986 2.7 Vs 3.2 - Page 2 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

Just wondering if I’d regret buying a 2.7 as opposed to a 3.2. Have spotted a lovely 2.7 with a good amount spent on it including major suspension parts so I’m guessing it’ll handle lovely . I’ve just got this annoying feeling that I’ll end up wondering why I didn’t hang out for the 3.2 . Just wondering if it’s the smarter idea to buy a well sorted 2.7 for the same cash as a 3.2 I might need to fettle with. Interested in others thoughts and comparisons tks

although i’ve not driven the S I had a 986.2 2.7 and loved it. Found it fast enough in the real world (great spirited drives in Brecon with a mates e46 m3 & boxster) I’m still interested in the S but the 2.7 saves on insurance, parts etc and is still a formidable performer without being ‘too fast’ for the road although not saying the S falls into that category

Bought a high-spec 2.7L new and ran it for 15yrs/180k kms on the base original suspension. It was probably a little softly-damped at the end but it was always squeak free. Changed front engine mount and gear shift (997 standard) both of which were cheap/worthwhile. No regrets choosing a high-spec base over a low spec. S. They sound epic above 4,000rpm. Probably cheaper to run. Very happy with the 5-speed. Standard brakes were absolutely fine, but the S brakes certainly do look the part - dammit! I found PSM be more of a help than a hindrance and would look for that. Running narrower 235 vs. 255 winter tyres on the back was fun (worth a few HP). Would buy another (manual, PSM, sound package, leather).

Many tks for the above . Car I spotted here https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202302043...

If the ads anything to go by it’s a winner! Hard pressed to find anything that hasn’t already been sorted on it, def worth a look. Keenly priced too

S model I also spotted . Less detail but the S and less miles https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202301263...

The S is more torquey (obviously) but I honestly don't think you'd regret going for a well sorted 2.7. I have a 2.7 Cayman (and previously had a 2.5 Boxster) and had no problem outlapping S models around Thruxton. Some people talk about the "upgraded" brakes and suspension of the S model but I think that is a bit of a red herring. The brakes are bigger and the S has a stiffer front ARB (and stiffer rear springs to cope with the additional weight) but those changes aren't going to make a meaningful difference to the experience or indeed the handling.

Something not quite right about that 2.7L listing… “Never driven in the wet” Photos are not recent. Why spend £5k then list for £7k? Other weaknesses… No climate (no A/C), no door speakers (amp/sound package), OE rear parking sensors (look rubbish), OE Sports Seats (see the bulbous shoulder pads - I get on fine with these, but many don’t)

Called about the 3.2 . First off the owner said he’d owned it since 2015 , then he said 2012 then he said actually it was 2006! Had two services since 2006 and he said one at Porsche Ipswich ! Apparently just been serviced by a random London garage local to him . That’s the end of that.

I've had both. It's true that the 3.2S is a bit quicker to drive but the gearing is such that you have to change more often than in the 5 speed 2.7, at least I did. Most parts are the same but depending on your mileage, the drilled discs on the front of the 'S' are more prone to needing replacement on a rarely driven car, and they are very pricey! The issue with RMS and IMS bearings are well covered elsewhere, but in the 2 cars I had, only a very slight RMS oil leak I just put up with. Exhausts rust for fun ,the bolt on trim on the 'S' can rattle and suspension arms / bushes are pricey, like VERY pricey.

sixor8 said: I've had both. It's true that the 3.2S is a bit quicker to drive but the gearing is such that you have to change more often than in the 5 speed 2.7, at least I did. Most parts are the same but depending on your mileage, the drilled discs on the front of the 'S' are more prone to needing replacement on a rarely driven car, and they are very pricey! The issue with RMS and IMS bearings are well covered elsewhere, but in the 2 cars I had, only a very slight RMS oil leak I just put up with. Exhausts rust for fun ,the bolt on trim on the 'S' can rattle and suspension arms / bushes are pricey, like VERY pricey. Tks , so overall which would you choose again ? I’m assuming the 2.7

I had a 2.5 and I absolutely loved it.

I bought an 3.2 5 months ago although I was looking at 2.7s too. That said, I've only ever driven the 3.2 so can't compare it to anything. One of the reasons that I was more inclined to for for the S were the numerous posts on box.net and other 986 forums where many reasons for sales of 2.5 and 2.7s were because they had found their ideal 986....which always happened to be a 3.2. From the posts above and many I have read over the years, the 2.7 won't disappoint though.

GT3Manthey said: Tks , so overall which would you choose again ? I’m assuming the 2.7 It would depend on other things. I sold the 3.2S because it was in the end, plain, silver with dark blue leather and approaching 90k miles. Paintwork needed attention too. Silver looks good on Mercs for example but is a bit meh on a Porsche, IMHO of course. I bought the 2.7 partially because it was forest green metallic, an unusual colour, and caught my eye at a classic car auction by Brightwells. It had issues (probably why in the auction) in that it leaked badly. I discovered it was the spongy water collecting tray under the hood and after repairing that it ran great. I liked its BBS lattice split rim alloy wheels too but they had been painted fronts only I discovered. The 2.7 is a bit cheaper on VED too if you get one up to X reg. If I was looking now, I'd prefer a very nice 2.7 over an average 3.2S but it's a judgement call.

Likewise i've had both (2 x 3.2 and 1 x 2.7) The 2.7 is a brilliant road car, and one which isn't really about 'the numbers'. The gearing is Porsche-typically long but you can just leave it in 3rd on a B-road and it is just about perfect for UK roads. You can really push the engine without reaching silly speeds (although they are pretty quick when wound up) and it sounds so good, that the lack of ultimate performance was never an issue for me. A good 3.2 with very well-sorted suspension is on a higher level of performance and capability, but not necessarily a higher level of fun. I think a lot of people approach the decision worrying about what they're not getting in a 2.7 (vs a 3.2), rather than looking at the 2.7 vs pretty much everything else in the same price bracket and revelling in how much more that they give you.

I bought my 986 in July 21. I'd been hankering for one at least 5 years and constantly looking at what's available. I didn't just want any car and it had to be nice - whatever that means. Anyway I have one now and its great. It wasn't perfect when I got it, it had a few problems which I have been working through. I've been close to giving up on the car but we are over that hump now and I've decided it is staying. My first Porsche was a 986 and that's probably why I have a sentimental attachment to them. Not sure. But I guess most people here realise they are good little cars so I'll stop gushing, for now. It is the slowest car I own so to answer your question about 2.7 or 3.2 I am not sure what to say. I have never driven a 2.7 and both my 986 have been the 3.2. Sometimes I think I am a sucker for buying the faster models and in the real world does it matter. Shortly after I got the car I went on a little run out with some other Boxster owners. Some people dropped out last minute and it ended up being just me and another guy who was driving a 2.5 tip - the slowest 986 available. I had trouble keeping up with him so that hopefully tells you all you need to know about speed and my driving ability. On any given day your confidence only allows you to go so fast. Most of my driving is just pottering around in traffic. Speed or the car's ability is basically irrelevant most of the time for Me and my driving. I would say just buy a car you will love - or maybe that's too much - bond with maybe. Because if you dont and it throws out a problem will you give up on the car or battle on. There are loads for sale so there are lots to choose from. I dont think any are perfect but hopefully you find a good one. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Wow such low miles looking at your original thread . Looks bloody lovely . May I ask what you paid ?

GT3Manthey said: Wow such low miles looking at your original thread . Looks bloody lovely . May I ask what you paid ? I did well

ATM said: I did well Good to hear . What do you think you’ve spent so far ? I’ll read the original thread tonight on the train

GT3Manthey said: Good to hear . What do you think you’ve spent so far ? I’ll read the original thread tonight on the train I do all my spanner-íng myself - well I have been on this car up until now. I dont know what I have spent. Oil change - engine and gearbox Wheels and tyres - borrowed from another car ... for now Standard exhaust refitted - FOC 987 seats - whatever you pay if you go down this route Recaro Pole Position seats - borrowed from another car - probably around 2500 if I had to guess RTS - frivolous and totally unnecessary purchase - but cool as F ... if I ever use it Pollen Filter case plastics with lid - used ... 40 quid I think that's it Spending might escalate a little now I know it is staying which is why I say get one you will love. Upkeep or maintenance on one of these is almost identical to a 996. So on paper I would say the 996 is a better choice as you will be more likely to recoup more of any money spent as the 996 will always be worth more. But I try not to think about resale especially with my 986 purchase which was driven purely by emotion and no common sense whatsoever.

I paid 4.5k for a 99 2.5 The early 98/99 2.5 cars have the best reliability record as they have a better engineered bearing, the issues started on the 2.7 / 3.2 up till 2010. The 2.5 absolutely howls - possibly more character than my 981 2.7.

Go for the 3.2S. Never really understood the 2.7 shills. Its not like the car is suddenly an overpowered beast you can't thrash in the UK, its still only 260bhp or so. I've not driven a 2.7 but love the amount of power the 3.2 has. Plenty of torque too, nice to be able to overtake on the motorway in sixth gear when you want to. Maitenance wise, I did buy a good one, but all I've done since December 2021 and 7000 miles is a set of front drop links. Cheapest car I've ever ran (except fuel). Cost me £7000 but I wouldn't let it go for less than £10000 for sure. These cars are criminally undervalued!

[quote=flatsix.ant]Go for the 3.2S. Never really understood the 2.7 shills./quote] Shill? ... is an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others. Really?

MG Ant]latsix.ant]Go for the 3.2S. Never really understood the 2.7 shills./quote said: Shill? ... is an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others. Really? ?

The only real benefit for me of the 2.7 is the 16 inch wheels option. I bought a set for my 3.2 and can confirm they don't fit. Not on the front due to the brakes but also not on the back due to fouling on the suspension arm or toe arm i believe its called. So the suspension must have different mounts too. I prefer 17 inch wheels to 18 inch wheels on my 986 but I can only guess how much sweeter the 16 inch would be.

I like my 16”s on my 2.5! No one else does!

The suspension arms and mounts etc are the same for all 986 models. The Porsche owners manuals inform as to which size wheels fit the respective models. 16” wheels will not clear the 3.2s brake callipers .

Ken986 said: The suspension arms and mounts etc are the same for all 986 models. The Porsche owners manuals inform as to which size wheels fit the respective models. 16” wheels will not clear the 3.2s brake callipers . I have a set and tried the rears. Cleared the brakes fine. But they would not go on. Fouled the toe arm mount on the hub.