Why stop there? There's one guy that's stuck a V8 Northstar in his. Though folks have been already sticking in the Solara's engine, blown. I think both of those options are a bit overkill, but its not like it can't be done.

 

$68,600.

$80,675 with the same equipment as my above comparison. Still $15000 more than the Boxster. Is the extra performance worth it? To me, I suppose so, but I'd be more inclined to buy a $50,000 Z06 (much faster than either) and a $30,000 S2000 ('vert factor) before I spent that kinda money on a 911 C2. Personal preference of course.

I think all these vehicles are very good sports cars. The Evo may be faster than the Boxster S, but some people may say "so what?:. That's why we have choices.

 

right...."faster" isn't the be all end all of this situation. There are things about the Boxster that an S2K or an EVO simply can't do....and vice versa. An EVO will never have a mid-engine or a drop top and a Boxster will never have AWD. They are totally different.

 

interesting topic... funny how heated the opinions are. I can totall understand the "need" for a covertible sometimes. I gave up a convertible for the Evo... and while the Evo would run circles around my old car, there are times where I just wish there was no roof over my head. To some people, this is crazy.. but to those who like convertibles, its important. I boxter is a kickass sports car... does not have the racing heritage that a 911 does... but it beneifts from that heritige. A Lambo doesn't have racing heritage either.. but most (not all) would say they are still worthy perfdormance cars. Saying a boxter is not a real porsche is the stupidest thing I ever heard. If you are will ing to say it is NOT a real Porsche, then please DEFINE "Porsche" for us? Its not rear engined... the first porsches were mid-engined, as were the 550 race cars ( and many after that). Certainly a 911 is not the definitiion, since the compnay made sports cars and race cars for 20 year (approx) before the 911's came out. And , by the way, a lot of purists did NOT like the 911's when they replaced the 356. CErtainly being a coupe does not define a Porsche.... since many of the early porsches... street and race cars... were open air cars.

So please alex_alex, using your infinite wisdom and knowledge of all that is Porsche, please defice Porsche for us.

FYI: I am not a huge fan of the boxter.... I had a shot at one and passed to buy something else, and then another chance, and got the Evo instead. So I'm not a boxter lover... but I also appreciate that its a good, REAL sports car.

 

like i said before to someone else, cut out the cheap shots and calling people stupid and we'll talk.

 

The Boxster did to Porsche what the 318ti did to BMW, or what the C230 sport "coupe" has done to Mercedes.

 

If your spending that amout of cash look at a 2001 MZ3 roadster with the 315hp. That thing is very quick 0-60 4.6. I have driven it and it's awsome the only draw back is the E30 rear suspention.

Eric

http://www.autotrader.com/findacar/i...irst_record=1&

 

He said the comment was stupid, not the poster. There's a difference.

 

This is a very naive statement.

There's a very good chance that without the Boxster, Porsche would be in very dire straights financially. The 911 is simply too expensive and too one-dimensional to appeal to enough people to keep a company afloat.

BMW was trying to get into a lower market segment with the 318ti, with the intention of hooking those less-affluent first time buyers onto the BMW brand, so that they bought 540s and 745s as they got older and (possibly) wealthier. It didn't work, because the car simply had nothing to offer for the price, and that's why they're gone.

MB sells a lot of cars in Europe that are slower and less luxurious than the C230. They sell a lot of 230s, and make a lot of money off those sales, and that's why they make them.

I'm not seeing a connection here, other than the desire for more profits. The only people who see the Boxster as damage to a brand are the elitist 911 owners/wannabe owners. Hate to break it to you, but the Boxster and Cayenne are paying for the development of those drool-worthy 911s and Carrera GTs.

 

... and the looks

 

Those same elitist Porsche owners actually did the same thing to the 928. Didn't matter that, at that time, the 928 was the better car. It was front-engined, so the hardcore Porschephiles tended to snub it.

Nevermind the 914, 924, and 944...

 

Definitely, Spoot. Some of the 944 variants were exceptional cars, particularly the Turbo S.

 

did not "callyou stupid". I said that what you said was stupid. Two very diffent things. I don't call names (ok, I do... but I try not to!). But I stand by my opinion that what you said is stupid. There is no way in heck I would call you stupid... I sure as heck am not the sharpest crayon in the box, so chance are good you are smarter than me. But that does not mean you aren't capable of saying stupid things. Just like every once in a while I come up with something real profound (on accident usually) even though I am pretty simple minded.

Anyway... wasn't meant to offend... BUT... I do want to know your definition of PORSCHE. IF you can tell what is NOT a Porsche than you must have an idea of what defines a porsche. I know I am being antogonistic, but also I am just kind of interested. As a long time Porsche enthusiest and owner (of non-real porsches), have had many discussions on this as you know its a hot topic with all porsche enthusiests on both sides of this fence.

 

lol.....the Boxster is a $50k-$60k mid engine convertible sports car......those other cars you mentioned are in the high $20k's and have no performance whatsoever. BMW and Mercedes attempted to enter the "budget" market with ill performing cheap cars.......the Boxster is neither ill performing or cheap. The original 1993 Boxster concept car was an attempt by Porsche to show a modern day small, mid-engine roadster a-la the 356's. When they finally started building them in 1996 they made the car quite a bit less expensive than a 911 to have wider appeal. I just want to dispel the myth that the Boxster was thought up from it's beginnings as some cheapo car to allow everyone to buy them like ti's and C230's.

 

944 turbo S is an awesome car. When did they make those? 88-89? I would take one of those any day over an 88-89 911... it would kill a 911 on any twisty road. The S2 I had was a real good car also... the cab was a $50K car.. too overpriced by the time the stopped making them.. but still a real good car, great handling car, decent torque and HP for the time.. 944's in general are some of the best handling cars porsche ever made. Porsche supposedly designed the 968 to REPLACE the 911.... it was in many ways a better car than the 911 of the same period. (pre-993 model). HAve you seen the poster showing the evolution of the 911 with the final one being the 968? but the purists (elitists) would have no part of it. And it was too expensive for that economy, they DID need a higher volume (lower priced) car to make money to keep the 911 and the companay afloat. Hence the boxter.

Beside the 944Turbo S, in Europe I guess they sold a few 968 S Club Sport (or something like that... been a while) which from what I undestand would outperform any 911 of the day... had the power and speed of 911 turbo but the far superior handling afforded by balanced 50/50 weight distribution.. Would run the damn wheels off a contempory 911 turbo . But unfortunately, doomed by the elitists, because it was NOT A REAL PORSCHE. Forget better perfornamance, its all about image, right? Is that what porsche really about? is it the bling? I think not.... but apparantely to some elitests, the bling is more important than the performance. that, to me, goes against everything that is porsche.