Boxster 'image'

Jonny69 said:
I view it as a slow Porsche. An easy target in anything remotely powerful :D
Click to expand...

I think this about anything on 4 wheels when I'm on 2 :D

Its all relative - after a few days in the Focus the Boxster feels fast again.....until I get on my bike, then everything seems really really slow
 
Peerzy said:
I've not had any issues with my Boxster S, despite me prancing round Guildford and Woking with the roof down all last summer. I use mine to drive to work and often leave it parked on the road without any real worries. I doubt I'd leave it in Bootle and I always try and park carefully (miles away at a supermarket etc...) but never had any issues.

I went for the earliest 3.4l S I could find over the 3.2l. Mainly because the price difference was minimal and I thought it might help resale values. It's got a tiny bit more power but I doubt you can notice it.

The Z4M and SLK55 are (off the top of my head) quicker cars but I bet the Boxster S feels like the best one to drive.
Click to expand...

To be honest mate I can't really tell the difference between my 911 and the boxster 3.2s in terms of power. Im sure there is a difference, well its 0.6secs but not that you would notice.
 
People just seem to be more 'aware' of Boxsters I find. I think because they're commonly shown in the media as being signs of medium-wealth, like on EastEnders or other soaps, so they become more of a target.

Whereas SLK's and Z4's aren't seen as such in my eyes. Or maybe I'm just talking **** ;)

Rotty said:
What part of SLK running costs are crippling ?
Click to expand...

£1200 for front brake disks. £1100 for a B-service + other costs. Issues with the autobox can cost a fortune, ditto any problems with the roof. I didn't expect it to be a cheap car, but from my research they certainly cost more than the Boxster or Z4M.

OspreyO said:
I don't understand the attraction of a SLK at all.
Click to expand...

You don't see the attraction of a hand-built 5.4l V8?
I would have absolutely no interest in the SLK were it not for that factor.
 
The only 'image' boxters have are of a completely ugly car :p

I'm sure my opinion would change if I got behind the wheel but whenever I see one I just think 'wow, that arse is hideous!'
 
The older Boxster (986) was horrible, and looks really dated and 90's now IMO, the current gen one (987) looks great.
Girls car? No I don't think so - although having said that a girl at work has just bought one :p

Is is a manual 3.2S though :D
 
I still cannot get over the looks of the rear :(


Image? Well I think I'd rather have the SLK or the Z4. I can't own a Porsche unless its a 911, and that's some way off atm.
 
Jonny69 said:
I view it as a slow Porsche. An easy target in anything remotely powerful :D
Click to expand...

I'm not a huge Boxster fan but I'd hardly say they're all that slow.

Boxster S
0-60 = 5.1 seconds
0-100 = 11 seconds

911 Carrera
0-60 = 4.8 seconds
0-100 = 10.4 seconds

Plenty of people think the Evo or Impreza are fast but according to Evo Magazine they're way off the pace of the hairdressers car.

Evo X FQ300
0-100 = 13.9 seconds

Impreza WRX STI
0-100 = 12.7
 
eidolon said:
I'm not a huge Boxster fan but I'd hardly say they're all that slow.

Boxster S
0-60 = 5.1 seconds
0-100 = 11 seconds

911 Carrera
0-60 = 4.8 seconds
0-100 = 10.4 seconds

Plenty of people think the Evo or Impreza are fast but according to Evo Magazine they're way off the pace of the hairdressers car.

Evo X FQ300
0-100 = 13.9 seconds

Impreza WRX STI
0-100 = 12.7
Click to expand...

That's a Boxster S up against the slowest 911 though.

Also I was always under the impression the reason Impreza's and Evo's were so quick is about 0.0001% of them are actually standard cars, the other 99.9999% have had a few hundred quid spent on them and are mentally quick. Try getting extra power out of a Porsche without spending thousands and getting only minimal increases (Boxster S engine).

I'm a massive fan of the Boxster S but I know it's failings, it's how it comes out of the showroom or nothing really in terms of engine modifications.
 
I've loved every boxster I've ever driven. Awesome bits of kit. Cockpit can be a bit basic, but the drive is awesome.

Understand the image thing - few people at work have them and they're constantly joshed with hair dresser/poor man's porsche jokes. Usually by people running company 320Ds, so what does that tell you....

It's always Imprezas that want to race you off the lights. I've no idea how fast they really are... if they are as fast as they are TOTALLY VISIBLE AND NOSIY the, just wow.
 
Peerzy said:
That's a Boxster S up against the slowest 911 though.
Click to expand...

My point stands. Ask the average person in the street about the Boxster and they'll say it's a slow hairdressers car yet show them a 911 of any sort and they'll think it's fast, same with Evo, Impreza etc.
 
Interesting what people consider fast now isn't it?

Remember getting my old 8L S3 - 0-60 about 6.9 ish wasn't it? Crappy gearing. That I thought was fast...ish. The RS4 after felt like a starship, as did the R34GTR I had before the S3.

Now 6.9 to 60.....is not that special? The Boxsters are fast cars, very capable.

It's people's ideas of 'fast' that are a bit warped now in some respects.
 
eidolon said:
My point stands. Ask the average person in the street about the Boxster and they'll say it's a slow hairdressers car yet show them a 911 of any sort and they'll think it's fast, same with Evo, Impreza etc.
Click to expand...

I do understand that, someone I work with asked me if it was "a 2 litre? Or bigger". Mind you he knows sod all about cars, was shocked when I said 3.4l.

People auto assume 911=mega quick, Boxster=slower but isn't my Boxster S 'quicker' than a 996 911?

The Boxster image was of no issue to me, I got mine when I was 21 and only a small handful (5~) of the people my age I knew had anything even close to a 'nice' Golf, Audi A3 or similiar so it was streets ahead of anything else people who actually see me owned.

It was a 3.4l current model convertable Porsche at 21 so if anything it was a massively positive image for me. I don't give a toss what randoms on the street think.
 
Last edited:
Peerzy said:
snip...

People auto assume 911=mega quick, Boxster=slower but isn't my Boxster S 'quicker' than a 996 911?

snip...
Click to expand...

To quote parkers...

1998 996 911 C2 Coupe

0-60 mph 5.0 secs
Top Speed 171 mph
Power Output 300 bhp
Valves 24
Torque 350 Nm

2009 987 Boxster S 3.4


0-60 mph 5.1 secs
Top Speed 170 mph
Power Output 305 bhp
Valves 24
Torque 360 Nm 266 lb-ft

Not sure if yours is the 305 or the 300, think the 300 .3 ish slower. (not that you would notice)..
 
I'd rather have a Z4 than a Boxster, to me, Boxsters scream "Mid-life crisis"

Not sure why, could be Clarkson's influence, personally I've not had much dealings with Boxster drivers, it's Audi drivers that are getting to me at the moment.

However, you shouldn't really judge a person by their car, even if they do speed up behind you, and without giving you time to move out of their way, they undertake you (I was driving at 70 in the 3rd lane of the M1 they must have been doing 80+)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom