Porsche Boxster, a good used buy?

drunkmonkey

Looking at this,

http://www.cbg.ie/Car_Detail.aspx?ID=3588582#

mpg is about the same as my current car, maybe a little more, milage is a bit on the high side which is a bit off putting, the tax is expensive..

any other reason why I should or shouldn't buy it?

tbh, I really need a diesel but i'm ohh so tempted..

colm_mcm

I'd buy it if I was looking for a cabrio. (and had the money to spare!)

Graham_B18C

Lovely car but I've heard to maintain them it can be seriously expensive.

Everything takes really long to do on them apparently because its so tight under the bonet and that bumps up the labour hours.

I know a mechanic that was working on one before and he found tool inside the engine that people obviously dropped in my accident and wern't up for the hassle of getting them out!!!

Long Onion

Your dilemma reminds me of the AH thread about the guy who's grind teacher fancied him - if you don't buy it you'll spend the rest of your life wondering what could have been ...


Worst case scenario, you cost yourself a few bob - but you'll always have the memories of when you used to drive a porsche.

drunkmonkey

I heard there pretty reliable, presume there's not much servicing if it's running right, wonder how hard the oil filter is to change?

yere all doing a great job of putting me off, thanks:)

voxpop

Once your happy to spend the extra money on servicing and wont need to sell in a hurry - go for it. Not keen on the looks myself, though it seems cheap.



Off to check how freeky did now

drunkmonkey

I love the look of them, haven't seen one with a hard top in the flesh though, just hope the rag top isn't buggered..

how bad is servicing, heard once a year to a porsche garage and €400 should see you ok..

milltown

I wouldn't be going near a Porsche garage to service an 8 year old, €12k boxster!
Find a good independent specialist and befriend him. They're old enough and common enough that you shouldn't need a factory approved dealer for anything but the most noodle scratching electronic gremlins. I seem to recall reading that the big bucks maintenance on them is changing the belts. Best arm yourself with knowledge of when and how much before you start going to see them and drive away a shiny Porker with a €2k bill looming.

P.S. Go for it! I'd love one, only I can't convince Mrs.Milltown that she'd be happier with the two kids in her car all the time.

unkel

They dropped a lot in price. Boxsters used to be the lowest depreciating car of them all. 2 or 3 years ago, the earliest (then about 10 years old) and cheapest of them would be worth 20k, and now a younger car than that only fetches half!

If you can afford it, go for it! I'd have it checked over by a Porsche specialist first though...

rccaulfield

alot of money for little power. Tax is madness too imo!

Midnight_EG

Mid Life Crisis?

mickdw

I wouldnt touch that. Older boxsters look crap in my opinion. The later ones are much fresher and the cayman is better still.

Shires

Long Onion wrote: »

Your dilemma reminds me of the AH thread about the guy who's grind teacher fancied him

Saucy... Link?

ShadowHearth

mickdw wrote: »

I wouldnt touch that. Older boxsters look crap in my opinion. The later ones are much fresher and the cayman is better still.

cayman is not a porche, end of story. It shouldn't even have the badge of porche...


As for OP:

Some one said it allready: alot of money for really crappy performance...

If you whant proper cabrio that would be fun to drive, extreamly easy to maintain, low insurance, then go for mx5, if you got a few spare euros to spend, bring yourself a turbocharged mx5, trust me, it will be cheaper and smoke that porche.

If you really really whant it, then just go for it. you cant argue about taste . I have a cabrio with soft top and i am using it as daily driver, had no problems at all, even in winter.

drunkmonkey

mickdw wrote: »

I wouldnt touch that. Older boxsters look crap in my opinion. The later ones are much fresher and the cayman is better still.

it's not that old, shape is still modern even timeless..

can't stretch to a cayman:( just want to get my foot on the ladder...

mickdw

drunkmonkey wrote: »

it's not that old, shape is still modern even timeless..

can't stretch to a cayman:( just want to get my foot on the ladder...

I know its not particularily old, its just imo, that model with those front lights look a bit on the clumpy side. very dated as is the first of the 996 911 too

unkel

mickdw wrote: »

I wouldnt touch that. Older boxsters look crap in my opinion. The later ones are much fresher and the cayman is better still.

But there are budgets and there are budgets

A good condition early boxster for 10 grand is quite some proposition. We're talking S2000 money now and the boxster is far superior.

unkel

mickdw wrote: »

very dated as is the first of the 996 911 too

All 911s look dated and are crap except for the 997 but I suppose we are nitpicking now

mickdw

Its not about budget. With 12k, I wouldnt buy that. Maybe its just me.

ShadowHearth

unkel wrote: »

But there are budgets and there are budgets

A good condition early boxster for 10 grand is quite some proposition. We're talking S2000 money now and the boxster is far superior.

ah unkel, i hope you got flame shield up m8 . Those V-tec heads will stab you bud!

Its cheap, but ussually there is a reason for being cheap...

mickdw

unkel wrote: »

All 911s look dated and are crap except for the 997 but I suppose we are nitpicking now

ah now, I wouldnt mind a 993 turbo.... Not dated at all.

ronnie3585

ShadowHearth wrote: »

cayman is not a porche, end of story. It shouldn't even have the badge of porche...

Care to explain

The 986 represents very good value for money, especially the S. Would agree with the above advice about staying away from main dealers for maintenance, plenty of competent independents who can deal with the maintenance.

ShadowHearth

ronnie3585 wrote: »

Care to explain

The 986 represents very good value for money, especially the S. Would agree with the above advice about staying away from main dealers for maintenance, plenty of competent independents who can deal with the maintenance.

damn sorry bud, i made a mistake, i thought they were talking about Cayenne!

JHMEG

Isn't the S the only one worth going for? Otherwise the (cheaper to buy and run) S2000 is supposed to be a better punt?

ronnie3585

JHMEG wrote: »

Isn't the S the only one worth going for? Otherwise the (cheaper to buy and run) S2000 is supposed to be a better punt?

Isn't the S2K very heavily loaded by insurance companies - much more than the porker.

unkel

mickdw wrote: »

ah now, I wouldnt mind a 993 turbo.... Not dated at all.

It looks great and it's a great car - but it doesn't really look 2010 now does it?

mickdw wrote: »

Its not about budget. With 12k, I wouldnt buy that. Maybe its just me.

Agreed. I wouldn't go for a 986/987 myself. Good cars all the same though.

hick

that toyota Mr2 is lovely

Graham_B18C

ronnie3585 wrote: »

Isn't the S2K very heavily loaded by insurance companies - much more than the porker.

I'm 22 and could get quotes on one handy enough, doubt i'd get quoted on a Porsche as easily!!

JHMEG

ronnie3585 wrote: »

Isn't the S2K very heavily loaded by insurance companies - much more than the porker.

Don't think so. Tax is cheaper tho, as are parts (considerably).

unkel

JHMEG wrote: »

Don't think so. Tax is cheaper tho, as are parts (considerably).

I don't think so either. The problem with loaded insurance on some Hondas is the skanger factor and there is very little of that with the S2000. Skangers just can't afford them

BIG DOG 82

Buy it dude - great car, loads of fun to drive & looks great !

Can be expensive to fix probs but bring a mechanic to the garage when buying it, if it's in good nick - get it !

Matt Simis

JHMEG wrote: »

Isn't the S the only one worth going for? Otherwise the (cheaper to buy and run) S2000 is supposed to be a better punt?

I had an S (2003 model) and thought it would make a nice Weekend car. Far too annoying and irritating to drive day to day for a variety of reasons.
The interior is miles better on the S2000 too, but Ive never driven one so dont know how else it compares. Personally I find the S2000 is a nicer looking car with a better image if that matters.

