation...)
The real answer is to spend a quarter of your budget on a mk1 mx5 with no rust :-) Word is spreading on them becoming a future classic.
culpz said:
mikal83 said:
culpz said:
mikal83 said:
Theres no comparison between the 2.........
They're not direct rivals but there are enough similarities between the two that makes a comparison valid.Wheel in each corner
Rag top
No back seat.
ermmmmmm that's it.
Both cars are:
Low-seated
Fairly desirable
RWD
Engaging
Manual
Highly-praised
N/A
Seem similar enough to me. The main differences lie in the performance, running costs and practicality, which is what OP is asking on here.
calletso said:
I would say it depends on your driving attitude, ask yourself:
"will I be racing anyone / trying to keep up with hot hatches / get drawn into TLGP's/ proving the cars speed etc = Boxster
"will I be driving sensibly to the speed limits and want to have fun/sense of involvement whilst doing so?" = mx5
You don't start to appreciate the MX5 until you get some years of driving other under your belt, it is all the "fun car" you require on a public road - that's why they are mostly owned by older people! (sweeping generalisation...)
The real answer is to spend a quarter of your budget on a mk1 mx5 with no rust :-) Word is spreading on them becoming a future classic.
What? A Boxster is all about handling feel and involvement. If anyone actually thinks of those as points to base a car purchase round then they're likely a prize tosser."will I be racing anyone / trying to keep up with hot hatches / get drawn into TLGP's/ proving the cars speed etc = Boxster
"will I be driving sensibly to the speed limits and want to have fun/sense of involvement whilst doing so?" = mx5
You don't start to appreciate the MX5 until you get some years of driving other under your belt, it is all the "fun car" you require on a public road - that's why they are mostly owned by older people! (sweeping generalisation...)
The real answer is to spend a quarter of your budget on a mk1 mx5 with no rust :-) Word is spreading on them becoming a future classic.
Patrick Bateman said:
What? A Boxster is all about handling feel and involvement. If anyone actually thinks of those as points to base a car purchase round then they're likely a prize tosser.
For me, that's the key thing that modern (i.e. M96 onwards) Porsche models lack. All subjective of course, but they are just not at all involving for me.Patrick Bateman said:
calletso said:
I would say it depends on your driving attitude, ask yourself:
"will I be racing anyone / trying to keep up with hot hatches / get drawn into TLGP's/ proving the cars speed etc = Boxster
"will I be driving sensibly to the speed limits and want to have fun/sense of involvement whilst doing so?" = mx5
You don't start to appreciate the MX5 until you get some years of driving other under your belt, it is all the "fun car" you require on a public road - that's why they are mostly owned by older people! (sweeping generalisation...)
The real answer is to spend a quarter of your budget on a mk1 mx5 with no rust :-) Word is spreading on them becoming a future classic.
What? A Boxster is all about handling feel and involvement. If anyone actually thinks of those as points to base a car purchase round then they're likely a prize tosser."will I be racing anyone / trying to keep up with hot hatches / get drawn into TLGP's/ proving the cars speed etc = Boxster
"will I be driving sensibly to the speed limits and want to have fun/sense of involvement whilst doing so?" = mx5
You don't start to appreciate the MX5 until you get some years of driving other under your belt, it is all the "fun car" you require on a public road - that's why they are mostly owned by older people! (sweeping generalisation...)
The real answer is to spend a quarter of your budget on a mk1 mx5 with no rust :-) Word is spreading on them becoming a future classic.
t to have any actual fun and actually experience any involvement at all, and in this country there are seldom the opportunities for that.I have never, however, owned or driven an MX-5. I've been a passenger in one but it was driven by a really slow and cautious driver.
How about the Honda S2000? As much power as a 986S but in a much more sporty package. It was a ride in one of them that made me sell my Mercedes estate and buy a sports car in the first place.
To have the most fun in any car requires pushing on compared to just pottering around.
It helps if you fit the smallest wheels and tyres available. Boxsters all too often come with ridiculously wide tyres for the road. I switched from 18's to 17's on my 987 and it's far more enjoyable because of it and certainly not dull.
In any case, traffic light GP, 'racing' etc. are not reasons to go for a bloody Boxster.
It helps if you fit the smallest wheels and tyres available. Boxsters all too often come with ridiculously wide tyres for the road. I switched from 18's to 17's on my 987 and it's far more enjoyable because of it and certainly not dull.
In any case, traffic light GP, 'racing' etc. are not reasons to go for a bloody Boxster.
mikal83 said:
culpz said:
mikal83 said:
culpz said:
mikal83 said:
Theres no comparison between the 2.........
They're not direct rivals but there are enough similarities between the two that makes a comparison valid.Wheel in each corner
Rag top
No back seat.
ermmmmmm that's it.
Both cars are:
Low-seated
Fairly desirable
RWD
Engaging
Manual
Highly-praised
N/A
Seem similar enough to me. The main differences lie in the performance, running costs and practicality, which is what OP is asking on here.
Patrick Bateman said:
To have the most fun in any car requires pushing on compared to just pottering around.
It helps if you fit the smallest wheels and tyres available. Boxsters all too often come with ridiculously wide tyres for the road. I switched from 18's to 17's on my 987 and it's far more enjoyable because of it and certainly not dull.
In any case, traffic light GP, 'racing' etc. are not reasons to go for a bloody Boxster.
The trouble with the 3.2 is that pushing on enough to make it an engaging drive results in you doing licence losing speeds. Mine had the sports suspension package as well which made it even more rubbish at slow speeds :-DIt helps if you fit the smallest wheels and tyres available. Boxsters all too often come with ridiculously wide tyres for the road. I switched from 18's to 17's on my 987 and it's far more enjoyable because of it and certainly not dull.
In any case, traffic light GP, 'racing' etc. are not reasons to go for a bloody Boxster.
Checking your profile I suspect you made the right decision getting the 2.7 (and living somewhere where you can drive it properly!). I think on reflection I would have preferred to have the normal chassis and an engine I could wring the neck of a bit more often.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff