Z3 3.0 v Boxster 2.7

[CaptainSlow]

Have been looking at Boxsters recently with the view of spending about £8k. Have widened the search field a bit more and now considering 3.0 Z3s. It seems you can get something a bit newer and for a lot less money. The performances figures seem similar is it a viable alternative as a daily driver?

[Ved]

The boxster is pretty perfect to drive and I guess they'll both have the same running costs if you get a good one. It might come down to how much boot space you need and also how much you don't need 4 seats.

Have you driven either yet?

Edited by Ved on Tuesday 22 June 23:47

[homerjay]

Never driven a boxster but z3's are very odd cars to drive IMO

[magnus911]

Ved said:

also how much you don't need 4 seats.

Edited by Ved on Tuesday 22 June 23:47

Doesn't really affect this particular choice though does it?

[Ry_B]

Why not buy the 3.2 Boxster, you can get them for a shade above £8k and it is a completely different beast.

[mchoody]

I've had both (the Boxster was a 3.2) and overall the Boxster is more refined than the Z3. Saying that...the 3.0 Z3 is very entertaining for the money and no slouch with 230ish BHP. The front and rear luggage compartments are very handy on the Boxster, not loads of space in the Z3. I'd go for a better 2.7 than a cheap 3.2.

[CaptainSlow]

mchoody said:

I'd go for a better 2.7 than a cheap 3.2.

Yep my thinking too.

Thanks for all the replies. Have seen a 2001 Z3 for £5k from a dealer whereas the equivalent Boxster is £8k-£9k.

[Dracoro]

Early S2000s at this money.

Whatever you get is at the low end of the price scale for any of these types of cars so tread carefully, do the research so to not get a pup.