2.7 vs 3.2...again 05-06
Discussion
So with a £15k budget, I'm starting to look around.
I have test driven both on (narrow) country roads for abpout 20 mins each, back to back.
5spd 240 vs 6spd 280
Now this will be weeendn use only, with perhaps euro trips once twice annually.
The 2.7 felt very sweet, revving freely.
The 3.2 more muscley
I don't know what to do.
Head is saying go with 2.7, it's my first open top 2 seater and I feel there is no need to go all in straight away and could trade up in a year or so...if necessary
Heart is saying if I go with 2.7 I'll always feel I missed an oportunity 'right now'...but is that pub bore, stats, status crap?
I have test driven both on (narrow) country roads for abpout 20 mins each, back to back.
5spd 240 vs 6spd 280
Now this will be weeendn use only, with perhaps euro trips once twice annually.
The 2.7 felt very sweet, revving freely.
The 3.2 more muscley
I don't know what to do.
Head is saying go with 2.7, it's my first open top 2 seater and I feel there is no need to go all in straight away and could trade up in a year or so...if necessary
Heart is saying if I go with 2.7 I'll always feel I missed an oportunity 'right now'...but is that pub bore, stats, status crap?
You may find the gearing of the 5 speed better for all around driving.
The rear axles of the 6 speed are different causing the boots on the half shafts to give out earlier.
You can put your right foot down harder/longer on the smaller engine.
Where will you use the extra HP/torque?
The 3.2 costs more.
Owned a 2.5 and a 3.2 in that order. Of course I also owned a 1.3 Alfa, a 1.6 Alfa and a 1.6 914. Of them all, I drove the smaller engine ones harder and had more fun in them.
The rear axles of the 6 speed are different causing the boots on the half shafts to give out earlier.
You can put your right foot down harder/longer on the smaller engine.
Where will you use the extra HP/torque?
The 3.2 costs more.
Owned a 2.5 and a 3.2 in that order. Of course I also owned a 1.3 Alfa, a 1.6 Alfa and a 1.6 914. Of them all, I drove the smaller engine ones harder and had more fun in them.
Well Mikefocke your reply was considerably more helpful than Cmoose's haha 
Is the extra cost/gearbox/axle boot thing worth the mid range grunt on longer trips worth it over simply changing gear and working the smaller engine...
Originally the S2000 was in the mix... And that also has a sweet engine that needs stirring even more than the 2.7...
Perhaps the 2.7 is the considered middle ground of revs vs grunt...
Is the extra cost/gearbox/axle boot thing worth the mid range grunt on longer trips worth it over simply changing gear and working the smaller engine...
Originally the S2000 was in the mix... And that also has a sweet engine that needs stirring even more than the 2.7...
Perhaps the 2.7 is the considered middle ground of revs vs grunt...
Quickmoose said:
jimmy p said:
There is a nice speed yellow 3.2 currently for sale with excellent spec if you like yellow that is, good low mileage 3.2 tend to be harder to find, they only built 987 3.2 for 2 years before the 3.4
went to see it yesterday, sold before I go there 
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So I get running the thing, will be nigh on the same, servicing and even insurance and fuel wise.I'm not a badge snob, not a pub stats bore, and genuinely am not after pure grunt. No traffic light GPs for me...I've enjoyed the zing of Vtec Hondas before and equally enjoyed big old school grunt from a 944 turbo..
So accepting I can wait for the right spec and quality of car...
Which engine/drivetrain is best...
best for our roads, our traffic, flexibility, enjoyment, sound
Would I forever wished I'd got a 3.2 purely because it offers 'more'?
How often would I feel it?
For my budget I'm clearly on for a newer/fresher 2.7...is that worthwhile?
I've got a 3.2 987, I absolutely love it!
Mine replaced a 986 3.2 which was written off in a non fault accident. For me, if I had gone for a 2.7 987 I'd have felt like it was a step down after having the 3.2 986.
Agree with one of the posts above that you are likely to get a better spec on the 3.2 than a 2.7. I doubt there will be much difference in running costs, although if I remember correctly there could be a difference in the car tax with some years going from circa £280 to something like £465 per year. I'm sure someone with more knowledge will be along in a minute to confirm.
3.2 has 6 speed box, red calipers (nicer to look at in my opinion) & more grunt.
