Is the 2.5 Boxster too risky and too slow a purchase? - Page 4 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

ok, I may have the opportunity of buying a "toy" in the next 6-12 months and I have to express a soft spot for the original Boxster. I think (and this sounds crazy) its partly due to playing that Porsche challenge game on the playstation when they came out, I was 27 when the released it and along with the original Elise, its the one sports car I always said I would buy one day. I also think the original 2.5 looks very dainty and pure on its small wheels and it has that zingy revvy engine. However, two things bother me. 1) all the buying guides go on about the intermediate shaft bearing and the original 2.5 Boxster was the first oil cooled flat 6, I believe and 2) are they simply too slow in 2015? I should qualify that second statement by saying that I own a bog standard 2 litre Mazda 6 and fiesta ST mk1 (with my wife) so even a 2.5 Boxster will feel quicker and that I am not particularly bothered by straight line grunt, my favourite cars have usually been those that felt the nimblest and sweetest to steer, rather than the outright fastest. ..thoughts?

Thanks for the replies. I saw what looked like a nice one on Autotrader with 70,000 miles and 2 owners I think, for £5995 and thought "what a lovely car, that surely will not go down in value"..... Off topic...3.4 Cayman S is another car that interests me, not now, but in 3 years time when I come into a bit of money....are they generally reliable?

anonymous said: [redacted] Does what you said about the 2.5 apply to the 2.7 as well?

anonymous said: [redacted] Cheers for the info, I'd written a boxster off my list due to the horror stories. Looks like you can get a lot of car for the money that 2.5's change hands at. It pays to be informed eh?

anonymous said: [redacted] But boring silver & no decent interior shots. Is the interior knackered?

anonymous said: [redacted] No not at all, when we were looking for ours didn't want black or silver. Arena or one of the metallic blues were on the list, possibly yellow or guards. Ours is actually Estoril blue a BMW colour which as a PTS option was £3500! I would assume no interior pics means it is a mess, mine had no rips but was scratched & marked. Brooklands Kent have just reconnolised the whole interior & it now looks great.

anonymous said: [redacted] Interesting, did you see the 35,000 miler in London, for £6000? I'd probably rather spend a bit more to secure a low mileage example as it wont be driven every day, so its more likely to appreciate in value in the future. I suspect early 2.5s will become quite sought after in time, as they look the most classic and are probably the most "pure".

anonymous said: [redacted] http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201506084134414 I am not good with links...but its £6K and 35,000 miles.

I've got a 2.7 Cayman (987.1) but now looking at 2.5 986's!

..the more I look around the used car market, the more a Boxster makes sense. There are several sub 40,000 milers out there for £6K or less. You just cant pick up M3s, S2000s or Elise's (my other prospective purchases) for that money with those miles. In fact the Elise is right up for me, I have always wanted one, but even £10K doesn't seem to buy you anything with less than 70K on it. Anyway, another question...is the 3.2 engined model one of the dodgy ones? My brother in law had a 987 3.2S between 2005-08 and I drove it and rated it very highly. Perhaps a bit too "smooth" for my tastes, but wanted to know if the 3.2 engine ( I assume its the same engine that is in the 986) is known for the aforementioned IMS or scoring problems.

RMS also, went on my 986 S, £800 bill to swap a £30 part

Adam B said: RMS also, went on my 986 S, £800 bill to swap a £30 part Where did you get that done? You can get a clutch and RMS for that sort of money and for a not much more a new IMS at the same time. Seems like you were short changed!

anonymous said: [redacted] Did a bit of research yesterday and the Honest John site says that bore scoring IS an issue on 986..in fact the list of potential problems is huge, much bigger than for the 987. Bit confused now! However, definitely all articles say the 3.4 engine has major issues! BTW, could I have your opinion on the 1999 17,000 mile Boxster 2.5 for sale on this site...its in blue and Hampshire, which is local to me, for £7500. Is a really, really low mileage one actually a good idea? Some commentators say that cars which aren't driven regularly can be worse than some that are! http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/p... Edited by GreenArrow on Sunday 14th June 13:26

GreenArrow said: anonymous said: [redacted] Did a bit of research yesterday and the Honest John site says that bore scoring IS an issue on 986..in fact the list of potential problems is huge, much bigger than for the 987. Bit confused now! However, definitely all articles say the 3.4 engine has major issues! BTW, could I have your opinion on the 1999 17,000 mile Boxster 2.5 for sale on this site...its in blue and Hampshire, which is local to me, for £7500. Is a really, really low mileage one actually a good idea? Some commentators say that cars which aren't driven regularly can be worse than some that are! http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/p... Edited by GreenArrow on Sunday 14th June 13:26 Not a great lover of low miles cars, they can be a pain with oil leaks & other issues. Is it on 1999 tyres? Concerned at his 2 year comment on servicing. They should really get a service every year. A car that has only done 1000ish miles a year will have issues.

