996T to 981 Cayman / Cayman S
Discussion
I have enjoyed my Turbo for six years. It has 6 pot fronts and a mild map and is looked after by 9E. It is very fast. Boost comes suddenly and early and it will spin its wheels slightly in 3rd on a dry road. It does not need to be any faster. It rockets along and drives well at speed where it is quite involving. That's part of the problem.
Downsides: It's 18 years old and it has cost ~£4k annually to run on 3K miles. Expensive. It is rather heavy / not specially nimble. It has a heavy short shift linkage and the brakes need to be hot to work really well. The ABS cuts in early on the fronts. I have had new discs and pads at the back which helped. Brake balance may need adjusting to the rears a bit more, but I have yet to speak to a specialist who knows how to do this. Famous places can't do it, seemingly.
I like the idea of a 981 Cayman. They seem like beautiful drivers' cars. I am drawn to the regular 2.7 but it has half the power of my 996T and will probably seem very slow / not tractable. Most people say to get the 3.4. I like the idea of simplicity and lightness and, quite frankly, newness (in relative terms). They have to be cheaper to run, too - half the price I expect. There are some beautiful agate ones in the classifieds. I guess I need to test drive one. I have only been in one once years ago but I liked it.
The Cayman probably won't have as much character or be as 'special' but in most other respects it will be better, save outright pace. It will handle more smoothly and predictably and with lightness and speed. Power delivery will be more linear and I will be able to rev the engine out a bit more and it will be much newer.
Anyone made the change? 2.7 or 3.4? Will the lack of oomph spoil things?
PS I don't do track days and I drive down to Uzes a couple of times a year. A long slog, followed by some fabulous driving roads in Gard.
Downsides: It's 18 years old and it has cost ~£4k annually to run on 3K miles. Expensive. It is rather heavy / not specially nimble. It has a heavy short shift linkage and the brakes need to be hot to work really well. The ABS cuts in early on the fronts. I have had new discs and pads at the back which helped. Brake balance may need adjusting to the rears a bit more, but I have yet to speak to a specialist who knows how to do this. Famous places can't do it, seemingly.
I like the idea of a 981 Cayman. They seem like beautiful drivers' cars. I am drawn to the regular 2.7 but it has half the power of my 996T and will probably seem very slow / not tractable. Most people say to get the 3.4. I like the idea of simplicity and lightness and, quite frankly, newness (in relative terms). They have to be cheaper to run, too - half the price I expect. There are some beautiful agate ones in the classifieds. I guess I need to test drive one. I have only been in one once years ago but I liked it.
The Cayman probably won't have as much character or be as 'special' but in most other respects it will be better, save outright pace. It will handle more smoothly and predictably and with lightness and speed. Power delivery will be more linear and I will be able to rev the engine out a bit more and it will be much newer.
Anyone made the change? 2.7 or 3.4? Will the lack of oomph spoil things?
PS I don't do track days and I drive down to Uzes a couple of times a year. A long slog, followed by some fabulous driving roads in Gard.
Replying to my on thread, like a junky I can't help looking at SL63s. For the same money as the little agate Cayman I could have a 2010 SL63 with under 50K miles. A different proposition entirely, but surely better for a cross continental blat, and perhaps more special?? Grander, but less exquisite?
...I need both!
...I need both!
Yep I made that switch.
Had a manual 996T (with Tubi exhaust) for 4 1/2 years, and went to a 981 CS (PDK plus all the drivers options) which we had for nearly 6 years.
Thoroughly enjoyed the Cayman. We did 5 euro trips in it, and although we never toured (apart from Wales/Scotland) in the turbo we found the Cayman an ideal car for this.
The Cayman sounded better, and had a much better ride quality (PASM and 20's). The biggest difference was the lack of torque in comparison. You had to wring out the Cayman, which was no hardship.
I've just gone back to a 996 C2 but only because we now have a dog, otherwise I'd have gone for a 981/718 Boxster.
