Wow, my first time impressions of 996 vs Boxster

This is for others who may be in the same position as me: looking at both the 996 and Boxster S for the first time. I've had lots of high end sports cars and have autocrossed BMWs, etc. and owned several BMWs, Porsches, water and air-cooled, etc including brand new ones. However I am now thinking about buying a Porsche so today I went out and drove a 2002 Boxster S with 30K miles and a 99 C2 Cab with 60K miles, both 6 speeds. I'm very familiar with both cars and P-cars in general but this my first 996 test drive and only drove a Boxster once, when they came out new, and I almost bought one (thought it was way weak and bought a new BMW M-car instead). I cannot believe how much better the 996 felt. Wow. It feels so much faster, so much more solid, sounds so much better and just feels so much better in overall quality. It feels so much heavier, but at the same time so much quicker and no less nimble. Hard to explain but almost like the whole car is made of thicker steel (I have no idea if it is) and just feels so much more solid. Feels like the diff between a Honda and a BMW sort of. The clutch felt much better, the shifter worked better, worlds better torque and throttle response. It just seemed to run up through the gears on a whole other level over the Boxster. Then on the same stretch of highway where the Boxster felt jiggly and kindof hyper at 70 mph, the 996 felt compeltely calm. The Boxster had a lot of shake to the body and was affected by the road a lot, but the 966 just felt like a smooth heavy missle. Furthermore the 966 was much more quiet as far as road, tire, and wind noise. Wow what a difference is all I can say, so much more different then I expected. When I drove the Boxster first, I really liked it, and actually was not expecting a lot of difference in the 996. I was already thinking that the 5K higher price of the 996 was not likely to be worth it because the Boxster seemed really nice on its own. But after driving the 996, I now have no desire to look at anymore Boxsters. BTW, both cars were in excellend cond, all stock, from reputable dealerships, factory tires, wheels, etc. Now I must say that it's hard to argue with the value of the Boxster S on the used market, standing alone. But if you are thinking about a P, and the moderate price increase to a 996 is not a problem for you, definatelt try one because you might be suprised at how much better it is. In fact considering the low price of the Boxsters I went out assuming a good chance I'de end up with one instead of a 996 when I started out the door today but not now. I already have some other 996s lined up to look at in the coming days. Just thought I'd share.

My experiences are very similar to yours

Great writeup - when I went to the dealer, I was interested in a pre owned 996 and he tried to sell me a new Boxster S. I drove both, and I bought a pre owned 996 with 39,000 miles (I think - something close to that) over a brand new Boxster S. Stereotypes aside (like the Boxster being a chick car), I bought the pre owned 996, which was 5 years old, because it was a significantly better driving experience. I continue to be happy with my decision.

I experienced the same thing when I decided to buy another Porsche to add to the one I already had (and still have, btw). I really wasn't in the market for a Boxster but thought, what the heck, I'll test drive a Boxster S just to see what all the hype is about. Mind you, up to that point I had not yet driven a 996, only the '84 Carrera I already own. I have to say that I was impressed by the Boxster. It was fairly quick, refined and definitely nimble. I could really feel that there was an engine in the middle of the car as opposed to hanging back behind the rear wheels (which is what I'm used to, btw, with my old 911). Interestingly enough, the car felt so lightning quick in transition from side to side that it felt like if you were careless with it, it could get away from you. It didn't feel like it was all that stable at high speed. A few days later I test drove a 996 and immediately noticed the familiar rear engined "feel" of the car, which I liked. It just felt like I think a 911 should. I'm used to that feel. And, yes, the car felt more stable at speed and definitely quicker and faster than the Boxster. This is not to take anything away from the Boxster because it's a great car, especially on tight, twisty roads. It's hard to beat the mid engined agility of that car. But to me, mid to high speed sweepers are the most fun, and in those conditions I think a 911 is in it's element.

We have a Boxster and a Carrera, and yes the Boxster is my wifes. Both are nice, and I sort of regard the Boxster as a means to being able to drive a real Porsche without anteing up to the price of a Carrera. I would much rather own an older Carrera than a newer Boxster for the same money. When we had only the Boxster, I always felt the Carrera would be more of everything that the Boxster offered and when we added the Carrera that feeling was substantiated.

