Which 987 Boxster - Page 2 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

Due to lack of use (1000 miles per year), and a good offer from an OPC, I’ve just sold my 2022 Cayman GTS 4.0. Very good car but for such rare use it always felt a bit too competent. With a young family the chance of using it was getting harder and harder. Ive now decided to buy a very good condition 987 Boxster for around £15k. Would like a manual and happy with a 2.7 or 2.9. A lower performance manual convertible appeals. I would probably keep it for a while and will keep it in good condition, hopefully retaining its value. Won’t feel as guilty not using a £15k car much vs the £70k nearly new Cayman! I understand only the 3.4S is the one that can have engine issues? Any advice on 2.7 vs 2.9 and what should I look out for? Thanks!

You can also get into a 3.2. The 2.9 in the gen II is a good option, although if it were me I’d try snd find a 3.4 that’s had the work done to address the potential borescore issues.

Are all 3.4s prone to bore score?

987.1 3.4's can suffer, the gen2 cars are fine.

A low mileage 3.2 is what I’d go for

matt21 said: With a young family the chance of using it was getting harder and harder. Surely this is true of a boxster as well?

I had a 987 2.7 Boxster for about 8 years and funnily enough now have a 4.0 718 Boxster. The 987 was a brilliant car and we drove it all over Europe in the time we had it but compared with the 4.0 it will feel a lot less capable regardless of engine size and a little less modern. In our case the 987 was a manual and the 718 is PDK. I think the manual suited the 987 and PDK wasn't available until the .2 version and of course a jump to 2.9 litres on the base model. The only other things I would point out on the 987 was that ours ran on 18" alloys and on rough roads it could get a bit crashy and uncomfortable, I'm told the 17" wheels are better but have no experience of that. The 2.7 engine is less prone to bore scoring and IMS/RMS issues but is not immune. I would highly recommend an inspection of any likely candidate prior to purchase for peace of mind and be aware that around 2006/7 there were some road tax changes which results in some manual cars (6 speeds I think) costing a lot more than others. Mine was a 2008 5 speed which was in the lower tax bracket and I was quite happy about that. The only other thing I'd suggest is don't discount a 981 2.7. It will be incredibly familiar to you and in my opinion they sound brilliant compared to a 987 and 718 flat six especially if you get one with PSE. We also have a 981 2.7 Cayman PDK and while it's not as capable and doesn't have the more modern ICE etc. it's still a brilliant car to drive and of course is a big step up from the 987, IMS/RMS are no longer an issue and bore scoring is also incredibly rare. We took ours up to Wales for a few days this summer and drove them back to back around the EVO Triangle and thoroughly enjoyed them both without getting carried away with speed. I'd be tempted to say that a 981 2.7 might just be the perfect Sunday morning car in today's world for the money. Edited by Voodoo Blue on Sunday 27th September 19:11

and31 said: A low mileage 3.2 is what I d go for It is true, but I enjoy having a Porsche and participating in Porsche Club Events with my father who is elderly now, but had a Porsche for 30 years until he stopped driving. I would get the same pleasure from a £15k car than a £70k car. I also have the pleasure of owning a M3 CSL, which is pretty bonkers, so having a fairly low powered Boxster to cruise around in with the roof down is very appealing. A manual gearbox adds to it! If it doesn't get used much I won't have the guilt of not using the GTS 4.0.

Voodoo Blue said: I had a 987 2.7 Boxster for about 8 years and funnily enough now have a 4.0 718 Boxster. The 987 was a brilliant car and we drove it all over Europe in the time we had it but compared with the 4.0 it will feel a lot less capable regardless of engine size and a little less modern. In our case the 987 was a manual and the 718 is PDK. I think the manual suited the 987 and PDK wasn't available until the .2 version and of course a jump to 2.9 litres on the base model. The only other things I would point out on the 987 was that ours ran on 18" alloys and on rough roads it could get a bit crashy and uncomfortable, I'm told the 17" wheels are better but have no experience of that. The 2.7 engine is less prone to bore scoring and IMS/RMS issues but is not immune. I would highly recommend an inspection of any likely candidate prior to purchase for peace of mind and be aware that around 2006/7 there were some road tax changes which results in some manual cars (6 speeds I think) costing a lot more than others. Mine was a 2008 5 speed which was in the lower tax bracket and I was quite happy about that. The only other thing I'd suggest is don't discount a 981 2.7. It will be incredibly familiar to you and in my opinion they sound brilliant compared to a 987 and 718 flat six especially if you get one with PSE. We also have a 981 2.7 Cayman PDK and while it's not as capable and doesn't have the more modern ICE etc. it's still a brilliant car to drive and of course is a big step up from the 987, IMS/RMS are no longer an issue and bore scoring is also incredibly rare. We took ours up to Wales for a few days this summer and drove them back to back around the EVO Triangle and thoroughly enjoyed them both without getting carried away with speed. I'd be tempted to say that a 981 2.7 might just be the perfect Sunday morning car in today's world for the money. Edited by Voodoo Blue on Sunday 27th September 19:11 Thanks, did look at a 981, but my £15k budget is a bit tight. I would like a very good condition, reasonably low mileage car, which is £25k+. I am happy for it to feel much older and more analogue compared to the GTS.

Or you could just do what I did, brave pill buy the first 987.1 3.4S Boxster you go see for 10k as it looked so good what could possibly be wrong? It didn't smoke at cold start, didn't tap and drove great. The history was great bar a recent trip to a crap garage. Driving it home with my daughter was one of our best days ever together. Got it borescoped and serviced at lap 911 soon after and the pictures came out perfect, no score at all on 80k miles. Sometimes going against the grain and common sense pays off. 2 months in with the confidence the engine is ok and I've changed the entire suspension including all coffin arms, drop links, mounts and arms and upgraded the shocks to koni adjustable with spyder springs (from carnewal) new manifolds as one started blowing (upgrade to 200 cell carnewal) and also had the crossover pipes and and a rear coolant leak fixed. Oh and added the IPD Plenum, induction kit and bosch GT3 throttle body along with a tune to "bring it together" now delivering a super healthy 329hp. Pretty confident I've not only got one of the best future proofed 987s out there, actually better in every way than stock and still true to the originals chracter, it's one of the best normally aspirated manual analogue sports cars ever made for ~16k. The other way would have been buying a super low miles version for the same total price but likely would need most that work doing anyway given the age. I'd have higher miles with condition and provenance any day over an aesthetically perfect low miles garage queen with gaps and questions. Edited by tenmantaylor on Sunday 27th September 23:31 Edited by tenmantaylor on Sunday 27th September 23:35

Finally got round to cleaning the leather interior properly yesterday and gave her a clean for the run out to the Porsche club breakfast; Edited by tenmantaylor on Sunday 27th September 23:57

If you find yourself one last of the 3.2s from around mid-2005 up until they switched to the 3.4, you should be well clear of the big issues.

So the 987.1 S was 3.2 then went 3.4 (which is best to avoid), then the 987.2 S was 3.2? Seen a 1 owner 12k car, with FPSH. Can't decide if it is good value or not. https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202608195...

Not quite, 987.2S is 3.4 but totally different engine design. Base 987.2, 2.9 is a good engine without High pressure fuel system of the 3.4.

matt21 said: So the 987.1 S was 3.2 then went 3.4 (which is best to avoid), then the 987.2 S was 3.2? Seen a 1 owner 12k car, with FPSH. Can't decide if it is good value or not. https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202608195... No the .2 S is also a 3.4, but a completely different engine , and doesn t suffer from bore score edit-Philvrs beat me too it.. Edited by and31 on Tuesday 29th September 20:49

I have a 987.1 RS60 with 90K on the clock. It is immaculate, everything has worn very well. It has all the toys you may need. Mine is manual. I’ve done many track days with it, general cruising with my wife and it hasn’t missed a beat. I do all the servicing and repairs myself. Renewed one front suspension leg, (slight leak), radiator pipes and a pair of AC condensers . No bore score, doesn’t use oil and is absolutely fine. Bore score only affects a small percentage but obviously is out there. Great cars in my opinion. Rides perfectly on its 19” wheels with PASM.

matt21 said: Seen a 1 owner 12k car, with FPSH. Can't decide if it is good value or not. https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202608195... I would say it depends if you want to use it, at that mileage, adding much more is really going to affect depreciation. Age related wear and tear will happen to certain components not covered by full porsche service history, unless the previous owner just told them to replace everything they recommended ( which would be mental!!!) I’d also say its not really a desirable model in terms of collecting, so I don’t really understand it.

