Porsche Boxster

[Balthazar]

Originally posted by: Actaeon
Slow and overpriced. Just carries the Porsche name.

Fun looking cars though.

arg, for god sake it's a roadster not a sportscar.

It's pricey, but I bet you anything you haven't sat in one! Even compared to the Z4 it's SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO comfy. And yes, I have sat in BOTH those cars.

If you can afford it, go for it.

 

[Balthazar]

Originally posted by: Citation
Should be dropped from the lineup all togther. too underpowered for the price. You will only be paying for the name. Well I guess the looks and 40's midlife crisis sort of association come with it aswell. Get a z06. You will thank me in the end.


-Cit

His end won't thank you though. The Z06 isnt even in the same class as the Boxster. One is a performance car, the other is a roadster....hmmmm, tough call, but I am gonna have to say they aren't competing with each other.

 

[Dark4ng3l]

I think you are just trying to force what you think on to the guy who started the thread. just because YOU like the Z06 better does not mean that changing the purpose of the thread into a Porsche vs Z06 debate is apropriate. Also you sound like you are trying to tell us to be more "open minded" about the other options this guy has. This is odd coming from a guy who has an "ignore list" in his sig.

 

[Balthazar]

Originally posted by: freebee
Slow-ass car for the money. S2000 is a better buy. If it ever comes to racing, you might be embarrased.

Remember, padding the bra is not always a good thing. Especially if you hang with men that like to squeeze.

I have never seen anyone with half a brain race a Boxster....and if you try, you SHOULD be embarassed.

Again, sit in an S2000, and then in the Boxster, NO comparison.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Dark4ng3l
This thread is about what people think about porsche boxster's not about comparing it with a corvette z06.

Comparing a Porsche Boxster to its competition DIRECTLY applies to the topic at hand. What do your slants towards me have to do with this topic?

The original poster wanted a Boxster. End of story.

If you like Mary, want to go out with Mary, and Mary likes you, I'm not going to throw Jennifer in your face.

I've read quite a few of your posts and it's apparent that logical, rational thinking is not your strongpoint. I was going to explain the pertainance of my posts, but I doubt that you have the ability to draw those conclusions based on the info I gave.

I will say, though, that the user was looking into a Boxster, and if he read my posts he would have learned the 0-60, 1/4 mile, braking, skidpad, and slalom speed of the car he was asking about, in addition to the specs of the Z06. He would have learned something about the car he was asking about, including professional opinions about the car he was asking about (he did ask for opinions).

What did your posts tell him about the car he was asking about?

That the Boxster is not all about speed and never was. Like I said before, the Boxster is about neutral handling and the ability to pivot around it's centerpoint pretty quickly b/c of it's 50/50 weight balance and mid-engine layout. It is simply EASIER for a Boxster to change direction because of this fact and handle better.

You can throw as many numbers as you want at a person, but in the end it all comes down to what he wanted. He wanted a Boxster. He didn't ask about a Z06. You're typical Porsche buyer does not care about GM cars. Your typical Corvette buyer could care less about Boxsters or 911s. They are aimed at completely different buyers.

Boxsters and Corvettes aren't competitors and hardly will you see them both on a buyer's shopping list. The only thing they share are similar price points. Corvette's have very few competition. There's the M3 which more or less is on track with a Z06, and then there's the 911 and Dodge Viper GTS at the higher end of the spectrum.

Boxsters on the other hand compete with a myriad of European roadsters: Mercedes SLK, BMW Z3/Z4/M-Roadster, Audi TT

Two different cars, two different audiences, two different classes of automobile. While a Boxster/Boxster S may be priced closely to a Z06, that DOES NOT mean that a person who is looking for a Boxster automatically wants to look at a Corvette as well.

It's one thing to try to help someone make a new car purchase...and it's a complete other to throw your overwhelming support forward for something that is not even in the same class.

It'd be like someone asking about a Lexus GX470 and you coming in and saying "MAN, the FX45 is a much better buy and will totally smoke a a GX470." Similar price points, similar size, different missions, different target audience.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: NFS4

It is simply EASIER for a Boxster to change direction because of this fact and handle better.

You can express your opinions if you want, but claiming that the Boxster handles better when there is direct evidence to prove that the Z06 handles better is just plain wrong. And 50/50 weight distribution is not the be-all, end all of handling.

Opinions are matters that are not covered by facts. Facts are not about opinions. You cannot say that 4 is a higher number than 5 "in your opinion".... it is simply not a valid statement. Likewise, you cannot say that a car that does the slalom at 64 mph handles better than one that does it at 67 mph. This is cold, hard numbers.

