718 S perfect road trip car - Page 2 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

Just back from 2,500 miles across Germany/Italy/Austria/France etc. in my 718 2.5S. I have now bonded with the car, and I can't think of anything better to do this trip in. I didn't want for more power on the alpine passes, the car was comfy, quiet, economical when cruising and sounded great in the mountain passes (Sports Chrono and PSE fitted). The 2.5T engine was also great for pulling you out of the switchbacks, no need to wait for the revs like in the 4.0 six. A faster car (on paper) would not have been more fun, especially a coupe, and watching some of the 911s rattle their owner's teeth out on the passes made me even more happy with my choice. My next trip will probably be back in a McLaren (spider next time of course), but to me the Boxster is Porsche's real sports car star.

Just done the same, it really is what Boxsters were made for, anything faster or wider on the passes is a waste of time and with the F6 PSE soundtrack in the tunnels/galleries as a bonus it really doesn't get any better than this.

Love a boxer. Always wished I had one over my Cayman, in summer at least.

The humble Boxster is the car that saved Porsche in the mid-late 90s say no more. Can’t beat a Boxster for open top driving my favourite was the 987 Spyder and the only car I regret selling

I agree, the Boxster is brilliant for touring across Europe and is sublime on mountain passes. And while mine is a 4.0 I do agree that the 4 pots would be more than enough to thoroughly enjoy the experience. More speed and power doesn't necessarily translate into more fun and enjoyment.

Boxsters are hard to beat for the money! You can fit so much luggage into them too so a two week holiday is no problem. I love mine, sure two extra cylinders wouldnt hurt but I dont feel short changed when on a nice road. I've just coming back from a tour of France and ticked over 50K Km's, would recommend to anyone.

Boxster FTW. Spent two weeks in northern Spain in May in the (new to me) 987.2. Fabulous car, lots of luggage space for two and a really enjoyable driving experience.

This was the luggage we had for a recent trip to Monaco and back in our 987.2 Boxster (not sure about the hotel decor though) …. And a few extras coming back …. Probably the perfect continental tourer. Capable, fun and practical, all in a very desirable package.

SkinnyPete said: Love a boxer. Always wished I had one over my Cayman, in summer at least. I bought a Cayman (as I swore as a teenager that I would have a Porsche one day) then 6 months later sold my long-term Caterham. I missed the open air, so bought an old MX5 with power hard top as a daily. I think a 718 Boxster could replace both of them (though a Cayman Targa would be my dream car!!) with a cheap old shed as a daily.

NW Spain a few weeks ago

Well I’ve had 4 Boxsters, the latest a 2017 718 2.0 PDK bought at 6 months old. As others have said, a European road trip is exactly what these cars are built for. All of mine have toured Europe extensively including France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands among others. They are brilliant practical cars and no impact on luggage space when the roof is down. We always stay in Airbnb’s and ensure we have a washing machine in our accommodation at some stage of our tour. And plenty of room for wine, champagne, pastis etc etc (44 bottles last time with space for more!) Our next road trip is travelling through France into Northern Spain (Basque region) in around 7 weeks time - can’t wait!

