why was the tread closed Boxster vs 951 (long comparison)

[asidrave]

just curious

[This message has been edited by asidrave (edited 05-21-2001).]

[p0r2chby]

ask wayne

[86951]

It is probally best that it got closed it kept leaving the topic. I really thought when I started that one it could not get messed up. Why doesn't anyone who really wanted to discuss the merrits of Porsches best bang for the buck post here. One of the reason I thought it was fun to drive a boxster for a week is EVERYBODY came up and said "now that is a fast car" or "what is it like driving a real Porsche" or "I bet that car would smoke yours" I found all of the comments like that funny because the 951 came with more HP than the boxster from the factory. With simple mods such as APE stage 2 you have it beat. I would love to get some Konis and 300# springs and race one (a boxster vs 951) on a track.

[AMCPorsche924Powerhaus!]

remember now, ANY car can go fast with a turbo on it, let's compare NA to NA, and turbo to turbo.

[Rollins]

I like the styling of a 951 better than the boxster personally. I liked that idea of a boxster turbo. About the post getting closed, I am glad someone started this one cause I wanted to say to you 86951, my point about the civic wasn't meant as a comparision of the cars at the same times. I meant like now. A recent honda vs a 944 would leave the 944 worth less. I wasn't trying to knock the 944. I was being a smart ass. I love the 944 and hate honda's. BTW AMC if you go NA vs NA Then how about an S2 vs a Boxster? Either way comparing a boxster to a 944 na isn't fair just because of technology and engine size. IF you were to compare over all I would say the 944 would be a better car because of it's handling etc.

[AMCPorsche924Powerhaus!]

ya but throw a wild cam in a 944 and a port and polish and maybe exhaust and maybe some better injection and you beat the boxter.

Cams are the most important thing in a car.
I had one car that had like a 9 percent power increase just from a cam.

[This message has been edited by AMCPorsche924Powerhaus! (edited 05-21-2001).]

[AMCPorsche924Powerhaus!]

FYI you know how i say any car can go fast with a turbo.
Well take for example the monte carlo.

Twin turbo and you get a grand national that gets to 60 in under 6 seconds.

A monte carlo goign faster than a 911 porsche of the same year?
Turbos, thats them for ya.

[86951]

Ok how about a 968 vs boxster? I have never driven a 968 so we would need some one else to help out here. I think as far as numbers from the factory go they are close.

[Rollins]

The '97-'99 (sot sure about '00-'01) boxster has 201 HP, the '95 968 had 236. So based on those numbers you'd think the 968 would be quicker. Hey, AMC is a variocam cheating like a turbo is?

[86951]

Rollins the 2001 boxster has 217hp. So the 968 has it beat. 968 with a six speed and factory sport suspension I think hand down would beat a boxster on any road course.

[PorscheG96]

I've got a 968 [3 liter] and dad's got a Boxster [2.5 liter]. You guys aren't considering that the 236 hp 968 weighs over 3k lbs while the Boxster weighs only 27--. This 250+ lb deficit makes the 968 only SLIGHTLY quicker than the Boxster, and the Boxster chassis is MUCH improved over that of the 968. I've driven both cars to their limits and the Boxster is amazing. Don't underestimate the 968s though, because for some reason they only get beat by the 951s and 996s at the track. Some say that not even the Boxster S has achieved the level of performance the 968 reached 6 years ago, because with the added hp of the 3.2 liter 6 producing 247 hp, there's a lot more weight [29--]. Considering the 968 weighs less than a hundred lbs more and has 11 less hp than a Boxster S lends thought to was this 6-9 year old car is capable of. Either way, the 968s are amazing cars...for the record, I've demolished every Boxster [2.5 and 2.7 liter] I've raced with my 968...there's really no contest. I haven't had the opportunity to race a Boxster S yet, however. -Trevor

[turtle944]

Other interesting specs:

968:
HP: 236 hp @ 6200 rpm
Torque: 225 lbft @ 4100 rpm
Curb weight: 2,992 lbs (1,360 kg)
Acceleration 0-60 mph: 6.1 sec.
Top track speed: 155 mph

Boxster:
Horsepower: 201 hp @ 6,000 rpm
Torque: 181 lb-ft @ 4,500rpm
Curb weight: 2,755 lbs (1,250 kg)Acceleration 0-60 mph: 6.7 sec.
Top track speed: 149 mph

Boxster S:
HP: 252
Torque: 225 lb-ft
Curb Weight: 2,855 lbs. (1,295 kg)
Acceleration: 5.7 sec.
Top Track Speed: 161 mph (260 kph)

So as you can see, the boxster S is amazing. I saw one stock at an autocross, and this thing didn't lean at all through the turns! It made modified 951's and 968's look like a sailboat in a gail wind!

[asidrave]

this turned out to be a continuation of the closed topic.

[1.2gees]

The boxter S is indeed a better car then a 968, both being stock, but only slightly!

Keep in mind, the A stock winner in auto-xing has been a 968 CS for some time (nationally). Also, I'm sure a 968 would be more stable at high speeds. For auto-xing alone, mid engine would be a big(-er) factor than high speed handling, or stability.
Ahmet

------------------
It's all the driver...

[Wayne 962]

But more on topic, thanks...

-Wayne

[AMCPorsche924Powerhaus!]

indeed better? but what about the handling?

Isn't the balance still better in a 968?

A 968 with a getrag style tranny with the differental BEHIND the tranny would be cool.

[hoff944]

The center of gravity is also lower I'm sure in the Boxster with the flat six. Mid engine is the ideal set up for a racer IMO.