I've owned both. The Boxster S I had was a significantly better handling car than my M, you could cover twisty roads quicker and it was easier to look like a driving God. However it let go of its timing chain and cost me £5K in an engine rebuild whereas the M has cost me nothing other than routine servicing and consumables in 4 years. Plus I feel way more manly hustling the M.
Boxster v mc/m
- Thread starter saskia
- Start date
Drove both the 987 3.4s and the Z4M before making the purchase.
Z4M was less expensive for a given age/mileage.
Z4M had a nicer sound but switchable PSE was fun, S54 is a cracking engine!
A few scary tales of Porsche engines going pop - warrantee is an expensive yearly cost.
Seemed easier to find a generously equipped Z4M than a 987 S, things like HID lights were still an expensive option on the Porsche.
Porsche had much much better handling on a B road but was a bit under steers when squirting around roundabouts, good brakes once you got used to the lack of servo assist.
Z4M has an LSD, Porsche relies on mechanical grip and better polar moment of inertia in MR layout.
Boxster roof could be opened and closed while moving - brill!
I probably would have bought the Porsche but couldn't find the spec I was after in 6 months of hunting.
Z4M was less expensive for a given age/mileage.
Z4M had a nicer sound but switchable PSE was fun, S54 is a cracking engine!
A few scary tales of Porsche engines going pop - warrantee is an expensive yearly cost.
Seemed easier to find a generously equipped Z4M than a 987 S, things like HID lights were still an expensive option on the Porsche.
Porsche had much much better handling on a B road but was a bit under steers when squirting around roundabouts, good brakes once you got used to the lack of servo assist.
Z4M has an LSD, Porsche relies on mechanical grip and better polar moment of inertia in MR layout.
Boxster roof could be opened and closed while moving - brill!
I probably would have bought the Porsche but couldn't find the spec I was after in 6 months of hunting.
NeilP said:
I like them about the same really. I'd probably plump for the Cayman though if I had to choose because I'm not really bothered about a drop top. I've already scratched that itch with an E85.
Liverpool
My mate is a Porsche fan, and every year he comes on our Ring trip, and every year he comes with the next model up the range with the intention of losing me. Every year he has to let me past as I'm all over his exhausts. 
He started with a Cayman, then a Cayman S, last year it was a Cayman R, and he's now bought a 911 4S.
I've told him it's not the car, and he should concentrate on going faster rather than trying to position his car to block me (or make me go offline to pass), but he won't believe me. So I just wait for him to go wide, brake too early, or outbrake himself and go fling past.
Last year we nearly had a 3-way pile-up with an Artega GT who indicated to let us pass and the. Moved straight back onto the 'racing line'. I went the long way around on the left and my mate went the shorter path to the right. Mr Artega must have s**t himself
I don't think I'd have been disappointed had I got a Cayman S instead of the Z4MC. Just weren't any in my price range at the time.
He started with a Cayman, then a Cayman S, last year it was a Cayman R, and he's now bought a 911 4S.
I've told him it's not the car, and he should concentrate on going faster rather than trying to position his car to block me (or make me go offline to pass), but he won't believe me. So I just wait for him to go wide, brake too early, or outbrake himself and go fling past.
Last year we nearly had a 3-way pile-up with an Artega GT who indicated to let us pass and the. Moved straight back onto the 'racing line'. I went the long way around on the left and my mate went the shorter path to the right. Mr Artega must have s**t himself
I don't think I'd have been disappointed had I got a Cayman S instead of the Z4MC. Just weren't any in my price range at the time.
Nobody pulls up alongside a porsche boxter on a motorway asking for a race, messing around with you, giving you nods of appreciation or kids turn to look at what's making that hum and looks cool. Z4MC's get that 
Don't get me wrong - the new Boxter looks great, and standard 911's are so dull, not that fast and frankly the interior is second rate.. i'd probably rather have the new boxter unless it we're talking turbo minimum. Still - the drive is too tidy, it's not powerful enough, or loud enough to make you cautious or nervous or giggle with your mates when it goes brutally fast out of corners..
Good car, the kinda thing i'd like the Mrs to have so i could sneakily take it to the shops and never have to own it. Personally the Z4MC is the better enthusiast and drivers car, but i'm biased, and i wont be swapping the z4mc for many cars in the Porsche lineup.
