RE: BMW Z4 M40i vs. Porsche Boxster GTS
Discussion
E65Ross said:
Barga said:
nickfrog said:
jakesmith said:
I know they’re new cars, I know there has been inflation since I was younger but f me £75k is a lot of money for a Boxster. I bought a 987S for £11k last year and it was brilliant.
They're not £75k though are they? They are £52k which compares well with the 1997 986S at £40k new then. I would be interested to know what you mean by your post
Thanks
Barga said:
Frog said that the Porsche is not £74k but £52k when in fact “ price as tested £74,419“ so he better let Porsche know they are wrong!
I am sure you have read the article and realised the only reason it was a GTS is that they couldn't get hold of a S, the natural competitor to the BMW. And even a GTS is not £74k as no one has to buy the many options always loaded on test cars. I have no idea why people so often pounce on the "as tested" price to make a point that doesn't exist as in real terms the Boxster new prices have remained very steady since the original 23 years ago. Quite a few manufacturers do this - supply a fully specced car to a magazine for a head to head review. I think it is up to the magazines to put their foot down and say no to these tests.
If this is to be a like for like test for the same money then limit the cars to those in the same price bracket.
Would a Boxster without PASM, active exhaust etc and all the options be better than the z4?
Might be, based on the weight alone but this is not the review it should have been.
I’m afraid I don’t buy the “ Porsche only had this top of the range Boxster available” nonsense.
Must admit I don’t understand the change from 6 to 4 cylinders as we are all hammered on road tax on theses things anyway. As they cost over 42k Road tax is 450 pa whether they are 4 or 6 cylinder.
If this is to be a like for like test for the same money then limit the cars to those in the same price bracket.
Would a Boxster without PASM, active exhaust etc and all the options be better than the z4?
Might be, based on the weight alone but this is not the review it should have been.
I’m afraid I don’t buy the “ Porsche only had this top of the range Boxster available” nonsense.
Must admit I don’t understand the change from 6 to 4 cylinders as we are all hammered on road tax on theses things anyway. As they cost over 42k Road tax is 450 pa whether they are 4 or 6 cylinder.
Miserablegit said:
Quite a few manufacturers do this - supply a fully specced car to a magazine for a head to head review. I think it is up to the magazines to put their foot down and say no to these tests.
If this is to be a like for like test for the same money then limit the cars to those in the same price bracket.
Would a Boxster without PASM, active exhaust etc and all the options be better than the z4?
Might be, based on the weight alone but this is not the review it should have been.
I’m afraid I don’t buy the “ Porsche only had this top of the range Boxster available” nonsense.
Must admit I don’t understand the change from 6 to 4 cylinders as we are all hammered on road tax on theses things anyway. As they cost over 42k Road tax is 450 pa whether they are 4 or 6 cylinder.
Road tax, or whatever it's called this week, is something specific to each domestic market. As I'm sure you know, this car isn't made for just one market, but is a global car. As such, they pump as many out as they can, and here in Blighty "we get what we get, and we don't get upset".If this is to be a like for like test for the same money then limit the cars to those in the same price bracket.
Would a Boxster without PASM, active exhaust etc and all the options be better than the z4?
Might be, based on the weight alone but this is not the review it should have been.
I’m afraid I don’t buy the “ Porsche only had this top of the range Boxster available” nonsense.
Must admit I don’t understand the change from 6 to 4 cylinders as we are all hammered on road tax on theses things anyway. As they cost over 42k Road tax is 450 pa whether they are 4 or 6 cylinder.
Porsche would have made the decision to go with this engine layout for reasons far beyond one market.
nickfrog said:
Barga said:
Frog said that the Porsche is not £74k but £52k when in fact “ price as tested £74,419“ so he better let Porsche know they are wrong!
I am sure you have read the article and realised the only reason it was a GTS is that they couldn't get hold of a S, the natural competitor to the BMW. And even a GTS is not £74k as no one has to buy the many options always loaded on test cars. I have no idea why people so often pounce on the "as tested" price to make a point that doesn't exist as in real terms the Boxster new prices have remained very steady since the original 23 years ago. I don’t know the answer but cars list prices have seemed to become higher in real terms over the years to the point where if you walk into a BMW,Merc,Audi or Landrover showroom the £100k car is not a shock anymore!
