Solstice GXP vs boxter
10-04-2006, 08:43 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Solstice GXP vs boxter
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11...he-boxster.html
I'm a little surprised it made it around the track quicker.
Sorry if repost I did a search.
I'm a little surprised it made it around the track quicker.
Sorry if repost I did a search.
10-04-2006, 09:09 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Plano
Posts: 1,906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hadn't seen this article. Interesting. 1.4 seconds on a track that short is pretty serious. Based on the combination of straight line and skid pad numbers, I'm a little surprised. I wonder if the Porsche was hurting for tires?
I wasn't aware of the brick-like aero for the Solstice.
I wasn't aware of the brick-like aero for the Solstice.
10-04-2006, 09:12 AM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cincy, Ohio
Posts: 1,363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They said it handled very sloppy, with lots of body-roll/understeer, and that it was the stronger mid-range torque that gave it the faster lap time. Although a bit overpriced IMO, I'd still take the Boxster.
10-04-2006, 09:33 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's with them calling the Boxster the purest driving roadster on the market? Does anyone remember a comparison test a few years ago where an AP1 beat a Boxster? One of the big magazines needs to run a GXP/Boxster/S2k/350Z comparison. Even though it's an older design, I still think the S has the best combination of value, performance, and driving fun out of the group. Especially the white ones.
10-04-2006, 09:44 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Plano
Posts: 1,906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jakup,Oct 4 2006, 11:12 AM
They said it handled very sloppy, with lots of body-roll/understeer, and that it was the stronger mid-range torque that gave it the faster lap time. Although a bit overpriced IMO, I'd still take the Boxster.
With no more of a straight line advantage than it has, see the 0-60 and 1/4 times, the handling couldn't be that bad or there's no way it could put well over a second on the P car on that tight a track.
10-04-2006, 09:57 AM
#6
Solstice has a 0.45 drag coefficient? I think that's even worse than the S2000 (which is about as bad as it gets....or so I thought).
Trending Topics
10-04-2006, 10:04 AM
#8
Registered User
What about 'driver' dependent times? If a magazine gets xyz time with a car, can you assume that's the best time that car can do? Obviously not. So I take these contests with a grain of salt.
10-04-2006, 10:18 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern Part of Heaven
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I absolutely could not be less interested in a 260 hp RWD sports car for around $26K than I am in the turbo Solstice/Sky. I could also say that I absolutely could not be less interested in a 500 hp RWD sporty car for under $50K than I am in the Shelby GT500. IMO, the inherent design flaws/corner-cutting in both cars far outweigh their stats on paper, whereas a car like the S2000 is, to me, far more than the sum of its stats.