I have first hand knowledge of this subject and I definitely agree with Molly and the rest of you. The only point that I would disagree with Molly on is that I found the Boxster to shift quicker and more smoothly than my Carrera, but then the gear box is not as beefy because it doesn't have to handle as much power. I own a 2000 C2 and this past summer my friend bought a 2000 Boxster, he also owns a 1984 Carrera with the Turbo look body. I got the chance to drive his Boxster, shortly after he bought it, on the twisty back roads near my home, roads that I frequent with my Carrera. While I really liked the feel of the Boxster, it felt light and sure handling, I seriously missed the power of my Carrera. I drove the Boxster hard, revving it to about 5,000 RPM a few times and each time I was dissapointed with the lack of power. This of course is comparing it to my Carrera, against most other sports cars the Boxster would be a great choice. After owning a 911 I could not own a Boxster because I would always find myself wanting more power.

The current boxster 's'/cayman has pretty much identical power to the early 996's I think that rear engine feel aside, a lot of people get caught up on 911 snobbishness. I cannot see for one how anyone can say the 996 feels no less nimble than a boxster, you are comparing a car with inherently flawed weight distribution to one which is perfectly balanced and is a lot lighter. I love my 911, but it feels like a sow compared to my old boxster. So depending on how finances go the next year or so i can only see myself going for the new GT3 or the Cayman 's' The Cayman S according to people who seem to know what they are talking about say it is defineitely the equal of the 997 carrerra, but not quite the carrera s. I've been coming to terms with the fact recently that the 996 is essentially more than a decade-old technology and the goal posts have moved a bit Just my $0.02

I sold my Boxster 3 months ago and bought a 996. The Boxster was very fun, but the 996 is just so much more car. The only thing I miss about the Boxster is the sound of the engine at 5000 rpm.

I have to agree with you. Give me a Cayman s with the enhanced engine from Ruf and I am in heaven. The power is the only thing the Cayman S is missing. decade-old technology with the 996 is true. It used to be that Porsche was way ahead of the competition with the 911, but now there are too many close competitors, the Cayman S has changed that but needs more power and they will again dominate.

I honestly think the attitude that the Boxster is an inferior driving experience is wrong. The 911 is flawed due to its weight distribution. That flaw also makes it a blast to drive because you can steer with the throttle and brake so effectively. I don't think it is better. It can be more fun.

Yeah, in my mind one is not better to drive than the other, they are both great to dirve, just the mid-engined 2 seat platform is more fun on small twisty country roads where it is more chuckable and the 911 is better for applications that warrent more power although, a point of reference, when compared to the 996, the new cayman/boxster s with the 3.2 engine is not losing anything in terms of usable power I swear the only reason I came away from my 997/996/987 thinking my 996 was a bit faster than the cayman was because i have the butt-dyno affecting PSE

Similarly, as roadsters go, the new Z4M is (strangely) more fun to drive for me than the Boxster 987S. It has a more "raw" feeling to it, much like going from a boxster to a 996.

You guys are killing me with the inherently "flawed" design comments about the 911 and the Carrera in particular. The 911 and its different variants have won more races than any other sports car in HISTORY-bar none. I think that pretty much speaks for itself and makes anyone who says otherwise look pretty foolish. Yes on paper the rear engine layout appears to be a disadvantage but in the real world on the race track and the street it has consistently beat front and mid-engine cars year after year and continues to do so. As for 911 snobbishness, give me a break. The Boxster simply cannot hold a candle to the Carrera when comparing similar model years and that is fact not snoddery. Great, now we even have other Porsche owners calling 911 owners snobbs, where does it end. Don't get me wrong I really do like the Boxster and I enjoy every chance I get to ride in or drive my friends car, but it simply is not in the same league as my Carrera.

I have owned a 911 for a few years, and my next porsche was going to be a 996TT, but I decided I can't live with the same interior for three cars in a row and i wanted something sportier and without 4WD Compare a 2007 boxster/cayman 's' to a 2007 carrera. Thats a very different proposal to driving a 99 996 and then a 99 986 with a 2.7/2.7 engine I drove a carrera 's' (with 4000 miles on the odometer) and a delivery mileage Cayman 's', I preferred the Cayman despite the 50hp difference in hp I actually won't even waste my time driving a standard 997 now. If the rear engine placement is so amazing why did porsche choose mid engine for the Carrera GT?

Heh-heh . Discussions like these will never end, and will never have a definite consensus in any board. It's always fun to talk about, though. Well, I have both, and drive both cars on track as well as street frequently. Forget about rear vs mid design, snob vs non-snob, etc. Both are great cars, and each has an advantage over the other in certain areas. Some people will prefer the advantage one car has in a certain area, and prefer that car over the other. IMHO, if you score each car and tally ALL the areas of concern, the 911 will come up ahead. The cars were designed by Porsche in such a way that the Boxster/Cayman will be less and never equal the 911, and the cars are proving their designs to be right. I expect the above statement to be challenged a million ways from Sunday. But, if I had to keep only one of the two Porsches in the garage and get rid of the other, I would keep the C4S.

Personally i would too. But new boxtser 's' against new 997 convertible would be a lot more difficult decision to make. In fact, thinking about it i would almost certainly go with the boxster 's' vs the c2 cab

Interestingly, I chose a 2002 996 Targa as much more fun to drive than a 2005 Boxster S 987S. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I would have too But also that was before the boxster s got the same power as the the original 996 - about 295 bhp I personally prefer coupe to convertible For people buying in the used market things will be interesting in a couple of years when the 3.4 boxster and cayman come off lease plans Yes, the cachet or snob factor of the 911 + having 2 kiddie seats in the back is defintely worth something to some people, but the 3.4 motor 987 series will be a performance bargain.

I had a 2.7 boxster and just purchased the 996 and love the power and all the above but to some degree i feel that my boxster handled just a little better- as i said before it could be the lack of power to get into trouble also.

Hmm. Having owned a Box and Box S, and now a C4S, I will have to go drive a nice Boxster S and see if I notice the same things.

Check out the one with the new 3.4 engine...... and report back...

The 05 and 06 are 280 bhp. +15bhp is about 0.1sec 0-60 increase. Your seat dyno is better than mine!

Let's go see what the BMW Forums are saying about the M3 vs Z4 vs Z3! I go to bed every night thankful for not buying one of those horribly un-snobby Boxsters.

You guys are killing me with the inherently "flawed" design comments about the 911 and the Carrera in particular. The 911 and its different variants have won more races than any other sports car in HISTORY-bar none. I think that pretty much speaks for itself and makes anyone who says otherwise look pretty foolish Porsche believes otherwise. They have been attempting to wean traditionalists from rear engine 911s for decades, but their customers won't stand for the change. Hence, Porsche had no choice but to constantly enhance what virtually every Automotive Engineer would consider to be an inferior engine placement. So Porsche won races not because of but despite of the handicap of rear engines. If you doubt what I write, try racing against a Cayman S that has a modified engine that produces the same HP as a 996.

That would be a 2007 Cayman S or Boxster S versus the 2001 996 Carrera (the newest version of the 3.4L engine before the 2002 change). Has anyone made this comparision? Like others, I have owned a Boxster S before my 996 cab. Though the boxster was a great car and definitely had its benefits, my wallet and my vote signify the 996, right?

Like most, I drove all of the Boxters and bought a Carrera....for several reasons, some founded, some simply personal. I liked the Boxter S and it was a much more logical purchase considering price and performance. But, I simply did not like the lines on the car and I wanted the traditional Porsche. I grew up riding in the back seat of my dad's 912 and as such, I think Porsches have back seats. Is that the reason I bought the Carrera, heck no, but I have a certain image of a Porsche and the Boxter is simply not it.......my image could have included an air cooled motor, etc. The Boxter handles very well, the interior layout is comprable to a Carrera. But, it did not have quite the umph and I wanted a coupe....(yes, I know I could have purchased a Cayman, which is a nice car but no room at all)....... It is all personal preference.....nothing more. They are all good cars.

