Expertise invited

[edc]

2 minutes ago, Chase27 said:

Thanks to one and all for the useful input. I ran out of my ration of emoticons to give you each a thumbs up smiley.

I shall let you know what I do and how it goes in due course.

All the best!

I would just go for it. We were all new to this once. My 2 Boxsters, fingers crossed, not all in my driving time, have racked up just shy of 200k. 

[Sanky]

Always better to have loved then not at all 🤔

[PaulQ]

Happy hunting 

 

 

[Downsey]

I can give some input on this...

I had a 1991 Mk2 MR2 with the 3SGE (2lt N/A) engine and loved it. After a couple of years I got fed up of the lack of power, so transplanted the 3SGTE (2lt Turbo) engine into it. Wow, it totally transformed the car and it was a joy to drive again.

Fast forward to now, and I have a 2003 Boxster S Tiptronic, which has the 3.2lt engine.

The difference between the MR2 (Even with the 3SGTE) and the Boxster is night and day. Admittedly the Boxster is a newer car, but at 17 years old; my MR2 was the same age when I had it.

The Boxster is a much much much more refined car. The handling is far far superior, and the performance from the engine leaves the MR2 in its wake. Boxster is a much more stable; well balanced car that you can easily drive harder without the back end swinging around on you.

My advice, definitely test a few Boxsters for yourself, but you’ll quickly agree with what I’ve said.

Now, as for the 2.7 vs 3.2 debate, I weighed up the two before I purchased. I did all the research I could on here and FB pages. I didn’t actually drive a 2.7, as came to the reality check that if I bought a 2.7 I would always look at the 3.2’s and think ‘should I have got one of those’, after all, it’s not just the engine that’s better - they have the ‘S’ on the boot too!!

Whatever you decide, if you do buy a Boxster you won’t regret it. They are fantastic sports cars.

 

[Menoporsche]

Nice post as I wasn't aware of whether the OP had a turbo or not.

You make a good point though in that even though the MR2 was also 2-seat mid-engined, I don't recall reviewers raving about its handling, performance, driveability etc, all of which have been heaped on the Boxster in spades.

If you want something "appreciably faster than the MR2", what power does your MR2 have? As I don't know if a 2.0 turbo from 1993 puts out more less or same than a 2.7 NA from 2003 in what is likely to be a heavier car (usual safety developments). If it's a 2.0 non-turbo, I imagine the answer is simply Hell Yeah.

Finally, whatever the numbers say, subjectivity is a big thing. Will it feel faster (do you want it to). Well I have seen people on this forum move from 987 to 986, from Boxster to MX5 (whatever variant) to get a better driver experience.  Not sure I've ever seen anyone declare they are moving from a Boxster to an MR2 as they preferred it, for whatever reason.

A 2.7 is usually cheaper than a 3.2 so would get you a better car for the same price, like for like (but there are such variations at that age it's barely a comparison) so that can work to your advantage as a buyer. I think the only difference is in the pub.

Forget the engine size, go find the best Boxster you can for your budget.

[mrbikerdood]

I had a 2.7 986 and up until the IMS failed it was a damn good car and keep up with the rest of them - like some one on here has already said - its the driver not the car! But after the IMS failed I bought a 3.2s 986 and I loved that also so much so I took it around NurBurgRing

So either or in my opinion

[Ninesomething]

18 hours ago, PaulQ said:

So from this you conclude that the 2.7 is less likely to bore score then a 3.2.?

I don't recall ever reading about any 986 engine scoring in the eight or so years I've been on various Porsche forums. 

No but it made me check what I thought I knew about all the BS about BS and also IMS. I wanted an S. After reading all I could on those subjects when the right car turned up at the right price I wasn't in the least bit disappointed that it was a 2.7. And I'm still not. Everything I've read says that far more 3.2s have gone to lunch than 2.7s.

[½cwt]

5 hours ago, Menoporsche said:

A 2.7 is usually cheaper than a 3.2 so would get you a better car for the same price, like for like (but there are such variations at that age it's barely a comparison) so that can work to your advantage as a buyer. I think the only difference is in the pub.

Forget the engine size, go find the best Boxster you can for your budget.

Both can consume just as much money servicing and fixing them even if the price looks good when you buy.  If you worry about IMS get an older car and check the engine number is in the ranges for the dual row bearing but that is also likely to have more miles and aging of components like rubber bushes, hoses, plastic parts etc. but is more likely to have had brakes, clutch, suspension bushes etc.  I've had mine 18 months (20 year old car)and thought suspension was OK.  Two weeks ago I started taking it a part to repaint the calipers as a nice cosmetic job, but instead I've found a bill for about £400 in parts (I'm doing all the labour fortunately) to fix a broken front spring, perished bump stops and a track rod end with a perished rubber.

