I've just bought some poverty Pork…

[Escy]

Some 2.7 Boxsters are faster than a Golf R.

[jakesmith]

Escy said:

Some 2.7 Boxsters are faster than a Golf R.

OK but the point stands they are not fast cars by today's standards they are all about the chassis & handling...
Go on, give us the details of the 986 2.7 as discussed that can do a 12s 1/4 mile

[andy97]

ATM said:

I just can't get my head around buying the 2.7 when I know the 3.2 is not a lot more.

Isnt the point that the 2.7 is supposed to be the least problematic of all the Boxster engines?

[AlmostUseful]

jakesmith said:

Escy said:

Some 2.7 Boxsters are faster than a Golf R.

OK but the point stands they are not fast cars by today's standards they are all about the chassis & handling...
Go on, give us the details of the 986 2.7 as discussed that can do a 12s 1/4 mile

If I had to guess I’d say it’s the one with the twin turbo’d 2.7 S4 engine sat in his garage...

[LordHaveMurci]

Escy said:

Some 2.7 Boxsters are faster than a Golf R.

[jakesmith]

Well that’s still a 2.7 I suppose!! Well done that man. Got a thread on it? any performance stats or tales of other vehicles that it can smoke?

[ATM]

jakesmith said:

Well that’s still a 2.7 I suppose!! Well done that man. Got a thread on it? any performance stats or tales of other vehicles that it can smoke?

He is onto his 2nd thread for his 2nd car. The 1st car is dead. Long live the 2nd.

[ooid]

andy97 said:

Isnt the point that the 2.7 is supposed to be the least problematic of all the Boxster engines?

maybe statistically? I had a fairly low-mile 2.7, and needed an engine rebuild at 65k, still. (cylinder head issue, most 00-01 cars tend to have it)

[Escy]

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Here is a link to my build thread. No tales yet, it' still needs tuning but i'm expecting over 450bhp.

Back to the topic, i'd struggle to get a 2.7 knowing a 3.2 isn't much more. Lot's of the ownership costs are the same although the 3.2 engine itself isn't as reliable (cracked cylinder heads)

[edc]

ooid said:

maybe statistically? I had a fairly low-mile 2.7, and needed an engine rebuild at 65k, still. (cylinder head issue, most 00-01 cars tend to have it)

'Most' would suggest over half of those cars. I don't think it's even anywhere near that although admittedly have no numbers to back that up.

[Fast Bug]

Unless you do your own spannering, aren't the running costs for a 986 similar to those of a 996? I think I'd rather up the budget and have a 996

[ooid]

edc said:

'Most' would suggest over half of those cars. I don't think it's even anywhere near that although admittedly have no numbers to back that up.

Jake Raby from flat 6 innovations had mentioned on rennlist a few times, he has seen this issue on 00-01 cars, mostly. They call it the problematic cylinder head castings that have only less expansion plugs or something.

[jakesmith]

Fast Bug said:

Unless you do your own spannering, aren't the running costs for a 986 similar to those of a 996? I think I'd rather up the budget and have a 996

They are a lot more to buy though and the Boxster is the choice if you want a mid engined roadster...

[Fast Bug]

jakesmith said:

Fast Bug said:

Unless you do your own spannering, aren't the running costs for a 986 similar to those of a 996? I think I'd rather up the budget and have a 996

They are a lot more to buy though and the Boxster is the choice if you want a mid engined roadster...

Mine was twice the price of the 2.7 posted earlier, so not huge money at sub £11k. I know it's not mid engine, but it should hold it's money far better and IMO they're better cars. Just without wind in the hair...

[ATM]

Fast Bug said:

jakesmith said:

Fast Bug said:

Unless you do your own spannering, aren't the running costs for a 986 similar to those of a 996? I think I'd rather up the budget and have a 996

They are a lot more to buy though and the Boxster is the choice if you want a mid engined roadster...

Mine was twice the price of the 2.7 posted earlier, so not huge money at sub £11k. I know it's not mid engine, but it should hold it's money far better and IMO they're better cars. Just without wind in the hair...

And thats the rub. I have a 996 tin top but miss the wind in the hair. i think the 996 soft top is not pretty, the back seats are almost completely useless and the body wobbles around without its roof's rigidity when compared to the coupe. So that leaves the natural choice being a 986.

[edc]

ooid said:

edc said:

'Most' would suggest over half of those cars. I don't think it's even anywhere near that although admittedly have no numbers to back that up.

Jake Raby from flat 6 innovations had mentioned on rennlist a few times, he has seen this issue on 00-01 cars, mostly. They call it the problematic cylinder head castings that have only less expansion plugs or something.

That's a different sentence and meaning to your original post that implied most 2000-01 cars had a problem. A higher count of head problems for 2000-01 compared to other years across all 986 cars is a very different meaning. The statement you quote also doesn't quantify any issue or likelihood of it happening.

[Escy]

My understanding was the cracked cylinder heads was an issue with the 3.2 and the 996 engines rather than the 2.7

[edh]

You probably also get a better spec in a 3.2. Some of the 2.7's are quite spartan. Early 3.2 with a dual row bearing is a good option.

[ATM]

I'd like to try a 2.7 on 16's. Its just a shame the wheel design is so sheet.

[Rosewood Red]

ATM said:

Its just a shame the wheel design is so sheet.

I wonder if some wheels like the below, with their widths and offsets, would work on a 986:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Porsche-944-Cup-1-2-16-...