I've just bought some poverty Pork…
Discussion
quickie123 said:
Like the red, but don't think I could live with that grey interior.
Might just pass if it was extended leather though......................
It could have been Savannah... At least broken up with plenty of black instead of everything all the same grey like you sometimes get Might just pass if it was extended leather though......................
Just for you cmoose:
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2016...
3.2 S in Silver over box red. One of the earliest ('99) so almost guaranteed to have dual row IMSB too. My Jan '00 V reg 2.7 is dual row.
Recent (or lack of) MOT history makes amusing reading, but all relatively easy fixes.
http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2016...
3.2 S in Silver over box red. One of the earliest ('99) so almost guaranteed to have dual row IMSB too. My Jan '00 V reg 2.7 is dual row.
Recent (or lack of) MOT history makes amusing reading, but all relatively easy fixes.
Rosewood Red said:
Ah well, I tried 
I too think it's optimistically priced, but that's the first silver on Box' red 3.2 S I've seen. They tend to predominantly be 2.5s.
But then, the bork free IMSB on that makes it somewhat of a wildcard.
If it was sub £5k though...
I've got this feeling the car has been hanging around for ages, actually. I have a feeling I saw it last year when I was considering a 3.2 (and ultimately decided to get a 996).I too think it's optimistically priced, but that's the first silver on Box' red 3.2 S I've seen. They tend to predominantly be 2.5s.
But then, the bork free IMSB on that makes it somewhat of a wildcard.
If it was sub £5k though...
The whole 'I don't think this will be about long' statement rings too many bells.
ooid said:
Lovely motor and would make a perfect bedfellow to my early 996. I've got some photos of my Arctic 986.1 (2.7) nose to nose with my Arctic 996.1 and they look lovely as a pair.The pedant in me says that car needs a new numberplate plinth though
bgunn said:
I've got this feeling the car has been hanging around for ages, actually. I have a feeling I saw it last year when I was considering a 3.2 (and ultimately decided to get a 996).
The whole 'I don't think this will be about long' statement rings too many bells.
How's your 996 Brian? Have you got round to swapping Ohlins in yet? The whole 'I don't think this will be about long' statement rings too many bells.
ooid said:
I think that front bumper looks better than my 996 with its black strip across the whole thing.ATM said:
I think that front bumper looks better than my 996 with its black strip across the whole thing.
I kinda like the 996 one. It balances the long overhang at the rear as it's a bit deeper, the 986 one is a bit shorter to match the bobtailed rear..I think the 986 in a very quick glance probably looks a bit better resolved, and a bit more youthful (which no doubt is the intention) The 996 needs deeper inspection (and is very colour sensitive I feel) to resolve some of the finer details. A well cleaned 996 in Arctic (bias here) looks bloody fabulous and would look very odd with a 986 front bumper on I think..
Rosewood Red said:
How's your 996 Brian? Have you got round to swapping Ohlins in yet?
Not yet, did discs and pads a couple of weeks back, and I'm gathering a kit of parts to do the clutch, flywheel, gearbox mount (the 987 front type goes in, and is better than the rather baggy 996 type), engine mounts (it'll get 993 RS ones, likely) and cure a couple of oil leaks. Had an AOS in the past, and I think something hasn't been assembled quite right as there's a small leak in that vicinity which annoys me. If I can line up somewhere to work, I'd like to drop the engine and gearbox and do it more easily, but it'll probably just be a gearbox drop.
I also want to do my usual tchermann car thing of replacing all of the brake pipes for kunifer as they're in varying (mild) states of decay and I'd like to future proof the motor.
Öhlins and a brace of monoballs (or better bushes - I'm torn on this point) will come later. It handles like it's on rails now, in truth, I had a riot in it last Sunday on the A272 where you could really stick it into the bends and power out and the traction was surreal. And that's on standard 72k mile dampers..
bgunn said:
I had a riot in it last Sunday on the A272 where you could really stick it into the bends and power out and the traction was surreal. And that's on standard 72k mile dampers..
Love the 272! I'm hoping to have a little blast up there late Saturday evening to bed my new pads in Fast Bug said:
bgunn said:
I had a riot in it last Sunday on the A272 where you could really stick it into the bends and power out and the traction was surreal. And that's on standard 72k mile dampers..
Love the 272! I'm hoping to have a little blast up there late Saturday evening to bed my new pads in bgunn said:
ATM said:
This is why I cant understand the people fitting Cup 2 tyres - what the F are they doing with their cars?
God knows. I have a set of PS4 in the 'small' C2 size (225 f, 265 r) and they are absolutely plenty. Wet or dry, cold or hot, it grips like a limpet.I would categorise Cup2s and the like for those cars which see track days and mainly fast road action including in Europe where the weather is warmer and also where typically the car has some light suspension and geo modifications. For a more daily driver type of car then a regular PS4 type tyre is probably about right. I've got Cup2s mainly because I wanted the extra cornering and braking grip when driving in Europe. That's not when I need a playful car. Admittedly, any playfulness at UK sane speeds is sacrificed and of course it's not so good in the winter extremes, which my Boxster doesn't need to see. I've been prepared to sacrifice ultimate all round performance/useability of the car for even better performance within a smaller envelope.
I've had two Boxsters, first was a '98 2.5 Tiptronic which I had for 3 years of trouble free motoring. It had a pretty complete history although quite a few 'specialist' stamps. it was immense fun particularly the handling. Okay I agree the performance was not electric but as a first taste of Porsche it got me wanting more..... so I changed it a couple years ago for an early 987 3.4S again Tiptronic, still only 5 speed which was a little disappointing.
The performance is light years apart, or as far apart as you would expect with approx 100 HP difference (202 to 295). The handling is fantastic again - mid-engined open air motoring can't be beat!!
Why stick with a Boxster some people ask? Because of the practicality, two boots into which I easily fit a full set of golf clubs, trolley and weekend holdall completely out of site and the roof can be up or down, not like some other two-seater sportsters.....
Next stop a 981S with PDK and as many toys as I can afford 😎
The performance is light years apart, or as far apart as you would expect with approx 100 HP difference (202 to 295). The handling is fantastic again - mid-engined open air motoring can't be beat!!
Why stick with a Boxster some people ask? Because of the practicality, two boots into which I easily fit a full set of golf clubs, trolley and weekend holdall completely out of site and the roof can be up or down, not like some other two-seater sportsters.....
Next stop a 981S with PDK and as many toys as I can afford 😎
ferrisbueller said:
seems a lot to me given the miles.Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff