Forgotten Performers
09-16-2009, 08:54 PM
#63
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,933
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheDonEffect,Sep 15 2009, 02:07 PM
Lol, I also don't drag my fists when I walk.
I hear what you're saying which is a valid point, but I still would rather take my chances with a vette with say 100K vs. a boxter with 55K, but that is my own risk aversion towards the cars so take it with a grain of salt.
Never thought I'd be defending a C4 vette so much, capable cars but I'd rather spend the dough towards a C5 or really go cheap and go blown miata
, mostly because priorties out of my fun car is a bit different. If I wanted to get the most kaboom for the lowest buck, the C4 would be on my short list. On the other hand, I don't think the boxster S would ever land on my value performance list, mostly because I'd rather get an S, Z, C5, cobra (grown a soft spot for them although I runaway from them for the same reason as the porsche), and a handful of other cars in no particular order. My priority list would have to change to include the boxster. Slight nuances liek feel would have to go over performance value. When I could spend 60K on a second car by writing a check like how most people could buy a TV, I'll worry about subtle nuances, but until then I'll go for another feel- excitement, usually measured by track times by capable machines, and in that regard I want the most bang for my buck.
I do think the boxster is a really nice car, but I just don't think it's worth the dollar/mile cost and I don't think it's a long term bargain.
I hear what you're saying which is a valid point, but I still would rather take my chances with a vette with say 100K vs. a boxter with 55K, but that is my own risk aversion towards the cars so take it with a grain of salt.
Never thought I'd be defending a C4 vette so much, capable cars but I'd rather spend the dough towards a C5 or really go cheap and go blown miata
, mostly because priorties out of my fun car is a bit different. If I wanted to get the most kaboom for the lowest buck, the C4 would be on my short list. On the other hand, I don't think the boxster S would ever land on my value performance list, mostly because I'd rather get an S, Z, C5, cobra (grown a soft spot for them although I runaway from them for the same reason as the porsche), and a handful of other cars in no particular order. My priority list would have to change to include the boxster. Slight nuances liek feel would have to go over performance value. When I could spend 60K on a second car by writing a check like how most people could buy a TV, I'll worry about subtle nuances, but until then I'll go for another feel- excitement, usually measured by track times by capable machines, and in that regard I want the most bang for my buck.I do think the boxster is a really nice car, but I just don't think it's worth the dollar/mile cost and I don't think it's a long term bargain.
I had a Z4M; very exciting car, fast around a track and all, powerful engine, but in the end I even prefered a slower older 2000 Boxster s in terms of overall driving pleasure.
A Mustang GT is also exciting, fast in a straight line and cheap for the horsepower. But it doesn't exactly satisfy my driving taste...I get a bigger kick out of shifting in an S2000 then flooring the gas in a Mustang GT. Different strokes for different folks.
09-17-2009, 03:51 AM
#64
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Orange Park
Posts: 4,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like C4's but they don't have the best reputation for build quality...still unquestionably a great bang for your buck car. I have a 91 300zx TT and I doubt very seriously that it requires more to 'keep it running' than a C4....it's probably a much bigger pain to work on but is pretty solid. Also, the interior in my 91 Z looks to be about 2-3 decades ahead of the interior in that C4.
09-17-2009, 06:40 AM
#67
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brit in Athens, Greece
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should change the name of this thread to 'one best forgotten corvette'...
Anyway, one interesting thing did arise from this...
I now really want to know that if I trade up my S to a 2002/2003 boxster S, should I EXPECT catastrophic engine failure?
Anyway, one interesting thing did arise from this...
I now really want to know that if I trade up my S to a 2002/2003 boxster S, should I EXPECT catastrophic engine failure?
09-17-2009, 07:54 AM
#68
Registered User
Originally Posted by foxy_s2k,Sep 17 2009, 07:40 AM
I now really want to know that if I trade up my S to a 2002/2003 boxster S, should I EXPECT catastrophic engine failure?
09-17-2009, 12:18 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Mile High City
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheDonEffect,Sep 15 2009, 05:06 PM
Unfortunate no sr20det like in japan. Great cars though.
Great little motors, comparible if not better (subjective) than the B-Series of the time.
On a side note, I have always been a fan of the Alltrac Celica as well.
09-17-2009, 11:42 PM
#70
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brit in Athens, Greece
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PedalFaster,Sep 17 2009, 05:54 PM
No. 986-series Boxsters and 996-series 911s do have more engine seal failures than most cars, but the people who assert that they afflict every car generally don't know what they're talking about. If you want the best data on this, pick up Excellence magazine's annual Boxster buyer's guide.