Don't get me wrong - the new Boxter looks great, and standard 911's are so dull, not that fast and frankly the interior is second rate.. i'd probably rather have the new boxter unless it we're talking turbo minimum. Still - the drive is too tidy, it's not powerful enough, or loud enough to make you cautious or nervous or giggle with your mates when it goes brutally fast out of corners..
Good car, the kinda thing i'd like the Mrs to have so i could sneakily take it to the shops and never have to own it. Personally the Z4MC is the better enthusiast and drivers car, but i'm biased, and i wont be swapping the z4mc for many cars in the Porsche lineup.
Quadracer said:
a couple of my pals have them - they are pretty quick and handle well. The more modern ones are sorted from an engine breaking perspective - getting well specced ones are expensive and the looks arent as great as a zed IMHO - - the roof motors never seen to break tho
I accept the boxster is easily open to criticism as it depreciates like a stone & arguably hasn't enough power, but the 911 is a different kettle of fish imo, I haven't driven one but everyone I know who has thinks that they are awesome.ZedFourM said:
I certainly lust after a 911 tbh especially a GT3 or a Turbo I don't think I would find them that dull.
I presume we are talking pre-991 when it comes to being critical of the interior?
Correct, pre-991.
Yes i've driven one, its a nice car, but i just don't get the special feeling, and for the money you're paying they're not actually that quick. Maybe it was the interior that made the rest of it feel a bit drab. Plus there's more 911's on the road here than Ford Mondeos.
EDIT* sorry i should say the ones i've been in and driven have been 996's, i know the 997 to be better and 991 is meant be another jump again.
Yes i've driven one, its a nice car, but i just don't get the special feeling, and for the money you're paying they're not actually that quick. Maybe it was the interior that made the rest of it feel a bit drab. Plus there's more 911's on the road here than Ford Mondeos.
EDIT* sorry i should say the ones i've been in and driven have been 996's, i know the 997 to be better and 991 is meant be another jump again.
Honestly threads like this make me laugh ... I know we all love our cars but ... :roll:
Probably the greatest sports car ever made and its "not that quick"; "interior's a bit crap"; "dull" ...
Seriously you cannot have driven a 911 properly if you think that. Well obviously the interior is a matter of opinion, but I certainly don't think the Z's interior is anything special - my Volvo is better.
I had a 993 911 for 5 years, and yes it wasn't that powerful - 272 bhp stock - but it could deliver and use every single one of those horse power when needed; and remember this was a car first introduced in 1993; it was absolutely fantastic on track; and as for the brakes - up there with the best I have ever used, certainly the Z's are not bad but they are significantly over-assisted compared to a 911.
And it could carry four people, as long as two of them were rather small; and to be fair the interior was a bit idiosyncratic with switches scattered around like confetti.
I think we should worry less about denigrating other cars and enjoy the fact that they all exist ...
Probably the greatest sports car ever made and its "not that quick"; "interior's a bit crap"; "dull" ...
Seriously you cannot have driven a 911 properly if you think that. Well obviously the interior is a matter of opinion, but I certainly don't think the Z's interior is anything special - my Volvo is better.
I had a 993 911 for 5 years, and yes it wasn't that powerful - 272 bhp stock - but it could deliver and use every single one of those horse power when needed; and remember this was a car first introduced in 1993; it was absolutely fantastic on track; and as for the brakes - up there with the best I have ever used, certainly the Z's are not bad but they are significantly over-assisted compared to a 911.
And it could carry four people, as long as two of them were rather small; and to be fair the interior was a bit idiosyncratic with switches scattered around like confetti.
I think we should worry less about denigrating other cars and enjoy the fact that they all exist ...
tertius said:
No-one said the Z4 was perfect, either. I don't see the problem in expressing your opinion about a car.
For what it's worth, the Cayman was a fantastic car to drive. Better than the 3.0si Coupe I had at the time - which we all know the Z4s are prone to skipping when it comes to rough ground. The Cayman was far better in that respect.
Some of the comments here are funny.
I've owned 2 911's.....a 996 C2 Cab and a 997 TT Cab........
Neither could be described as slow, and although the interior on the 996 wasn't up to par with its rivals the interior on my 997 was pretty good (it did have £17.5K of options though!) I would say the 996 interior was on a par with the Z I owned which were both of roughly the same vintage....
Anyone who thinks that 3.6 seconds to 60 is slow should try and 997TT, and then comment. I had mine up to an (indictaed) 197 mph with the roof down and the BOSE up which, tbh, I don't consider slow 8) ......IMO it's not, and at the time I bought mine it was the fastest production convertible on sale in the UK, so not exactly sluggish LOL.
As for quality - in 8 years of combined ownership I didn't have any significant problems.....a heating loom on my seat in the 996 and a rad replacement in the 997........I don't consider these bad.
All the stories of the engines being like choklit are vastly exaggerated imo too - I know a lot of people who have or have had 911's and don't know of a single one with IMS/RMS failure, nor did my 996 (my 997 had the GT1 block so wasn't affected by that issue).
I'd certainly have another - but would probably go for the 981 Boxster as it really is a good car imo.........but at the moment, other issues take priority so I'll stick with my current fleet.....
I've owned 2 911's.....a 996 C2 Cab and a 997 TT Cab........
Neither could be described as slow, and although the interior on the 996 wasn't up to par with its rivals the interior on my 997 was pretty good (it did have £17.5K of options though!) I would say the 996 interior was on a par with the Z I owned which were both of roughly the same vintage....
Anyone who thinks that 3.6 seconds to 60 is slow should try and 997TT, and then comment. I had mine up to an (indictaed) 197 mph with the roof down and the BOSE up which, tbh, I don't consider slow 8) ......IMO it's not, and at the time I bought mine it was the fastest production convertible on sale in the UK, so not exactly sluggish LOL.
As for quality - in 8 years of combined ownership I didn't have any significant problems.....a heating loom on my seat in the 996 and a rad replacement in the 997........I don't consider these bad.
All the stories of the engines being like choklit are vastly exaggerated imo too - I know a lot of people who have or have had 911's and don't know of a single one with IMS/RMS failure, nor did my 996 (my 997 had the GT1 block so wasn't affected by that issue).
I'd certainly have another - but would probably go for the 981 Boxster as it really is a good car imo.........but at the moment, other issues take priority so I'll stick with my current fleet.....
tertius said:Honestly threads like this make me laugh ... I know we all love our cars but ... :roll:
Probably the greatest sports car ever made and its "not that quick"; "interior's a bit crap"; "dull" ...
Seriously you cannot have driven a 911 properly if you think that. Well obviously the interior is a matter of opinion, but I certainly don't think the Z's interior is anything special - my Volvo is better.
I had a 993 911 for 5 years, and yes it wasn't that powerful - 272 bhp stock - but it could deliver and use every single one of those horse power when needed; and remember this was a car first introduced in 1993; it was absolutely fantastic on track; and as for the brakes - up there with the best I have ever used, certainly the Z's are not bad but they are significantly over-assisted compared to a 911.
And it could carry four people, as long as two of them were rather small; and to be fair the interior was a bit idiosyncratic with switches scattered around like confetti.
I think we should worry less about denigrating other cars and enjoy the fact that they all exist ...
+1
There seems to be a fair amount of reiteration of reading magazines and thinking they know everything about 911s.
Having both in the stable the 911 is a much better car than the Z in pretty much every way out of the box. People who say the interior is crap well its much better than my Z4M build quality wise. The Z is a bargain for the money but the 911 is on a different level in terms of engineering and to say they are slow and dull is laughable and frankly you dont have a clue what your talking about. Also the 'dreaded' engine problems dont occur half as much as people make out. It occurs but generally by owners that buy them and abuse them when cold leading to problems for owners later on. Which is why buying a second hand one is a risk. But I know people who have had 911 for years and always gone back I don't know anyone who has had RMS/IMS failure, the internet is a great source of scaremongering, Total 911 wrote that statistically 3% of 996s had engine failure.
Its the same with all sports cars and although the S54 is fairly solid, you have to be a bit of a geek to keep it well maintained just head to M3cutters and have a look at some problems people have had with the S54. It happens to all cars. Then have a look at how much it cost to have the problems sorted and its really not the cheap motor everyone talks about.
Its fair to say the 996 and 997 have engine flaws but they are well know flaws and when servicing they are overly cautious meaning if there are any signs they will sort it there and then as a matter of corse.
We've had a 57 plate 997 for nearly 3 years and its cost less to keep than my Z4M has over 2 years not only the problems Ive had with mine to start with and it going back to BMW the only thing the porsche has had is a new battery a small oil leak which was sorted with a new seal and 2 services... thats it. Its a joy to drive and has such a presence on the road. I absolutely love it and I would have bought one over the Z every day of the week if I could have afforded it at the time.
That been said I couldn't, so bought the Z and its a performance bargain and cant express how much I love the car but I love it for what it is.
In terms of the boxter/caymen they are probably the best sports cars on the road full stop. Bang for buck and the capability they give every driver, ride and the engines are sublime you cannot beat it. Saying that would I buy one.. not really, they just dont have the same appeal. But as it stands they are the only option to the Z4M and completely understand why people buy them if the 911 is too much.
I dont find them good looking cars, the new cayman is an improvement but they have ruined it with the spoiler across the lights ruined the dynamics. I dont think they have the presence or kudos on the road, and you know they have made them brilliant cars but reined them in because of the 911, which is a shame.
Like the sportcar thread BMW dont really make a sports car apart from the Z. All the Ms are incredible cars but they aren't sports cars and Porsche are the king of the sports car so thats why they are the bench mark when it comes to comparison. As amazing as the Z4M is when launched and the price point the boxster/cayman was a better car but the Z is the dark horse which is why we all love them.
I guess should clarify before anyone else jumps down my throat, and waste a bit of time chatting about 911's rather than the OP's request for Boxster opinions.
My experience of 911s is based on 996's, and a 964. The 964 is an ever appreciating classic and a great car. The 996 has an awful interior, i dont mean "not that bad" i mean.. it's a luxury top end sports car that has the same plastic buttons in a ford scorpio:
and imo a questionable design to the exterior too, which is probably why the 997 was so well appreciated, as it returned to the classic Porsche front end.
I specifically stated standard 911, obviously a turbo with 0-60 of 3.6 is ridiculously fast, but a 996 of ~5+ seconds(?) isn't anything to shout about if you're comparing it to the z4m, as we are here. Especially when you consider the 911 is meant to be a league ahead. It's a lovely drive, just a bit.. easy? I just didn't find it very 'edgy'. Equally, i just walked ~200m from the station to my office and saw no less than 5 911's, of which 2 were 996, two 997 and one 991 (which was lovely). Granted that's because of where i am, but they are still common as muck compared to other premium cars. I drove ~350miles on a long round trip north this weekend and saw a grand total of zero z4m's. Yes they're a "good car" but no i'd not buy one over the z4mc, unless it was a 991, and then we're talking 3x the price, where low end ferrari's, lambos, r8's come into the fray.
So to the Boxster - i like the new one, it looks great, sounds much better - i think loses the hairdresser image a little more and I'd love to go and drive one. The downside is the latest Cayman and 911's are also significantly improved so.. it'd be hard to go for a test-drive and not wish i was in the bigger beasts.
My experience of 911s is based on 996's, and a 964. The 964 is an ever appreciating classic and a great car. The 996 has an awful interior, i dont mean "not that bad" i mean.. it's a luxury top end sports car that has the same plastic buttons in a ford scorpio:
and imo a questionable design to the exterior too, which is probably why the 997 was so well appreciated, as it returned to the classic Porsche front end.
I specifically stated standard 911, obviously a turbo with 0-60 of 3.6 is ridiculously fast, but a 996 of ~5+ seconds(?) isn't anything to shout about if you're comparing it to the z4m, as we are here. Especially when you consider the 911 is meant to be a league ahead. It's a lovely drive, just a bit.. easy? I just didn't find it very 'edgy'. Equally, i just walked ~200m from the station to my office and saw no less than 5 911's, of which 2 were 996, two 997 and one 991 (which was lovely). Granted that's because of where i am, but they are still common as muck compared to other premium cars. I drove ~350miles on a long round trip north this weekend and saw a grand total of zero z4m's. Yes they're a "good car" but no i'd not buy one over the z4mc, unless it was a 991, and then we're talking 3x the price, where low end ferrari's, lambos, r8's come into the fray.
So to the Boxster - i like the new one, it looks great, sounds much better - i think loses the hairdresser image a little more and I'd love to go and drive one. The downside is the latest Cayman and 911's are also significantly improved so.. it'd be hard to go for a test-drive and not wish i was in the bigger beasts.