Boxster 2.7 or 3.2 S

Sneaky Peaky · 6 May 2010 at 18:23

Thought I would add the Boxster to the poss list for the next car and came across this today. Looks superb imo although the purists among you will prob slate it over the wheels.

It got me thinking though as it's a 2.7 and not an S what the difference would be in real life in terms of performance and enjoyability etc ?

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1620652.htm

ta muchly..

[TW]Fox · 6 May 2010 at 18:25

2.7 = get owned at the lights by people in diesel BMWs
3.2 = own people in diesel BMW's at the lights

Andr3w · 6 May 2010 at 18:28

Thats....pretty much the only response you need

stoke1863 · 6 May 2010 at 18:29

in before the boxters the "poor mans ....." comments

Guy at work has an 06 2.7 and indeed he does say he wishes he went for the 3.2

Housey · 6 May 2010 at 18:30

Depends on what you are coming from, but needs to be an S if you want pace to match the sublime car underneath.

Maz · 6 May 2010 at 18:34

I've experienced both, the 2.7 is a great engine and sounds amazing and decent performance.

3.2 is just much better engine to drive and produces more noise and definately the performance option out of the two, if you haven't had a fastish car before and then drove a 2.7 you would not be disappointed.

However if you drive a 3.2 then a 2.7 you'd be left hankering after the bigger engine.

Oh and don't buy an Auto.

Kingy · 6 May 2010 at 19:15

I keep thinking about a Boxster S, but I never really know what options to look out for, and don't known what all the acronyms mean...

If sports chrono is what I think it is, then I'd want that...

Spending this sort of money, I'd want something with a lot of money thrown at the options list...

Sin_Chase · 6 May 2010 at 19:23

The back end of the Boxster never gets on with me, it just looks wallowy and incomplete.

I know this does not help with your engine question but you said you were considering it as an option so....opinions inc

Eriedor · 6 May 2010 at 19:47

3.2 without a doubt. 3.4 if you can stretch even more

Rotty · 6 May 2010 at 20:59

Kingy said:
If sports chrono is what I think it is, then I'd want that...

what do you think it is ?

doesn't seem to make much of a noticeable difference in mine

Housey · 6 May 2010 at 21:05

It adds an ugly clock to the dash.

Amps · 6 May 2010 at 21:05

I would agree the 3.2's do seem pretty good. Over the last couple of years there has been a couple of 3.2's on the porka knockhill days (twisty short track).. they keep up fairly well with the 911's in the bends the only place they really get left behind is on the straights. Very capable car in my opinion.

Rotty · 6 May 2010 at 21:15

Housey said:
It adds an ugly clock to the dash.

Thats about it

Oh and it adds loads of complex features to the PCM that I have yet to work out

s0ck · 6 May 2010 at 21:20

that eeez stunning

Housey · 6 May 2010 at 21:25

Sorry, Turbo Alloys and Boxster should NEVER be seen together!

Kingy · 6 May 2010 at 21:28

Rotty said:
what do you think it is ?

doesn't seem to make much of a noticeable difference in mine

I've read various titbits, ranging from various timers to a power increase...

Buttons!

Kingy · 6 May 2010 at 21:29

Housey said:
...Turbo Alloys ... should NEVER be seen ... !

:thumbsup:

s0ck · 6 May 2010 at 21:34

Housey said:
Sorry, Turbo Alloys and Boxster should NEVER be seen together!

the general presentation is allowing me to look past the wrong alloys. might be coz it's black?

Sneaky Peaky · 6 May 2010 at 22:07

They may not be the right alloys but I still think they look fantastic on that car.

Housey · 6 May 2010 at 22:11

s0ck said:
the general presentation is allowing me to look past the wrong alloys. might be coz it's black?

Hey, style is personal, if you like it's all that matters. I never liked the turbo wheels on the turbo so fair chance I'll like them less on a Boxster. Too bling for my liking really.