Your looking at 15-22 year old cars, there will be problems however well you buy.

[PaulQ]

6 hours ago, JonSta said:

Everything I've read says that far more 3.2s have gone to lunch than 2.7s.

If you say so

[RickLS7]

Everything I've read says it's pretty even. 

Gearboxes are a different matter, 5 speed on the 2.7 is bullet proof whereas the 6 speed on the 3.2 is problematic (2nd gear).

[PaulQ]

I feel left out with my little 2.5. At the end of the day they are all great cars regardless of engine size  

 

[edc]

52 minutes ago, RickLS7 said:

Everything I've read says it's pretty even. 

Gearboxes are a different matter, 5 speed on the 2.7 is bullet proof whereas the 6 speed on the 3.2 is problematic (2nd gear).

But it doesn't appear to be a widespread or common problem that needs an expensive fix. Some have the obstinate cold 2nd gear but very few have the gear popping out or not engaging at all. 

[edc]

31 minutes ago, PaulQ said:

I feel left out with my little 2.5. At the end of the day they are all great cars regardless of engine size  

 

You can suffer in silence dodging the bore score, D chunk and IMS triumvirate 😁

[edc]

7 hours ago, JonSta said:

No but it made me check what I thought I knew about all the BS about BS and also IMS. I wanted an S. After reading all I could on those subjects when the right car turned up at the right price I wasn't in the least bit disappointed that it was a 2.7. And I'm still not. Everything I've read says that far more 3.2s have gone to lunch than 2.7s.

Genuinely, I'd love to see the reports and data on that. Because if its there then you'd have thought somebody at a specialist must have done some research or development for why it is and to develop a fix. 

Hartech have made a business out of repairing bore scored 997 engines with a few 3.6 996, Cayman 3.4 and the odd 3.4 Boxster too for when they are quiet. 

[RickLS7]

9 minutes ago, edc said:

But it doesn't appear to be a widespread or common problem that needs an expensive fix. Some have the obstinate cold 2nd gear but very few have the gear popping out or not engaging at all. 

I just meant that as far as the two models go, the only problem unique to the 'S' is the gearbox.

[edc]

24 minutes ago, RickLS7 said:

I just meant that as far as the two models go, the only problem unique to the 'S' is the gearbox.

Sure. 

In the grand scheme of things there aren't that many unique parts and certainly even fewer that will break. 

Although for the polishing buffs I bet more boot lid Boxster S badges fail than 2.7 Boxster badges by snagging 😁

[½cwt]

1 hour ago, RickLS7 said:

I just meant that as far as the two models go, the only problem unique to the 'S' is the gearbox.

A gearbox oil change certainly helps the cold second gear issue bearing in mind that the oil may well be 20 years old even if not high mileage.  You just learn that when cold 2nd will be baulky so you are more precise.  The 3.2 box also responds well to heel toe changes coming down the gears 🙂.

BTW for those not aware the 2.7 has a 5 speed (VW Group or certainly higher production volume) derived 'box and the 3.2 a more specialist Getrag unit.

[½cwt]

47 minutes ago, edc said:

Although for the polishing buffs I bet more boot lid Boxster S badges fail than 2.7 Boxster badges by snagging 😁

The tail on the S is definitely fragile...  fingers crossed, not broken it yet.

[Chase27]

On 4/20/2020 at 12:32 PM, Menoporsche said:

Nice post as I wasn't aware of whether the OP had a turbo or not.

You make a good point though in that even though the MR2 was also 2-seat mid-engined, I don't recall reviewers raving about its handling, performance, driveability etc, all of which have been heaped on the Boxster in spades.

If you want something "appreciably faster than the MR2", what power does your MR2 have? As I don't know if a 2.0 turbo from 1993 puts out more less or same than a 2.7 NA from 2003 in what is likely to be a heavier car (usual safety developments). If it's a 2.0 non-turbo, I imagine the answer is simply Hell Yeah.

Finally, whatever the numbers say, subjectivity is a big thing. Will it feel faster (do you want it to). Well I have seen people on this forum move from 987 to 986, from Boxster to MX5 (whatever variant) to get a better driver experience.  Not sure I've ever seen anyone declare they are moving from a Boxster to an MR2 as they preferred it, for whatever reason.

A 2.7 is usually cheaper than a 3.2 so would get you a better car for the same price, like for like (but there are such variations at that age it's barely a comparison) so that can work to your advantage as a buyer. I think the only difference is in the pub.

Forget the engine size, go find the best Boxster you can for your budget.

Nicely summed up. Thansk for your input.

As for my MR2 power, the book says 138 bhp, in 1100kg (plus obese pilot). Not great. The handling around corners is stunning but the thing feels skittish at anything above 65. Its as if I need a bag of cement in the frunk. There isnt any space for one, though. Its an exciting car to drive when you deviate from the straight but thats not enough, anymore. Sorry Mr Toyoda...

[Chase27]

On 4/20/2020 at 8:31 AM, Downsey said:

I can give some input on this...

I had a 1991 Mk2 MR2 with the 3SGE (2lt N/A) engine and loved it. After a couple of years I got fed up of the lack of power, so transplanted the 3SGTE (2lt Turbo) engine into it. Wow, it totally transformed the car and it was a joy to drive again.

Fast forward to now, and I have a 2003 Boxster S Tiptronic, which has the 3.2lt engine.

The difference between the MR2 (Even with the 3SGTE) and the Boxster is night and day. Admittedly the Boxster is a newer car, but at 17 years old; my MR2 was the same age when I had it.

The Boxster is a much much much more refined car. The handling is far far superior, and the performance from the engine leaves the MR2 in its wake. Boxster is a much more stable; well balanced car that you can easily drive harder without the back end swinging around on you.

My advice, definitely test a few Boxsters for yourself, but you’ll quickly agree with what I’ve said.

Now, as for the 2.7 vs 3.2 debate, I weighed up the two before I purchased. I did all the research I could on here and FB pages. I didn’t actually drive a 2.7, as came to the reality check that if I bought a 2.7 I would always look at the 3.2’s and think ‘should I have got one of those’, after all, it’s not just the engine that’s better - they have the ‘S’ on the boot too!!

Whatever you decide, if you do buy a Boxster you won’t regret it. They are fantastic sports cars.

 

Thanks. This is very helpful as replies go. All the best!

[Scubaregs]

22 minutes ago, Chase27 said:

As for my MR2 power, the book says 138 bhp, in 1100kg (plus obese pilot). Not great. The handling around corners is stunning but the thing feels skittish at anything above 65. Its as if I need a bag of cement in the frunk. There isnt any space for one, though. Its an exciting car to drive when you deviate from the straight but thats not enough, anymore. Sorry Mr Toyoda...

Pre facelift roadster?

[Menoporsche]

27 minutes ago, Chase27 said:

As for my MR2 power, the book says 138 bhp, in 1100kg

The least powerful Boxster is a bit over 200bhp in perhaps 1250kg. I think you’d be stepping up  

[mikefocke]

I have followed about 8 Boxster forums based on three continents for the last 15+ years almost daily.  Years ago, I created a list of 16 Boxster problems collected over the years. Bore score has never come up for a 986 that I can remember and certainly not with the frequency that would have caused it to be on my list.

Buy a well maintained car. You want the prior owner to have paid for some of the items that just age out or wear out so you don't have to.

When was the tires replaced, when were the rotors replaced, when were the brake pads replaced, when was the AOS replaced, when was the water pump replaced, when were the coils replaced, when was the alignment last done, ....

They are around 20 years old after all.  Wonderful cars.

[red rocket]

11 hours ago, mikefocke said:

I have followed about 8 Boxster forums based on three continents for the last 15+ years almost daily.  Years ago, I created a list of 16 Boxster problems collected over the years. Bore score has never come up for a 986 that I can remember and certainly not with the frequency that would have caused it to be on my list.

Buy a well maintained car. You want the prior owner to have paid for some of the items that just age out or wear out so you don't have to.

When was the tires replaced, when were the rotors replaced, when were the brake pads replaced, when was the AOS replaced, when was the water pump replaced, when were the coils replaced, when was the alignment last done, ....

They are around 20 years old after all.  Wonderful cars.

Great work on the list Mike. Tempted to suggest it should be pinned in the 986 forum for prospective owners to access but suspect it would scare some of the more nervous buyers to death, despite all your caveats!

[Dazzevans]

6 minutes ago, red rocket said:

Great work on the list Mike. Tempted to suggest it should be pinned in the 986 forum for prospective owners to access but suspect it would scare some of the more nervous buyers to death, despite all your caveats!

That was a great read, Mike and provides food for thought. I am looking at two 986s at present, one is a manual 3.2S in the low £5,000s but no IMS replacement but has front and rear cameras and Apple Play! The other is a 3.2S tip in the upper £6000 but has had an engine rebuild (IMS, deep clean, seals bearings gaskets etc), alignment, brake fluid change, recent Michelen tyres, new front shocks 3000 miles ago and more. I am torn between the two.