targarama said: Just back from 2,500 miles across Germany/Italy/Austria/France etc. in my 718 2.5S. I have now bonded with the car, and I can't think of anything better to do this trip in. I didn't want for more power on the alpine passes, the car was comfy, quiet, economical when cruising and sounded great in the mountain passes (Sports Chrono and PSE fitted). The 2.5T engine was also great for pulling you out of the switchbacks, no need to wait for the revs like in the 4.0 six. A faster car (on paper) would not have been more fun, especially a coupe, and watching some of the 911s rattle their owner's teeth out on the passes made me even more happy with my choice. My next trip will probably be back in a McLaren (spider next time of course), but to me the Boxster is Porsche's real sports car star. Completely agree, and this mirrors my own experience. On paper the flat-six looks like the “proper” Porsche engine, but out on the road — especially somewhere like the Alps — the four-cylinder turbo just makes more sense. The torque delivery is the whole story. You’re not waiting for 5,000rpm to arrive before the car does anything interesting; it’s already pulling hard from 2,000, which is exactly what you want coming out of a hairpin rather than sitting there working up through the revs like the 4.0 six needs you to. On a long trip that adds up to a much less tiring drive — you’re not constantly hunting for the right gear to keep it in the sweet spot. And your point about “faster on paper ≠ more fun” is the crux of it. Point-to-point on a real road, with real traffic, real surfaces and real corners, the four’s flexibility and the way it just gets on with overtakes without drama beats a car that’s “quicker” in a straight line but needs everything lined up perfectly to feel good. The six sounds better standing still in a car park. The four is the better tool for actually driving.

Mar5hall said: Completely agree, and this mirrors my own experience. On paper the flat-six looks like the proper Porsche engine, but out on the road especially somewhere like the Alps the four-cylinder turbo just makes more sense. The torque delivery is the whole story. You re not waiting for 5,000rpm to arrive before the car does anything interesting; it s already pulling hard from 2,000, which is exactly what you want coming out of a hairpin rather than sitting there working up through the revs like the 4.0 six needs you to. On a long trip that adds up to a much less tiring drive you re not constantly hunting for the right gear to keep it in the sweet spot. And your point about faster on paper ? more fun is the crux of it. Point-to-point on a real road, with real traffic, real surfaces and real corners, the four s flexibility and the way it just gets on with overtakes without drama beats a car that s quicker in a straight line but needs everything lined up perfectly to feel good. The six sounds better standing still in a car park. The four is the better tool for actually driving. Horses for courses. It really is zero hardship (quite the opposite) to downshift and remain above 3500rpm. I would suggest on a road trip, the event of the upper range on a 6-cylinder is what makes up for it being less relaxing on a commute through town, which is where the turbo-4 clearly has the advantage. All brilliant things, that’s a certainty.

Mar5hall said: AI Slop Why are all your replies on PH AI generated? Back on topic - totally agree. Did a few EU roadtrips in my (now gone) 987 Boxster S. Brilliant cars.

A Boxster in the Alps? I took last Thursday and Friday off work… On the way past Gstaad towards St Moritz, via Süsten, Grimsel, Furka and Oberalp passes. And then back again along the same route the next day : As a aside, I took my (lighter but comparable power-weight figures) A110S to Milan three weeks ago via the Simplon and Gd St Bernard passes. Yes, a 4-pot turbo does have more grunt; a similar max torque figure is at 2000rpm lower. But as RJ said above, it’s just a simple matter keeping the F6 NA engine above 3500rpm, enjoying the noise and of course visiting more petrol stations

Michael_B said: A Boxster in the Alps? I took last Thursday and Friday off work On the way past Gstaad towards St Moritz, via Süsten, Grimsel, Furka and Oberalp passes. This is what it’s all about. Perfection.

Mar5hall said: Completely agree, and this mirrors my own experience. On paper the flat-six looks like the proper Porsche engine, but out on the road especially somewhere like the Alps the four-cylinder turbo just makes more sense. The torque delivery is the whole story. You re not waiting for 5,000rpm to arrive before the car does anything interesting; it s already pulling hard from 2,000, which is exactly what you want coming out of a hairpin rather than sitting there working up through the revs like the 4.0 six needs you to. On a long trip that adds up to a much less tiring drive you re not constantly hunting for the right gear to keep it in the sweet spot. And your point about faster on paper ? more fun is the crux of it. Point-to-point on a real road, with real traffic, real surfaces and real corners, the four s flexibility and the way it just gets on with overtakes without drama beats a car that s quicker in a straight line but needs everything lined up perfectly to feel good. The six sounds better standing still in a car park. The four is the better tool for actually driving. You are missing the point of the thread completely, people buy what they want to drive for whatever reason they want, it isn't a competition, it isn't about who is right and wrong. It is about enjoying what you own and drive visiting some of the best driving roads on the planet. Given that the vast majority of readers are not interested in what you (another self proclaimed clueless expert) think about their car why not post some pictures of where you have driven your car instead, I am sure we would all like to see them?

Gratuitous post to agree that these cars are great for road trips. This pic from the Picos last month We're already planning next year's adventure. Don't think I'll ever sell this car

To all the 718 4-pot fanboys who are suggesting that the 718 turbos’ key strength (vs the naturally aspirated 981 flat 6 ) in real world driving is its easily accessible torque delivery , I would suggest that you work that little bit harder to ensure that you are in the correct gear at all times. And the 718 4 cylinder cars definitely suffer from a discernible degree of of turbo-lag vs their N/A predecessors. I would prefer to do the tiny bit of extra work required by the flat 6 to be rid of the 4-pots’ turbo lag (not to mention the benefits of a screaming, high revving flat 6 ) Other might have different views and priorities, but being in the correct gear for each and every situation transcends make and model.

carspath1 said: To all the 718 4-pot fanboys who are suggesting that the 718 turbos key strength (vs the naturally aspirated 981 flat 6 ) in real world driving is its easily accessible torque delivery , I would suggest that you work that little bit harder to ensure that you are in the correct gear at all times. And the 718 4 cylinder cars definitely suffer from a discernible degree of of turbo-lag vs their N/A predecessors. I would prefer to do the tiny bit of extra work required by the flat 6 to be rid of the 4-pots turbo lag (not to mention the benefits of a screaming, high revving flat 6 ) Other might have different views and priorities, but being in the correct gear for each and every situation transcends make and model. Lag lol. Just get a pdk or put it in sport mode. Check out a Saab 900 if you want lag. Porsche have effectively removed lag.

I was surprised how much more lag the 2.0 has compared with the 2.5, that 2.5 was quite impressive in that regard. But I preferred the amount of power the 2.0 had, it was perfect for back road blasts imho.

Hi Mar5hall, We can stay with the same manufacturer and not have to bring in Saab. In the 1990’s I did about 70,000 miles in a 220bhp 944 Turbo , and I am not suggesting that the 718 turbo cars have anything like as much lag as their immediate 4-pot turbo antecedents. I test drove a 718S pretty much it-was available in the UK and the thing that bothered me most was the lag and not the sound . I asked Porsche to find me a 981 and they found one in the bowels of Reading . I appreciate that the 718 is a truly fine car with many attributes that surpass the 981 -and any lag an again be ‘cured’ by keeping at a high enough engine speed. And yes, the Boxster , whether 981 or 718, is a fine tourer and a fine car - of the 44000 miles on my car , less than 4,000 have been done on UK roads .

carspath1 said: To all the 718 4-pot fanboys who are suggesting that the 718 turbos key strength (vs the naturally aspirated 981 flat 6 ) in real world driving is its easily accessible torque delivery , I would suggest that you work that little bit harder to ensure that you are in the correct gear at all times. And the 718 4 cylinder cars definitely suffer from a discernible degree of of turbo-lag vs their N/A predecessors. I would prefer to do the tiny bit of extra work required by the flat 6 to be rid of the 4-pots turbo lag (not to mention the benefits of a screaming, high revving flat 6 ) Other might have different views and priorities, but being in the correct gear for each and every situation transcends make and model. I didn’t want this thread to turn into a wibble about which is better. Both are great, but many have not tried the 4 pot on very tight Alpine roads. In reality when following another car into a tight Alpine switchback I was dropping my 2.5 to first gear (PDK) to keep it on boost and it went very well. No way Jose would a 6 pot have been above whatever rpm to make it fly on the same corner exit in any gear without dumping the clutch. On a more open tight ish corner yes the speed and revs are up a bit and help the 6 pot keep on song. Or for example on a more empty road where you can flow. But try driving those roads without catching traffic at this time of year 🤷‍♂️

Did quite a few trips down to Tuscany and S of France in my original 986S back in the mid 90s. Every trip was an event. I’m sure the 718 is wonderful to do it in. Enjoy in good health!

Ed.Neumann said: I was surprised how much more lag the 2.0 has compared with the 2.5, that 2.5 was quite impressive in that regard. But I preferred the amount of power the 2.0 had, it was perfect for back road blasts imho. Doesn’t the 2.0 have a fixed vain angle turbo, the 2.5 has variable vain turbo so should remove the lag pretty much completely.

targarama said: I didn t want this thread to turn into a wibble about which is better. Both are great, but many have not tried the 4 pot on very tight Alpine roads. In reality when following another car into a tight Alpine switchback I was dropping my 2.5 to first gear (PDK) to keep it on boost and it went very well. No way Jose would a 6 pot have been above whatever rpm to make it fly on the same corner exit in any gear without dumping the clutch. On a more open tight ish corner yes the speed and revs are up a bit and help the 6 pot keep on song. Or for example on a more empty road where you can flow. But try driving those roads without catching traffic at this time of year ???? Fortunately didn’t get held up on any pass on Thurs/Fri last week in my 987 Spyder : Col des Mosses, Süsten (apart from having to return to Innertkirchen due to an accident and road closure), Grimsel, Furka, Realp and Oberalp passes towards Graubünden. But I was travelling at off peak times, e.g. I started a deserted Süstenpass westwards from Wassen on Friday at 7pm and didn’t see another vehicle til 3-4 parked at the summit. Sunset was around 9.30pm. Rarely into 4th gear, mostly 3rd and down to 2nd (>3000rpm) for most tight hairpins, never down to 1st. PDK so no clutch shenanigans possible, but also driving alone so didn’t have to worry about a passenger’s stomach On the trip to Milan at the beginning of July I was accompanied by Mrs B, and the low down torque of a 4-cylinder turbo was much easier to handle fast but in a passenger-tolerable manner via the Simplon and Grand St Bernard. The steering is much more communicative in the Porsche, but the A110 does make the Spyder feel a bit lardy In overall driving terms IMO there’s not a lot in it; I reckon PDK/DCT is a more important element for hours of mountain roads. I’m sure a manual transmission might be more engaging for an hour or two, but for 950km over two days I was very glad of the ease and immediacy of a DCT vehicle.

Michael_B said: Fortunately didn t get held up on any pass on Thurs/Fri last week in my 987 Spyder : Col des Mosses, Süsten (apart from having to return to Innertkirchen due to an accident and road closure), Grimsel, Furka, Realp and Oberalp passes towards Graubünden. But I was travelling at off peak times, e.g. I started a deserted Süstenpass westwards from Wassen on Friday at 7pm and didn t see another vehicle til 3-4 parked at the summit. Sunset was around 9.30pm. Rarely into 4th gear, mostly 3rd and down to 2nd (>3000rpm) for most tight hairpins, never down to 1st. PDK so no clutch shenanigans possible, but also driving alone so didn t have to worry about a passenger s stomach On the trip to Milan at the beginning of July I was accompanied by Mrs B, and the low down torque of a 4-cylinder turbo was much easier to handle fast but in a passenger-tolerable manner via the Simplon and Grand St Bernard. The steering is much more communicative in the Porsche, but the A110 does make the Spyder feel a bit lardy In overall driving terms IMO there s not a lot in it; I reckon PDK/DCT is a more important element for hours of mountain roads. I m sure a manual transmission might be more engaging for an hour or two, but for 950km over two days I was very glad of the ease and immediacy of a DCT vehicle. Must be awesome to have those roads to yourself!

I had a 2.0 for 18 months and in my opinion it had little to no turbo lag on the move but a very slight hesitation in first gear when pulling away in a hurry. It was a PDK. I have said before that I think it was the best sports car Porsche have ever made for the money and I still think that's true today despite now having a 4.0. That car is quite astonishing and I've driven it on several passes across the Alps and it lacked neither power or torque on the climb and decent. It was thoroughly enjoyable at modest speeds and I look forward to doing again at some point in the future. I don't understand the need to criticise either power plant as both are capable of delivering an incredibly rewarding experience in a package that is consistently rated as being one of the best that Porsche has ever produced. We all have our own preferences but the real enthusiast will always appreciate what the alternatives are capable of achieving and in my opinion, in this instance, there really is no wrong answer only preferences. I can imagine that every other Boxster/Cayman is equally capable of putting a smile on it's drivers face regardless of the model, generation, power plant and gearbox having owned a 987, 981 and 2 718 versions over nearly 20 years. Ultimately they're all quite brilliant at what they do and the pleasure they give. I'm glad I've had the opportunity to enjoy all of mine. Edited by Voodoo Blue on Sunday 19th July 21:33

MB140 said: Doesn t the 2.0 have a fixed vain angle turbo, the 2.5 has variable vain turbo so should remove the lag pretty much completely. Yeah, I will be honest and didn't realise this when I was testing them, I was quite surprised at the difference. If I hadn't tried the 2.5 I would have probably swapped my 997 for a 718 Cayman. I did try the 718 S though and because I wanted one in guards or carmine one simply didn't come up for sale with the right options or the right price, so I kept the 997. But both are great and I would happily have either, the way Porsche have made them feel, a bit more so the 2.5, is pretty impressive.

Michael_B said: Fortunately didn t get held up on any pass on Thurs/Fri last week in my 987 Spyder : Col des Mosses, Süsten (apart from having to return to Innertkirchen due to an accident and road closure), Grimsel, Furka, Realp and Oberalp passes towards Graubünden. But I was travelling at off peak times, e.g. I started a deserted Süstenpass westwards from Wassen on Friday at 7pm and didn t see another vehicle til 3-4 parked at the summit. Sunset was around 9.30pm. Rarely into 4th gear, mostly 3rd and down to 2nd (>3000rpm) for most tight hairpins, never down to 1st. PDK so no clutch shenanigans possible, but also driving alone so didn t have to worry about a passenger s stomach On the trip to Milan at the beginning of July I was accompanied by Mrs B, and the low down torque of a 4-cylinder turbo was much easier to handle fast but in a passenger-tolerable manner via the Simplon and Grand St Bernard. The steering is much more communicative in the Porsche, but the A110 does make the Spyder feel a bit lardy In overall driving terms IMO there s not a lot in it; I reckon PDK/DCT is a more important element for hours of mountain roads. I m sure a manual transmission might be more engaging for an hour or two, but for 950km over two days I was very glad of the ease and immediacy of a DCT vehicle. It sounds like you live somewhere around the Vaud-alpes? I spend a lot of time in Les Diablerets; the roads around there are really special. Recently, did a little road trip (Susten, Klausen, Gottard, Nufenen, Furka/Grimsel), really great fun (in a mere Cayman though!). The Spyder looks perfect, enjoy in good health.

LBT123456 said: It sounds like you live somewhere around the Vaud-alpes? I spend a lot of time in Les Diablerets; the roads around there are really special. Recently, did a little road trip (Susten, Klausen, Gottard, Nufenen, Furka/Grimsel), really great fun (in a mere Cayman though!). The Spyder looks perfect, enjoy in good health. Thanks, I’m very happy with it; as I was with my mere Cayman (also a 987.2) for five years til 2019 I’ve been primarily based in a small Genevan village since 1999, and do most of my driving/riding in France/Italy. But last Thursday I did indeed drive past Glacier 3000 on my way north-eastwards towards Spiez. Your route sounds great, how long did it take you?