2.7 vs 3.2...again 05-06 - Page 2 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

So with a £15k budget, I'm starting to look around. I have test driven both on (narrow) country roads for abpout 20 mins each, back to back. 5spd 240 vs 6spd 280 Now this will be weeendn use only, with perhaps euro trips once twice annually. The 2.7 felt very sweet, revving freely. The 3.2 more muscley I don't know what to do. Head is saying go with 2.7, it's my first open top 2 seater and I feel there is no need to go all in straight away and could trade up in a year or so...if necessary Heart is saying if I go with 2.7 I'll always feel I missed an oportunity 'right now'...but is that pub bore, stats, status crap?

You may find the gearing of the 5 speed better for all around driving. The rear axles of the 6 speed are different causing the boots on the half shafts to give out earlier. You can put your right foot down harder/longer on the smaller engine. Where will you use the extra HP/torque? The 3.2 costs more. Owned a 2.5 and a 3.2 in that order. Of course I also owned a 1.3 Alfa, a 1.6 Alfa and a 1.6 914. Of them all, I drove the smaller engine ones harder and had more fun in them.

Well Mikefocke your reply was considerably more helpful than Cmoose's haha Is the extra cost/gearbox/axle boot thing worth the mid range grunt on longer trips worth it over simply changing gear and working the smaller engine... Originally the S2000 was in the mix... And that also has a sweet engine that needs stirring even more than the 2.7... Perhaps the 2.7 is the considered middle ground of revs vs grunt...

A well looked after/maintained version of either will suit you fine, this is far more important than engine size on cars on this age, quality of examples vary massively!!

Yeah I accept that, don't want a pup. But do I hold out for the 'grunt' or look for the right 'free-revver'.... it's doing my head in.

There is a nice speed yellow 3.2 currently for sale with excellent spec if you like yellow that is, good low mileage 3.2 tend to be harder to find, they only built 987 3.2 for 2 years before the 3.4

jimmy p said: There is a nice speed yellow 3.2 currently for sale with excellent spec if you like yellow that is, good low mileage 3.2 tend to be harder to find, they only built 987 3.2 for 2 years before the 3.4 went to see it yesterday, sold before I go there

Quickmoose said: jimmy p said: There is a nice speed yellow 3.2 currently for sale with excellent spec if you like yellow that is, good low mileage 3.2 tend to be harder to find, they only built 987 3.2 for 2 years before the 3.4 went to see it yesterday, sold before I go there Oh dear too slow, that had been for sale for about 4 weeks, looked and sounded a good one!!

anonymous said: [redacted] So I get running the thing, will be nigh on the same, servicing and even insurance and fuel wise. I'm not a badge snob, not a pub stats bore, and genuinely am not after pure grunt. No traffic light GPs for me...I've enjoyed the zing of Vtec Hondas before and equally enjoyed big old school grunt from a 944 turbo.. So accepting I can wait for the right spec and quality of car... Which engine/drivetrain is best... best for our roads, our traffic, flexibility, enjoyment, sound Would I forever wished I'd got a 3.2 purely because it offers 'more'? How often would I feel it? For my budget I'm clearly on for a newer/fresher 2.7...is that worthwhile?

hmmm ok.... I just want to 'know' and to find, and to buy and to own....I'm impatient now I have cash burning a hole... Best use tis time to research spec etc... Gutted about the yellow one

To make things even harder for you. £15-20k now buys a really nice 2.9 Gen 2 Boxster New engines Newer Styling Nicer car Better engines 6 speed as standard etc etc Could be a better long term buy

Man maths be dammed I can't stretch anymore sadly as Ive already bought the 2nd car if my 2 car garage.... I don't have to by now... I can wait throughout the winter if need be... Or beyond....well I say I can wait, but I have an itchy trigger finger...

