The modern porsches and in this case Boxsters are very DIY friendly... Check out PPBB.com, tons of how-tos for those cars. Really, some things are easier than on aircooled cars... No valves to adjust, no torsion bars indexing, many electronic doodads you can play with to improve power or throttle response, you can add functions that were disabled in the computer (low optioned cars), and engine accessibility is actually quite good - once you move the top out of the way (lots is done from underneath anyway)

The only issue as mentioned before is RMS / IMS problems, but chances are that 8y old car is either fine or has already been repaired. There are issues with all model years of porsches, as you know... Absolute worst case, new engines are not all that expensive (same cost as rebuilding an aircooled motor) and there are lots of used motors you can score off junkyards...

A 1994-99 BMW e36 M3 is a great used car for under $10grand. Everything on the car just feels right.

Wow those have really dropped in price the last few years.

You can be stylish and sporty for very little money in a car :D.
http://www.youdrivewhat.com/wp-conte...6/car119BC.jpg
And if you need more ideas, some gems there:
http://www.youdrivewhat.com/page/7/

A few years ago I was in the market for a newer car - my requirements were similar to yours, I wanted a good, solid, 2-seater convertible with decent performance and which would be reliable enough for daily driver duty. It needed to have good handling and what I'd call "adequate" power (didn't need to be a Corvette Z06, but shouldn't be underpowered either).

I finally decided on a 2002 Boxster S and went down to check it out. Unfortunately the guy had literally sold it that afternoon (broke my heart - it was sitting on the side with a "sold" tag on it waiting to be picked up the next day). So of course I asked what else he had that met my requirements. I test-drove the BMW Z3, Z4, the Honda S2000, the Mercedes SLK-230 Kompressor and the SLK-320 (which I ended up buying, more on that in a minute). I'd also previously tried out an Audi TT roadster and a Mazdaspeed Miata.

The Z3 was nice but too small for my liking. It also felt a little underpowered and wasn't as "tight" as I expected it to be. The Z4 was vastly improved but I was put off by the inherent ugliness and the over-presence of electronic doodads. The Honda S2k I thought was a total piece of crap. Boring looks, boring interior and no torque at all. But it did go like stink when you wound it up to 6,000 RPM or better. Problem is, I was going to be driving this as a DD, not a track car. I didn't fancy going stop light to stop light at 4k+ just to get ANY kind of performance out of it. Passed.

The Audi TT I'd driven previously I liked but it was overpriced (and being an Audi, concerns about maintenance dogged me - plus it was a turbo, making potential maintenance costs even more scary). The Mazdaspeed Miata I really liked. A bit small but doable. Like the Audi, it was turbo but it didn't scare me - what scared me was the fact I might not be able to "leave it alone" and it would put me on the slippery slope of having to upgrade ECUs, turbochargers, etc. I'd already been through that with a 951 so I knew first-hand just what a bottomless money pit forced induction cars could become. And I wanted a DD. So I passed on that one too.

The SLK-230 Kompressor gave me the same concerns as the turbo cars (I envisioned myself blowing $3,000 on underdrive pulleys and ECU upgrades and other crap after about two weeks). However it was really good, solid, stable, had decent power and handled well. So it was my top candidate - until I drove the SLK-320. The 320 had an honest-to-goodness manual 6-speed gearbox (not the glorified slushboxes that all the 230 had, and the Boxster I was originally going to buy actually...) I much prefer a manual. That was a big plus. And it was a normally-aspirated 6-cyl. Lots of low-end torque. More than the 230 with the supercharger. At speed the two cars were kind of even - I think the 320 had a little more, but with mods the 230 would certainly have been faster. The 320 was also a lot smoother (V6 as opposed to I4) and I felt it would be far more problem-free long term having less stress on the engine. Also the interior was nicer, so I bought that one.

As has been said above, you can find the "big brother" to the SLK-230 and 320 available now for under $20k (you couldn't when I was looking) - this is the AMG SLK32. Same V6 as the SLK-320 but with a supercharger, beefier suspension and all the nice AMG styling and fun parts. I would SERIOUSLY check one out - the R170 SLKs are great platforms and the AMG cars are fantastic. HOWEVER I would find some maintenance testimonials. A lot of the SLK32s are getting to be almost 10 years old now and quite a few I'm sure have been ripped on pretty hard. I suspect they could get frightfully expensive if drivetrain components started blowing out. But if you could find a well-sorted one that had been owned by a responsible person who didn't romp the p1ss out of it (which I'm sure you could if you looked around), I bet you could have a real winner there.

The only thing I don't particularly like about the AMG32 is I believe you can't get it with the manual 6-speed, just the stupid steptronic.

YMMV - there are a lot of interesting 2-seater convertibles to be looked at for around $20k. Enjoy the experience and drive a lot of them. But my advice is definitely don't overlook the R170s.

If you would have driven all those cars mentioned above.... and then driven the Boxster S.. you would have tossed them all to the side and went for the Boxster S hands down.


This is coming from someone who has driven most all of those vehicles as well.

Many thanks for all the considered opinions. It looks like the Boxster is the generally preferred car, although this gives me a good excuse to go out and have some fun driving a variety of samples (I think my local Carmax has a Boxster and S2000 in stock at the moment).
Any thoughts as to which of these cars (Z3, Z4, Boxster, S2000, MB, etc) is closest to the bottom as far as depreciation is concerned. I don't expect any of these cars to remain steady in value year to year, although i would like to consider depreciation in the decision process.

Mike

I have located a 2005 S2000 for sale locally (to me). The car has 26K miles and is for sale by the original owner at $17999. The listing is at the following url: 2005 - 26.5k Miles - Honda ( Superior Condition )

I drove the car and it felt really tight and I could find no flaws whatsoever; the car looks brand new. Any thoughts? Should I step back from the edge of ricer-hood and return to my German roots?

Mike

Go for it!!
You can always come back to Porsche if it doesn't suit you.

Drive the S2k with the A/C on, it magnifies the lack of torque to what for me was an unacceptable level. As a driver it would suck.

It was pretty close to "off the list" anyway due to the lack of torque and the nondescript styling. Not ugly, not notable, just 'there'.

It has no soul, IMO.

You have to drive a Boxster S before you decide. Huge kick.

Honda no longer makes the S2000; that may have an adverse effect on value.

They are all appliances and they all depreciate as such, and substantially the same.

For those cars you have mentioned, the make/model doesn't significantly matter. What matters most is how old the particular car is you are looking at. The older it is, the less depreciation it will have left in it.

I would not make the argument on the basis of Porsche vs Honda, but I would say that you may get tired of rowing the S2000 sooner than you think. It's the epitomy of VTEC, good and bad... Yes you can rev the snot out of it, which is fun for a while, and it's reliable, but it's got like 3 lb-ft of torque on a good day with a tail wind and you MUST rev the snot out of it all the time, else you feel like a civic.

It's a tough balancing act, with cars of that vintage, the japanese had perfected the high HP low torque engines, the Americans had perfected the monster torque no-high rev motors, the europeans in my book had and still have struck a nice balance of enough torque down low, enough revs (and hp) up high.

I think a boxster S is a far better car. Back when I owned a 2.7 base boxster I had an epic battle with an S2000 at Thunderhill years ago (stuck to each other's bumper for 30 minutes), taking the driver out of the equation (long straights and similar exit speeds), he was not pulling form me or vice versa. A 986S would trounce an S2000 both on and off the track IMO. And be more pleasant day to day...

I reserve the right to change my mind if you go for an NSX though ;-)