You seem to lack the ability to understand the concepts that I'm talking about, you seem a bit uneducated. You don't seem to be able to draw the line between facts and opinions.

What kind of car do you own, by the way?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: NFS4

It is simply EASIER for a Boxster to change direction because of this fact and handle better.

You can express your opinions if you want, but claiming that the Boxster handles better when there is direct evidence to prove that the Z06 handles better is just plain wrong.

Opinions are matters that are not covered by facts. Facts are not about opinions. You cannot say that 4 is a higher number than 5 "in your opinion".... it is simply not a valid statement. Likewise, you cannot say that a car that does the slalom at 64 mph handles better than one that does it at 67 mph. This is cold, hard numbers.

You seem to lack the ability to understand the concepts that I'm talking about, you seem a bit uneducated. You don't seem to be able to draw the line between facts and opinions.

What kind of car do you own, by the way?

And you seem to be unable to realise that test-track numbers are synthetic benchmarks that are not the ultimate determinants of of a car's capabilities. A car's feel is exceedingly important whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

ZV

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
And you seem to be unable to realise that test-track numbers are synthetic benchmarks that are not the ultimate determinants of of a car's capabilities. A car's feel is exceedingly important whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

ZV

We a talking about cars here, not drivers. Besides, for a car to get those "synthetic benchmarks", a real human driver had to obtain them, right? If it was that easy to obtain high synthetic benchmark numbers, all cars would get great numbers. But they don't. A real human being tests verious cars and reports the numbers that were measured.

As I stated before, a car's handling is NOT an abstract, mystical property. It is a real, measurable property that can be measured and compared. Those who can think scientifically would see the value of benchmarking, testing, and comparing. Those who do NOT have scientific minds would want to throw away all evidence and pretend that it's something that cannot be measured or compared. Which group do you fit into?

 

[DamageInc]

Back to the original post, my dad has one of these. It's a nice car, sure, but it's not worth the amount of money it costs, in my opinion.

Plus, you start the ignition by putting the key on the left side of the steering wheel. Too weird for me, quite frankly.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: NFS4

It is simply EASIER for a Boxster to change direction because of this fact and handle better.

You can express your opinions if you want, but claiming that the Boxster handles better when there is direct evidence to prove that the Z06 handles better is just plain wrong. And 50/50 weight distribution is not the be-all, end all of handling.

Opinions are matters that are not covered by facts. Facts are not about opinions. You cannot say that 4 is a higher number than 5 "in your opinion".... it is simply not a valid statement. Likewise, you cannot say that a car that does the slalom at 64 mph handles better than one that does it at 67 mph. This is cold, hard numbers.

You seem to lack the ability to understand the concepts that I'm talking about, you seem a bit uneducated. You don't seem to be able to draw the line between facts and opinions.

Do you drive numbers? I sure as hell don't. How well a car drives is nothing but opinion and is really the ultimate factor in a car for some people, most likely the type of person who would buy a porche.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: NFS4

It is simply EASIER for a Boxster to change direction because of this fact and handle better.

You can express your opinions if you want, but claiming that the Boxster handles better when there is direct evidence to prove that the Z06 handles better is just plain wrong.

Opinions are matters that are not covered by facts. Facts are not about opinions. You cannot say that 4 is a higher number than 5 "in your opinion".... it is simply not a valid statement. Likewise, you cannot say that a car that does the slalom at 64 mph handles better than one that does it at 67 mph. This is cold, hard numbers.

You seem to lack the ability to understand the concepts that I'm talking about, you seem a bit uneducated. You don't seem to be able to draw the line between facts and opinions.

What kind of car do you own, by the way?

You keep running back to the numbers and conveniently skipped over the meat of my argument

According to Motor Trend's tests;

a '02 SVT Ford Focus scores 67.1 MPH on the slalom.
a '03 Corvette Z06 scores 66.7 MPH on the slalom.

Does that mean that a FWD Ford Focus is a better handler than a RWD Corvette? I wouldn't say so. Like I said, numbers aren't everything.

 

[Marshallj]

Ok, enough of this damn tangent. I see that neither side is going to budge.

Back to the ORIGINAL question: You want opinions on the Boxster.


My opinion on the Boxster- A nice car, but an effort by Porsche to go mainstream with its products, an effort further exemplified by the Porsche SUV.

The Boxster seems to be a nice car, but one that pales by comparison to other Porsches which built the company's reputation. If you are serious about getting a Boxster because you want a Boxster, then get it- it should make you happy because you're getting what you wanted. However, expect to have every 17 year old in a Mustang and Camaro challenge you at the stoplights, and other Porsche owners looking down on you. What you'll get is a moderately well performing car that carries the Porsche nameplate.

