What would GRM do? Boxster vs 944 what car thread

I just finished reading "Boxster Tech Tips" in the May issue &now I'm not so sure I want to keep mine. My attraction to Porsches is the notion that I can drive one every day, then flog it around a racetrack on the weekends. I also have an 87 944 turbo with a hole in the block. Would you keep the Boxster or sell it & use the money to fix up the 944 turbo? For the Boxster: my wife likes it, it's convertible & it's all one color. My wife hates 944s, I love convertibles & the 944 also needs paint (it's three different colors now). I also love the sounds the Boxster makes & like the mid engine feel. But the tone of the Tech Tips article made me think that Boxsters are fragile pieces of E36 M3. What sayeth the GRM community?

Every time this subject comes up in Excellence magazine, the response is usually something like "Among the staff members, we've owned a dozen Boxsters between us and we've never had an engine failure".

For whatever that's worth...

You're wondering if the car that might have an engine failure is more reliable than the car that did have one?

Well said deuce!

What was it, something like 3% have had ims failures? Keep the boxster, if you're worried about it, buy an oil filter cutter and keep your eye on it before it fails - or do one of the upgrade kits. Drop v8 in languishing 944, see if you can find a few more mismatched parts and flog it relentlessly.

mazdeuce wrote: You're wondering if the car that might have an engine failure is more reliable than the car that did have one?

This is magazine worthy, very well said!

I've never driven a Boxster, but from everything I've read about it, it's one of the finest all around sports cars on the market. Every expert review of them gushes over it's handling, balance, brakes, etc...

As for reliability...it's a Porsche. Not at BiTurbo reliability levels, but it certainly isn't a '95 Corolla either.

SWMBO would rather own a 3-colored, engine-less Boxster than a perfect 944 Turbo FWIW.

Dump the 944, keep the Boxster, keep an eye on it. The IMS failures are very over-blown and very un-common. Out of 100+ Boxster's in our PCA region, only 1 has an IMS failure.

I just did the IMS update to my Boxster, along with both VarioCam solenoids, a water pump, the air-oil separator and a bunch of routine maintenance crap while the engine was out. Did the work myself & got it all done for under $2000. I actually love how the Boxster drives (= why I bought it to begin with). But I DO want to track it & the article made me really rethink my purchase

Boxster

oldtin wrote: What was it, something like 3% have had ims failures?

Maybe 3% of all production. The 97-01 cars are rumored to have experienced as much as 11% failure, be it either IMS failure, or case porocity related failure.

Mine's a 97 :/

I'd rather have a good 944 Turbo then a good Boxster but in your case, I don't understand why you would dump a good running Boxster for a multicolored 944 with a dead motor.

M030 wrote: For the Boxster: my wife likes it ... My wife hates 944s...

All other things beings equal (which they aren't), you appear to have answered your own question.

Sports car expenditures are easier to justify when my better looking half likes the car

But ultimately, it's a car for me, so I have to choose which bottom of the barrel Porsche will best suit my needs

Let's break this down with pluses and minuses that you give for each car.

M030 wrote: 87 944 turbo with *a hole in the block* BIG -1 944 For the Boxster: my wife likes it, it's convertible & it's all one color. +3 Boxster My wife hates 944s, I love convertibles & the 944 also needs paint (it's three different colors now). -2 944 (sort-of +1 Boxster) I also love the sounds the Boxster makes & like the mid engine feel. +2 Boxster But the tone of the Tech Tips article made me think that Boxsters are fragile pieces of E36 M3 Weak -1 Boxster (balances out the weak +1 earlier)

Final results are:

Boxster +5
944 -4

There is both a Spec Boxster and 944Spec series. Both cars are sufficiently stout enough to handle track work. Boxsters can be tough to work on, but 944's aren't necessarily the easiest either, especially if you need to change a clutch. You want a car you can drive and take to the track. You Boxster is capable of doing that right now (maybe with the addition of a better rollbar and some fluid changes); the 944 is not. Go with the car you have that runs.

Beer Baron, that was a very thoughtful analysis. Thank you!! I'll keep the Boxster.

Beer Baron wrote: Go with the car you have that runs.

Yep.
plus, a large portion of the "DO WANT" associated with a Porsche is the engine behind you part.

personally, I would rather have the 944 as a toy and the Boxster as a car I could drive daily

944 needs a v8.

if your boxster engine fails, then it too needs a v8

Wilber,, I could not agree more!

Beer Baron should be invited into every "What car/ZAV/blender/cell phone/SWMBO/lube" thread.

Give me your 944. I have an LS1 that needs a home.

as much as I love mid-engined cars. I love hatchbacks more. If it was between a 944 and the Cayman.. I would choose the later without a thought

Zombie thread. Revived in case anyone wants to see what an irrational man would have/did do...

The 944 was a slow, heavy, wallowing and understeering pig when pressed, so I parked it and use my Boxster for autocross. I eventually sold the heavy and slow 944. Then, I made the Boxster into my fun summer street driver (that I still occasionally autocross )and got a fourth generation V6/5spd Camaro specifically for autocross. The Boxster is a better autocross car than the Camaro, but the Camaro leaves the 944 for dead in every conceivable performance metric.