I've got a 3.2 987, I absolutely love it! Mine replaced a 986 3.2 which was written off in a non fault accident. For me, if I had gone for a 2.7 987 I'd have felt like it was a step down after having the 3.2 986. Agree with one of the posts above that you are likely to get a better spec on the 3.2 than a 2.7. I doubt there will be much difference in running costs, although if I remember correctly there could be a difference in the car tax with some years going from circa £280 to something like £465 per year. I'm sure someone with more knowledge will be along in a minute to confirm. 3.2 has 6 speed box, red calipers (nicer to look at in my opinion) & more grunt. Recently bought another Boxster (986) in the family as my brother got the Porsche 'bug'. He test drove a 2.7 & 3.2, then immediately made his mind up. His attitude was that the 2.7 didn't feel much more quicker than his mapped 120d BMW, whereas the 3.2 felt quicker from the off. Only you can make your mind up depending on how you drive it / what sort of use it will get. What I would say is search put the best example you can find for your budget (with some contingency funds set aside) as any Porsche can cost way more than the average car to bring up to scratch.

Tax wise both 3.2 and 2.7 are £290 prior to March 23rd 2006. After that I think they're all £490.... Until later when they both dip again but that model year is out if my budget...Not sure why I get hung up on £200 a year but hey. Whichever I plump for will have the spec I want and either way will be a step up in terms of driving feel. Light, 2 seater, mid engine'd open top.... Not been there before... I am though coming down on the 3.2 more than the 2.7.... Just....It just depends what comes on the market in the next 8 weeks or so..., Thanks for your experienced view though... Helps.

As always, buy on condition. For me though, when I was looking, it just had to be the 3.2. I did look at, and seriously consider, the 2.7 but I'm pretty sure I would've kicked myself later had I bought one when I had the chance to get a 3.2. I'm sure the 2.7 is the same but it goes round corners like nothing I've ever driven before :-) Budget an extra 1-2k in the first year whatever you get and if you haven't already, get yourself over to boxa.net.

yeah I'm on there...watching...

You need to be out there test driving. Your butt dyno will tell you what you want.

The brakes are better on a 3.2 also but for me, the real clincher was insurance. There was no real difference in price between the two.

So once I find one... This internet feeding frenzy about bore scoring, AMS and IMS... There are no numbers/stats. Half the people say it effects a tiny percentage, buy a 'good one', have a contingency, drive in good health. The other half say they wouldn't touch one. Are there any tell-tale signs to look for? signs whilst driving, things to see physically? Can Porsche do a 'check' of any kind?

The boxster is much more reliable than the 3.4 Cayman and Carrera's. IMS wise, failure is not that common on older cars but can happen. No bore score issues on Boxsters. RMS is just an oil seal which weaps a bit, nothing of a concern and is usually changed when car has new clutch. You are right about road tax up to March 2006 but also bear in mind that MY07(56plate on) 2.7 5 speed boxsters also qualify for the cheaper tax and have the most reliable IMS bearing. If reliability is priority over performance get a late MY07 2.7. If performance rules then it's the 3.2.

Quickmoose said: Tax wise both 3.2 and 2.7 are £290 prior to March 23rd 2006. After that I think they're all £490.... Until later when they both dip again but that model year is out if my budget...Not sure why I get hung up on £200 a year but hey. Whichever I plump for will have the spec I want and either way will be a step up in terms of driving feel. Light, 2 seater, mid engine'd open top.... Not been there before... I am though coming down on the 3.2 more than the 2.7.... Just....It just depends what comes on the market in the next 8 weeks or so..., Thanks for your experienced view though... Helps. Don't get too hung up on the tax thing, but I think it makes a reasonable difference. I have had mine 5 years now so the tax saving has more than paid for all of the work I have had done to the car in that time (failed water pump and a new set of tyres). Also, these have not reached the bottom of their depreciation curve yet and will be £7k cars in a few years time. Buyers at that type of level are much more likely to appreciate a £200 annual saving so it might help your resale slightly if it is not a keeper. I can't really comment too much on the 2.7 vs 3.2 issue as I have only driven the 3.2 for a reasonable length of time. If I was buying again, I think I'd still go for the 3.2 based on the same reasons summarised here - better performance/brakes, not much difference in purchase price and almost zero difference in running and insurance costs.

Thread resurrection! Obviously the last comment has not played out as predicted but no-one could foresee the market now so it seemed like a fair assessment at the time. So 7 years down the line what is the views now on the various flavours of 987? 2.7 / 2.9 / 3.2 / 3.4. There is a very broad spread from £10k for a 80k mile 2.7 to almost £30k for a low miles 3.4. Where is the sweet spot in terms of driving fun / reliability / value?

Bispal said: Thread resurrection! Obviously the last comment has not played out as predicted but no-one could foresee the market now so it seemed like a fair assessment at the time. Yep, certainly fair to say the market didn't pan out as expected when I wrote that post 6.5 years ago! I've still got my 2005 3.2S and it's probably worth almost the same now as it was then. I don't think I'll ever sell it though, I still enjoy it after all these years (12 in total this year). The tax saving has still netted me more than I've had to spend on repairs for the car - I finally had to get new brakes all round last year and the gearbox cable went. Costs are bound to start mounting a bit going forward though - suspension will need doing before long, another set of tyres and a small issue with the hood. Still reasonable for the type of car it is, and the £150 annual insurance is quite refreshing! Bispal said: So 7 years down the line what is the views now on the various flavours of 987? 2.7 / 2.9 / 3.2 / 3.4. There is a very broad spread from £10k for a 80k mile 2.7 to almost £30k for a low miles 3.4. Where is the sweet spot in terms of driving fun / reliability / value? I've still only ever driven a couple of other 987s as the dealer tends to loan me a 718 now, so the question will be better answered by someone with wider experience. I'm not sure I'd want to be paying at the higher end of that price spectrum for a 987 though. As much as I love them, they are too common to become a classic for quite some time yet, so a car priced at £20k+ would seem to have a fair bit of depreciating to do. I know I gat that wrong last time, but that had a lot more to do with market conditions in general than the specific demand for 987s.

Bispal said: Thread resurrection! Obviously the last comment has not played out as predicted but no-one could foresee the market now so it seemed like a fair assessment at the time. So 7 years down the line what is the views now on the various flavours of 987? 2.7 / 2.9 / 3.2 / 3.4. There is a very broad spread from £10k for a 80k mile 2.7 to almost £30k for a low miles 3.4. Where is the sweet spot in terms of driving fun / reliability / value? For me, either an early 3.2 or a 987.2 Gen 2. I bought a 66k mile, high spec 'S' of the latter for a fiver under £20k in November, all from a recognised sports car specialist. You've just got to be quick when they pop up for sale. I don't personally think knocking on for £30k is a good price for a low miles 987.2S.

Bispal said: Thread resurrection! Obviously the last comment has not played out as predicted but no-one could foresee the market now so it seemed like a fair assessment at the time. So 7 years down the line what is the views now on the various flavours of 987? 2.7 / 2.9 / 3.2 / 3.4. There is a very broad spread from £10k for a 80k mile 2.7 to almost £30k for a low miles 3.4. Where is the sweet spot in terms of driving fun / reliability / value? I've got a 981 3.4 S PDK and also a 986 3.2 S manual. We've just seen a very nice 986 3.2 S manual in speed yellow sell for 17k so maybe nice ones really are starting to appreciate finally. So I think if you want a good bet on future value you need the oldest car you can buy in the best condition. My 986 only has 25 thousand miles on the clock so it's definitely low mileage. This brings with it the problem that if you want to drive a low mileage can then it loses value. So I think the sweet spot in terms of value right now must be the 987 2.9 as it will hopefully have enough shove to excite but not too much. My 981 has the same engine as the 987 3.4 and it is a bit of an animal. If I drive the 986 it can sometimes feel a bit slow but then I drive the 981 and it feels a bit too quick and too easy. So I think the 2.9 gives you more solid engine reliability and enough power but not too much. You can hopefully use it without worrying about mileage. If you really want the quicker car then it's obvious you need the gen 2 3.4. If you want the best feel and enjoyment while going slower then you must get a 986. So there is no definitive answer as the question is too general. It really depends on what you want. Garage queen or daily gender which can also excite. Occasional use for sunny days only and kept as a third car or your only car which will be called on for track days and regular European trips. Give us an idea of what want to do with the car, what you want from the car, how often you will use it, how often you will wash it, track it, leave it outside or in a garage under a dust sheet or in a car coon etc.