Jump to content

Buying question - Boxster 3.2s (01-02) or 2.7 (03-04)


mikej_uk

Recommended Posts

Would be helpful to know your budget.

Low on funds on here usually means £4k.

There are some nice additions on a facelift (can be late 02).

Lots of reading required methinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, EXY said:

Would be helpful to know your budget.

Low on funds on here usually means £4k.

There are some nice additions on a facelift (can be late 02).

Lots of reading required methinks.

Hi Exy,

Funds are around 5500 GBP.  My previous Porsche (which I had to sell last year) was a 2004 911 40th Anniversary so I know what to look out for in terms of RMS etc...  I just don't know how different the 2.7 and 3.2S are?

 

Many Thanks

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Kooky 1976 said:

Glass rear screen and a glove box. Who needs another 500cc's

This may provoke disagreement, but I would say if the car is normally going to be garaged, then don't regard a glass rear screen (ie facelift model, or retrofit to earlier one) as essential even though I agree it is desirable - as is a glovebox, but then also as is the extra 500cc, especially if coming from a 996!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Jon61 said:

This may provoke disagreement, but I would say if the car is normally going to be garaged, then don't regard a glass rear screen (ie facelift model, or retrofit to earlier one) as essential even though I agree it is desirable - as is a glovebox, but then also as is the extra 500cc, especially if coming from a 996!

Hi Jon,

The car will be kept outside although I will probably buy a hard top for the winter.

The performance figures is about half a second 0-60 between the 2.7 (2003) and a 3.2S (2001).  What I want to know is basically how they "feel" to drive? Is there a big difference between them?

Cheers,

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I've never owned a 2.7, but anyway I'm not sure what you expect me to say. Why don't you find a car of the condition/spec/price that suits you and drive it to see if it's fast enough for you. If you have to know how they compare you're going to have to find a way of driving one of each ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends what you are using it for. If it's to be driven on the limit all the time go for a 3.2. If it's just for plodding about and going weekend drives in the country go for the best one you can in your budget be it a 2.7 or 3.2. 

I've got a 2.7. It's powerful enough. It's not the fastest thing I've ever driven. Performance wise I'd say it's comparable to a civic type R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree with the above. It's all relative. I have a facelift 2.7. I came from a 1.8 Honda Civic so the 2.7 to me feels very quick. However, I took my mates F430 Scuderia for a spin at the weekend and getting back into mine felt like I was driving a Morris Minor.

It totally depends on your driving style I guess. I've slowed down the older I get and the 2.7 is plenty enough for me and is more than capable of getting me into trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ricky850r said:

I've got a 2.7. It's powerful enough. It's not the fastest thing I've ever driven. Performance wise I'd say it's comparable to a civic type R.

As the owner of both a 2.7 Boxster and a Civic Type R, the Boxster is quite a bit quicker, far better steering, suspension and braking.  The acceleration figures look similar but there's no way a standard Type R can do 0-60 in less than 7 seconds.  

The latest turbo charged Type R is damn quick but I could never spend £33k on a Civic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you track the car, you won't get to the limit on the road, the 3.2s will do 120 in third, these cars are never going to win traffic light grand prix any more, but drag any of these modern straight line rockets to some corners and then see how they play.

I got a 3.2 because I didn't want the 'what if' moment later, although I'm having that thinking about a 911 996 :)

The torque in the 3.2 is great, makes for easy lazy 'mans' driving

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Southy said:

The torque in the 3.2 is great, makes for easy lazy 'mans' driving

+1

I went to my first Boxster, a 2.5, from driving a 3 litre Supra, and while the Boxster was way more fun to drive, I did have to adapt my driving and get out of some of my lazy habits. The 2.5 was a great car, but I did prefer my later 3.2 when I got it which I suppose just proves that I am naturally lazy ... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went from a 2.7 to a 3.2s and noticed quite a bit, torque etc plus the lazy 6 speed box compared to 5 on the 2.7 (mine were both manual) also factor in having the IMS and clutch done for peace of mind my 2.7 suffered the IMS failing after only owning it approx 4 months - my 3.2s had the clutch and IMS done before I bought it :)

Si

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your input guys.  The car will be used for my vast commute to work (5.2 miles) into Cardiff and the odd weekend in Powys etc.. with the Porsche club.  I am leaning more towards the 986.2 as it is almost the same as my previous 996 40AE.