Barga said:
It was you that said it’s not £74k when the car tested was, I am sure cars have remained “very steady” but have earnings done the same?
I didn't say it's not £74k as tested.I responded to Jake:
jakesmith said:
I know they’re new cars, I know there has been inflation since I was younger but f me £75k is a lot of money for a Boxster. I bought a 987S for £11k last year and it was brilliant.
New Boxsters are definitely less than £75k new. No need to add £20k to the price of a new S. It's quite easy to realise that new Boxters are not £75k, particularly in the context of an article that explains they couldn't get hold of the direct competitor, the S. In fact they are £45k new (2.0) with 50hp more than the original S.I'd like to think that earnings have grown faster than the the increase in price for a S in 1997 at £40k to today's £52k. That's less than 1.5% a year. I would call that steady.
Must admit I'm in agreement with nickfrog on this one.
Reason being..... The article states that the car doesn't need to be as highly specced to be enjoyed, and the base car without all the options is still a very enjoyable thing. Therefore, it seems to me they're saying that it doesn't need to be a £75k boxster to be better to drive than the Z4.
I'd have to drive them both, but the boxster would have to be miles and miles better to drive, because that 4 pot engine in there sounds so incredibly dreary, especially in comparison to that straight 6.
Reason being..... The article states that the car doesn't need to be as highly specced to be enjoyed, and the base car without all the options is still a very enjoyable thing. Therefore, it seems to me they're saying that it doesn't need to be a £75k boxster to be better to drive than the Z4.
I'd have to drive them both, but the boxster would have to be miles and miles better to drive, because that 4 pot engine in there sounds so incredibly dreary, especially in comparison to that straight 6.
Honest question, what proportion buy based on the engine now. Less so than the folk on here but in general.
Surely for most it’s brand preference and price. Bet bmw hammer cheap lease options and Pork is a load more due to the perceived brand superiority and higher residuals. Do bmw do a cheapo entry price version too like the old 2.0 z4?
Surely for most it’s brand preference and price. Bet bmw hammer cheap lease options and Pork is a load more due to the perceived brand superiority and higher residuals. Do bmw do a cheapo entry price version too like the old 2.0 z4?
nickfrog said:
New Boxsters are definitely less than £75k new. No need to add £20k to the price of a new S. It's quite easy to realise that new Boxters are not £75k, particularly in the context of an article that explains they couldn't get hold of the direct competitor, the S. In fact they are £45k new (2.0) with 50hp more than the original S.
I'd like to think that earnings have grown faster than the the increase in price for a S in 1997 at £40k to today's £52k. That's less than 1.5% a year. I would call that steady.
You did say “there not £74k are they” when in fact the car tested was!I'd like to think that earnings have grown faster than the the increase in price for a S in 1997 at £40k to today's £52k. That's less than 1.5% a year. I would call that steady.
And Jake did say ‘“when did Boxters become £74k.
Anyway MRP is pretty much irrelevant these days it’s all down to monthlies in most cases!
Barga said:
You did say “they’re not £74k are they” when in fact the car tested was!
And Jake did say ‘“when did Boxters become £74k.
Anyway MRP is pretty much irrelevant these days it’s all down to monthlies in most cases!
He is bladdy right as it goes! And Jake did say ‘“when did Boxters become £74k.
Anyway MRP is pretty much irrelevant these days it’s all down to monthlies in most cases!
It’s a lot of money for a Boxster, just like how £40k was a lot for a Boxster S in 2001. Could have bought 5 Ferrari 308’s and 3 Countaches back then for that money!! Or 20 993’s etc
Edited by jakesmith on Sunday 21st April 14:06
Edited by jakesmith on Sunday 21st April 14:12
jakesmith said:
Also the Porsche has a certain ring to owning it that will always put it above a BMW in my mind
But I will admit BMW is marginally down one rung if only because they make a nasty ugly cheap saloon that is no more than a Ford Focus for badge snobs.
Ahem I will also admit I do like the new Z4 in top spec.mode. A test drive is booked but I fear I too might look a show-off prat in one & it's not even a Porsche.
WJNB said:
jakesmith said:
Also the Porsche has a certain ring to owning it that will always put it above a BMW in my mind
But I will admit BMW is marginally down one rung if only because they make a nasty ugly cheap saloon that is no more than a Ford Focus for badge snobs.
Ahem I will also admit I do like the new Z4 in top spec.mode. A test drive is booked but I fear I too might look a show-off prat in one & it's not even a Porsche.
Your ridiculous clichés about rich mums is absurd (I admit to only know 3 Cayenne owners over the past few years, all have been male, for reference). You also say you're worried about how you'll look in a Z4.... If that's the car you want, just buy it. You clearly are too image-conscious.
I also agree Porsche is definitely one rung above BMW, but you say because they make hideous saloon cars like a Ford Focus, which is actually a hatchback....
I think the new Z4 looks far better in the flesh than it does is pictures. I’ve seen a few about now and quite like them. I’m a fan of the B58 engine too even though the PPF strangles the exhaust sound a bit.
That Boxster is expensive, but cars are these days. People talk about a £74k Boxster, but you can spend almost £100k on an M4 etc.
That Boxster is expensive, but cars are these days. People talk about a £74k Boxster, but you can spend almost £100k on an M4 etc.
WJNB said:
Oh my how we delude ourselves. Yes the Porsche brand does have 'a certain ring' & it's rarely anything to do with admiration much as one might dream it to be. It's one that bestows little on the owner because to most drivers having to share the road with one it's just another blasted car. Why Porsche even make a big clunky thing for rich Mums to swank about in on the school run, how suburban is that?
But I will admit BMW is marginally down one rung if only because they make a nasty ugly cheap saloon that is no more than a Ford Focus for badge snobs.
Ahem I will also admit I do like the new Z4 in top spec.mode. A test drive is booked but I fear I too might look a show-off prat in one & it's not even a Porsche.
If you think a brand new Porsche is not recognisable as such & has no cachet then that is a view that is not in line with how the majority of people thinkBut I will admit BMW is marginally down one rung if only because they make a nasty ugly cheap saloon that is no more than a Ford Focus for badge snobs.
Ahem I will also admit I do like the new Z4 in top spec.mode. A test drive is booked but I fear I too might look a show-off prat in one & it's not even a Porsche.
If you think Porsche as a brand is tarnished by the Cayenne (followed by a clumsy stereotype natch), then what is BMW with their 218 Active Tourer MPV, their 114i, the GT atrocities, the X1, X2 etc etc etc. Yet you're considering taking a BMW for a test.
You silly duck!
Court_S said:
I think the new Z4 looks far better in the flesh than it does is pictures. I’ve seen a few about now and quite like them. I’m a fan of the B58 engine too even though the PPF strangles the exhaust sound a bit.
That Boxster is expensive, but cars are these days. People talk about a £74k Boxster, but you can spend almost £100k on an M4 etc.
PPF!? I can guess what that means. Yet another 'development' to strangle the remaining joy out of cars.That Boxster is expensive, but cars are these days. People talk about a £74k Boxster, but you can spend almost £100k on an M4 etc.
To think people complained when the 981 went from hydraulic to electric steering! To think people complained when the 9X6 engines adopted water cooling! How people would kill to have cars like the 9X7.2 series GT3, 911 and Boxsters come out now
Real weight of the BMW has been measured at 1588kg. That's the same as a 4L V8 E92 M3. Or to put it another way, a brand new Lotus Elise Cup 250 plus an entire other S1 Elise on top of that.
It's supposed to be a compact two seat sports car, with extensively talked-up handling, but my four wheel drive Skoda Superb estate weighs the same, fer chrissake! Did they accidentally make it out of lead or something?
It's supposed to be a compact two seat sports car, with extensively talked-up handling, but my four wheel drive Skoda Superb estate weighs the same, fer chrissake! Did they accidentally make it out of lead or something?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff