944 s2 cab VS boxster 2.5

adrian jaye · 08-13-2007, 09:34 AM

Well,

what say you !

trade in the s2 for a boxster

The Boxster is only 200BHP, where as the s2 is 208
would you really notice 8BHP?

Classic square lines on the 44 I love, hence not too keen on the rouned 68

driveability, Performance, MPG, top down

I know the top down in the S2 is wicked, pretty sure the box is not that fab

ideas???

OR go for a

968 cab
944 turbo cab

serge944 · serge944's Garage

If you're going to get a boxster - swing for the 2.7. The 2.5 is pretty sluggish and has substantially less torque than the 944 s2.

NICKG · 08-13-2007, 10:08 AM

i had a 944s2 cab (3 actually) i now have a 2.7 boxster. Boxster>944. the top is crap on the 944, very prone to breaking the b pillars. When this happens you get screwed because you cannot buy the replacement part, it was superceded to a different part that requires a new bow and other b pillar to be replaced as well, cost is like $2500 usd, then you need to recover the top as the main bow is replaced. I can tell you that I am very leery of the boxster top too, seems very frail at best, but there are so many boxsters , that i know the parts would be cheap.
Personally I think the boxster is a better car as well, the whole car seems much more modern(as it should) and compared to the 944, it is like a razor. The 944 cab is very truck like compared to the boxster.

adrian jaye · 08-14-2007, 06:45 AM

I'd disagree with the top comment.

Never had any problems and neither have I heard of any problems other than a couple of posts (here or on Rennlist)

Like anything, unless you've owned the car from new you dont know what kinda abuse the top has taken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NICKG

i had a 944s2 cab (3 actually) i now have a 2.7 boxster. Boxster>944. the top is crap on the 944, very prone to breaking the b pillars. When this happens you get screwed because you cannot buy the replacement part, it was superceded to a different part that requires a new bow and other b pillar to be replaced as well, cost is like $2500 usd, then you need to recover the top as the main bow is replaced. I can tell you that I am very leery of the boxster top too, seems very frail at best, but there are so many boxsters , that i know the parts would be cheap.
Personally I think the boxster is a better car as well, the whole car seems much more modern(as it should) and compared to the 944, it is like a razor. The 944 cab is very truck like compared to the boxster.

livi · 08-14-2007, 06:54 AM

Not a contest IMO. I would take the Boxster even in it´s tiniest, original iteration.

s_wilwerding · s_wilwerding's Garage

There is really no useful difference between a 2.5 liter Boxster and the early 2.7 liter Boxster. The difference in HP was something like 15, which is pretty tough to feel.

HardDrive · 08-14-2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s_wilwerding

There is really no useful difference between a 2.5 liter Boxster and the early 2.7 liter Boxster. The difference in HP was something like 15, which is pretty tough to feel.

I disagree. The 2.5 really did not have a enough low end torque. I drive a 2.7 (2002), and I have driven most iterations. The small difference in cost between a 2.5 and a 2.7 is well worth it.

There was also those engine failure issues with a the 2.5.......careful research on production dates needs to be if you are going get a 2.5.

All boxsters need an inspection on the RMS (Rear Main Seal) as part of the PPI.