The Boxster S became a cool car above 70mph, but a whiney and unforgiving chore elsewhere. I would imagine a non-S to be a bit sedate and finicky (gear changes and smoothness) personally. On the plus side, the 3.2L Boxster S still got over 30mpg on a decent trip. Could do higher if you were gentle too.

gofaster_s13

Don't touch one, they are seriously troublesome giving problems with the engines intermediate shaft which the only solution for is engine replacement:eek:

drunkmonkey

gofaster_s13 wrote: »

Don't touch one, they are seriously troublesome giving problems with the engines intermediate shaft which the only solution for is engine replacement:eek:

is that all models, I haven't read that anywhere..I am concerned about the 85k on the clock, I think it may be a lot on a sports car.

niceirishfella

drunkmonkey wrote: »

is that all models, I haven't read that anywhere..I am concerned about the 85k on the clock, I think it may be a lot on a sports car.

it's not on all models, only affects some. Only 3% to 7% of the M9620 engine goes bang. Cars up to 60k miles are more likely to go.
The intermediate shaft goes on them, it connects all the timing chains etc. The Oil leaks out the seal, shaft bearing no oil, and then BANG!
A new replacemnt engine can cost up to 4k:pac:

ondafly

I owned one for over a year. It was black with red leather (everywhere) and every option. Lovely car to drive, but lacked poke, and to be honest I got bored with it and sold it. I later drove a 996 Turbo and it was identical inside, and as such put me off the 996s completely (bar maybe a GT3).

The car was completely trouble free with approx 40K on the clock. It did have its RMS changed (which is the well known problem on 996s and Boxsters). There is no direct indication of what models/engines are effected by RMS, the only model to escape is the GT3 so its really just luck of the draw.

Servicing is grand on them, don't mind what you read. They are chain driven, however there is a rubber aux belt, which can be changed in 5mins.

One annoyance with the car though - storage space, while large in the volume you get, its not really that useful due to it shape ! i.e. you couldn't put a mountain bike wheel in the boot :pac:

drunkmonkey

when you say lacking in poke what are you comparing it to, I used to have a 200sx bit of a nightmare in the wet but with 200bhp it was pokey, i'd expect the boxster to be quicker but more stable. Did you have the 2.7, what kind of mpg were you getting?

galwaytt

gofaster_s13 wrote: »

Don't touch one, they are seriously troublesome giving problems with the engines intermediate shaft which the only solution for is engine replacement:eek:

Nonsense - that is now a DIY fix - don't believe me? See here, then...note the lack of garage/pit/fancy tools.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

is that all models, I haven't read that anywhere..I am concerned about the 85k on the clock, I think it may be a lot on a sports car.

More fiction. Sports cars are, in my experience, of higher quality (in any make), than the rest of the company's offerings, and so last even better. I've got 156,000 miles on my 968 and it's as sweet as a nut.

BIG DOG 82 wrote: »

Can be expensive to fix probs but bring a mechanic to the garage when buying it, if it's in good nick - get it !

See link, above. But yes, I'd buy it !

ondafly

drunkmonkey wrote: »

when you say lacking in poke what are you comparing it to, I used to have a 200sx bit of a nightmare in the wet but with 200bhp it was pokey, i'd expect the boxster to be quicker but more stable. Did you have the 2.7, what kind of mpg were you getting?

at the time it was being compared to my 95 M3. So I was down nearly 100 bhp. It was the 2.5 model, but to behonest I drove the sport and didn't see that much of a difference also neither even have an LSD. They're no slouch and I never had it step out on me whereas the M3 would bite you in the bum on a wet day if you weren't careful. Another thing I just remembered, you sit pretty close to your passenger, now thats grand if its the missus , but a bit too cosy for the lads ironically the car was wider than my E36 M3 yet interior wise was smaller.

I recommend you perform the "desnorkel" mod to it if you buy it, google desnorkel boxster and it will give you a few sound clips.

I will also say that I thought they were built/designed extremely intelligently, and if you have a bit of an engineering side you'll appreciate it that bit more.

After the boxster I went back to BMW - and I've no regrets.

Homer

OP have you actually driven a boxster yet? That should really make your mind up as to whether you'll like it as a daily drive or not?
I just sold my 2.7 986 after owning it for 2 years and really enjoyed it as a daily drive, admittedly small mileage on a daily basis.
Didn't enjoy it for long journeys. Have a friend who lives in Derry and after a trip from Dublin to Derry I was glad to get out and stretch!
Lovely sound from the engine behind you and cracking car to drive on a nice day but as others have said it does in my opinion lack power considering the size of the engine. This may be due to the fact that it it naturally aspirated and not turbocharged?
I would highly recommend one for that money once you do your homework and get it checked over by someone who knows boxsters and what to look for in a 2nd hand one?
Best of luck. It's a lot of car for the money.