 

[ElFenix]

well... if you were comparing the 'vette 'vert to the boxster it would be more valid... if you're going for a boxster you're probably not cross-shopping a fixed roof.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
And you seem to be unable to realise that test-track numbers are synthetic benchmarks that are not the ultimate determinants of of a car's capabilities. A car's feel is exceedingly important whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

ZV

We a talking about cars here, not drivers. Besides, for a car to get those "synthetic benchmarks", a real human driver had to obtain them, right? If it was that easy to obtain high synthetic benchmark numbers, all cars would get great numbers. But they don't. A real human being tests verious cars and reports the numbers that were measured.

As I stated before, a car's handling is NOT an abstract, mystical property. It is a real, measurable property that can be measured and compared. Those who can think scientifically would see the value of benchmarking, testing, and comparing. Those who do NOT have scientific minds would want to throw away all evidence and pretend that it's something that cannot be measured or compared. Which group do you fit into?

As the great variance in lap times proved earlier, those synthetic benchmarks, while a good baseline for evaluating cars before other things are considered, are not at all indicative of real world performance.

A funny thing, the greatest drivers that have ever lived have preferred a feel to raw numbers data. The purely scientific driver will never be any better than "good". To be great, you must know that it is also an art.

There are people who are stuck in one or the other mode of thought and are too ignorant or stubborn to see any value in the other mode, and there are people who can think in both modes and who realise that there are many things which do not lie completely in one realm or the other. I am in the second group. Where do you fit?

ZV

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: NFS4
You keep running back to the numbers and conveniently skipped over the meat of my argument

According to Motor Trend's tests;

a '02 SVT Ford Focus scores 67.1 MPH on the slalom.
a '03 Corvette Z06 scores 66.7 MPH on the slalom.

Does that mean that a FWD Ford Focus is a better handler than a RWD Corvette?

If it's able to consistently keep up performing that way in respect to the Z06's numbers, then yes, it would. But keep in mind that you only mentioned slalom, while I posted the Boxster's and Z06's acceleration, skidpad, slalom, and braking. If the Focus was able to keep the edge on the Z06 on all those attributes, then yes, I'd say it handles better.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
Ok, enough of this damn tangent. I see that neither side is going to budge.

Back to the ORIGINAL question: You want opinions on the Boxster.


My opinion on the Boxster- A nice car, but an effort by Porsche to go mainstream with its products, an effort further exemplified by the Porsche SUV.

The Boxster seems to be a nice car, but one that pales by comparison to other Porsches which built the company's reputation. If you are serious about getting a Boxster because you want a Boxster, then get it- it should make you happy because you're getting what you wanted. However, expect to have every 17 year old in a Mustang and Camaro challenge you at the stoplights, and other Porsche owners looking down on you. What you'll get is a moderately well performing car that carries the Porsche nameplate.

Porsche has always at one time or another had "downmarket" cars. There was the 914, 924, 968, etc.

Before you go crappin' on the Boxster, remember that the Boxster 986 chassis was the basis for the 996 911. From the dash forward they're nearly identical (this was changed for '02 as far as sheetmetal goes), but the cars a very similar. They also share door panels, electrical systems, engine architecture, etc.

The fact that the Boxster is "cheaper in price" than the 911 is just that. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Dark4ng3l
Dont forget than part of having a car if the "flashyness", a porsche is much better at than than any american car will ever be. Also the porsche will be more reliable and will have a superior resale value because of the name. Also driving in a porsche brings you respect, not driving a vette.

no flash to a viper at all

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
[A funny thing, the greatest drivers that have ever lived have preferred a feel to raw numbers data. The purely scientific driver will never be any better than "good". To be great, you must know that it is also an art.

There are people who are stuck in one or the other mode of thought and are too ignorant or stubborn to see any value in the other mode, and there are people who can think in both modes and who realise that there are many things which do not lie completely in one realm or the other. I am in the second group. Where do you fit?

ZV

I am mostly scientifically minded, I trust the numbers. But as I mentioned before, I'm trying to stick to the car itself, not the driver.

I stuck to numbers to keep the focus on the vehicles themselves, not the drivers of those vehicles. As you know and have pointed out, the driver is the single most important piece of the equation. You know that, I know that. But to accurately compare the vehicles themselves, we need to take that component out of the equation somehow. Yes, I know that the driver/car combo is all that matters in real life, but in this conversation we're trying to single out the car itself.

The sad truth is that an instructor at most roadcourses could drive a Civic and beat most average people in high end sports cars. A friend of mine went to a roadcourse in Ca and saw the instructors in Dodge Neons (!) outperforming guys trying to have fun in their Vipers and Ferraris. So the driver is the #1 factor, but in this conversation we need to somehow take that out, which is why I quote numbers.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
I am mostly scientifically minded, I trust the numbers. But as I mentioned before, I'm trying to stick to the car itself, not the driver.

