CTC Review: 2008 Porsche Boxster and Boxster S

[tpl]

I have no interest in a Boxster.... just don't want to own a convertible as I'd never open the top.   But a Cayman maybe if it was cheaper and I fit comfortably inside.

I have never ever wanted a 911. I dislike cars that try to kill their owners.

[Jameel]

For the price I'd much rather have a Lotus ExigeS.

Although I did enjoy owning a Boxster, I don't think I'd like to own another convertible sports car again.  I'm 6'1" and my head would stick above the roll-bars, same goes for the S2000 I test drove.

[glayven]

I saw an interesting site on my way home from work today... was driving down Mary Hill bypass and observed a large cloud of smoke in front and then a second larger one maybe 1/2 km later that was so thick that it brought traffic to almost a standstill.  As I crawled through the haze -  behold  - a newer model Boxster S pulled over minus one engine.  I don't believe I've ever seen an engine go up like that other than in F1, Indy, etc.
 I wasn't close enough to tell how it was being driven but that kinda sucks, since I do like the Porche brand.

[The Mighty Duck]

Early Boxsters were known to have bad engines.  I thought they had fixed that problem, though.    FWIW, we once owned a 2001 911...  it's now on it's third engine!  Those kinds of things make me shy away from the Porsche brand...  I wouldn't mind a Cayman, though. 

[Snowman]

Early Boxsters were known to have bad engines.  I thought they had fixed that problem, though.    FWIW, we once owned a 2001 911...  it's now on it's third engine!  Those kinds of things make me shy away from the Porsche brand...  I wouldn't mind a Cayman, though. 

I will never understand why the Germans claim they have superior automotive engineering when all of their brands have such poor reliability.

[Cortina]

But only in NA. In Euroland not so much .   

[turkhics]

turkhics

[Railton]

Railton

[Turbo Bob]

Early Boxsters were known to have bad engines.  I thought they had fixed that problem, though.    FWIW, we once owned a 2001 911...  it's now on it's third engine!  Those kinds of things make me shy away from the Porsche brand...  I wouldn't mind a Cayman, though. 

I will never understand why the Germans claim they have superior automotive engineering when all of their brands have such poor reliability.

I agree.  Have a look at the Porsche section of Pistonheads if you want to see some truly shocking stories of engine failures and dealer/manufacturer mismanagement.  Even though they are reliable compared to Ferrari's etc. they are still fragile.  A friend of mine in work had to replace the engine in his boxster, not cheap.

[speed12sil]

Early Boxsters were known to have bad engines.  I thought they had fixed that problem, though.    FWIW, we once owned a 2001 911...  it's now on it's third engine!  Those kinds of things make me shy away from the Porsche brand...  I wouldn't mind a Cayman, though. 

I will never understand why the Germans claim they have superior automotive engineering when all of their brands have such poor reliability.

Not all of the German brands have poor reliability. At least the air(oil) cooled 993s (and to a lesser extent 964s and 911SCs) are pretty reliable. Minor niggling problems exist, but none debilitating. Newer model year Boxsters (post '99) and most Caymans are fairly reliable AFAIK.

And since in the States it's much cheaper to buy a Cayman S, especially when one can find with little effort a dealer who's willing to sell for a lot under MSRP, it's much more enticing.

FWIW an Exige S might be a more desirable car in that it's a "purer" car than the CS as it's not saddled with luxury items, but that bonded aluminum chassis is really fragile. One encounter with even a wood block, a gnash in the belly and that car is totaled. This is not even considering how easy it is to get cracks in the FRP front clam which could lead to replacement...

[Oz]

Early Boxsters were known to have bad engines.  I thought they had fixed that problem, though.    FWIW, we once owned a 2001 911...  it's now on it's third engine!  Those kinds of things make me shy away from the Porsche brand...  I wouldn't mind a Cayman, though. 

I will never understand why the Germans claim they have superior automotive engineering when all of their brands have such poor reliability.

The same way a Tiger tank in WWII could wipe the floor with the competition. Except it was not exactly easy to maintian..

[Snowman]

Early Boxsters were known to have bad engines.  I thought they had fixed that problem, though.    FWIW, we once owned a 2001 911...  it's now on it's third engine!  Those kinds of things make me shy away from the Porsche brand...  I wouldn't mind a Cayman, though. 

I will never understand why the Germans claim they have superior automotive engineering when all of their brands have such poor reliability.

The same way a Tiger tank in WWII could wipe the floor with the competition. Except it was not exactly easy to maintian..

Exactly….then it was not successful if utilization was poor. What is the point of having the best if it spends most of its time in the shop?

[Oz]

Early Boxsters were known to have bad engines.  I thought they had fixed that problem, though.    FWIW, we once owned a 2001 911...  it's now on it's third engine!  Those kinds of things make me shy away from the Porsche brand...  I wouldn't mind a Cayman, though. 

I will never understand why the Germans claim they have superior automotive engineering when all of their brands have such poor reliability.

The same way a Tiger tank in WWII could wipe the floor with the competition. Except it was not exactly easy to maintian..

Exactly….then it was not successful if utilization was poor. What is the point of having the best if it spends most of its time in the shop?

Ah yes, but ask any WWII tank man if he'd have taken a Sherman over being in a Tiger or Panther. 

[The Mighty Duck]

I will never understand why the Germans claim they have superior automotive engineering when all of their brands have such poor reliability.

F1 cars are extremely highly engineered, yet they have what we would call appalling reliability.  I think higher-engineering has a lower tolerance for failure.  Now, does that make Porsche's reliability acceptable?  Not particularly.  But assuming higher engineering = higher reliability is a fallacy, imho.

[Snowman]

Early Boxsters were known to have bad engines.  I thought they had fixed that problem, though.    FWIW, we once owned a 2001 911...  it's now on it's third engine!  Those kinds of things make me shy away from the Porsche brand...  I wouldn't mind a Cayman, though. 

I will never understand why the Germans claim they have superior automotive engineering when all of their brands have such poor reliability.

The same way a Tiger tank in WWII could wipe the floor with the competition. Except it was not exactly easy to maintian..

Exactly….then it was not successful if utilization was poor. What is the point of having the best if it spends most of its time in the shop?

Ah yes, but ask any WWII tank man if he'd have taken a Sherman over being in a Tiger or Panther. 

The guys in the Sherman won 

[Turbo Bob]

Early Boxsters were known to have bad engines.  I thought they had fixed that problem, though.    FWIW, we once owned a 2001 911...  it's now on it's third engine!  Those kinds of things make me shy away from the Porsche brand...  I wouldn't mind a Cayman, though. 

I will never understand why the Germans claim they have superior automotive engineering when all of their brands have such poor reliability.

Not all of the German brands have poor reliability. At least the air(oil) cooled 993s (and to a lesser extent 964s and 911SCs) are pretty reliable. Minor niggling problems exist, but none debilitating. Newer model year Boxsters (post '99) and most Caymans are fairly reliable AFAIK.

And since in the States it's much cheaper to buy a Cayman S, especially when one can find with little effort a dealer who's willing to sell for a lot under MSRP, it's much more enticing.

FWIW an Exige S might be a more desirable car in that it's a "purer" car than the CS as it's not saddled with luxury items, but that bonded aluminum chassis is really fragile. One encounter with even a wood block, a gnash in the belly and that car is totaled. This is not even considering how easy it is to get cracks in the FRP front clam which could lead to replacement...

There is a big difference between damage you can claim on insurance and engine failure...  On an Exige the underside is pretty well protected, I should know I ran over a few things at very high speed and there was never any obvious damage. Even when I bounced it up a kerb backwards!

Anyway I didn't say it wasn't a sports car, just not my cup of tea...

[Oz]

The guys in the Sherman won 

I'd give more credit to the swarm of guys in T34s. But details, details. 

I'd rather that Ladas not get into this discussion. 

[prolan1111]

j0IjcB it`realy.... good info.... imho

[TopGun]

turkhics

Railton

OK...this is my big laugh of the day...but that's just my kind of humour.

[TopGun]

I will never understand why the Germans claim they have superior automotive engineering when all of their brands have such poor reliability.

Well put Snowy...it's always been a mystery to me...perhaps a triumph of marketing over reason.