1 2
93EXCivic
93EXCivic UltimaDork
8/8/12 11:33 a.m.

For $60k there are just too many cars I would rather have Vette and Lotus come to mind.

nderwater
nderwater UberDork
8/8/12 1:40 p.m.
Alan Cesar wrote: Speaking of Boxymans, what did you guys think of the Boxster generation-by-generation comparison in the current issue? If you don't have it in your greasy hands yet, the digital edition is already up: http://grassrootsmotorsports.epubxp.com/title/13037#

Thanks for comparing S to S models. Anyone let down by driving an early 2.5L car owes it to himself to drive its stronger siblings.

Maroon92
Maroon92 MegaDork
8/8/12 5:24 p.m.

I love the 981, it's a phenomenal car.

Javelin
Javelin MegaDork
8/8/12 5:35 p.m.
David S. Wallens wrote: As a friend at Porsche once told me, they race two kinds of cars: 911s and prototypes.

Which, as any casual fan of their pre-2000 history can tell you, is stupid and not in accordance with ye Porsche of old. The 911 was originally thought to be no good for "real" racing (which was left to the mid-engine prototypes and pseudo-production cars) so the 911 was allowed to rally. It wasn't until 73 when it was already an "old" car that Porsche finally started looking at circuit racing with it.

In the past Porsche has successfully supported and campaigned nearly all of it's models, including the 924, 944, 928, 914, etc. They even made "higher-spec" versions of the street cars based on the racers (928 GTS, 924 Carrera, etc, etc). This whole since-2000 crap-o-la of "only ze 911 is worthy" mindset seriously bugs this all Porsche's fan...

Maroon92
Maroon92 MegaDork
8/8/12 8:18 p.m.

While the 928 was entered in the 24 Hours of Daytona, it was a 100% stock car (with the exception of a rumored all aluminum chassis), and the GTS was not based on any racing version of the car, it was just the final evolution of the chassis. The 928 was a rubbish racecar.

Same for the 914. While it had some success stateside in IMSA competition, and a single class win at Le Mans (1970), they weren't really "factory supported race cars" as much as they were "club sport"-esque factory option street cars that were race prepped by racing teams.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I agree, Porsche has a history of racing more than just the 911. Vintage 944 Turbo Cup footage is some of my favorite to watch.

Maroon92
Maroon92 MegaDork
8/8/12 8:20 p.m.
93EXCivic wrote: For $60k there are just too many cars I would rather have Vette and Lotus come to mind.

You say that until you have driven them. The Boxster is so much more car than the Vette. I love most Lotus, but I've never been a very big fan of the Elise/Exige. They are too cramped for me, and feel as stripped out as they are. They feel cheap.

ssquid
ssquid
9/29/12 5:42 p.m.
Alan Cesar wrote: Speaking of Boxymans, what did you guys think of the Boxster generation-by-generation comparison in the current issue? http://grassrootsmotorsports.epubxp.com/title/13037#

Liked the generation comparison. I'm coming from BMW and a rule (at least for years 1992 to 2012) for every 3-series redesign is the new top of line non-M will be as powerful as the previous M3. Your Boxyman history helps put in perspective the choice between newer non-S vs older S.

Would like more info on what are expensive rebuilds to look out for.

On the Boxster vs Cayman question, I would usually go for the solidity and security of the hardtop rather than pay extra for a convertible. But Porsche makes the convertible cheaper, and it's well executed. Tough decision for me, but I'll probably end up with a 2008 Cayman S.

1 2
Our Preferred Partners
eatPPPoANXqr60SssnOMOYK6RQzOOtyRteXZTUq00lTsCOL4Lw9ochGThjvbAzmd