So which numbers do you trust? The test-track numbers that vary greatly depending upon the surface and on who the testing driver is? The lap times at Thunderhill? The lap times at Nurburgring that take out both the variable of the driver and the variable of different tracks but stand the test-track numbers on their heads?

Test track numbers are not the be-all and end all even if you are just comparing the cars. Yes an instructor in a Neon can whip a novice in a Ferrari, but an instructor in a 914 can whip an instructor in a Neon despite the Neon having better test-track numbers. Strange.

ZV

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So which numbers do you trust? The test-track numbers that vary greatly depending upon the surface and on who the testing driver is? The lap times at Thunderhill? The lap times at Nurburgring that take out both the variable of the driver and the variable of different tracks but stand the test-track numbers on their heads?

That's why you need to do the testing at a track that most closely resembles the conditions in which you are trying to compare the cars. I wouldn't take the winners at Nurburgring and expect the outcome to be the same in a parking lot AutoX. You can never do a test whose results apply to 100% of conditions out there, but you can at least be as objective as possible and try to construct a well balanced test that that accurately measures both cars' abilities. It's never going to be 100% though.

I'd imagine that this guy is going to be driving his car on the nation's highways mostly, so hardly any tracks resemble that.

Test track numbers are not the be-all and end all even if you are just comparing the cars. Yes an instructor in a Neon can whip a novice in a Ferrari, but an instructor in a 914 can whip an instructor in a Neon despite the Neon having better test-track numbers. Strange.

I don't believe this, or maybe you just worded it strangely.

If an expert driver (such as an instructor, or a test driver) is able to get better track numbers in a 914 than a Neon, then why would it get worse numbers than the Neon? Why would they lie and say the Neon got better numbers? Surely the 914 would have to make up ground somehow, and those numbers would show in the results. Did it make up the ground in the straigaways? (in which case the 914's acceleration numbers would be better than the Neon's), did it make up the ground in the turns? (in which case the 914's handling numbers would be better than the Neon's), or did it make up the ground in braking? (in which case the 914's braking numbers would be better than the Neon's).

The total performance is just the sum of the parts. If the 914 is truly able to defeat the Neon, those runs can be logged and the data will show where it made up the ground. But surely you cannot have a car lose in every respect, yet win at the end.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
The total performance is just the sum of the parts.

*chuckles* Whatever you say. It's just not worth it. You're obviously not a driver.

ZV

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Yes an instructor in a Neon can whip a novice in a Ferrari, but an instructor in a 914 can whip an instructor in a Neon despite the Neon having better test-track numbers. Strange.

It just occured to me that you are making the same mistake you are accusing me of making. Your point has been that not all drivers are equal and that the driver is what counts, yet you say that "an instructor in a 914 can whip an instructor in a Neon". Are you assuming that both instructors have 100% equal abilities, somehow bypassing the argument that you take fault of me using? You don't think that some instructors driving Neons can beat other instructors in 914's?

If you're talking about instructors with equal abilities, then what about when you stick one in a Z06 and the other in the Boxster? The Z06 had to earn its better numbers somehow, right? Probably with the same guy driving both cars.

Now how come when I say that a driver in a Z06 can beat an equal driver in a Boxster, you think my assertion is invalid, yet you yourself claim that an instructor in a 914 can "whip" an instructor in a Z06??

I spot an inconsistency in your logic.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Marshallj
The total performance is just the sum of the parts.

*chuckles* Whatever you say. It's just not worth it. You're obviously not a driver.

ZV

Rrright. You obviously do not have a grip on reality, and when someone mentions that things can in fact be measured you scoff at the idea. The fact that others are able to get a grip of reality, measure it, compare it, and manipulate it intimidates you. You want them to feel just as you do, that everything is chaotic and abstract, out of reach.

And I *am* a driver.

If you lived near me I would gladly race you just to settle this.

Good job of trying to avoid my point (probably because you cannot refute it)

 

[Marshallj]

How old are you? You seem like an opinionated, enthusiastic kid.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
yet you yourself claim that an instructor in a 914 can "whip" an instructor in a Z06??

Show me where I said that a 914 could beat a Z06, it will be a tough job because I neither said that nor implied it.

I have proof that it's possible for a car to have inferior test track numbers and still turn better lap times, must I reference the Boxster's lap times at Nurburgring yet again? It 'Vette posts better test-track numbers than even the C2 996 and yet the 'Vette is slower around the 'Ring with the same driver.

ZV