Early 986 3.2S or Early 987 2.7?

[Herman Toothrot]

Once again I find myself looking at Porsches, these Boxster varients are now similarly priced and I'm finding myself wondering which would be the better car? I'm actually swaying towards the smaller engine as I read power difference is very small ~7bhp? Better mpg and hopefully the later car shoul be generally improved as a whole? Is that a fair summary?

or do I go for an early 996 Carrera as again similar price bracket.. (£10 - £13K)

[Herman Toothrot]

No opinions? Someone must have owned both?

From what I read its new 2.7 = 31mpg & 241bhp or the old 3.2 = 25mpg 249bhp. So on the face of it the 2.7 looks the better option, such a minimal power difference it shouldn't really be noticable but substantially more economical.

[x12yhp]

I would have thought that you could find a late 986S (261hp?) for money comparable to the early 987. An early 986S would be £8-9k.... I haven't seen any 987 within £3k of this...

[Jobbo]

I went through a similar thought process last autumn, and was going to commit to a 987 2.7 but then went and drove a 986 2.7 which was much cheaper - and bought that. Cheapest 987 2.7 I could find from a specialist dealer (fully warranted) was about £14k with 80k miles; I think they've fallen a bit despite it now being summer, so the 987 might be more tempting now.

[Herman Toothrot]

So did you think the difference between the two minimal then, at least small enough to think the difference in price was better left in the bank or did you actively prefer the older car? I do prefer the look of the 987. The 3.2S 986 I'd be buying has just had a new clutch, brake discs and pads all round, been looked after by an independant specialist. Not sure of the name of the colour but it's effectively gun metal grey. Nice car, I drove it last summer when the current owner bought it, think it's quite low mileage about 55,000.

I'll just add whichever car I buy it's bound to find itself on trackdays quite regularly.

Edited by Herman Toothrot on Monday 27th June 22:24

[Jobbo]

Herman Toothrot said:

So did you think the difference between the two minimal then, at least small enough to think the difference in price was better left in the bank or did you actively prefer the older car?

I bought on value - basically I didn't find any 986 3.2s that were in decent condition except an overpriced one, and I thought the 987 had too far to fall. And there's not a great deal of difference; I'm not sure cmoose has ever tried a 2.7- perhaps he can correct me - but my facelift 2.7 has far more torque than I was expecting. And even a 3.2 isn't all that stunningly quick; it's so linear it doesn't give a thrill when you accelerate, put it that way.

If you make a significant saving by going for a 2.7 over a 3.2 then I'd say it's well worth doing. For context, I looked at my 2003 2.7 (for which I paid £7,800), a few 3.2s (£9k for a sheddy 2001 with low mileage; he would have taken sub-£8k on the day but I simply didn't want to buy it. And I can't remember them all but the majority were facelift cars around £12-13k, 50-60k miles, all missing services and in slightly worse condition than advertised so not tempting). The 987 (2005, 2.7) was up for £13,995 at Autobahn in Coventry with 80k miles and they didn't want to haggle. I was still tempted but when I saw the car I bought the next day (with 120k miles on it), it was quite apparent what was better looked after and better value.

[Herman Toothrot]

Which output and how much would a 2002 3.2s weigh?

[chris7676]

Jobbo said:

And even a 3.2 isn't all that stunningly quick; it's so linear it doesn't give a thrill when you accelerate, put it that way.

I would say it feels quite flat rather than linear.

[Jobbo]

chris7676 said:

I would say it feels quite flat rather than linear.

Is that something different?

2002 986 3.2 is most likely going to be pre-facelift, so 252bhp. The facelift version produces 260bhp. The 2.7 is 220/228bhp for comparison.

Weight is going to be mostly down to equipment - my fairly bare specced 2.7 is about 1240kg I think, and a well-specced S is possibly going to be 1300kg or so.

Edited by Jobbo on Tuesday 28th June 13:31

[Jobbo]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

They're in the right proportions, and they're the figures published by all the magazines from the press packs, so they'll do

[aruck]

Are there any potential engine issues with any of the boxsters like there are with the 996/997? Anything that should concern a potential buyer?

[Herman Toothrot]

The 987 Boxster 2.7 is listed at 241bhp in most articles I have seen.

[Herman Toothrot]

I'm revisiting the Boxsters again, in the end I shook hands on buying my mates 986 3.2S but 2 days later he crashed it.

I got a mk3 MR2 instead and promptly had the engine fail on track. Anyway had a better engine put in the MR2 and love it as a fun car. However its a noisy raw little impractical thing and no good for euro road trips with the wife. So thinking about a Boxster as a 4th car...

I think as it'd be an additional road car the 987 2.7 manual looks a good bet, bit more economy would be nice, what do people get the computer saying they average? These have been about a while now, hows reliability turning out?

[SalesManager]

The difference is huge, their are two reasons for this IMHO

1 the S goes much better, it must be torque.
2 the 986s has much better brakes.

[Jobbo]

I sold my 986 2.7 in 2012, but over the nearly 2 years I owned it I averaged 28.5mpg. That's as a second car so it was used enthusiastically on pretty much every journey, though I did get 36mpg once driving home from work. Mine didn't have air-con though, so that's bound to make a slight difference.

To be honest, I'd still happily choose a 2.7 if I went for another Boxster (986 or 987); the engine has more of a top-end surge than the 986 3.2 and that gives it a bit of character.

[Herman Toothrot]

28.5mpg is very good, that's better than I manage in the 1.8 MR2.

Regards the mention of IMS design change, this sounds a bit backwards, but are you saying its better to have the old design so the aftermarket can fix it because Porsches upgrade / change is rubbish?

[andyspiers]

(Hi there Porsche forum people as a lurker surfaces)

Had my 2005 987 2.7 since the Summer and am very happy with it. Slow compared to my last car (bonkers 450bhp/tonne Elise) but great to drive, swift enough, modern, quiet, civilised and a very nice place to be.

Economy-wise: it'll do about 24mpg round London, 28 mpg A/B road cross country thrash, 31 mpg on a long trip (motorway/a-road/etc. at a reasonably swift pace), 35+ when stuck at 50-60mph (e.g. busy motorway/roadworks with average speed cameras). Long term average about 30

Mine has a 6-speed box which is nice but not essential.

I considered 986S, 987 and 987S. Much preferred the 987 interior and exterior so never test drove a 986. Heart wanted an S but head didn't think it was worth the £500 extra insurance (the joys of living in Central London) for 12% more power/torque

Andy

[Herman Toothrot]

I prefer the look of the 987 by quite a margin, but if the 3.2S made a huge difference then I'd have gone that way. Its appearing that for my purposes the 2.7 seems a better buy. The 3.2S I had shaken on displayed an average of 24mpg of the computer for example, hadn't thought about insurance as at 35 it never seems very expensive but I have not got quotes to compare the different models.

[Jobbo]

Herman Toothrot said:

28.5mpg is very good, that's better than I manage in the 1.8 MR2.

Coincidentally it's the same as I am getting from my 1.8 MX5 now. Still the most economical car I own, but from an MX5 it's disappointing whereas from a Boxster it was pleasing

Do get insurance quotes for both S and 2.7; I found the 2.7 quotes were more expensive than the S, weirdly.

[chris7676]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Interesting, I have only been in the 986 3.2 and the engine feels relatively unexciting (compared to BMW, Rover or Renaultsport).