Recently bought another Boxster (986) in the family as my brother got the Porsche 'bug'. He test drove a 2.7 & 3.2, then immediately made his mind up. His attitude was that the 2.7 didn't feel much more quicker than his mapped 120d BMW, whereas the 3.2 felt quicker from the off.
Only you can make your mind up depending on how you drive it / what sort of use it will get. What I would say is search put the best example you can find for your budget (with some contingency funds set aside) as any Porsche can cost way more than the average car to bring up to scratch.
Mine replaced a 986 3.2 which was written off in a non fault accident. For me, if I had gone for a 2.7 987 I'd have felt like it was a step down after having the 3.2 986.
Agree with one of the posts above that you are likely to get a better spec on the 3.2 than a 2.7. I doubt there will be much difference in running costs, although if I remember correctly there could be a difference in the car tax with some years going from circa £280 to something like £465 per year. I'm sure someone with more knowledge will be along in a minute to confirm.
3.2 has 6 speed box, red calipers (nicer to look at in my opinion) & more grunt.
Recently bought another Boxster (986) in the family as my brother got the Porsche 'bug'. He test drove a 2.7 & 3.2, then immediately made his mind up. His attitude was that the 2.7 didn't feel much more quicker than his mapped 120d BMW, whereas the 3.2 felt quicker from the off.
Only you can make your mind up depending on how you drive it / what sort of use it will get. What I would say is search put the best example you can find for your budget (with some contingency funds set aside) as any Porsche can cost way more than the average car to bring up to scratch.
Tax wise both 3.2 and 2.7 are £290 prior to March 23rd 2006.
After that I think they're all £490.... Until later when they both dip again but that model year is out if my budget...Not sure why I get hung up on £200 a year but hey.
Whichever I plump for will have the spec I want and either way will be a step up in terms of driving feel. Light, 2 seater, mid engine'd open top.... Not been there before...
I am though coming down on the 3.2 more than the 2.7.... Just....It just depends what comes on the market in the next 8 weeks or so...,
Thanks for your experienced view though... Helps.
After that I think they're all £490.... Until later when they both dip again but that model year is out if my budget...Not sure why I get hung up on £200 a year but hey.
Whichever I plump for will have the spec I want and either way will be a step up in terms of driving feel. Light, 2 seater, mid engine'd open top.... Not been there before...
I am though coming down on the 3.2 more than the 2.7.... Just....It just depends what comes on the market in the next 8 weeks or so...,
Thanks for your experienced view though... Helps.
As always, buy on condition. For me though, when I was looking, it just had to be the 3.2. I did look at, and seriously consider, the 2.7 but I'm pretty sure I would've kicked myself later had I bought one when I had the chance to get a 3.2.
I'm sure the 2.7 is the same but it goes round corners like nothing I've ever driven before :-)
Budget an extra 1-2k in the first year whatever you get and if you haven't already, get yourself over to boxa.net.
I'm sure the 2.7 is the same but it goes round corners like nothing I've ever driven before :-)
Budget an extra 1-2k in the first year whatever you get and if you haven't already, get yourself over to boxa.net.
So once I find one...
This internet feeding frenzy about bore scoring, AMS and IMS...
There are no numbers/stats.
Half the people say it effects a tiny percentage, buy a 'good one', have a contingency, drive in good health.
The other half say they wouldn't touch one.
Are there any tell-tale signs to look for? signs whilst driving, things to see physically? Can Porsche do a 'check' of any kind?
This internet feeding frenzy about bore scoring, AMS and IMS...
There are no numbers/stats.
Half the people say it effects a tiny percentage, buy a 'good one', have a contingency, drive in good health.
The other half say they wouldn't touch one.
Are there any tell-tale signs to look for? signs whilst driving, things to see physically? Can Porsche do a 'check' of any kind?
The boxster is much more reliable than the 3.4 Cayman and Carrera's. IMS wise, failure is not that common on older cars but can happen. No bore score issues on Boxsters. RMS is just an oil seal which weaps a bit, nothing of a concern and is usually changed when car has new clutch. You are right about road tax up to March 2006 but also bear in mind that MY07(56plate on) 2.7 5 speed boxsters also qualify for the cheaper tax and have the most reliable IMS bearing. If reliability is priority over performance get a late MY07 2.7. If performance rules then it's the 3.2.
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff