Comparing the Boxster to Other CarsI didn't immediately fall in love with the Boxster to the exclusion of all others. When I first went car shopping, and even while waiting for my Boxster to arrive, I considered buying various other cars instead of the Boxster. These other cars are all very cool in their own ways. This page is meant as a guide to help you determine if the Boxster is also a good choice for you; not as a platform for me to use to glorify the Boxster. I've updated this page occasionally to add in cars I like that weren't available when I bought my Boxster, and to change the "order of preference" depending on my mood at the time.
Other Cars I Considered, or Would Have Considered (in order of preference):
- Porsche Boxster S
- Porsche 911 Turbo
- Honda S2000
- BMW M3 (2002+ model... I will add this some day)
- Chevrolet Corvette
- BMW M Roadster (and Z3/Z4)
- Toyota MR2 Spyder
- Mazda Miata
- Audi TT
- Mercedes Benz SLK 230
- Chevrolet Camaro Z28
- BMW 540i 6-speed
Porsche Boxster S
This is just like my car, but with more performance... need I say more? But when I took delivery of my Boxster these were still an unconfirmed rumor and I decided not to wait for the S (and I would have had to wait quite a while since there was already a long waiting list for these at the dealers... even before they were officially announced!). Fortunately, I have been so happy with my '99 model that I haven't worried about missing out on the S too much. But I'd definitely consider trading my standard Boxster in to get one of these, finances permitting!
The Boxster S has a bigger 3.2 liter engine producing 250 horsepower and 225 lbs/ft of torque. The S really hauls! I estimate that it is capable of zero-to 60 mph in about 5.7 seconds (based on Porsche's zero-to-100 kmh tests). That's a full second faster than the standard 1999 Boxster! It also has drilled brake discs, a 6-speed transmission (not available on the standard model), and the 17" wheels as standard equipment.
If you're interested in autocrossing an S, you should know that it would compete in SCCA's "Super Stock" class., not "A Stock" like the standard Boxsters. A Boxster S finished second at the 2000 SCCA Solo 2 National Championships, and third in 2003. That certainly hints at enormous potential.
Conclusion:
All the benefits of a standard Boxster, but with more performance. Only downside I can see is that it gets slightly worse gas mileage and costs somewhat more... about $5000 more; a bargain, if performance is your preference. But don't underestimate the standard Boxsters... mine is awesome and I can even occasionally outrace the supposedly faster Corvettes in SCCA's "Super Stock" class! But I wish I could do that regularly instead of just when I get lucky.
Porsche 911 Turbo
Man, oh man... what a car! In some ways this car has no business being on this page since its high price doesn't fit within my car budget. But I figure that sudden wealth could suddenly strike me, and this car might be my reward to myself! I briefly thought about adding the awesome Ferrai 360 Modena, but it's actually a tad "slower," if you can call it that, and costs rather more. So I restricted myself to adding this one dream car; the "996" 911 Turbo.
The latest 911 Turbo (numbered "996" in Porsche's internal documents, just as the Boxster is termed the "986") was introduced in the summer of 2000, and every test I've read has nothing but praise for it. The worst I read was that some testers think the car is so incredibly competent that it removes the driver as a variable... nonsense! I've seen so many great cars at the autocrosses driven by mediocre drivers that I don't believe this for a second. The driver will always be the most important element. And any car that is so superbly designed that it not only is one of the fastest ever built, but is also relatively easy to drive has to be high on my list. Now I just have to get rich!
I talked to a guy at one of the PCA autocrosses I attended who got to autocross one of these at the 2000 Porsche Parade in Sacramento, CA. Porsche provided them free for attendees to test on the official autocross course... cool! Interestingly, he actually enjoyed the Boxster S more, even though he got a slightly faster lap time in the 911 Turbo.
Conclusion:
Awesome car! Great choice if you can afford one and can find one to buy. Maybe not any more fun than a Boxster though. It is now available as a convertible, which would be my choice.
Honda S2000
To hear the press talk these cars would cost under $30,000 and beat cars costing much more. Sounded intriguing to me! (And made me a little nervous since they compete in the same SCCA Solo II class as the Boxster.) For a while there I couldn't help worry that the Boxster was an overpriced, underperforming white elephant in comparison. I did a little research though and what I found out wasn't quite enough to sway me from the Boxster. Why? Well, for starters, the estimated MSRP was closer to $33,000; not the "under $30,000" that was initially being reported. And many dealers were charging thousands above the MSRP... often bringing the price up to almost the same as a Boxster. But there were other reasons too.
What the Magazines Said
Road & Track did a driver test of the S2000, and they kept saying things like:
"The tiger does not wake up until 6000 rpm is reached."
"When using the engine as intended, that is, keeping it between 5000 and 9000 rpm, there is no question that it is noisy."
"The combined noise of the high-revving engine and the soft top reach a level that, on long journeys, could become tiring and tedious."
Road & Track later tested it at zero-to-60 mph in a disappointing 6.8 seconds. Not slow, but certainly not as fast as I expected. They mentioned that they thought it would improve once the car was broken in. Car and Driver tested it at a faster 6.2 seconds. Still surprisingly slow to me. Motor Trend, on the other hand, managed to push the S2000 to 60 mph in 5.8 seconds, which is about what I was expecting it to be capable of, not the slower-than-Boxster times the other magazines got. Interestingly, Motor Trend said that if they launched the S2000 at 5500 rpms the 0-60 took "more than 11 seconds"!!! The S2000 is apparently very tricky to launch. By contrast I can consistently get under 7 second 0-60s in my Boxster, and usually low 6's no problem... even if I don't get a perfect launch. I've subsequently been told that some other magazine tests have been faster than the 5.8-second 0-to-60 mph from Motor Trend, but I haven't read them.
Technical Comparison:
Boxster:
201 hp at 6000 rpm, 181 lb-ft at 4500 rpm.
S2000:
240 hp at 8300 rpm, 153 lb-ft at 7500 rpm.
Yes, those high numbers for the S2000 might back up claims that the similarly-weighted S2000 should smoke the Boxster in a drag race, but look at the rpms necessary to achieve that peak power rating of the S2000: 8300 rpms!!! And notice that the S2000 has less torque occurring at a much higher rpm than even the Boxster's power! That also tells you that it's going to be much weaker down in the rpm range most of us drive in 99% of the time. I already think the Boxster's low-rpm power is a tad weak. The S2000 is much worse. You have to shift a lot more, and constantly rev the engine higher, to keep the car in its power band.
Autocross Potential of the S2000:
There seems to be a consensus in autocross circles that the Boxster and S2000 are very closely matched in competition (though the Boxster S would certainly have the advantage over the S2000). The Boxster has the advantage of being easier to drive fast at the limit, and has better low-end power for exiting slow turns, while the S2000 has better top-end power, and excellent handling that is probably equal to the Boxster's in the hands of a top-notch competitor (no, I am not such a person, and you aren't likely to be one either, no offense intended). Most S2000 competitors end up adding a much stiffer front sway-bar to even out the handling. This apparently cures the S2000's nasty handling habits. That said, the S2000 has won several SCCA Solo 2 National Championships starting in 2000. The fastest Boxster that year was in 4th place (out of a total of 41 drivers), behind a Porsche 968 and a Toyota MR2 (interestingly, I once beat this particular MR2 driver, Andy McKee, at a local autocross... though in fairness to him I may have had better tires! Sorry Andy, I had to say it!). Andy subsequently won the 2001 SCCA Solo 2 National Championships in his Boxster, though the S2000 has won the 2002 and 2003 championships, with Boxsters finishing 5th and 4th respectively in those events. Most B Stock drivers compete in S2000s, I'm sure because of their lower price, though the Boxster's most recent finish in 4th, was accomplished by a driver who is a good friend of mine. He borrowed a Boxster at the last minute, so he had no time to prepare. So, it seems to me that the S2000 and Boxster are still very evenly matched.
Conclusion:
The Boxster's better convertible top (the S2000 uses a "boot" to cover the opened top which is snapped into place and is more annoying to deal with), better low-end power, possibly better handling (at least for 99% of us), better styling (just my opinion), lower noise levels, the surprisingly practical two trunks, and even the heritage of the Boxster, are worth the extra money to me. But I'm certain the S2000 would be a very fun car to own, and they may have some performance advantages over the Boxster (mostly at high speeds). Plus Honda's famous high quality. But don't expect to blow Boxsters into the dust with ease; the S2000 is tricky to drive. Realistically, if I have to buy a replacement for my Boxster, the S2000 would very definitely be high on my list. And that would be doubly true if I don't want to buy a used Boxster in the event mine gets stolen or wrecked and I have to use insurance money to replace it.
BMW M3
I will add info on this awesome car here some day. For now, let me just say it's the best sedan I've ever driven, though I have some doubts about BMW's quality (see our 540i below).
Chevrolet Corvette
I hate to say it, but the fact that the Corvette is made in the US instantly makes me cautious about buying one. I want to buy American, but I also don't want to support overpriced mediocre quality. And American cars are notoriously poor at holding their resale value. Imports are certainly not perfect, but American cars tend to really miss the mark with me.
But the Corvette is such a truly world-class sportscar that I seriously considered buying one. The new "C5" Corvettes (the "5th" generation; starting with the '98 model year) are beautiful cars (except for the big butt), and are so much nicer than the previous models it's unbelievable. The older models really shook and twisted on rough pavement. You could tell that they had a weak chassis. But these new ones are quite good in this area. Even the doors seem to have a fairly solid sound when you close them. But the new Corvettes still don't have the refinement of a Boxster. I keep talking about how stiff the Boxster chassis is, and that's no lie; they are amazingly strong and I have detected virtually no flex at all, even with the stiffer "M030" suspension.
What the Corvette really does have is power, power and more power. Wrapped up in a very cool body. And they handle incredibly well too, though they require much more discipline from the driver to keep them pointed in the right direction! The fact that the magazine testers kept having problems with the side windows popping out during high speed test runs is almost irrelevant (I would never drive it at its top speed anyway). You can have a lot of fun in one of these cars!
Chevrolet is now making a new "ZO6" option available for the 2001 Corvette. It is based on the Corvette "hardtop" version currently sold. Corvettes with the ZO6 option will have more horsepower and torque (385 of each!), a performance-tuned suspension, bigger brakes, special glass, upholstery, wheels and grilles, and will weigh less than other Corvettes. Very tempting! And they will undoubtedly be a major force to reckon with at the autocrosses. If my Boxster were to disappear I'd certainly consider one of these as a replacement, though it would be tough to pass up the new Boxster S model. Hmmm... I wonder how long the Boxster S waiting list is now?
But the Corvette costs even more than a Boxster, depreciates quickly, is more expensive to insure, has some image problems (as in "rednecks own them"... not that I agree with that!), and still doesn't have that awesome handling, great though it may be. Plus they just don't fit me well. I'm 5'8" and I tend to get a little lost in the cockpit, though it's still a lot better than the old ones.
Conclusion:
So, if the awesome power is more important to you than the resale value, or you're a big person and don't fit into smaller sportscars, or if you just plain want to support American workers more, and you don't mind sacrificing some refinement and don't care if some people start to think you're a redneck, the Corvette may be your car. It may alse be the car to beat in SCCA's Super Stock autocross class.
BMW M Roadster (also M Coupe and Z3/Z4)
Soon after I ordered my Boxster the "M" edition of the Z3 became available at BMW dealers. I'd pretty much discounted the regular Z3 right off the bat due to its lower power and only adequate handling. But the M is different: It's essentially a regular Z3 but with upgraded suspension, interior and body, and an awesome 3.2-liter, 240 hp engine (at 6000 rpm) with 236 lb/ft at only 3800 rpm. It's the fastest accelerating production BMW made to date. Oh man, that engine really tempted me! I did some reading though, and, again, what I read didn't quite convince me. The March, 1998 issue of Car and Driver compared the M Roadster, Corvette and Boxster. They picked the Boxster.
"I think the M Roadster is more fun, but the Boxster is pretty damn fun without scaring you. It's a tough call which is better."
"It may be a tough call, but it's one we've made twice now... our conclusion, once again, is that this Porsche is less handicapped by its moderately powered engine than you'd think."
For me it was also a close call, but what convinced me to wait for the Boxster was a few minor things: The M Roadster had no traction control option then, the magazines were "polite" about its handling, and I was pretty sure that it wouldn't be as competitive in its autocross class as the Boxster is in its class. OK, the looks and the fact that you can't turn around without seeing a Z3 didn't do much for me either. But at least it doesn't look like the M Coupe! The coupe version is one of the ugliest cars around, IMHO. I like the fact that they were willing to take a chance with the styling, and I like the extra strength of the coupe chassis, but man, it looks like a Honda Civic with a stretched hood! Why they didn't just make a nice fastback, sort of like the old Triumph GT6, is beyond me. The new Z4 is a step backward in the styling area, in my opinion, though technically the car has numerous advancements.
Here is a posting I read on PPBB that I think sums up the cars pretty well:
Hi,
I've read you postings on bimmer.org, I'm the one who told you there that if even money on your trade, buy the M Roadster, but if you have the extra money, buy the Box S.
Tonight I drove my 99 M Roadster to the Porsche dealer and placed money down on a Boxster S. Funny world.
I also have a 99 M3, and plan to keep it, so my comments have some validity.
First, the M Roadster is bulletproof. No such thing as an engine failure. Totally reliable car. The above transmission posting is complete nonsense. M3 owners have occasionally missed shifts. Most M3 owners drive like maniacs, and track their cars more than most people. Deep in the twisties at high speed, stuff happens. Not the cars fault.
Second, compared to the standard Boxster, and almost all cars, it is a rocket ship! 0-60 in 5.0 is serious fun. Tonight I drove a boxster, and couldn't believe how slow it was. At speed, it handles more securely than the BMW, but only slightly. The M is a very visceral car, more go cart like, but twitchy at high speed. The rear end comes out without much provacation, fun, but only when you want it to. I take exception to the stereo comment -- both are junk. Also, the top, much less refined than the Box. Takes two hands to operate. My wife can't even open and close it the latches (two) take so much force. And the additional boot is a royal PITA. You won't even use after one week. Porsche motorized cover much cooler. The new lined Box S top even nicer.
I'm sure you will love the hell out of the car. I bought it over the Boxster last year because of the speed. But now that the S is out, I feel that the S is a more complete car, albeit at more money. I'm willing to pay the difference today.
The BMW is too small for me. I tour a lot in the mountains of Colorado, and can't carry anything. Even a weekend trip to Aspen is an arguement with my wife. You get one small bag, period. No room inside either. Lots of wind noise at high speed. The seats have no padding at all. My butt kills me, wife too, after two hours. Box seat vastly superior, more comfortable interior in everyway. More of a touring car. The Box S will close the gap in straightline performance (not elimanate it), and handle better. Still, Boxster owners, you don't want to take on one of these cars. They are very potent. I will say this though, IMHO the Boxster S will need the 030 sport suspension and 18" tires to further close the gap.
Bottom line, Box S is a more refined, better balanced car than the M Roadster, at a $12,000-$15,000 cost. Different strokes for different folks.
I sincerely hope you enjoy your car. Subscribe to and read Roundel. Great magazine!
Conclusion:
I think the M Roadster is probably more fun than the standard Boxster in some ways, mostly those ways that allow you to use its extra power to the fullest! It is a great car, and I wouldn't hesitate to buy one if my priorities were just slightly different. The M Roadster's lower autocrossing potential was perhaps the biggest reason I didn't buy one. If you don't care about autocrossing and would rather have some extra power (and maybe even save some money), get the M Roadster, or the Boxster S if you don't like the BMW's styling.
Toyota MR2 Spyder
These came out long after I took delivery of my Boxster, so I never considered one. But I've read good reviews of them, and they seem to be worthy competitors of the Miata. They have similar specs in terms of the horsepower, weight and size, but differ strongly by having a mid-engine configuration, just like my Boxster. So my guess is that the MR2 will outclass the Miata with better handling, which is saying a lot.
But Toyota's attempt to copy the Boxster's styling is laughable! It looks exactly like what it is: A Japanese copy of the Boxster; no purity of line.
Conclusion:
Looks like a fun car with great handling, for about $20,000 less than a Boxster! In contrast with several Audi TT owners, I haven't received any e-mails from MR2 Spyder owners challenging me to a race yet. While I'm pretty confident I'd beat them regardless of the venue, I really think these should do well in their autocross class, competing against the Miata.
Mazda Miata
These are perennial favorites of sportscar fans. There are a bunch of reasons why you see them everywhere: They're inexpensive, as reliable as a tractor, they handle great, and they're just plain fun to drive. I've known quite a few people who have/do own a Miata, and they all absolutely love them. So to not consider a Miata would be unfair to all parties concerned!
One thing I've noticed about Miatas is that they do have some chassis flex. Not a ton, but definitely some. And the manual top is a bit of a bother. But the '99+ models come with a glass rear window. The Boxster costs twice what the Miata costs and only has a plastic one (except newer Boxsters which now also have a glass rear window). Still, a power top sure is nice to have, and a major plus for the Boxster. I have definitely operated the top at times when I couldn't get out of the car, like at red traffic lights. The Miata requires you to get out of the car to operate the top, and then you have that annoying top boot to struggle with (I don't know if the '99s have a boot). And the Miata is still way too underpowered for my tastes. But there is very little else not to love, except the cheap-looking wheels.
Conclusion:
Yes, the Miata's appointments are somewhat sparse, and the trim and interior are a little bargain-basement in appearance, but everything works well and looks good. And it's more than competitive in its autocross class, thanks to its awesome handling, which is probably equal to that of the Boxster (for certain model/option/year combinations). I just wanted to have a little more refinement and power. But the Miata sure has a lot of "fun for the buck."
Mercedes Benz SLK 230
Yes, it's a sportscar, but it's not a real sportscar. What I mean is that this is a sportscar that places the emphasis on luxury and image, not pure performance. Like the Boxster the SLK 230 is a very well-built car, and the SLK 230 is perhaps even more robust than the Boxster. The folding steel top is particularly impressive. But the handling and power are merely adequate for a car of this caliber. When I first considered them I dismissed the SLK 230 out of hand since it was only available with an automatic transmission. I hate automatics! But the '99 became available with a 5-speed manual transmission as an option. Unfortunately the magazine tests seemed to indicate that this actually slowed the car! That's pretty unheard of.
Conclusion:
If you don't mind sacrificing some power and handling prowess in order to gain some ride comfort, or if you really hate the idea of having a fabric top and don't mind having virtually no luggage space with the top down, then the SLK 230 is for you. It has the legendary "carved from granite" Mercedes quality, that image thing, plus some nifty styling. And hey, it's a convertible two-seater; you can't help but have fun in this car!
Chevrolet Camaro
OK, it's almost at the bottom of the list, even though it's very high on the various magazine's "bang for the buck" lists. There is a lot to be said for cheap, powerful, rear-wheel-drive cars! These are legendary muscle cars, and I always wanted one ever since I got my first taste of fun as a passenger in a brand-new red '67. I guess that dates me. But my wife was mortified when I started visiting Chevy dealers. The Corvette she could have lived with, but the Camaro was just a bit too juvenile and trashy for her. Never mind that it's not that bad a car and handles decently and has tons of power -- poor reliability and lack of refinement notwithstanding. (These consistently score very low in reliability ratings from all sources, except maybe according to Chevy; and I don't recall ever hearing them claim it's a reliable car either!)
We actually rented a convertible Camaro on Maui once... what a piece of cr*p! The first thing that happened was that the gas pedal fell off, necessitating a quick McGyver-esque repair job in the hotel parking circle. Sure, it was a rental, but this is also a common problem on the newest Corvettes. And a trim piece over the passenger's window kept coming loose. And this car had only ~4,000 miles on it! Just one of those quality issues I guess. Plus, the chassis was so flexible you could literally see and feel the steering wheel move in the opposite direction of the seats whenever you hit bumps! The handling was pretty vague too, with poor feedback and a sense that I was sitting on a large moving object I had no control over.
Conclusion:
I guess you get one of these if it's all you can afford and power is almost all you care about. Or if buying American is important to you... though it's actually made in Canada so that would make no sense. But for the price you sure get a lot of that power!
Audi TT
In a sense the TT doesn't even belong on this page since I never seriously considered one of these. For one thing it wasn't yet available when I got my Boxster. But it's an interesting car so I've decided to yack about it anyway.
One thing I must say, OK, two things I must say: Clumsy styling and it's front-wheel-drive! The former is entirely a matter of taste, and part of me likes many details of the TT's styling (though not the squashed-bug look), but the front-wheel-drive is unacceptable to me. I insist on rear-wheel-drive with a manual transmission, which every other car on this page has. Everything else is negotiable, but not those two things. I've driven nearly every type of drive configuration there is, and nothing beats rear-wheel-drive with a manual. If the TT were rear-wheel-drive it would be higher on my list, at least above the Camaro. Produce the same power without resorting to a turbo and it would move higher yet. I'm not interested in the all-wheel-drive version since California has such nice weather, and it adds a lot of weight to the car.
Another thing I will say, in the TT's favor this time: People who own TTs seem to really love them. I have received several e-mails from Audi TT owners; all of them like to tell me how awesome their cars are, how they are much better quality than my Boxster, that they're better looking and how easily they would beat me in a race. I'm glad they love their TTs, and their loyalty is testimony to the TT's fun-factor.
Some fun quotes from Audi TT correspondents:
If you are ever in California and want to find out first hand what a nice (not that yours isn't) and truly performance orientated roadster from Germany really feels like, then stop on by and maybe then I can give you some lessons for your future prospects in the car shopping field and let you see my tailights and maybe even let you feel what the real power feels like.
I do live in California. I'm still waiting for this guy to accept my challenge to race. Maybe he hasn't read the results of my autocross racing. If he did, and compared the results of the TTs at those races against mine, he probably wouldn't talk so loud. I have yet to be even approached by a TT in the results, much less beaten. I hope I don't sound too arrogant... just stating the facts!
So no matter what some of the magazines may have said, in the real world there isn't one that has been able to keep up with me not even the new Boxster S.
Let me explain, Your car is rear wheel drive and has an approximate frictional loss of power up to 20% from the crankshaft horsepower to the Rear wheels (5-speed), in comparison Audi's Quattro system has a maximum frictional loss of only 7% to all the wheels (6-speed), that is a loss of about 40 horsepower compared to the TT's only 15 horsepower loss.
It's amazing how he can convince himself that an all-wheel-drive car with its complicated drivetrain has less friction loss than a simple rear-wheel-drive car. As for racing, well, I'm still waiting for a TT owner to take me up on my offer. Want to race me? Check out the event schedule for NASA and let me know which event you want to attend. We could also enter an SCCA event, but they now require a membership which costs about $55 I think.
I think they need a reality check.
A reality check for Audi TT lovers:
Audi TT Coupe 1.8 Turbo 180 hp, 2657 lbs = 14.8 lbs/hp Audi TT Coupe 1.8 Turbo Quattro 180 hp, 2911 lbs = 16.2 lbs/hp Audi TT Coupe 1.8 Turbo Quattro 225 hp, 3076 lbs = 13.7 lbs/hp Porsche Boxster 2.5 201 hp, 2755 lbs = 13.7 lbs/hp Porsche Boxster 2.7 217 hp, 2778 lbs = 12.8 lbs/hp Porsche Boxster S 3.2 250 hp, 2855 lbs = 11.4 lbs/hp The most one could say would be that the (not yet available) 225 hp TT coupe might equal the '97-'99 2.5 liter Boxster's acceleration, but certainly not the '00 Boxsters'. And I'd even give the 2.5 liter Boxsters the edge due to their lack of any turbo lag, their larger engine and their superior weight distribution. The TT''s all-wheel-drive would eliminate much, if not all, of the Boxster's traction advantage, but I'd still hesitate to say any TT will "dust" a Boxster. That assumes reasonable traction of course. A TT with Quattro all-wheel-drive would have a traction advantage in mud, snow, gravel and heavy rain. If I didn't live in a place like California with its nice weather I might get a car with all-wheel-drive... like, say, the Porsche 911 Carrera 4.
Update: I later read a test in which the 180-hp TT was timed at zero-to-60 mph in 6.9 seconds. Sounds about right. And more recently I read a test in which the 225-hp version (of the roadster) ran 0-60 in 6.6 seconds. Compare that with the 6.0 Motor Trend gave the 2.5 liter Boxster, or my own tests.
As regards handling, that's much harder to quantify. Skidpads are a good start. Magazines mention the TT achieving .91 gs. I've read .94 gs for the Boxster in Motor Trend. The Boxster tests were all with the standard suspension too. With the Boxster's optional M030 suspension and 17" or 18" wheels that climbs even higher. Some people seem to think the all-wheel-drive Quattro system provides better handling than a two-wheel-drive car like my Boxster. Don't bet on it. The all-wheel-drive system is mostly of benefit in slippery conditions when you stomp on the gas. In the dry, and in cornering, I doubt it's of much, if any, benefit. Heck, we Boxster autocrossers always turn off our traction control when we compete! And the best-handling front-wheel-drive cars are still no match for a car like the Boxster, or any of the other rear-wheel-drive cars on this page, excepting maybe the 540i and the Camaro.
Conclusion:
So, if you don't mind front-wheel-drive or if you prefer all-wheel-drive, you can actually fit into the car, and don't mind sacrificing some handling and power, you can save over $10,000 and get a car with unique styling that you hopefully enjoy. Just don't expect it to "dust" any Boxsters unless you spend thousands of dollars on modifications that will void your warranty.
BMW 540i 6-speed
How did this sneak in? Well, I thought maybe I was getting too old for sportscars and should consider something more "mature." I "wore the decision" for a few days, and I really couldn't get myself to settle for a sedan, as magnificent as the 540i may be. I really need the sporty handling and looks of a sportscar to enjoy driving. But if you ever need a sedan, this would be a neat choice. Much nicer than the Audi A8 we test-drove.
My wife likes sedans though, so we bought one for her! I even did some tests on the car. It's fast! The engine is incredible, and it has so much power, in any gear at any speed, that it's almost as scary as my RX-7 was! But we both agree that the Boxster is much more fun to drive, except on really long drives when the higher noise tends to wear us down a bit.
The 540i has been a little disappointing in the area of reliability though. It has spent more time in the shop than I expected, and several times for coolant leaks. My Boxster has been better, and the problems I've had were all minor ones that didn't leave me stranded anywhere. The 540i's problems have required towing it to the shop.
Conclusion:
Great performance sedan, but still almost as cumbersome as most big cars, and perhaps BMW's quality is over-rated.
© Copyright 1999-2007. Dennis Schøler Pedersen.
None of the text or graphics in this file or linked from it,
or any other file within my www directory, may be used
without contacting me and securing my permission.