2.5 - 2.7 - 3.2 speed difference

[map]

3 minutes ago, TROOPER88 said:

The 3.2's all feel much heavier and bogged down if that makes sense.

Don't get me wrong, they are great but a good 2.5 feels way, way more agile and spirited.

When it comes to brakes, it is car specific rather than model.

When deciding which one to go for, it all comes down to one thing:

What sort of roads / driving will they be used.

If you live in an area that has open roads that are not blighted by traffic, then the 3.2 is a good choice.

If on the other hand you live in a city and are doing a lot of stop / start driving in traffic then you do not want a 3.2.

In the 2.5 and 2.7, you can use the full rev range pretty safely; the 3.2 you can not; not if you have become attached to your driving licence.

Hope this helps 

Whilst I accept your opinion on 2.5 and 2.7 986 - especially with regard to rev range -  I just don’t recognise the general characterisation of a 3.2. 

Having covered approx 100k in my own 3.2 986 (commuting, runs, track days and so on) and been fortunate enough to drive several good 2.7s - a 2.5 has eluded me to date - I believe the deltas are more closely associated with general condition, suspension geometry and road wheel choice rather than something as blunt as engine size/gearbox.

One thing is for certain - in the real world any one of these being well driven whilst staying within the limits of visibility and the conditions can potter in a very satisfying way and without vast differences in terms of covering ground. 

[TROOPER88]

2 minutes ago, map said:

Whilst I accept your opinion on 2.5 and 2.7 986 - especially with regard to rev range -  I just don’t recognise the general characterisation of a 3.2. 

Having covered approx 100k in my own 3.2 986 (commuting, runs, track days and so on) and been fortunate enough to drive several good 2.7s - a 2.5 has eluded me to date - I believe the deltas are more closely associated with general condition, suspension geometry and road wheel choice rather than something as blunt as engine size/gearbox.

One thing is for certain - in the real world any one of these being well driven whilst staying within the limits of visibility and the conditions can potter in a very satisfying way and without vast differences in terms of covering ground. 

You are indeed spot on with regard the general condition etc but with regard how 'lively' the different engines feel, mainly at very low speeds, I can only give my verdict.

I am not a racing driver, have never done a track day and do not consider myself to be an especially skilled driver. I have owned and driven circa 30 986's and can only give my opinion

[Cheddar Bob]

49 minutes ago, TROOPER88 said:

This 

The diff is massive between the 2.5/7's and the 3.2's

I'm sure the feel is different. I was just surprised that the performance difference in real road terms didn't seem to be there. 

Regarding the boxsters straight line pace, I'm starting to realise it is no slouch. It fairs really well against cars I used to think we're really fast. JDM stuff etc. 

Do any of the models have a LSD?

[Darkstar]

A 2.5 can keep up with a 3.2S if their is another 2.5 in front of the 3.2S.

Otherwise the 2.5 has to take risks as it just can't accelerate as fast so you take more speed into corners by breaking later and praying or keep accelerating to higher speeds on the straights when 3.2S has lifted as the road conditions are poor. Either way you just keep playing catch up. 

Worse still is trying to keep up with a PDK car. 

[Cheddar Bob]

30 minutes ago, TROOPER88 said:

You are indeed spot on with regard the general condition etc but with regard how 'lively' the different engines feel, mainly at very low speeds, I can only give my verdict.

I am not a racing driver, have never done a track day and do not consider myself to be an especially skilled driver. I have owned and driven circa 30 986's and can only give my opinion

That's quite a number of boxsters to own. Id say that would have taught you something... 

I've done many many track days on bikes and cars and I found the boxster particularly odd to drive to begin with. Understated, underwhelming and not what I was hoping for. Perhaps an s2000 would have been a better choice then.

Now I am starting to appreciate the characteristics of the machine. It offers reward with risk and in the right circumstances feels excellent 

Easily steerable using the throttle which is a good rwd trait 

 

Any takers for a meet and comparison of the 3? 

I think I can get access to an off road strip near Buckingham. Will have to be a few only. 

 

 

[Cheddar Bob]

1 minute ago, Darkstar said:

A 2.5 can keep up with a 3.2S if their is another 2.5 in front of the 3.2S.

Otherwise the 2.5 has to take risks as it just can't accelerate as fast so you take more speed into corners by breaking later and praying or keep accelerating to higher speeds on the straights when 3.2S has lifted as the road conditions are poor. Either way you just keep playing catch up. 

Worse still is trying to keep up with a PDK car. 

I beg to differ with this. The stats state the 3.2 accelerates faster but real world acceleration doesn't appear to be anything like I would expect. 1 second on a 1/4 mile is a lot in drag racing times but firing between bends on a public road negligible. 

On a track the extra hp should make all the difference, but I'd be confident to state the cornering speed of a 2.5 and 3.2 would be similar on similar tyres. I'd go as far to say the braking would be similar, although the 3.2 might stave off fade a little longer. 

It would only be a small section of straights that would make the difference. 

 

[Menoporsche]

Primarily comes down to the driver; mechanical sympathy, risk awareness, and spherical girth, all usually measured by your mates. 

[Darkstar]

12 minutes ago, Cheddar Bob said:

I beg to differ with this. The stats state the 3.2 accelerates faster but real world acceleration doesn't appear to be anything like I would expect. 1 second on a 1/4 mile is a lot in drag racing times but firing between bends on a public road negligible. 

On a track the extra hp should make all the difference, but I'd be confident to state the cornering speed of a 2.5 and 3.2 would be similar on similar tyres. I'd go as far to say the braking would be similar, although the 3.2 might stave off fade a little longer. 

It would only be a small section of straights that would make the difference. 

 

So I've owned a 2.5, 3.2S and now a 3.4SE and my real world experience does not match your perceived expectations. I'm now a little confused. 

[the baron]

A lot depends on the state of the engine and how many ponies have bolted since leaving the factory.

Meaning a tired 3.2 could be outgunned by a 2.5 and so on.

 

[Nobbie]

Mine is a 2.5 with a power sapping Tiptronic box and 150k on the clock. I’ve driven with a load of different Boxsters and generally find it difficult to tell which is a 2.7/2.9/3.2/3.4 from there pace relative to me. About the only time it’s noticeable is up hills or on long straights after a slow corner where the extra power has the chance to show itself while you both have the pedal buried in the carpet.

I suspect driving the 2.5 is a bit more frenetic as there are more gear changes involved as you can’t rely on torque at lower revs like you can in a 3.2/3.4.

[Ninesomething]

I've only driven 3 boxsters. 1 wasn't mine so I didn't thrash it. 1 was a 987S which found a bit flat and disappointing but I feel that car had issues. When I picked my 2.7 up I was surprised and still am sometimes how willing it is in the lower rev range - it's always ready to go. I suspect the 2.7s are lower geared but  of course it's still relatively long geared compared to a lot of cars but I like that. What I really enjoy is that if you shift up to third as you hit the redline in second the acceleration is relentless - it doesn't pause for a milisecond. Nice to think someone at Porsche aligned the torque/horsepower curve with the gearing to make it work like that.

Anyway blue ones are always fastest.

[KevM79]

I actually enjoy the 2.5 engine as you can properly wring it’s neck and have it singing without doing absolutely stupid speeds.

Its still plenty fast compared to other cars and performs so much better up the revs.  Unfortunately, below 3500rpm, it does feel lacking in the torque department.

Having driven a 3.2 in the past, it doesn’t suffer from the same complaint and will challenge the available grip a lot more.

[Cheddar Bob]

2 hours ago, Darkstar said:

So I've owned a 2.5, 3.2S and now a 3.4SE and my real world experience does not match your perceived expectations. I'm now a little confused. 

I don't have experience of driving a 3.2 or a 2.5 but I had one in front and one behind today. I base my opinion on that. 

I didn't feel the chap in the 2.5 took any greater risk than any of us. 

[jonogt6]

Dey are all slow mah' BMW  1 dizzler coupe be much faster. Ah be baaad... especially wid 17 inch wheels. Its de co'ners dat dey love so's duzn't stress it bout top rank yah.

[TROOPER88]

7 minutes ago, jonogt6 said:

Dey are all slow mah' BMW  1 dizzler coupe be much faster. Ah be baaad... especially wid 17 inch wheels. Its de co'ners dat dey love so's duzn't stress it bout top rank yah.

Precisely this, could not have said it better myself 

[Ninesomething]

Wickid innit.

[zadocbrown]

Other day I followed a Mclaren in my wife's 1.0 VW and had no problem keeping up. I guess there isn't much performance difference between those cars then? 🙄

Someone's been watching too much TopGoon during lockdown....

Truth is the different Boxster models feel quite different, but it's unlikely to translate to a measurable difference in A to B time. Certainly you can't meaningfully assess it by driving in convoy on the road.

[Cheddar Bob]

I might have posted this before. According to the internet.... 

204ps - 2.5 

6.9s to 60

14.9s 1/4

 

228ps - 2.7

6.0s to 60

14.2s 1/4

 

252ps - 3.2

5.9s to 60

13.8s - 1/4

 

 

[Araf]

1 hour ago, zadocbrown said:

Truth is the different Boxster models feel quite different, but it's unlikely to translate to a measurable difference in A to B time. Certainly you can't meaningfully assess it by driving in convoy on the road.

Exactly this.  There's more to the bum-on-seat experience than can be described by most.

25 minutes ago, Nobbie said:

You seem to have missed the point.

You seem to have missed the sarcasm.  

[Nobbie]

1 minute ago, Araf said:

Exactly this.  There's more to the bum-on-seat experience than can be described by most.

You seem to have missed the sarcasm.  

I admit I must have. Have removed the post anyway as the tone regarding speed on the road could have been misconstrued.

[EXY]

18 hours ago, K.I.T.T. said:

Please say that to my face if we meet

Why, can't you read

[Terryg]

1 minute ago, EXY said:

Why, can't you read

I'll be meeting @K.I.T.T. this weekend, I'll say it for Cheddar Nob.

[K.I.T.T.]

30 minutes ago, EXY said:

Why, can't you read

I don't understand English, only Irish. Which is why Terry has to translate.

[Nobbie]

11 minutes ago, K.I.T.T. said:

I don't understand English, only Irish. Which is why Terry has to translate.

That would make sense if @Terrygcould speak English, but isn’t he a cockerny? I generally just nod when he starts speaking😀

[K.I.T.T.]

3 minutes ago, Nobbie said:

but isn’t he a cockerny

Is that the same as a c*ck? Sounds about right.