/edit : I'd have been happy to let you take mine for a spin had I not shifted it recently. Maybe there is a fellow boardsie with one you could meet up with?/

Matt Simis

Homer wrote: »

Lovely sound from the engine behind you and cracking car to drive on a nice day but as others have said it does in my opinion lack power considering the size of the engine. This may be due to the fact that it it naturally aspirated and not turbocharged?

Really?
I and everyone I had in the car disliked the exhaust note from the S.. I assume the standard 2.7 doesnt sound better than the S.
Sounded like an incessant whiny mid sized motorbike when you had the roof up. With the roof down it sounded decent.

I found the S to be quite fast, though too low on torque and rev happy for my liking.

Idbatterim

a few posters have said they would look at other cars, before the boxster? i have heard mazda rx 5 mentioned? what are the other cars? Op would you consider an m3?

Idbatterim

just took a look on carzone and for the same price you can get a 02 m3 convertible? see below link. Which car would you buy given the option between the 2?

http://www.carzone.ie/search/BMW/M3/3.2--con/200946195805829/advert?channel=CARS

agent_smith

I quite like the midsized sportsbike sound! Love the sound of a proper sports bike...... so the porsche with the top down gets my vote!

However... there are better cars out there for the money....

I'd also recommend the MX5. Have you considered a z4 http://www.carzone.ie/search/BMW/Z4/2.5i/200948196022614/advert?channel=CARS

I dont really consider either to be a pure sports drivers car but the BMW would get my vote from the looks / build/ servicing point of view (IMHO).

agent_smith

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/03q3/2003_audi_tt_vs.bmw_z4_honda_s2000_nissan_350z_porsche_boxster-comparison_tests

JHMEG

Good article. I was surprised to read

Actually, the Honda's interior details, particularly the leather wheel, look richer than the Porsche's.

(Not that I give a flying fook about what the interior of any sportscar is like)

Graham_B18C

agent_smith wrote: »

I dont really consider either to be a pure sports drivers car but the BMW would get my vote from the looks / build/ servicing point of view (IMHO).

Just out of curiousity, why don't you consider em sports cars?

agent_smith

Just out of curiousity, why don't you consider em sports cars?

Fair question! Just my very humble opinion on this but keep in mind my definition of 'sports' is a 1198s ducati being lashed around mondello park so my definition of whats sporting etc... is prob very very diff to most people An out and out sports car, to me, makes no compromise for the sake of performance. Economy? Forget it. Nice comfy heated electric seats? Too much weight. There are only a handful of cars which I reckon have been designed with a prime focus on out and out pure sports performance.
I dont think the performance figures of the porsche boxter mentioned by the OP or z4 2.5 are much more impressive than say a good secondhand Golf GTI. So judging purely from a performance point of view, their primary focus isnt solely performance.
Of course they are fast enough to get you into trouble. More than fast for day to day use. And sportier by a large margin than your day to day commuter car. Just we are not talking setting your pants on fire performance is all Like i said already, I am not necessarily realistic with my opinion of a 'sports' car!

smash

If you do get one, get an S
http://www.carzone.ie/search/Porsche/Boxster/BOXTER-S/200951196222785/advert?channel=CARS

kmick

I found the ride on the boxster very harsh. Any road outside of motorway I felt every bump and dip in the road right into my soul. Did not like it all.

DOC09UNAM

ShadowHearth wrote: »

cayman is not a porche*, end of story. It shouldn't even have the badge of porche*...


As for OP:

Some one said it allready: alot of money for really crappy performance...

If you whant proper cabrio that would be fun to drive, extreamly easy to maintain, low insurance, then go for mx5, if you got a few spare euros to spend, bring yourself a turbocharged mx5, trust me, it will be cheaper and smoke that porche*.

If you really really whant it, then just go for it. you cant argue about taste . I have a cabrio with soft top and i am using it as daily driver, had no problems at all, even in winter.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't have a porche badge on it at all.




*Porsche