Are there any problems I should be looking for? Is my "ideal specification" of a Cayman S manual with the turbo 2.5 really going to be what I want for California mountain road cruising, or is the Boxster just as good in the hills?
Are there any problems I should be looking for? Is my "ideal specification" of a Cayman S manual with the turbo 2.5 really going to be what I want for California mountain road cruising, or is the Boxster just as good in the hills?
Do you like being outside?
If you pay the sunshine tax you might as well get the sun on your drive.
I never got why people prefer coupes for street cars because of stiffness. Maybe 40 years ago but modern cars are quite stiff. Who's chasing 10ths on the street? Top down makes the experience so much better imo.
Lots of people seem to dislike the 4 cylinder for sound. No personal experience but if that might bother you the top down won't make it any better.
Performance wise I don't think boxster/cayman makes any real difference. Boxster is probably a touch heavier but that won't really show up in street driving. Porsche used to derate the boxster engines a bit but I think they stopped that with the 718 and it was a minimal amount anyway. The boxster base suspension might be a touch softer, I'm not sure if that was carried over from the 981. Again not a huge difference and you probably don't want the base suspension anyway. Beyond that it's personal preference roof or not and correct number of cylinders (6) or not (sorry, I had to let my bias sneak in there somewhere).
What is your driving experience to date? What I mean by that is, if you are only familiar with $400 MR2s and $900 Civics, along with a smattering of family-friendly SUVs and Minivans, the Cayman S will ruin you. It is so well balanced, so neutral, so communicative, so perfect as a driving tool, the first drive is like the first hit of smack. If you are used to amazing sports cars, you may have a different reaction.
There's no real major difference between the Cayman and Boxster. You can feel a little chassis flex in the Boxster but quite minimal. As far as the S trim goes, it's personal taste. The turbo lag is better than in the base model, but it's still enough that I didn't care for it. I'd prefer a used GTS trim level.
In reply to spandak :
I like this - even the base 718 Boxster is fast enough to not be limited by its own capabilities in the mountains.
In reply to chaparral :
No, but the turbo lag will drive you nuts.
Hmm. I'll go check out Boxster S's. I'd be switching from a Model 3 RWD, so either would be faster but acceleration lag may be frustrating.
The Boxster is the same car as a Cayman, but without a roof. Boxsters are stiff enough that you probably won't notice much flex. As far as driving differences go, on the street you'd never notice any.
Choose the Porsche with the best maintenance history.
chaparral said:Hmm. I'll go check out Boxster S's. I'd be switching from a Model 3 RWD, so either would be faster but acceleration lag may be frustrating.
If you're used to off-the-line torque, the flat 6 may also be disappointing. It really doesn't build much torque until 4-5k RPM. The 718 base model does have some turbo lag but it's an objectively better performing engine over the base 2.7 flat six in the 981 (except for the sound). I agree that the 718 GTS with the flat six is the best of both worlds, but the used prices are insane IMO.
spandak said:I never got why people prefer coupes for street cars because of stiffness. Maybe 40 years ago but modern cars are quite stiff. Who's chasing 10ths on the street? Top down makes the experience so much better imo.
Coupes are usually less expensive, less leaky, don't have expensive mechanical top failures or rips. Lots of places the weather rarely cooperates anyways. Agree that stiffness isn't a major concern for the street at least.
In reply to theruleslawyer :
All of these reasons are valid. I've had multiple people dismiss convertibles purely on the basis of chassis stiffness which I find a little absurd.
It seems in this world there are people who look down on convertibles because they aren't as hard core as a hard top. Meanwhile we discuss steering feel and engine note and everything else that relates to the driving experience.... I don't get it. Taking the roof off makes the experience more involving and all encompassing. I think that's better.
Horses for courses or whatever
theruleslawyer said:spandak said:I never got why people prefer coupes for street cars because of stiffness. Maybe 40 years ago but modern cars are quite stiff. Who's chasing 10ths on the street? Top down makes the experience so much better imo.
Coupes are usually less expensive, less leaky, don't have expensive mechanical top failures or rips. Lots of places the weather rarely cooperates anyways. Agree that stiffness isn't a major concern for the street at least.
most convertibles look their best with the top down and for me, the number of days that I can actually enjoy top down driving in the midwest is far too few... Chevrolet and corvette does Targa which for me feels like the best compromise of hardtop looks, convertible usability and even then I generally take the top off once a year other than when im working on something in the interior where removing the targa makes it easier to do work...
Maybe I'm just a little whiny baby but I swear there's about eight days a year here that are genuinely convertible weather. I like driving windows down but really don't want to have to think about getting sunburned while driving. I especially don't want to spend an hour or three baking in the sun driving home after spending a day outside baking in the sun at an autocross/track event.
My daily driver suv has a panoramic sunroof which IMO is a much better balance of pros and cons than a convertible. But even that gets used pretty rarely, pretty much only if I'm out driving around dusk on summer days.
But yes, to the actual point, chassis stiffness specifically on pretty any car designed and built by adults is a non-issue these days.
You'll need to log in to post.
