Back in the fold.

Author
Discussion

jayxx83

Original Poster:

280 posts

134 months

Tuesday 5th February
quotequote all
After some time away having sold my boxster Spyder a couple of years back, I had been yearning for another Porsche. Having had a deposit on a 991.2 GTS which was cancelled after an extended test drive in both manual and PDK versions (reminded me of driving a fast armchair) and having tried a 997.2 3.6 manual, I stumbled upon a rather nice 2.9 manual Boxster.



I know by some it will be considered full on girl spec, but for my 12 mile B road commute to work, from what I have read will probably be the most fun from the modern Porsche range. Something with just the right amount of power so you can keep your toe in.

Swapping out my RS4 which is an excellent mile muncher, but not dynamic enough for the B roads. My previous F56 mini was epic as it was a JCW with quaife, 17”, Michelin PSS, KW coils corner weighted etc. That engine however had zero character and was concerned about longevity.

The only prob with the Spyder I found was as a daily it was a bit jiggly ride wise and only came alive above 50 mph which is where most of the speed limits are locally.

Having carbon buckets also after a meeting etc meant you couldn’t chill out. As that was “purist spec” no parking sensors, crap stereo, inability to mod it as would detract from the value. The 3.4 also meant you wouldn’t really hear much engine noise on day to day driving. The car however was epic on the ring!



This new car only has 7100 miles on the clock, major service just completed and a brand new set of N2 Michelin’s. It will need a few choice mods which will take course over time, but sincerely hoping this will be the perfect B road daily driver with just the right combo of speed and creature comforts. Quite surprised to learn the brakes are the same as on the S model as they were superb on the ring.

Picking up at the weekend so will report back after the initial 150 mile drive! So happy to be back in Porsche, even if it is at the poverty end of the spectrum! Any other owners views on the 2.9 are most welcome :-)







GT4P

3,679 posts

123 months

Tuesday 5th February
quotequote all
I think the 2.9 987.2 is a cracking little car and often overlooked in favour of the 3.4.Test drove a boxster 2.9 about 2011 at PEC and was pleasantly surprised, it would have to be manual though which I would have over a pdk 3.4.

jayxx83

Original Poster:

280 posts

134 months

Tuesday 5th February
quotequote all
Yeah just literally going to be a daily driver for fun to work and back. I think mods performance wise will be limited to a filter, remap and a set of manifolds. Then think about those Ohlins R&T plus some subtle interior upgrades, Alcantara trimming etc.

SkinnyPete

1,066 posts

87 months

Tuesday 5th February
quotequote all
Looks amazing and I think you made a good choice! Spyder looks insane on the ring too!

Porsche911R

16,242 posts

203 months

Tuesday 5th February
quotequote all
jayxx83 said:
Yeah just literally going to be a daily driver for fun to work and back. I think mods performance wise will be limited to a filter, remap and a set of manifolds. Then think about those Ohlins R&T plus some subtle interior upgrades, Alcantara trimming etc.
Not see that good a report on the Ohlins for this model.
Most after market stuff is way too hard.

Just drive it :-)

As for modes better off with a short shift, engine mount , and monoball toe links.
Give you a bit more extra feel, but it has that in spades over new stuff as is.
Advertisement

cmoose

43,577 posts

167 months

Tuesday 5th February
quotequote all
Looks fab. Brilliant daily. Brilliant full stop, really.

I'd recommend a set of 17s for the ultimate in lively B road fun. They really wake the 987 chassis up, the 17s.

olv

41 posts

153 months

Tuesday 5th February
quotequote all
Nice, much under rated. I really enjoyed my 987.2 2.9.

Cmoose is there really a marked difference between 17s and 18s on these? On passive suspension you’d think it must be marginal.

Brakes wise the 2.9 got the same brakes as the 987.1 3.2S if I remember correctly, which are plenty.

cmoose

43,577 posts

167 months

Wednesday 6th February
quotequote all
olv said:
Cmoose is there really a marked difference between 17s and 18s on these? On passive suspension you’d think it must be marginal.
Yes, substantial IMO. There's not much difference between the 18s and the 19s - just a bit more sidewall on the 18s, tread widths are the same and the 18s are still pretty big and heavy. 18s do feel a bit more compliant, but that is all. The 17s feel very different indeed.

17s are much narrower and lighter and unlock loads of feel, make the car feel much more malleable and progressive near the limit. I'm not talking about drifting the bloody thing, just pushing up a bit against the limits, which are in any case lower with the 17s. Car feels far more alive and nimble and engaging. It's a bit of a cliche, obviously, the small wheel thing, but in this case there's a great deal in it.

For absolutely flinging the thing down a lumpy, tight B-road with the car feeling alive in your hands and under your bum, the 17s are ace. Somebody else, forget who, put it really well: The 17s inject a bit of 'Lotus' into the chassis. Think that sums it up pretty nicely.

It's very hard to take someone's word for it, of course, and it won't be to everyone's taste. But I'd recommend trying it. A set of used 17s are dirt cheap, nobody wants them. Easy to bolt on and off and flog them on at minimal loss if no good.

My current (second) 987 is on 18s still. One other option I'm going to try is narrower 18 boots on the existing wheels - probably 215 fronts and 245 rears. The 17s can look a bit weedy, so I will see how close those tyres get to the feel of the 205 / 235 17s. If not close enough, I'll grab some 17s again and live with the emasculated looks!

Edited by cmoose on Wednesday 6th February 00:19

FrankCayman

1,873 posts

151 months

Wednesday 6th February
quotequote all
Perfect choice, Jay.

My 987.2 Cayman 2.9 was a joy yo drive and I never once regretted not getting the 3.4S....2.9 has plenty of power for legal fun and sounds better too.

Look forward to reading how you get on. Cheers!

sagarich

984 posts

87 months

Wednesday 6th February
quotequote all
Great looking car OP.

I've been keeping an eye on a 987.2 2.9 for a long time, I think it would also suit my 10 mile b road commute perfectly. The only sticking point is finding one with ISOFIX and airbag deactivation which seems like an option nobody ticked. I only need to collect my 2.5year old from nursery once a week... and happy to have a belt seat... but not happy with inability to deactivate airbag.

Porsche911R

16,242 posts

203 months

Wednesday 6th February
quotequote all
olv said:
Nice, much under rated. I really enjoyed my 987.2 2.9.

Cmoose is there really a marked difference between 17s and 18s on these? On passive suspension you’d think it must be marginal.

Brakes wise the 2.9 got the same brakes as the 987.1 3.2S if I remember correctly, which are plenty.
you do loose steering response and imo it's a step too far on that profile, always a trade off.

I like my cars to feel darty and that profile on a Porker you loose that while you wait for the rubber/slip angle to catch up with your input.

great for winter , lacking in the Dry once pushing on and loading up the tyres imo of course

cmoose

43,577 posts

167 months

Wednesday 6th February
quotequote all
Porsche911R said:
you do loose steering response
No you don't. Which you'd know if you knew what you're talking about! I doubt you've even driven a 987 on summer 17s on a good B road.

I'll leave this here for third parties. Not that I'm a huge Harris fan, but the passage on the first phase of turn in is relevant in this context and he does at least know what he is talking about!


Porsche911R

16,242 posts

203 months

Wednesday 6th February
quotequote all
cmoose said:
No you don't. Which you'd know if you knew what you're talking about! I doubt you've even driven a 987 on summer 17s on a good B road.

I'll leave this here for third parties. Not that I'm a huge Harris fan, but the passage on the first phase of turn in is relevant in this context and he does at least know what he is talking about!
It's personal preference. he drives 911 and was impressed at the Cayman better turn in, no surprise that , but that's not down to the 17" wheels lol

I don't like the lag in the dry on higher profile tyres, it's that simple., you seem to, it is what it is.

Have you fitted a GT3 MC to your new car yet lol

if you knew more about slip angles, you would realise when you turn the wheel you have to wait for the tyre to catch up.
nice in the wet as you can feel the lack of grip in the rain and it's safter as you get more warning , in the dry ,it just feels st imo.

Harris is talking about drift angles, not slip angles so his report is wrong ! stating slip.angles
but than again not many people understand what a slip angle is.

At the end of the day a lower profile tyre turns in sharper and more direct, that's just basic physics.









Edited by Porsche911R on Wednesday 6th February 11:11

jayxx83

Original Poster:

280 posts

134 months

Wednesday 6th February
quotequote all
Some really interesting comments guys. Cheers.

I think yes, I will get used to it again and the decide what I want to tweak. Short shift kit was one of the ideas as it was superb on the Spyder.

Might get a set of 17” just to try it out but have to confess a bit of lowering and some 18” spaced out would make it look a bit more beefy.

Let’s see. The dealers is near the Peak District so may as well detour via there on the way home.

The previous only only did roughly 1k miles per year in it in the first 5 years and there were mot comments about pitting to the brake discs on the first MOT. Time to wake that baby up and dust of the cobwebs!

cmoose

43,577 posts

167 months

Wednesday 6th February
quotequote all
Like I said, it's a matter of preference. The 17s won't be to everyone's taste, not saying they will. But is they are, they really are quite revelatory. Grip levels are clearly lower, of course, and they do reveal a little push even a road speeds - but for me that's all part of the fun as it introduces a little element of trail braking occasionally to keep things nice and neutral I think they're fantastic for waking the car up.

All I'd really just suggest is keeping an open mind. Oh, and ignoring the cluelessness above!

Edited by cmoose on Wednesday 6th February 11:23

cmoose

43,577 posts

167 months

Wednesday 6th February
quotequote all
Porsche911R said:
Harris is talking about drift angles
No. No he isn't. Oh well! hehe

Porsche911R

16,242 posts

203 months

Wednesday 6th February
quotequote all
cmoose said:
Porsche911R said:
Harris is talking about drift angles
No. No he isn't. Oh well! hehe
to quote his line
"It isn.t necessary to drive at speed to generate noticeable slip angles"

he is talking about drifting as that's all he does lol

If you like the lag and feeling of 45 series rubber that's great, but understand what a slip angle is before posting.

Slip Angle:
In vehicle dynamics, slip angle or sideslip angle is the angle between a rolling wheel's actual direction of travel and the direction towards which it is pointing.

In his line he really means Drift/slide-angle ! ie which way his car is pointing lol

And while the net effect of talking about slip angles front to rear has to do with understanding what a car is doing to get into a drift or understeer, the Harris post is really talking about his drift/slide angle as normal.

Slip angles can be complex subject. One it seems you know nothing about !

Harris is talking about how far he can get the back end out.



jayxx83

Original Poster:

280 posts

134 months

Wednesday 6th February
quotequote all
Feel privileged to have your legendary banter on this thread. I can see the love has grown over the years!!

One benefit of such low mileage is that you get to feel it relatively fresh. My spider had 11k when I purchased. However when I chopped it in, the left track rod felt shagged at only 19k. I guess the 8 laps of the ring didn’t help.

LordGrover

30,212 posts

150 months

Wednesday 6th February
quotequote all
Congrats OP - enjoy in good health!

cmoose

43,577 posts

167 months

Wednesday 6th February
quotequote all
Porsche911R said:
to quote his line
"It isn.t necessary to drive at speed to generate noticeable slip angles"

he is talking about drifting as that's all he does lol
I clearly highlighted the bit I was talking about was the first phase of turn in, to use his words. It can't be that hard to understand, can it? Really?

Drifting has nothing to do with it and, as is usually the case, you don't understand the things you're posting about. Not sure if the OP is familiar with your back catalogue of gibberish, if so nothing to worry about as he will know your form!

Again, I'm not dictating anything, just making a suggestion. Hopefully your muddle-brained nonsense won't distract from that. It's a pity to get bogged down disputing this kind of nonsense.