I've just bought some poverty Pork ....

I've just bought some poverty Pork ....

Author
Discussion

Escy

1,883 posts

94 months

Friday 16th August
quotequote all
As it happens, i'm selling a crystal ball. wobble

ATM

9,542 posts

164 months

Sunday 18th August
quotequote all
This looks good

£5750

2004
2.7

76870 miles

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/223624252056


ianwayne

2,453 posts

213 months

Sunday 18th August
quotequote all
That looks a nice buy, especially with the included hard top. Only 1100 miles since its last MoT but it is due in November.

ATM

9,542 posts

164 months

Sunday 18th August
quotequote all
I just can't get my head around buying the 2.7 when I know the 3.2 is not a lot more.

jakesmith

4,744 posts

116 months

Sunday 18th August
quotequote all
The argument is that You don’t buy these for outright power when a Golf R is on a par with A 997S. It’s all about an exploitable chassis and a revy engine. The 2.7 was more than enough for fun on the roads and you’re not going to beat anything modern in a 986S
I get the argument for the 986 but also would get an S

Escy

1,883 posts

94 months

Sunday 18th August
quotequote all
Some 2.7 Boxsters are faster than a Golf R.

jakesmith

4,744 posts

116 months

Sunday 18th August
quotequote all
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

3,616 posts

167 months

Monday 19th August
quotequote all
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

2,692 posts

145 months

Monday 19th August
quotequote all
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

9,834 posts

114 months

Monday 19th August
quotequote all
Escy said:
Some 2.7 Boxsters are faster than a Golf R.
hehe

jakesmith

4,744 posts

116 months

Monday 19th August
quotequote all
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

9,542 posts

164 months

Monday 19th August
quotequote all
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

1,561 posts

45 months

Monday 19th August
quotequote all
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

1,883 posts

94 months

Monday 19th August
quotequote all
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

7,421 posts

196 months

Monday 19th August
quotequote all
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

7,241 posts

106 months

Monday 19th August
quotequote all
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

1,561 posts

45 months

Monday 19th August
quotequote all
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

4,744 posts

116 months

Monday 19th August
quotequote all
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

7,241 posts

106 months

Monday 19th August
quotequote all
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

9,542 posts

164 months

Monday 19th August
quotequote all
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.