Philvrs said: Not quite, 987.2S is 3.4 but totally different engine design. Base 987.2, 2.9 is a good engine without High pressure fuel system of the 3.4. Thanks! 2.7 engine ok too?

matt21 said: Philvrs said: Not quite, 987.2S is 3.4 but totally different engine design. Base 987.2, 2.9 is a good engine without High pressure fuel system of the 3.4. Thanks! 2.7 engine ok too? The 2.7 tends to be fine. Not afflicted with borescrore. It's also a lovely tuneful engine that is a joy to wring out on UK roads.

My son has a 987 2.7 and loves it. Fabulous car. It s never caused him a problem in 3 years of ownership but he has maintained it exceptionally well at the Porsche independent where he bought it. Probably coming up for sale too. Edited by sinbaddio on Wednesday 30th September 15:45

The 2.7 is great. If you look at performance figures 0-100 ,the 2.7 5 speed is quicker than the S. Go on be honest, how often do you drive over 100?

Yeah I don't need the S. Good to hear the 2.7 is a sweet engine. Is the 2.9 in the 987.2 as good?

I would imagine the 2.9 is slightly quicker and possibly has a bit more torque. We’ve had a 2005 2.7 for 5 years now and I have thought about getting a newer 981. Paid £10k for it and it’s just gone over 80k miles. Then I go for a drive and cannot see how spending £15k plus mine will make it any more fun. The 2.7 sounds lovely once you go over 4k revs. I do less than 3k miles per year and I budget around £100 per month for servicing, tyres and anything else that comes up. Insurance is also £150 per year.

Stumpysid said: I would imagine the 2.9 is slightly quicker and possibly has a bit more torque. We ve had a 2005 2.7 for 5 years now and I have thought about getting a newer 981. Paid £10k for it and it s just gone over 80k miles. Then I go for a drive and cannot see how spending £15k plus mine will make it any more fun. The 2.7 sounds lovely once you go over 4k revs. I do less than 3k miles per year and I budget around £100 per month for servicing, tyres and anything else that comes up. Insurance is also £150 per year. I went from a 2.7 987: To a 981S: The 981 is a big step up in many ways. But I would not say it is more fun . I think a £10-£12k 987 2.7 has to be a sweet spot in all UK motoring, really.

stichill99 said: The 2.7 is great. If you look at performance figures 0-100 ,the 2.7 5 speed is quicker than the S. Go on be honest, how often do you drive over 100? I struggle to believe that not that anybody is buying based on 0-100 times.

edc said: stichill99 said: The 2.7 is great. If you look at performance figures 0-100 ,the 2.7 5 speed is quicker than the S. Go on be honest, how often do you drive over 100? I struggle to believe that not that anybody is buying based on 0-100 times. I’m with you on that. A quick google search. 987.1 Boxster Performance Breakdown • Base Boxster (2.7L flat-six, 240–245 hp) • 0–60 mph: ~5.8 to 6.2 seconds • 0–100 mph: ~15.2 to 15.5 seconds • Boxster S (3.2L flat-six, 280 hp - 2005–2006) • 0–60 mph: ~5.4 seconds (manual) • 0–100 mph: ~14.2 seconds • Boxster S (3.4L flat-six, 295 hp - 2007–2008) • 0–60 mph: ~5.1 to 5.4 seconds (manual) • 0–100 mph: ~11.8 to 13.5 seconds (dependent on gear ratios and test conditions) A snapshot of your RS60 Spyder's acceleration profile: Metric Time 0–60 mph 4.8 – 5.1 seconds 0–100 mph 11.4 – 12.7 seconds 1/4 Mile ~13.3 seconds @ 100+ mph Top Speed 172 mph (276 km/h)

We have a 987.1 2.7 Tiptronic, my Mrs daily drives it in the summer. Fantastic car, not too thirsty, plenty of poke and looks great. Apart from regular servicing I had the timing belt, injectors and AC rads changed. We took it on a 14 day 3000 mile tour of Europe: Belgium -> Germany -> Luxembourg -> Lichtenstein -> Switzerland -> Italy -> Monaco -> Nice -> Paris then back home, never missed a beat! The colour is Atlantic Grey, looks black in some lights and deep metallic blue in others.

Gurpreetman said: We have a 987.1 2.7 Tiptronic, my Mrs daily drives it in the summer. Fantastic car, not too thirsty, plenty of poke and looks great. Apart from regular servicing I had the timing belt, injectors and AC rads changed. We took it on a 14 day 3000 mile tour of Europe: Belgium -> Germany -> Luxembourg -> Lichtenstein -> Switzerland -> Italy -> Monaco -> Nice -> Paris then back home, never missed a beat! The colour is Atlantic Grey, looks black in some lights and deep metallic blue in others. Did you mean Atlas Grey?

phazed said: edc said: stichill99 said: The 2.7 is great. If you look at performance figures 0-100 ,the 2.7 5 speed is quicker than the S. Go on be honest, how often do you drive over 100? I struggle to believe that not that anybody is buying based on 0-100 times. I m with you on that. A quick google search. 987.1 Boxster Performance Breakdown Base Boxster (2.7L flat-six, 240 245 hp) 0 60 mph: ~5.8 to 6.2 seconds 0 100 mph: ~15.2 to 15.5 seconds Boxster S (3.2L flat-six, 280 hp - 2005 2006) 0 60 mph: ~5.4 seconds (manual) 0 100 mph: ~14.2 seconds Boxster S (3.4L flat-six, 295 hp - 2007 2008) 0 60 mph: ~5.1 to 5.4 seconds (manual) 0 100 mph: ~11.8 to 13.5 seconds (dependent on gear ratios and test conditions) A snapshot of your RS60 Spyder's acceleration profile: Metric Time 0 60 mph 4.8 5.1 seconds 0 100 mph 11.4 12.7 seconds 1/4 Mile ~13.3 seconds @ 100+ mph Top Speed 172 mph (276 km/h) This is interesting and proves in my eyes that the 3.4, engine issues aside, is the one to have. As is the case with these things, you buy the 5 speed 2.7 and you’ll end up with d!ck envy over the S, snd will spend your time justifying your purchase to yourself and your friends.

maz8062 said: phazed said: edc said: stichill99 said: The 2.7 is great. If you look at performance figures 0-100 ,the 2.7 5 speed is quicker than the S. Go on be honest, how often do you drive over 100? I struggle to believe that not that anybody is buying based on 0-100 times. I m with you on that. A quick google search. 987.1 Boxster Performance Breakdown Base Boxster (2.7L flat-six, 240 245 hp) 0 60 mph: ~5.8 to 6.2 seconds 0 100 mph: ~15.2 to 15.5 seconds Boxster S (3.2L flat-six, 280 hp - 2005 2006) 0 60 mph: ~5.4 seconds (manual) 0 100 mph: ~14.2 seconds Boxster S (3.4L flat-six, 295 hp - 2007 2008) 0 60 mph: ~5.1 to 5.4 seconds (manual) 0 100 mph: ~11.8 to 13.5 seconds (dependent on gear ratios and test conditions) A snapshot of your RS60 Spyder's acceleration profile: Metric Time 0 60 mph 4.8 5.1 seconds 0 100 mph 11.4 12.7 seconds 1/4 Mile ~13.3 seconds @ 100+ mph Top Speed 172 mph (276 km/h) This is interesting and proves in my eyes that the 3.4, engine issues aside, is the one to have. This is a good example of how only looking at numbers on a page is a completely ineffective way to assess a situation. The 2.7 and 3.4 Boxsters are quite different in sound and character, and how they feel on the road. I spent a lot of my time in my 3.4 S thinking that my 2.7 had been more fun. maz8062 said: As is the case with these things, you buy the 5 speed 2.7 and you ll end up with d!ck envy over the S, snd will spend your time justifying your purchase to yourself and your friends. You might, but only if you're insecure and have immature, shallow friends.

My daughter had the 2.7 in a 05 car with a five speed box. Lovely car to drive and I wouldn’t knock it for what it was. By comparison my RS60 is that much quicker and the six speed box is a joy. I have used mine regularly on Track Days and as I said previously it’s done over 90 K now and has never missed a beat. Here is a little video with me following my friends 4.6 Turbo TVR. at Cadwell. https://youtu.be/T-eQWy7Q03s?is=1X5oErPyp0L-SuT4

I looked at Caymans briefly, the 2.9 seems to be a sweet spot for reliability and performance. Less common though. As a huge fan that would like to own a Porsche one day I personally could not buy one that has a known troublesome engine unless it had had the necessary work done.

paulguitar said: You might, but only if you're insecure and have immature, shallow friends. Is the correct answer.