I have found a couple for between 5 and 6k with the cheaper being 112k miles and the more expensive being around 78k miles.  

Both have full service history and are either on their 2nd or 3rd owner.

So now its a "is it worth paying extra for a low mileage(ish) car or take the cheaper one and pocket the cash?

Thoughts?

Mike

PS - If anyone is interested in seeing some pics of my old 911 40th then here is a link.

Mike's 40th AE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Porsche prices are sensitive to the magic 100k myth, perhaps the lower mileage one is "better" (certeris paribus, as we say in pompous undergrad law degrees).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mikej_uk said:

Thanks for all your input guys.  The car will be used for my vast commute to work (5.2 miles) into Cardiff and the odd weekend in Powys etc.. with the Porsche club.  I am leaning more towards the 986.2 as it is almost the same as my previous 996 40AE.

I have found a couple for between 5 and 6k with the cheaper being 112k miles and the more expensive being around 78k miles.  

Both have full service history and are either on their 2nd or 3rd owner.

So now its a "is it worth paying extra for a low mileage(ish) car or take the cheaper one and pocket the cash?

Thoughts?

Mike

PS - If anyone is interested in seeing some pics of my old 911 40th then here is a link.

Mike's 40th AE

From what I understand, low mileage isn't always a great thing. A higher mileage car with an impeccable history would be my preference over a lower mileage car with less work carried out.

 

Nice 996 - what made you move away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kooky,

Had to sell the 996 when the wife was made redundant. Then bought a lexus rx400h which did everything. However it was boringass hell. So now want something fun! So that's where the 986 comes in.

Regards 

 

Mike 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikej_uk said:

Hi Kooky,

Had to sell the 996 when the wife was made redundant. Then bought a lexus rx400h which did everything. However it was boringass hell. So now want something fun! So that's where the 986 comes in.

Regards 

 

Mike 

Nice. I was after a 996 (my next door neighbour has one and it drove me mad walking past it every day and getting into a Civic). I ran out of patience saving up and decided that the Boxster at half the price was a reasonable compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Owned a 986 2.5 and then a 3.2.

I actually preferred the 2.5 maybe because I could keep my foot down longer. Never found a place where I needed more. Mostly used commuting into a crowded big city with occasional country excursions. (Background is probably 40 plus cars owned in the family with 1.3 to 5.7 displacement. Oddly, the 1.3 was probably driven the fastest but that was in my younger days when the roads were less crowded and the electronic speed detection systems weren't yet around.)

Drive several and see how they fit you.  Your money, your choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on my second 2.5 and feel as real thrill is in the bends, this has enough poke with the added bonus of not having IMS replacement worries in the way you do with larger lumps. 

 

Buy on condition would be my advice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok guys so here is the update.  I won a highest bid on an 03 2.7 FSH classed as "Stunning" on ebay.  However... I put a deposit down, paid for a hire car and went to see the "stunning car".  The trade seller was only to happy to pick me up from the hire car drop off point (which I was grateful for).  

On inspection of the car, the car had more chips on it that my local take-away,  the clutch biting point was so high that bob marley could have driven it and the gear box was like mixing cement.  Yet the seller said all the Boxsters he had were like it... 

After I kindly declined the stunning Boxster the seller was too busy to take me back to the car hire location so I had to take 3 buses and pay a surplus one way charge (again) with the hire company just to get home. 

So I have no stunning car and I am around £250 lighter than I started and I am so p*ssed off that I am even considering some jap cr*p instead of some awesome german engineering.

What a total waste of time.

If you are bidding on ebay and want to know the seller then please email me and I will let you know.

Regards,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...