PedalFaster

The new Boxster S was not out at the time that test was published (October 2004 issue, which means the magazine hit shelves in September, and the test was probably run in spring / summer '04).

Steve

steven975

the best all around test was february!

alex s

The car you didn't expect to win won, so now you're all bent out of shape and claiming that R&T has "sunk to a new low". That's a pretty immature way to look at things.

If you want to talk about biased magazines, pick up an issue of Car and Driver. Anything that leaves Germany in a BMW or Porsche wrapper is God-like in their eyes and can do no wrong. But God forbid another car company try to compete with the almighty BMW or Porsche, because then that company is "trying too hard to be a BMW or Porsche." All their articles blur together.

I'm glad a magazine had the balls to put a Chrysler on top of a Porsche for once. Chrysler's aren't exactly the K-car from the 80's anymore..

Ooalloems2koO

what? that chrysler? i still wouldnt buy it ..

vroom

Uhm yeah, I just looked at that article (didn't bother at first - thought it was a new mag). That's the old BS. If I'm not mistaken the BS is on top in thier last test *shrug*. Guess the Germans got back to the top in a hurry aye?

Slamnasty

Ya, that's definitely a red flag comparison. The Boxster should've beaten both around the track, but it lost by almost 4 seconds?!! Are you kidding me? What'd they do, race the Boxster with flat tires?

I don't care what anyone says: if the previous SLK couldn't touch the old Boxster, why all of a sudden can a reskinned old SLK beat a NEW Boxster S?

JonBoy

The SRT-6 was faster in a straight line. Other than that, it was off the pace of the others. Not only that but it is an automatic, understeers, and is generally a GT car (so is the 350Z, sort of), not a pure sports car. To call the SRT-6 the best of the bunch is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

The lap times are even more ludicrous. 3.7s or so is an eternity on a racetrack. The lap times should have been a lot closer. I'm guessing that Sam Mitani (and the IRL driver), for all their experience, just couldn't work the two manual tranny cars as well.

Do you think the SRT-6 is a better car? If so, fine. Otherwise, you're calling me out on something with which you don't even agree.

As Slamnasty pointed out, the old SLK with the same motor didn't beat a Boxster S. Why would an SRT-6 that is less sporty do so? Doesn't make sense. However, it does make cents....for the magazine.

pantyraider

I frequent Streets of Willow (SOW) a lot, and I don't see how the Chrysler could be 3.7 secs quicker per lap...SOW does not have very long straights, in fact it's more like a giant autocross . Judging from the cars I usually see at SOW, the Porsche should be around 2 secs faster. You're changing gears a lot on this track, maybe they just couldn't do it fast enough???? I don't know, those numbers don't seem right. 3 secs faster is HUGE at SOW, hell it's huge on most tracks except Nurburgring

Warren J. Dew

I don't see "Sports Car" in the title of that article.

The fact is, the SRT-6 outperformed the Boxster S, plain and simple. It was way, way ahead in acceleration, ahead in braking, and only slightly behind in lateral gees and the slalom.

Given how much more power Porsche gave the new Boxster S, it appears they were aware of its weaknesses.

JonBoy

They picked the most hardcore models available from each of the lineups. It's a given that they're "sports cars". It may not be in the title but they mention it in the first and second sentences of the article...

The SRT-6 was faster, yes. It may have outbraked for a single stop (60-0) but they said at the track the brakes faded. The Boxster's and 350Z's didn't. The Crossfire also stopped longer from 80-0...

"Marked understeer", "street bias", "slower in the corners", "brakes were always a concern", "only car in which (they) experienced fade" - do these sound like sports car qualities? They don't to me. Sounds to me like an UNDERPERFORMING car, not an overperforming car. Big motor, weak chassis and brakes. Yay - I can get that in a Mustang all day long...with better brakes and chassis, though not stellar.

Then there is the final statement: "This is the day a Chrysler took on a Porsche and a Nissan at the racetrack...and won!"

It was faster, by a ludicrous amount, which tells me that either the drivers couldn't drive or the drivers couldn't drive or the drivers couldn't drive. Nearly 4s is an eternity. If they were on a tight track (which others here say they were - I haven't been to Willow Springs and the map I saw showed a lot of straights), this is nonsensical. If it was a long/straight track, sure, I can possibly see that since it focuses on engine more than handling.

Still, to give the title to the car with the biggest engine that lacks (comparatively) in all other areas is, to me, ridiculous.

That's my opinion. Take it as such.