Only the later 986 has a 2 year service interval.

anonymous said: [redacted] Simple lack of use, my 944 gave less issues when being used as my co. car doing 38K in 18 months than when it went on a classic policy & did 2k per year. Slow windows, poor running, sticky instruments, stuck on brakes. 1000 miles a year equates to 3 miles a day, unlikely to get warmed through & if living in surburbia then likely to be slow speed & not up to full temp either. So cold acid laden oil.

I'm a fan of low mileage cars too, but look at the wear on that steering wheel...

anonymous said: [redacted] For your info we found bore scoring on my 2.7 986 (MY01). It was just coming up to 120,000 miles. Felt strong as an ox and wasn't using any significant amounts of oil between services. The only symptoms were that it was taking longer to fire up from cold. We then discovered oily plugs at a service so put a borescope in and found the scoring.

anonymous said: [redacted] Fantastic! I am not actually ready to buy anything yet tbh...but I hope its a good 'un. I take on board your comments re the 986 and the Honest John site too....I must admit though, I am torn between Boxster/Elise and S2000. Had a business trip to Eastbourne yesterday, from my home near Bournemouth and saw several Boxsters and S2000s en route. Something very appealing about both those cars!

The S2000 becomes a chore as an everyday car too.

Hugh74 said: I've got a 2.7 Cayman (987.1) but now looking at 2.5 986's! Was just reading this, thinking "I should ping this thread to Hugh..."

nckr55 said: Hugh74 said: I've got a 2.7 Cayman (987.1) but now looking at 2.5 986's! Was just reading this, thinking "I should ping this thread to Hugh..."

boxsey said: For your info we found bore scoring on my 2.7 986 (MY01). It was just coming up to 120,000 miles. Felt strong as an ox and wasn't using any significant amounts of oil between services. The only symptoms were that it was taking longer to fire up from cold. We then discovered oily plugs at a service so put a borescope in and found the scoring. Like how much longer? I've a 3.4 Cayman (under Porsche warranty) that has happily used no measurable oil in the 3k miles I've put on it - but which is now coughing (briefly) on start-up. I've always taken the nice constant oil-level as my first line of comfort (backed up by the OPC warranty).

nckr55 said: boxsey said: For your info we found bore scoring on my 2.7 986 (MY01). It was just coming up to 120,000 miles. Felt strong as an ox and wasn't using any significant amounts of oil between services. The only symptoms were that it was taking longer to fire up from cold. We then discovered oily plugs at a service so put a borescope in and found the scoring. Like how much longer? I've a 3.4 Cayman (under Porsche warranty) that has happily used no measurable oil in the 3k miles I've put on it - but which is now coughing (briefly) on start-up. I've always taken the nice constant oil-level as my first line of comfort (backed up by the OPC warranty). Probably took about twice as long to fire as when it was healthy. So maybe about a couple of seconds longer. This doesn't sound like much but it felt like an age and used to give that 'will it fire?' feeling. There was no coughing but I had to give it some throttle to fire...which you shouldn't have to. A lot of things that could cause poor starting (coil packs, filters, MAF) had been changed. Then we found the oily spark plugs which explained why it was difficult to start. I was quite sad when we discovered the scoring but at the same time the car had given many years and miles of service so was happy to put it down to experience.

do it, the earlier the better, pre 2000 They have the better IMS bearing. No bore score issues - they changed piston coatings in 2000(?) RMS might leak a little - but unless its pissing poil out (they don't) its not worth the bother of changing it for the odd drip Cable throttle no bodykits, pure shape Get one with ambers they suit it better Cheaper parts than anything similar Porsche did it right first time with the M96, but then they pinched a few pennies (IMS bearing, piston coatings) that then gave it a bad rep. An M96 really is an epic engine. In 5 years time we are going to turn around and wonder where all those cheap boxsters went.

anonymous said: [redacted] much the same thing I'd struggle with I think. I owned a brand new Elise a few years back, but realised a few months in that I bought the 'wrong' engine (134bhp Toyota). It was so frustrating to have such an acomplished car that had so little 'get up and go' the moment the road opened up. I replaced it with a 986S and suddenly it all made sense, with the perfect combo of handling and power. I must say that an early, minty 986S is starting to tempt me again, but I hate to 'go back' to a car I've owned before and I think I'm going to go down the Caterham route. I was looking at 'budget' 996s, but there are so many dogs about that I've been put off.

TTwiggy said: I must say that an early, minty 986S is starting to tempt me again, but I hate to 'go back' to a car I've owned before and I think I'm going to go down the Caterham route. I was looking at 'budget' 996s, but there are so many dogs about that I've been put off. While I'm a big Caterham fan - probably the most fun car I've ever owned (including an Elise S1) - I find it an odd alternative to a 986S unless you have other more practical cars at your disposal. (That said I did set out to buy another Caterham and finished up with a 981S, but only because I'd never my other half to go in the Caterham and therefore it would become a track day car only)

bcr5784 said: TTwiggy said: I must say that an early, minty 986S is starting to tempt me again, but I hate to 'go back' to a car I've owned before and I think I'm going to go down the Caterham route. I was looking at 'budget' 996s, but there are so many dogs about that I've been put off. While I'm a big Caterham fan - probably the most fun car I've ever owned (including an Elise S1) - I find it an odd alternative to a 986S unless you have other more practical cars at your disposal. (That said I did set out to buy another Caterham and finished up with a 981S, but only because I'd never my other half to go in the Caterham and therefore it would become a track day car only) I have a 'white goods' leased Kia Sportage for normal use. This 'toy' car will be just that, a 'toy'. The reason I am leaning towards a Caterham is the cheaper running costs (and I'm buying a P38 Rangey to offset that! )

TTwiggy said: I have a 'white goods' leased Kia Sportage for normal use. This 'toy' car will be just that, a 'toy'. The reason I am leaning towards a Caterham is the cheaper running costs (and I'm buying a P38 Rangey to offset that! ) Running costs can be very low - if you built your own (which I'd strongly recommend - it'll improve your swearing no end) you could once even get away with no depreciation whatsoever. I don't think that's true any more, but they are still a very "wise" buy. In addition, Colin Chapman's mantra might have been to add "lightness" - but it resulted in adding "cheapness" - small tyres and brakes etc mean low cost consumables.

bcr5784 said: Running costs can be very low - if you built your own (which I'd strongly recommend - it'll improve your swearing no end) you could once even get away with no depreciation whatsoever. I don't think that's true any more, but they are still a very "wise" buy. In addition, Colin Chapman's mantra might have been to add "lightness" - but it resulted in adding "cheapness" - small tyres and brakes etc mean low cost consumables. I'd love to build one, and one day I might, but this is going to be a second-hand purchase. Thinking of a k-series car, probably the 1.4 with supersport upgrade. As you say, buy well and you'll lose very little, and keeping it on the road is very cheap (when compared to a bit of budget Pork). Knowing my luck however, I'll miss out on all these £11k 996s that are going to be £50k in a few years' time!

TTwiggy said: I'd love to build one, and one day I might, but this is going to be a second-hand purchase. Thinking of a k-series car, probably the 1.4 with supersport upgrade. As you say, buy well and you'll lose very little, and keeping it on the road is very cheap (when compared to a bit of budget Pork). Knowing my luck however, I'll miss out on all these £11k 996s that are going to be £50k in a few years' time! If you found your Elise lacking at naughty dual carriageway speeds you will probably find the Supersport 1.4 starting to run out of steam there too because of the dire aerodynamics. Top speed is quite a bit less than the your Elise.

bcr5784 said: If you found your Elise lacking at naughty dual carriageway speeds you will probably find the Supersport 1.4 starting to run out of steam there too because of the dire aerodynamics. Top speed is quite a bit less than the your Elise. It wasn't so much lack of top speed, it was more a lack of 'go'. I do think the Toyota engine, without the second cam, was ill-suited to the car. It really didn't like to rev and sounded awful if you tried to make it do so. Early road tests praised it's amount of torque - which rather misses the point of a car that's mean't to come alive at high revs. I think the k-series excels in this arena.

It must be the Toyota engine. I remember hiring an original K Series Elise for a day in 1997 and they are not slow, I cleared 4 cars and a coach in one overtaking bound using third gear...speed accumulates slowly over 90 MPH but in the UK that surely isn't an issue? Anyway just to clarify, I am buying a toy too...I have a Mazda 6 everyday runaround, so if I buy an Elise, Boxster or S2000, it wont be driven every day. I'm mainly attracted to the Honda because there are none of these engine worries that we have with a Boxster. ...so to backtrack, you guys recommend a 2.5 over a 2.7 or 3.2S as the least likely to give major trouble and the most "pure"? And yes, I reckon in time the cheap 2.5 Boxster will disappear, although I think I remember saying the same thing about the original 944 and they don't appear to have appreciated all that much....

TTwiggy said: It wasn't so much lack of top speed, it was more a lack of 'go'. I do think the Toyota engine, without the second cam, was ill-suited to the car. It really didn't like to rev and sounded awful if you tried to make it do so. Early road tests praised it's amount of torque - which rather misses the point of a car that's mean't to come alive at high revs. I think the k-series excels in this arena. You may well have a point there. I personally didn't find the S1 (K series) notably lacking - sure it's not pushing you back in the seat at highish speeds - but it doesn't feel like a slug or unwilling. A bit marginal on reliability the K series might be (head gaskets in particular) - but it is a nice engine.

It's not a particularly financially sound buy due to the extras, but I think an S2000 supercharged to ~350bhp, some good brakes and a suspension upgrade would be a lovely thing. I had a regular 2002 one back in 2009 and while a chore for the daily stuff I used it for (lack of torque, cabin noise on the motorway and a ludicrously fictitious mpg claim were the main gripes), when you were ripping the nuts off it it was a hoot. Interior was ageing back then but has now def hit retro cool I think. And who doesn't like 9,000 rpm in a sportscar?

I've just had a good read through this Topic with some interest. I'm considering purchasing another Porsche, I have previously owned the 2.5 Boxster (Sold almost 10 years ago to the day) and a 968 Sport upto a few years ago. The 2.5 was a lovely car to drive, it was my daily driver for the 2 years I owned it. I've been considering a 996 (upto £15k) but reading the stories about the engine problems and potential costs I am getting put off this option and do find myself looking through the pages of (what appear to be good) Boxsters available for Sub £9k. For me, I am drawn to the power of the S, I am considering taking a look at these as they are local, the 2nd one looks better overall; http://www.woolpitgarage.co.uk/used-cars/porsche-b... http://www.andytmotors.co.uk/used-cars/porsche-box... There are also several Face lift models around which appeal more for the Glass Rear Screen than anything else.

tjdixon911 said: I've just had a good read through this Topic with some interest. I'm considering purchasing another Porsche, I have previously owned the 2.5 Boxster (Sold almost 10 years ago to the day) and a 968 Sport upto a few years ago. The 2.5 was a lovely car to drive, it was my daily driver for the 2 years I owned it. I've been considering a 996 (upto £15k) but reading the stories about the engine problems and potential costs I am getting put off this option and do find myself looking through the pages of (what appear to be good) Boxsters available for Sub £9k. For me, I am drawn to the power of the S, I am considering taking a look at these as they are local, the 2nd one looks better overall; http://www.woolpitgarage.co.uk/used-cars/porsche-b... http://www.andytmotors.co.uk/used-cars/porsche-box... There are also several Face lift models around which appeal more for the Glass Rear Screen than anything else. I would say do it. The only thing stoppiong me from buying a 986S is the fact I've had one before and I would rather sample something else. They really are great cars though with, in my opinion, just the right amount of power for British public roads. Sure, someone in a new BMW 135i or Golf R might outdrag you on a long straight, but so what?

tr7v8 said: Simple lack of use, my 944 gave less issues when being used as my co. car doing 38K in 18 months than when it went on a classic policy & did 2k per year. Slow windows, poor running, sticky instruments, stuck on brakes. 1000 miles a year equates to 3 miles a day, unlikely to get warmed through & if living in surburbia then likely to be slow speed & not up to full temp either. So cold acid laden oil. I'm with this ^^ I'd rather have a mid-miler that's been used AND correctly serviced (ie oil changed at least every 12 mths) than a low-miler that hasn't.

The 2.7 didn't have the centre rad but the tiptronic and S did. I think the silver trim was also only on the S.

anonymous said: [redacted] Nice, but another grand gets you this one, two miles down the road from me, with 47500 miles and two years newer. http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015... Did you look at that one in Hampshire, the low mileage one?

Bundling onto this thread... Just how much of a risk is the 3.4 Cayman over the 2.7? Also anyone on here in or near MK have a Cayman I can go out in? Just noticed they are just on the edge of my price range..

The July edition of GT Porsche has a feature regarding "£5k Boxsters" in the article it is said the they would choose a 2.7 over a 2.5 "any day" as long as the conditions were comparable but they don't really explain why other than mentioning that revised gear ratio's and slightly more power make a noticeable difference. Are any previous owners or people more in the know be able to explain this more?

What do they both top out at in 2nd and 3rd?

And you had one for years?? For shame.

anonymous said: [redacted] I saw it, great ad but it looks like its missing the deeper seats? Also not overly keen on the colour combo! Just window shopping at the mo, but they tick alot of boxes, ideally need to find a local owner and get a bit of wheel time!

anonymous said: [redacted] That sounds about ideal then.

Reading with interest... working away last week I spotted the edition of Purely Porsche mag with the headline "The £5k Boxster - can it be done" and immediately bought it. I love my turbo MX-5, its light, fast, reliable, fun, feels 'old' in a good way. Its wild to drive, it spins the wheels up, moves about underneath you, its flipping brilliant. But I have always wanted a 6 cylinder engine. A proper sports car noise. I have been seriously considering a 2.8 Z3, I like everything about it other than the worry that once over the retro looks and nice noise, it might actually be a bit, er, s t to drive. A Z4 basically feels like a 3 series, and as such I'm not at all interested. Far too modern and dull. S2000 I love it in every way EXCEPT I've done the revvy 4 cylinder thing to death. I want something I can work on at home. That I can modify and upgrade. Make it a bit noisier and livelier. That feels light(ish). I think the 2.5 Boxster up there, the only thing that puts me off is it being too competent. A modern Boxster is not far off supercar performance from not long ago, and everything I hate about modern cars - far too fast, too grippy, too electronic. I dont know how different a 15+ year old one will be. I also worry that one trackday in a Boxster would probably cost me what I've spent in about ten years maintaining and putting tyres on MX5s. Am I right? Ort am I missing a Gem of a car for £5k? I keep day dreaming about a Guards Red 2.5, some lightweight wheels and decent tyres, some cheap bucket seats and a racing wheel, and a sports exhaust. Proper poverty RS style.

Very interesting thread. I've recently bought a 2003 S, come from a Mk2.5 MX-5 (with a short stint in an A5 3.2 Coupe, for commuting... Which is for sale! ) and absolutely love it. I bought a car with upgraded IMS, to (hopefully!) remove that particular nagging doubt in my mind. Not remotely concerned about RMS and I don't think anyone who is actually interested in buying one should be; if it concerns you that much, I think you maybe terrified by other things. Interesting views RE 2.5 vs 2.7 & 3.2 and reliability. I'll be interested to see how mine does in the long term, I bought it with 57k on it and am now at 61k in 2.5 months.

Boxster 2.5 isn't too fast...0-60 in 6.6 seconds and 0-100 in about 18, top speed about 140. A modern Fiesta ST offers similar performance from 180 BHP. That GT Porsche article interested me too. They sort of said "go for it"....and I think they may be right, but there is no smoke without fire and I guess they are cheap for a reason. Lotus Elise Mk1s are almost double the money, so I guess the 2.5 Boxster has an iffy reputation for giving trouble, hence people like me starting a thread like this asking the question "are they too risky..!"

GreenArrow said: but there is no smoke without fire and I guess they are cheap for a reason. Lotus Elise Mk1s are almost double the money, so I guess the 2.5 Boxster has an iffy reputation for giving trouble, hence people like me starting a thread like this asking the question "are they too risky..!" Personally I suspect that because they're reasonably common for a prestige sports car, along with higher running costs means it is off-putting to many people. Running costs are very reasonable compared to any modernish premium brand car (I think servicing works out £20 more for a minor and £35 more for a major compared to my A5, prices both from main dealers), but parts cost can be scary (as it can for any car). Those things are enough to put off the majority, but I am happy to trade off running costs against much lower depreciation.

anonymous said: [redacted] I'm a big lad, so the sports seats are almost a must-have, or it has to be cheap enough to justify buying a pair separate. Good advert though.

anonymous said: [redacted] True and the image is a big factor. I think there seems to be a common conception that 2.5s are grossly under-powered and slow which perhaps puts many people off. I remember reading an article a year or two back, again in GT Porsche magazine, where they compared a 2.5 with the then new 981 2.7 Boxster and in terms of performance said there was very little in it at UK road speeds, due to the shorter gearing in the older car... Your old 2.5 looks lovely btw, a very lovely thing. I do miss the simple unadorned styling of the older Porsches.....

GreenArrow said: True and the image is a big factor. I think there seems to be a common conception that 2.5s are grossly under-powered and slow which perhaps puts many people off. I remember reading an article a year or two back, again in GT Porsche magazine, where they compared a 2.5 with the then new 981 2.7 Boxster and in terms of performance said there was very little in it at UK road speeds, due to the shorter gearing in the older car... Your old 2.5 looks lovely btw, a very lovely thing. I do miss the simple unadorned styling of the older Porsches..... Green Arrow check the reg number - that is CMoose's old car in the GT Porsche article. That article and CMoose's championing of the purity of the back to basics 2.5 on here has made me seriously re-think my 968 CS ownership. It tends to sit around mostly unused as a result of fear of too putting to many miles on it ( shameful I know) and it being a bit dull on the ear ( although a great drive otherwise). Can I justify a garage queen and a 2.5 to really use and enjoy? ... Time to get the man maths books out. M22 Edited by Malevik22 on Wednesday 1st July 21:17

Looks like the gear knob and rev limit were common parts with the 993 ETA: max torque at 5k rpm, so quite peaky like an NVR 993 too Edited by Mario149 on Saturday 4th July 08:11

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2015... Saw this one, 190,000 miles! 3.2S Wow, they really do rack up the miles. Plenty about right now and cant see 2.5s getting any cheaper. Perhaps early next year might be a good time to buy, they usually say buy convertible cars in winter...

anonymous said: [redacted] Looks nice for £5k - of course all the usual boxster issues need checking out but I like the silver/red

Perfect thread for me, l have been looking for ages for a sunny day fun car, Was aiming for a 996 but £10K was offering nothing but high mileage ( soon to be expensive problem cars) Then started looking at the 986 - 3.2S - £6K and there are some nice models out there, This will be a total fun day car, l fancy doing track days, Really fancy the auto rather than the manual Would really like to hear cmoose's opinion of my thinking, ASAP please l am off to view a 986 today when l finish night shift.

Thanks, Leaving the Auto to one side, what about the choice of engine and any other opinions? Appreciate your views.

whats the downside to auto's other than driving the car harder through a manual box?

3.2 is a good engine. I've had it in prefacelift 2000 guise and now in it's most powerful iteration in a 2004 550 Anniversary. The former supposedly has the dual row IMS bearing but the latter has the single row type. Both mod quite well for modest gains.

The one l am looking at has had the IMS bearing done, an full leather, Its done 65,000 miles - year 2002 car Can you recommend any suspension upgrades for track days or do you think the standard suspension is ok. Really appreciate you help.

vwcaddy said: The one l am looking at has had the IMS bearing done, an full leather, Its done 65,000 miles - year 2002 car Can you recommend any suspension upgrades for track days or do you think the standard suspension is ok. Really appreciate you help. First step is get the arms and bushes renewed if not recently done before shelling out on coilovers etc. Then if you are going lower you will want to fiddle with the geo so you will most likely need rear adjustable toe links as a minimum otherwise you will not be able to get the right balance between toe and camber. Then you will probably want more front neg camber so you will need to modify the top mount slot or shell out another few £100's on adjustable wishbone/coffin arms.

My first trackday upgrade would be a decent bucket seat.. Fresh m030 suspension is just fine - surprisingly good actually. (I have that on my Boxster and KWv3 with stiffer springs on my usual track car ) Can't see any point in an auto Disagree with the E36 suggestion - it's a saloon car with dodgy steering Great engines though.