The 996s are great cars. Out of the box, though, they are GT cars, and they do that job extremely well. By contrast, the Boxsters are more of a true sportscar in the traditional sense. Out of the box, they do that job extremely well. What type of car do you want? Do you want a heavier GT car, or do you want a mid-engined open-topped sports car? The great thing about Porsche is that they [usually] make a full range of cars that make it possible for everyone to be happy. The only time you will not be happy is if you buy one type of car thinking it is a different type of car. The Cayman S provides a perfect entry level track car for Porsche fanatics . . . The GT3 is the bigger brother. The GT3 RS is the bigger brother who belongs to the same country club as the dealer. I would give my left [insert appropriate word here] for a Cayman RS that has the same running gear as the GT3 RS. It will never happen, but it is still a beautiful dream . . .

My experiences were also similar to yours. I was very disappointed when I drove an 03' Boxster S before deciding on a Carrera. I really didn't like the way the engine noise and vibration transmit into the passenger compartment. Having recently driving both new 987 Boxsters and Caymans, I am very surprised at how much improved the new Boxster is. I actually like it better than the Cayman. It is a lot tighter than the 986. You hear the exhaust and engine fan on the passenger side instead of the mechanical noises of the engine. Strangely, I notice the engine noise and vibration a lot more in the Cayman than the Boxster. The handling is greatly improved. With the old Boxster it would push hard on the throttle, but at lower speeds it could push the back end out; but in a nervous fashion. The 987 Boxster is much more stable and neutral. I can set the front and play with the back. The Cayman by contrast has a very grippy back end. I can't get it to slide like I can get a Boxster to do. In faster turns, the Cayman's front end gets light while the Boxster's stays true. Keep in mind that there will always be a compromise with a Boxster or a Cayman. Like the 914, 944 and 968 before the, they will always be Porsche 2nd tier sports car. As a result, Porsche will never give them the same level of performance or prestige as a 911. This isn't to say they are great sports cars. After all, the 914, 944 and 968 were also some of the best handling cars of their times too.

I bought a 02 996 cab over a 05 Boxster S after driving both,hope that clutch in the boxster survived,sure smelled funny !

Cayman is sweet and I like it a lot but not as much as a 996. Still not so sure about a 911 being an outmoded GT car of such inferior design, I'll bet Daytona, Le Mans, and Sebring will be chock full of em this year, like every year.

I have seen this a few times and its an absurd question...They would not build a CGT with any other configuration because of the design and its use. The 911 is a 2+2 sports car....name ANY mid engined 2+2 car.....you cant....there isnt one, nor will there ever be one. It must be front, or rear engined. So the choice is to follow the Porsche engineers of the 70's and 80's and get a 944/928 type car...or continued development of the 911 car. The 944/928 was more of a way of making a more PROFITABLE performance car. Cheaper to build water cooled, front engined cars than air cooled, rear engined cars. PERIOD. The performance advantages of the 911 has been the exact reason Porsche has not been able to make other cars....the user base has driven them and has decided that other configurations do not drive like them. Its amazing that a 1960's chassis remained relatively inchanged until the 90's. And all this time on racetrack after ractrack, this "outdated" chassis outperformed EVERY car in its class, and sometimes cars in faster classes. In American LeMans racing this season the mid engined Ferrari with a V8 was hard pressed to beat the flat six rear engined Porsche....The "better handling" Ferrari had MANY MANY catastrophic crashes that completely destroyed a number of cars, and LOTS of bodywork....so much for the mid engined superiority...All this to lose the championship to the Porsche in its final year of running the 996 series car....next year the 997 series GT3RSR will race and its faster, by far than the 996...the competition will spend years again catching up to the "inferior" rear engine design.

^ Yeah, what he said!!!

newport, that's some well worded prose.

Thx guys...I was just getting a little miffed reading the posts....I guess the grass is always greener on the other side...I speak from experience...i had a Boxster that was a GREAT car...I never would have sold it except my wife thought it was small, cramped, loud, bumpy, rough, unrefined, noisy, yadda yadda yadda....i didnt mind...it was a sports car right? She hated it and told me to go to the dealer and look at Carreras....so I did, and wow the difference was amazing....night and day. i was happy with the 986 power, it was adequate and worked well with the car. The 996 was just soooo much smoother, more comfortable, faster, etc...I read sooo much about how I would be giving up the mid engined handling....so I took my 996 C4 up to the mountains and thought ok...here comes the performance hit....and before I knew it the car was scaring me....not because it was not handling, but because on my favorite twisty roads, I have never been faster, and it wanted to go faster!!! Driving a rear engined car is an advantage in some areas...TRACTION....you can get the 300+hp to the wheels without loss of grip, so you can power out of the corners towards the next...my exit speeds were higher...the fun I am having in this car is amazing...the 986/987 is a great platform, no doubt, but its not the "ultimate" platform....I think a GT2/GT3 will outperform just about any Porsche...isnt the GT2 just a hair slower than a CGT? Amazing considering the GT2 is giving up HP and is based on that "inferior" design...lol.... Nurburgring times..... 7:36 - 162.631 km/h - Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1475 kg, factory test driver Walther R�hrl (02) 7.39* - 161.575 km/h - Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/1395 kg, *mfr. (quote sport auto 05/06) So the inferior rear engined 997 with 200 less HP is only 3 seconds slower around the ring.....I bet if you added 200 hp to the GT3 it would be faster than the CGT.....

She hated it and told me to go to the dealer and look at Carreras The perfect wife!! tw

lol....i am sure she thinks so....

I had a Boxster S. Then we had a daughter so I installed the airbag deactivation kit and bought a Porsche child seat. Then my wife got preganant with identical twins. So, she told me the Porsche had to go. She calmly explained that if I were home with the twins, I would not be able to take them to the hospital in the event of an emergency. I sold the car. Then I came home with an '02 Targa with two baby seats in the back and the airbag deactivation kit installed in the front. My wife freaked, but I showed her all of the baby seats (3 in total). Now we fondly refer to the Targa as the "family car"

Do you guys realize the weight dist. on a CGT is 42/58? That on the 996 it is 38/62? Do we really think 4% makes that much difference? Having riden in the CGT with tail out, I can say, ummm, not as much as you might like. Can you imagine what the weight dist. would be with that 600+ HP motor BEHIND the rear axle on the CGT? We'd be talking 20/80! That might be almost as bad as the stories I hear about the 911... hehe

some use ring time as a way to compare, well, most of us cannot duplicate that time. some say cayman/box are better than 911, some say otherwise. you have to drive them ALL and see what fits YOU. if you need rear seats, cayman, box or even CGT would suck. if you are on street, 911 is better due to torque. if you are on track, cayman s is faster than 997 (non s), there's no question in my mind. compared to 997S, the hp delta is too big, so 997 wins. as far as traction goes, yes rear engine has SOME advantage, but that isn't enough to make it a winner. on twisty tracks, like infineon, even a 997s would have tough time agasint cayman or boxster S (the 3.4L new boxter s of next year). anyways, they are all good. pick what you like.

after a few key revisions the Boxster has been the benchmark for the roadster category for at least 7 years now(as long as value is not a factor). And the latest iteration is one step better. You'll find very few examples of a roadster so good that they made a coupe of it. Its the other way around 99% of the time. When I first test drove both the 996 (just about every one but the TT/GT3/Gt2) and the Boxster/S I quiet frankly found all to be 'underpowered' for non-track/autox driving. That much dough for that power left me I also found all to be "over engineered" and boringly predictable. The interiors of all were basically identical. A look at part numbers reveals that the Boxster interior parts mostly start with 996 = same parts from the 911. From the seats to the fron license plate the years you drove 99 C2 and 02 BoxsterS have the same fenders,hood, aero front bumper, 18" front wheels?, Headlights, windshiled, etc. this is continued with the Caymans as a look at part numbers contain 997 and 987 everywhere. But I didn't just test drive Boxsters and 996's, I drove S2000s, Z4, M3's, S4s, SLK , STI, EVO, Mazdaspeed Miata, Mini CooperS. I didn't compare all against each other because Roadsters are roadsters and Coupes are Coupes. I'm always amazed at how few people in sports car world have a grasp of this. Kinda like comparing an X5 vs 645. Different cars for different purposes. At the end of the day I just came to the realization that being out on a gorgeous sunny day in a tin top was just not my thing. No matter what you think of each car you have to decide am I coupe person or roadster person or compromise with something in between=convertible. The realization that I'm a roadster guy narrowed the choices considerably, the intent of the ocassional autocross/DE made the choice crystal clear. Much to the chagrin of the bank as I gave them back half their loan money! I can say the car has met every expectation, obviously since its a benchmark car. Would I like less cowl shake and more rigidity? Sure but its a roadster what are you going to do? Would I like more power? sure but that can be said of all pcars under $100K p.s. If it were up to me I would make the Boxster with a manualy retractable Carbon Fiber hardtop (no motor), AWD with ZERO understeer for us snow bunnies, a 'rebadged' S2000 gear box, an engine good enough for 350 HP/torque, GT3 seats, 2002-2004 911 headlights, C4S fenders and 1st gear that wasn't deliberately tall and no extra fee for silver gauge rings. p.s.s 911's long history of competitive victories is mostly limited to endurance racing. its record in shorter stints where engine longevity is not as big a factor is a different matter altogether for the rear engined Pcar. as far as mid engined Ferraris in ALMS those teams and drivers seemed to be beating themselves, not really the fault of the red car.

Hmmmm.....in the history of the 911 racing, what sprint races did it not dominate? I remember 935's kicking BMW and Vette butt all day long in every venue....back when Infineon was Sears Point, I was at the hairpin watching them out brake and out accelerate them all....And Ferrari's in ALMS...if the car seems to be getting wrecked by different drivers, and teams EVERY weekend, you hve to start thinking MAYBE the car has something to do with it....

I currently own both cars ('00 986 and a '02 996). No question that the 996 "owns" the 986 with power. Additionally, the 996 does have truly great handling (in spite of what many believe about the engine placement) However, the 986 "owns" the 996 when it comes down to handling. In my opinion you just can't push these cars enough on the street to really understand the handling differences. Once you drive them at the track the differences become clear. The 986 is just a little more balanced in this regard. It transitions more quickly, is more neutral on long sweepers and is more forgiving of driver errors. It just accomplishes everything with less drama (just a little, but the difference is there). My 996 is currently in the shop (getting a GT3 front spoiler and a Misha GT2M rear wing installed). My dealer gave me a Cayman S loaner and let me tell you this car is the "real deal". Unfortunately, the loaner is a "tip" but the hard top endows this car with even more chassis stiffness than a 911. Additionally, the metal roof brings the interior noise and refinement levels way up. I obviously have not taken the Cayman S to the track but I bet this thing would really shine there.

One thing I have yet to read in this thread is the need to spend enough time behind the wheel to learn how to extract the most out of each car. My first Porsche was a '99 Boxster, i.e. 2.5l engine and 5 speed trans. I loved this car, and it was quick. BUT... to be quick you couldn't drive it lazily. You had to constantly work those 5 gears to keep it in the engines sweet spot. Today in the 996, I find myself sometimes getting lazy because I have enough power on tap to at least partially cover up for it. My next Porsche was my '91 Carrera 2. I still vividly remember the first corner that I punched it hard through. IT JUST KEPT GOING IN A STRAIGHT LINE!!!. I nearly ended up in the median. However, after spending some time learning the dynamics of the car, I have no issues with understeer and can kickout the tail and catch it again almost at will in a corner (GREAT FUN!). Having driven the '91, the adjustment to the '03 Carrera was much easier. The main thing I struggle with in the 996 (and the Boxster) is the brakes. I could brake much later and harder in the '91 C2, where in the 996 I get much earlier lockup and ABS activation (NOTE: Both the '91 and '03 have PZero Asy. N3 spec. 225/40-18). I am not sure why this is, but it has twice almost gotten me into trouble. Nevertheless, once the dynamics of the car are understood it too is a great drive. My point in saying all of this is that you MUST drive the car as its design dictates. If you try to drive a rear-engined car like a front-engined car you will think its handling is horrible. The same applies to trying to drive a mid-engined car like either a front- or mid-engined car. Drive it as its design and inherent dynamics dictate and any Porsche can be a rewarding experience.

I agree with your points. This MUST be due to a tire issue. If you are locking up the tires, then the brakes are plenty strong (e.g., your problem is not caused by fading). The only other issue could be a lack of feel in the brake system, but the 996/986 brakes are renowned as being outstanding in that regard. So, the only thing that could possibly explain your experience is your choice of tires and the relative weights of the vehicles . . . it is not a car issue.

the Ferraris may have had many incidents (which cost Salo the title thanks to his team mates wrecking) but as fro FIA GT, after Dubai this weekend the Italians will be celebrating. The Ferrari was a new design but still quicker than most. and the Ferraris will only get better in 2007. http://www.fiagt.com/points.php?seas...=manuf&event=1 we shall see next year how the 911 stacks up against the red cars as FIA GT with the exception of Spa 24H's is going to an all sprint race schedule.

Ray you are correct the difference in the cars is the 986 has the feel of more agility....it transitions easier...that is true...its also easier to drive the 986 fast. But once I got used to the differences in how to drive a mid engined rear drive car and a rear engined AWD car..I can drive my 996 faster in almost all conditions....The Cayman S is probably the best track car of the bunch, BUT is it a better all around car? depends on what you need.....but thank you Porsche for giving us 3 great cars to use to our hearts content...my posts should not be seen as 986 bashing, but more praise for the 996...this is truly a machine that I grow to love more and more....

I may be wrong, but IIRC, Porsche states that the Cayman S chassis is "almost as rigid as the 911". Minor quibble.

Sorry, but I think it is more than just "feel". I own both cars, so I have absolutely no axe to grind in this thread. Both cars have their particular strengths and weaknesses. If this thread were about braking I'd give the edge to the 911, however on handling I'd give it to the Boxster.

^ BoxsterS has the same brakes as the 996 (best of both worlds).

True, but it can't utilize it's rear brakes as well due to the weight distribution in the 911. The rear engine configuration does offer some advantages!!!

true as well but the average non-pro 911 driver needs that greater brake efficiency as its easier to make a mistake in the 911 than the Boxster...Unless you've mastered that rear engine thing and rarely make a mistake I reckon even on a relatively similar lap time the pendulus standard 911 puts more work on the rear brakes than the more neutral BoxsterS by a good bit.

Yeh, under braking, weight transfer in the 911 is going to load both axles, whereas in the Boxster or front engined cars, the rear axle will be unloading, and front axle loading. (Or something like that. ) One of the rear-engine design characteristics that contributes to the 911's performance, re: excellent stability under braking.

Sigh. Blind 996 bravado. Behind the rear axel is the wrong place for an engine. The carrera's doing so well primarily because of all the engineering $$$ put into refining that configuration. Plus they've done a pretty good job of keeping the weight distribution JUST about acceptable inspite of the rear engine configuration. I've done a "pendulum" swing on the 996 and almost on the 986. The 986 was pushed a lot more than the 996 but the 996 suddenly loses it while the 986 (boxster) loses control very gently. You can pump out macho statements like "that's how a true carrera handles / real drivers cannot swing a carrera etc" but the bottom line is the physics are fundamentally messed up (resulting in such sudden loss of control). Reengineering the rest of the car (over a lot of years and with a lot of money) to compensate for this fundamental flaw is good but its not the optimal solution. I'd love to see a mid engined porsche with a better motor than the 911 and at the price point of the 911. Can any one name the engine configuration of F1 cars - the undesputed epitome of cutting edge automobile engineering ? Rear engined ? Front engined ? Mid engined? Now sit back and think.

well, let's just say, why no jap. copy 911 rear engine design?

The best design for an open wheeled high ground effects vehicle may be a mid engine design.....but its may be a HORRIBLE design for a 2+2 street car...funny for 40 years the 911 has been the epitome of street car and race car handling and the benchmark for all sports cars. Like others have mentioned the braking is amazing, the traction, etc....if it were such a BAD design, then why is it such an amazing handling car....even when it was introduced it ran circles around more HP cars...and always has.....Now the thread is about the handling of a 2+2 coupe vs a 2 seat roadster....well the roadster should KILL the coupe...but it doesnt....its basically a toss up with the edge POSSIBLY going to the 2+2....why is that? Well maybe the rear engine design has something to do with it....Just like I said before...a 600hp mid engined roadster (Carrera GT) is basically equalled in times around Nurbergring by a 400 HP rear engined coupe (997 GT3)....hmmmm....

Actually the rear engine configuration offers a host of advantages in racing. It's superior braking provides the driver an advantage while passing under braking. It also provides superior traction when accelerating on corner exit. Keep in mind that weight distribution is only static when the car is sitting still. In motion weight distribution is constantly changing front to rear and side to side. Furthermore, the same characteristics that allow the Boxster to transition so quickly (lower polar moment) also make it more difficult to "catch" in a spin. The 911 has a higher polar moment, I find it is a little easier to catch than my 986. Both great cars, but they each have their advantages and disadvantages.

Well said, newport996. Beat me to the punch. I would like to add that the f/r weight distribution on an F1 car is probably closer to that of a 911 (40/60) than a Boxster/Cayman (47/53). And, IIRC, the weight distribution of mid-engine "supercars" such as Ferrari F360, Lambo Gallardo, Murcielago, Carrera GT, Enzo, are all ~40/60, (and the Lotus Elise/Exige as well). Yes, the 911's engine being behind the rear axle may not be optimal when running a slalom course, but it does provide for a larger cockpit while producing weight distribution ratios similar to those of mid-engined supercars. Recently, R&T did a feature story with Patrick Long driving a GT3 RSR and a Carrera GT around a track. The intent of the story was to show how well a road car can compete with a race car. The GT3 RSR was significantly faster (9sec/lap), but the CGT acquitted itself very well. There are a few comments that apply to the discussion in this thread regarding the 911's performance capability vs mid-engine designs. It all boils down to the ultimate total configuration of the vehicle. Simply using the mid-engine placement does not necessarily create a fast car (MR2, Fiero), and conversely, just because a car has a rear-engine placement does not mean it cannot handle just as well or be even faster than a mid-engine car. Some simply explain away the modern 911's exceptional handling as 40 years of engineering refinement, but I credit: 1. rear-engine weight distribution advantages, 2. modern multi-link rear suspension, and 3. (and most importantly), modern tire technology. A few excerpts from the R&T story: Re: GT3 RSR: "An exceptionally planted , race-tuned chassis means there's neither understeer nor oversteer at turn-in, just plenty of grip from the Michelin racing slicks. Changing the RSR's mid-turn attitude is done with steering rather than throttle inputs. According to Long, "With this car, you're definitely driving it more with your hands (as opposed to your feet) because you've got a more stable platform to work with." Start to lean on it and the RSR leaps out of corners with the pavement-tearing traction only a 911 can deliver." "With its sticky racing slicks, less pitch-sensitive chassis and rear-engine layout , the RSR allows the driver to carry more speed entering turns and to get back on the throttle earlier exiting them. This produces higher corner speeds, a better launch out of turns and higher terminal velocities on the straights. Multiply that by 10 turns on a tight 1.5-mile course and there's your 9 seconds." Re: CGT: "Give the GT more mechanical grip and the story could have turned out quite differently. Throughout the day, many wondered how it would have fared with some slight suspension tweaks and a set of racing slicks. Long was confident the Carrera GT could give the RSR a run for its money. "You lower that thing down, put some slicks on it and set it [the chassis] for more of a race trim � no material replacements other than the tires � and on a little bigger track, you're going to have a pretty serious fight." " Link to story with video and narration: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1

Kevin, that photo is friggin fantastic! Thumbs up!

That photo is from the linked R&T story.

"Furthermore, the same characteristics that allow the Boxster to transision so quickly (lower polar moment) also make it more difficult to "catch" in a spin. The 911 has a higher polar moment, I find it is a little easier to catch than my 986. Ray " AGREE. I drive both cars and the boxster is a pleasure but because of the low polar moment when it loses it, it is GONE! With the 911 you get a lot more feedback that you might lose it. Frank

I have been trying to make this exact point to my buddies for awhile now. Another point to consider, though, is that, for exactly the same reasons, Boxsters tend to spin like a top and not "move" as much from the point where the spin initiated. 911s tend to "hammer throw" away more from the point where the spin initiated.

My 2 cents. I had a Boxster before my 996. The Boxster ran like it was on rails. The thing didn't move. I personally think it handled better than my 996. The power, however, was not even close. It all boils down to personal preference. To the "less experienced driver", the 996 will get you hurt a lot quicker. I very rarely ever had the rear end swing around on my Boxster. Lets just say I'm still gettin' used to my 996...lol If I could afford both of them they would both be sleeping downstairs in the garage rite now. Overall I feel I made an upgrade.