986 conundrum; 2.5 v 3.2

[TameRacingDriver]

I'm looking into buying a 986, will be my first Porsche.

Wondering about the various model choices, and from what I can tell:-

2.5 - Purest Boxster, just enough power so you can really enjoy the engine, shorter gearing than the others, slightly cheaper to run, apparently more robust. Likely to be a classic being the original Boxster.

2.7 / 3.2 - Both a bit quicker, especially the S, but more expensive to run and more likely to face big bills. Personally I see no reason not to go for a 3.2 over a 2.7.Taller gear ratios is a downside too, I like working the gearbox.

So for me, it looks like a choice between the 2.5 and 3.2. The former being the purist choice, and the cheapest and most reliable, the latter having more luxury and speed.

The car is just a toy for the weekends and the occasional road trip or just driving around the doors. No commuting.

Any feedback welcome.

[nebpor]

I absolutely loved my 2.5 Boxster - felt light and agile, even compared to the 3.4 996.1 that followed it. 17” wheels really help that as well - but they still have 255 on the back so there is more grip than can overcome the engine, which makes it safe if you live somewhere as wet as Scotland like me

My wife loved driving it. Hates driving my 911

The little engine is a peach - it loves to rev amd makes a wonderful sound as you cross 4K rpm. Gearing felt spot on as well. The engines are solid as well

TBH it’s all about condition - any Porsche that old (3.2 included) can give a lot of bills if it’s not been driven regularly and well maintained

If it was me, I’d go for the 2.5 - I quite fancy another but need a family car with four seats, hence now in 996 turbo

Edited by nebpor on Friday 6th August 22:08

Edited by nebpor on Friday 6th August 22:08

[edc]

I wouldn't buy a 2.5 because you think you will save big money on maintenance. Nor would I buy an S because you think it's significantly more luxurious. I had an early S and replaced it with a 550. Brakes are bigger and a bit more expensive on the S but as a weekend car you're replacing them what every 5+ years? What's that £35 a year ish? The big ticket stuff that needs attention with age things like exhaust fixings, suspension the whole lot, waterpumps and other parts of cooling system are really no different in cost and are mostly once in ownership types of costs.

[LennyM1984]

I had a 2.5 and did a load of track days in it and spent many a happy evening bombing round the b-roads.

For me, the lower power (or more importantly the lower torque) was part of the appeal. To get a decent lap or just make good progress on the road you needed to maintain momentum and keep the engine on the boil. Because of this, it always felt as if you were "on it."

That said... If it were my only car or I was mainly just planning to cruise around, I'd definitely take the 3.2. The added torque will make driving in traffic easier and a whole lot more relaxing versus constantly having to swap gears to stay in the power.

Maintenance costs will be the same

Edited by LennyM1984 on Saturday 7th August 08:48

[TameRacingDriver]

edc said:

I wouldn't buy a 2.5 because you think you will save big money on maintenance. Nor would I buy an S because you think it's significantly more luxurious. I had an early S and replaced it with a 550. Brakes are bigger and a bit more expensive on the S but as a weekend car you're replacing them what every 5+ years? What's that £35 a year ish? The big ticket stuff that needs attention with age things like exhaust fixings, suspension the whole lot, waterpumps and other parts of cooling system are really no different in cost and are mostly once in ownership types of costs.

That's not really the main reason in fairness, I just listed it as an (possible) advantage; I certainly am well aware that any Porsche is going to cost more than the average car to keep on the road.

As the other replies allude to, one reason I've considered the 2.5 is the fact that I need to work the car to get the performance, which as a driver can be enjoyable and satisfying, and the lower gear ratios (and less power/torque) hopefully would keep the speeds down a little; e.g. I've heard the 2.5 maxes out at about 60 in 2nd, 90 in third whereas I've heard the 2.7 and 3.2 both max out at 70 and 100+ respectively.

I get the point you're trying to make though - make buying on condition a priority over the specifics of which model.

[CardiffTam]

Have a look at Flat Six Classics. Sean deals predominantly in 986's and has a very good selection at the moment. I am sure he would be accommodating in comparing the different engines and he is a really great guy.

[ATM]

I've just bought myself one of these. I was only looking for a 3.2 as I knew it would a bit slower than my other cars. It does feel a bit slower but I still love it. I wouldn't call the car slow it's just that my others are quicker. The 3.2 does need winding up to get it going. It starts to zing around 4 to 5000 revs. I've never driven the 5 speed but I do like the 6 speed. It's a nice gearbox. If you want the 6 speed you need to buy the 3.2 version. If I'm honest I did buy based on condition but I'm not sure I would have considered buying the same car if it was not the 3.2 version. I think the biggest concern when buying one of these is what it will need after you buy it. One of my mates who is a car guy always says if you looking to buy a car then you should either buy a really cheap example or a really nice one. Reason being the cheap one leaves you room in the budget for spending on stuff. So my buying decision was based on this. You could easily spend 5000 plus on bits and pieces for one of these if you don't buy carefully. Where as the price difference between the bottom end of the market and top is less than 5000. So my thinking was buy at the higher end and hope the spending after is minimal. That's the idea anyway.

[TameRacingDriver]

CardiffTam said:

Have a look at Flat Six Classics. Sean deals predominantly in 986's and has a very good selection at the moment. I am sure he would be accommodating in comparing the different engines and he is a really great guy.

Thanks I will check this out, as I wasn't aware of it

ATM said:

One of my mates who is a car guy always says if you looking to buy a car then you should either buy a really cheap example or a really nice one. Reason being the cheap one leaves you room in the budget for spending on stuff. So my buying decision was based on this. You could easily spend 5000 plus on bits and pieces for one of these if you don't buy carefully. Where as the price difference between the bottom end of the market and top is less than 5000. So my thinking was buy at the higher end and hope the spending after is minimal. That's the idea anyway.

Yes I do get this. When I decided to start looking for a car to replace my Mini, I actually gave myself a budget of 15k, but then when you can get a Boxster for 5k that may have the same issue as one costing 3x the price, then it kind of makes sense to buy cheap, but that being said, if the difference between a good 986 and a ropey one is only a couple of grand, say, then it's a no-brainer as you say. Yours looks nice btw

[IMI A]

^^^ I love these. I wouldn't care. I'd just buy the very best example I could find. Wouldn't care if 2.5, 2.7 or 3.2. The early 2.5 nicest looking IMO. I never found any of them slow if you keep them on boil. Lane changing ability bike like. Tricky on the limit if you buy one without traction. Will swap ends on you in the wet

[TameRacingDriver]

IMI A said:

^^^ I love these. I wouldn't care. I'd just buy the very best example I could find. Wouldn't care if 2.5, 2.7 or 3.2. The early 2.5 nicest looking IMO. I never found any of them slow if you keep them on boil. Lane changing ability bike like. Tricky on the limit if you buy one without traction. Will swap ends on you in the wet

I've owned a few MR2s so I'm not worried about it swapping ends!

[LennyM1984]

IMI A said:

Tricky on the limit if you buy one without traction. Will swap ends on you in the wet

True dat! I spun mine twice on track in the wet (and had a few tank slappers) and they go so quickly that you have to be lucky or extremely skilled to hold it. The handling and brakes are otherwise excellent though.

[edc]

Whatever you buy you'll be influenced by what you've had as benchmarks. If you're used to the latest gen of hot hatches then even the S will feel a tad slow. That said with the roof down everything feels faster.

[TameRacingDriver]

edc said:

Whatever you buy you'll be influenced by what you've had as benchmarks. If you're used to the latest gen of hot hatches then even the S will feel a tad slow. That said with the roof down everything feels faster.

The good thing is, I've never owned anything particularly fast. I'm currently driving around in a 2006 Mini Cooper S, running about 190-200 bhp, before that, an MR2 Roadster with 138 bhp, and in all honesty, that wasn't fast but plenty quick enough to have some fun in. In fact most of the cars I look back at as being most fun have all been under 200 bhp, most of them considerably under. The fastest cars I've owned were probably the Z4 Coupe 3.0 and 350Z Roadster (276 bhp and 1650 kg!).

I kind of like having to work a car a bit to get the speed, its rewarding. Cars with lots of torque are nice to waft about in, but outright performance isn't the be all and end all, otherwise I'd probably be looking at some bland turbocharged hot hatch or a BMW.

[IMI A]

TameRacingDriver said:

IMI A said:

^^^ I love these. I wouldn't care. I'd just buy the very best example I could find. Wouldn't care if 2.5, 2.7 or 3.2. The early 2.5 nicest looking IMO. I never found any of them slow if you keep them on boil. Lane changing ability bike like. Tricky on the limit if you buy one without traction. Will swap ends on you in the wet

I've owned a few MR2s so I'm not worried about it swapping ends!

Yep did that in a few Mk1 and Mk2s and love them too. You'll love a Boxster S. Its much more forgiving than the MR2. I've done unthinkable speeds on technical roads in a 986 Boxster S compared to MR2. Happy days

[TameRacingDriver]

So, I just decided to buy one on condition and gut feeling and ignore the engine / spec, and I've put a deposit down on this little beast:



https://www.flatsixclassics.co.uk/listings/porsche...

[ATM]

Noice

[edc]

That's top money. I hope it's got some good maintenance history to it apart from the usual service items. Looks nice in the pictures.

[julian987R]

TameRacingDriver said:

I'm looking into buying a 986, will be my first Porsche.

Wondering about the various model choices, and from what I can tell:-

2.5 - Purest Boxster, just enough power so you can really enjoy the engine, shorter gearing than the others, slightly cheaper to run, apparently more robust. Likely to be a classic being the original Boxster.

2.7 / 3.2 - Both a bit quicker, especially the S, but more expensive to run and more likely to face big bills. Personally I see no reason not to go for a 3.2 over a 2.7.Taller gear ratios is a downside too, I like working the gearbox.

So for me, it looks like a choice between the 2.5 and 3.2. The former being the purist choice, and the cheapest and most reliable, the latter having more luxury and speed.

The car is just a toy for the weekends and the occasional road trip or just driving around the doors. No commuting.

Any feedback welcome.

Genuine question, just curious, is the 986 deemed the sweet spot over the 987 Boxster, as I never see much mention on these forums for the 987 Boxster vs the 986. I ask this looks particularly nice and well optioned 987 Boxster.

https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/12079429

[julian987R]

or this even.

https://collectingcars.com/for-sale/2004-porsche-9...

986... but seems about as good as it gets for that model rannge from what I can tell.

[edc]

julian987R said:

TameRacingDriver said:

I'm looking into buying a 986, will be my first Porsche.

Wondering about the various model choices, and from what I can tell:-

2.5 - Purest Boxster, just enough power so you can really enjoy the engine, shorter gearing than the others, slightly cheaper to run, apparently more robust. Likely to be a classic being the original Boxster.

2.7 / 3.2 - Both a bit quicker, especially the S, but more expensive to run and more likely to face big bills. Personally I see no reason not to go for a 3.2 over a 2.7.Taller gear ratios is a downside too, I like working the gearbox.

So for me, it looks like a choice between the 2.5 and 3.2. The former being the purist choice, and the cheapest and most reliable, the latter having more luxury and speed.

The car is just a toy for the weekends and the occasional road trip or just driving around the doors. No commuting.

Any feedback welcome.

Genuine question, just curious, is the 986 deemed the sweet spot over the 987 Boxster, as I never see much mention on these forums for the 987 Boxster vs the 986. I ask this looks particularly nice and well optioned 987 Boxster.

https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/12079429

For starters you can buy 3 to 5 986 S for that linked car. Many argue it is a purer drive. As the Boxster has developed it has majored on all round daily useability and comfort. You don't get a lot more if any at all chassis fun. So depending on your needs or take on a fun car sometimes a 986 is the answer rather than just newer is better.