Had a manual 996T (with Tubi exhaust) for 4 1/2 years, and went to a 981 CS (PDK plus all the drivers options) which we had for nearly 6 years.
Thoroughly enjoyed the Cayman. We did 5 euro trips in it, and although we never toured (apart from Wales/Scotland) in the turbo we found the Cayman an ideal car for this.
The Cayman sounded better, and had a much better ride quality (PASM and 20's). The biggest difference was the lack of torque in comparison. You had to wring out the Cayman, which was no hardship.
I've just gone back to a 996 C2 but only because we now have a dog, otherwise I'd have gone for a 981/718 Boxster.
Thanks for this. You sound like a thoughtful grownup. I think I need to get out there and drive one / look at one in the metal and see if I really want to swap. I am sorely tempted. I like the idea of the nimbler car. That said, the new 992 GT3 Touring seems almost perfect. Genuinely, like Chris Harris says in his videos after testing the greatest, why would you want anything more than the GT3. Lots more money than a Cayman, lots less than other cars. Authentically, I would probably rather take the Porsche over the GMA T33 for a Euro hoon. Straight up.
Oh no, don’t say that. It really is good, but tweaking it leads to difficulties. The brakes are much better than the original, but correctly should have various other mods to the hydraulics and I ought to rebalance the brake bias. The throttle is also much sharper and it is much more powerful. This is only so much of a problem…
Agreed with the above. Perhaps some tractive coilovers from 9e, I bet they would hide the weight somewhat.
I’d personally think very hard before making any decision. You may well just find the 981 too refined and a bit boring with the performance deficit.
If you want something more nimble etc I’d be looking at something older like a 987.2 or another brand entirely.
I’d personally think very hard before making any decision. You may well just find the 981 too refined and a bit boring with the performance deficit.
If you want something more nimble etc I’d be looking at something older like a 987.2 or another brand entirely.
I was in a similar predicament to you last year. I have a 997.2 Turbo and was starting to get itchy feet. In the end I bought a 987.1 Boxster S to run alongside the Turbo for a while until I decided to which one to keep. I’ve absolutely loved the Boxster. I‘ve loved the throttle response, the lightness and nimble handling. The snug cabin makes it feel like a proper sports car and the extra luggage space is useful too. And hearing that N/A engine inches behind your head is intoxicating!
But which one have I decided to let go? The answer is neither; I’m keeping both - for the time being, anyway. The Turbo, whilst not as immediately exciting as the Boxster, is such an event and fabulous for long journeys. I added a Sharkwerks exhaust to improve the sound and have just swapped out the P-Zeros for Michelin PS4S. That’s improved things enormously and adds to the geo I had done at Center Gravity a few years ago. It now feels more like a nimble sports car, although nowhere close to the Boxster.
The problem with the Turbo is it tends to do everything brilliantly. And there in lies one of its problems. For a sports car to feel truly special there has to be a compromise, imho. The 911 Turbo doesn’t really comprise anything. Over the last couple of years I’ve been thinking about what could replace it. I’ve toyed with a few ideas - a V12 Vantage could be one option but I love the 2-year service interval on the 911 (although I do ensure I have the oil changed annually). I’ve thought about an R8 but owning an Audi wouldn’t sit right with me. A Gallardo or F430 have also been been considered but I’m put off by running costs - and yes, my 997 has also started to creep into £4k per year costs over the last few years.
So for me, at the moment, running both Boxster and Turbo together makes sense. My man maths tells me neither of them will depreciate much, if at all, over the next year or two, and both offer something slightly different than the other. It’s working well so far, although the Boxster tends to get taken out more as I’m still in the honeymoon stage with it. At the moment, if I was really pushed to say which one I’d keep, I’d have to hold onto the Turbo. The performance alone makes it such an experience.
But which one have I decided to let go? The answer is neither; I’m keeping both - for the time being, anyway. The Turbo, whilst not as immediately exciting as the Boxster, is such an event and fabulous for long journeys. I added a Sharkwerks exhaust to improve the sound and have just swapped out the P-Zeros for Michelin PS4S. That’s improved things enormously and adds to the geo I had done at Center Gravity a few years ago. It now feels more like a nimble sports car, although nowhere close to the Boxster.
The problem with the Turbo is it tends to do everything brilliantly. And there in lies one of its problems. For a sports car to feel truly special there has to be a compromise, imho. The 911 Turbo doesn’t really comprise anything. Over the last couple of years I’ve been thinking about what could replace it. I’ve toyed with a few ideas - a V12 Vantage could be one option but I love the 2-year service interval on the 911 (although I do ensure I have the oil changed annually). I’ve thought about an R8 but owning an Audi wouldn’t sit right with me. A Gallardo or F430 have also been been considered but I’m put off by running costs - and yes, my 997 has also started to creep into £4k per year costs over the last few years.
So for me, at the moment, running both Boxster and Turbo together makes sense. My man maths tells me neither of them will depreciate much, if at all, over the next year or two, and both offer something slightly different than the other. It’s working well so far, although the Boxster tends to get taken out more as I’m still in the honeymoon stage with it. At the moment, if I was really pushed to say which one I’d keep, I’d have to hold onto the Turbo. The performance alone makes it such an experience.
Desert Dragon said:
The early 986 and 987 Boxster are spectacular cars for the money. I'd have one over a 981....
I agree. Over the years they’ve become too refined for my liking. The 987 is wonderfully mechanical and basic. You can hear everything - it has a great transmission whine and engine noise. Went out and polished the old nag today and polished the headlights. Enjoyed it. It’s a fine motor.
Just reverting (academically) to the SL63: genuinely for less than £30K I can have one that is the same age as 987.2 S with similar miles. The SL63 started life almost three times the price of the Boxster. Now it seems like orthodoxy to say get the Boxster. That SL is a brute of a motor isn’t it? 530bhp from 6.3. N/A V8 - that’s got to tick some boxes and offer some driving thrills. Granted it will be pretty lumpen when changing direction, but the throttle can sort that out. On anything other than tight technical roads the SL has to win, right?
Just reverting (academically) to the SL63: genuinely for less than £30K I can have one that is the same age as 987.2 S with similar miles. The SL63 started life almost three times the price of the Boxster. Now it seems like orthodoxy to say get the Boxster. That SL is a brute of a motor isn’t it? 530bhp from 6.3. N/A V8 - that’s got to tick some boxes and offer some driving thrills. Granted it will be pretty lumpen when changing direction, but the throttle can sort that out. On anything other than tight technical roads the SL has to win, right?
ScienceTeacher said:
Went out and polished the old nag today and polished the headlights. Enjoyed it. It’s a fine motor.
Just reverting (academically) to the SL63: genuinely for less than £30K I can have one that is the same age as 987.2 S with similar miles. The SL63 started life almost three times the price of the Boxster. Now it seems like orthodoxy to say get the Boxster. That SL is a brute of a motor isn’t it? 530bhp from 6.3. N/A V8 - that’s got to tick some boxes and offer some driving thrills. Granted it will be pretty lumpen when changing direction, but the throttle can sort that out. On anything other than tight technical roads the SL has to win, right?
Quite wide and unwieldy but to cruise and get a tan they're lovely. I'd seek out a 2007 SL 55. Better looking more torque but if you like the 63 looks maybe take one for a spin. I'd not swap a turbo I'd rather buy a turbo cab or boxster imo. Actually id keep your manual coupe.Its very hard to replace a turbo on sensible metrics Just reverting (academically) to the SL63: genuinely for less than £30K I can have one that is the same age as 987.2 S with similar miles. The SL63 started life almost three times the price of the Boxster. Now it seems like orthodoxy to say get the Boxster. That SL is a brute of a motor isn’t it? 530bhp from 6.3. N/A V8 - that’s got to tick some boxes and offer some driving thrills. Granted it will be pretty lumpen when changing direction, but the throttle can sort that out. On anything other than tight technical roads the SL has to win, right?
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff