Boxster 987 2.7 17" or 18" alloys for best ride & handling.. - Page 2 - Boxster/Cayman - PistonHeads UK

Hi all, Quick question for Boxster 2.7 owners out there,I'm currently looking to purchase a 2005/06 Boxster 2.7 and was wondering what's the best size of wheel for the car in terms of ride & handling,I know they came with 17's as standard but the Boxster S 18" wheel was an option from new and I've seen these fitted to many 2.7's for sale.Viewed a Seal Grey 2005 Boxster 2.7 on Saturday with the 18" Boxster S alloys fitted but couldn't help thinking after the drive the car would be sweeter on the standard 17's. Can anybody share their thoughts please..... Thanks

17's all day long. Whilst the larger wheels may look better, the smaller ones will make for a much better ride while permitting more 'playful' handling characteristics.

depends what you want, it will prob handle better on the 18" and ride nicer on the 17" lower series rubber always feel nicer when cornering due to less rubber moving about so the car feels more direct. the later cars only run 35 series rubber.

I had 18" wheels in my 2005 Boxster 2.7 (also in Seal Grey) I sold the car in November and moved in to a 2009 3.4 Boxster S with the 19"s. Neither had PASM. I found the 18" wheels on the 2.7 perfectly comfortable, the 19" wheels in the Boxster S however are a tad harsh for my liking. If I change in the future, I'll look for PASM, or the middle size wheel option. In my opinion the 18" wheels are a good compromise between looks, handling and comfort. The 17"s look too small, especially on the back which has a thicker sidewall than the front tyres.

Trev450 said: 17's all day long. Whilst the larger wheels may look better, the smaller ones will make for a much better ride while permitting more 'playful' handling characteristics. I've got 17s on my 987 - rides pretty well. That being said, I can't compare to the same car on 18/19s....

Try the wheels from one of those toy cars you get at Shell. Turn off PSM. Never change up from 2nd. Drive the car like it is meant to be driven. (Or, if you want to know what everyone else would actually do, go for the 18s as they will make your car more capable. If people really liked less grip, they would buy crap tyres.)

From what little I have read, it seems curious that only the Brits and Yanks are into ultra wide wheels and rubber band tyres. The initial idea comes from racing where bigger wheels were needed to fit bigger brakes and damn the comfort factor as racing drivers are more interested in braking and turn in. Great for track days as well. For the road, the smaller wheels and higher profile tyres make for a more compliant ride that copes better with potholes, tramlines, etc. However, this was all corrupted when certain pop-starts and celebrities wanted BLING wheels and to hell with the consequences and this has spread through the industry. Incidentally, I defy most people to accurately tell 17" and 18" wheels apart if standing more than 10m from a car. Finally, if you are concerned about resale values, the bigger wheels may help as they are plenty of people who believe that bigger is better and want the bling.

I tested this subject out on my 968. My indy got me some 17s to replace the standard 16 inch Cups, and I used them for a few months. I had expected to love the bigger wheels and lower profile rubber, but any aesthetic improvment was completely overshadowed by the degree to which my fillings dropped out on our cr*p roads. I went back to the OE wheels. Later on we had both a 2.7 987 Boxster and a 996 C4 cab in the garage for a time. The 911 rides on 18s - I know it's a different car but the Box on its standard 17s was much more compliant on those same country roads. It's probably not so much of an issue if you live in the town and have better maintained surfaces or mainly motorway driving.

I just bought a 2005 MY 987 2.7 Boxster with 17s and the ride is definitely a lot more comfortable on the road compared to a couple of other cars I tested on 18s. Looks wise i dont think it really matters that much - marginally better on the 18s but it is only just. With the state of my local roads I am very happy having 17s though as have lost 3 tyres now to potholes on my AMG Merc with lower profile wheels. I will track the Boxster so I am sure the grip levels will be a touch less - and more importantly the tyres I have usually used for Track are not available on the 17 size which is annoying. But overall I am happy for now with the compromise. D

Thanks all for the informative replies,looks like from what folk have said there's pro's and con's for both sizes of wheel.My thoughts after the drive was the car would be acceptable day to day on the 18's,tyre prices are pretty similar for 17'/18' anyway so that's no biggy...more important is finding the right car as it will be used for touring across Europe this summer with maybe a stop at the Ring..

Well I've now owned my new Boxster for 2 weeks,car is a late 2005 55'plate 2.7 with 38k on the clock,plenty of options fitted,handling is sublime,a very well sorted car out of the box

The problem with 19" on a 2.7 is that it shows the smaller discs and looks a bit a weeny.

Pah....19" alloys for me! Never a problem in the 90K I covered in my 987 Boxster.... but I prefer a firm ride...

I have 19" and 17" on my Cayman 2.7. In summary: 17" = much better ride,much lower grip levels, initial turn in is sharper - the car simply (and is) significantly lighter on its feet. The 17s are less foolproof, you can much more easily provoke oversteer / 4 wheel drifts at relatively modest speeds. The car is ultimately slower but much more involving / old skool (more handling than grip - even more 968 like in that respect). 19" = significantly harder ride, much higher levels of grip (point to point the car is much faster)with significantly higher limits, much much less movement through a bend, little/no chance of provoking oversteer / 4 wheel drifts below licensing losing speeds. Slightly better braking. The car becomes much easier to drive fast but significantly less involving - much more about grip than handling, feel or feedback (although at higher speeds the steering is even sharper). I'm running 2 sets of 17", a summer set and a winter set but appreciate the car will probably be worth more on 19" so am keeping them for resale. The 17" wheels are really cheap secondhand because in the 987 market bling presides over function right now...

Should of said,car is running on 18" Michellin PS2's N4 265/40 rear and 235/40 front,for me the handling balance is just about right on the 18's,I've driven plenty of other fast stuff so have lots to compare it with,the ride is firm without being crashy,would'nt want to go any bigger than an 18' though!plenty of grip and good turn in and while the 17's would probally be the sweetest in terms of pure 'handling' and feel 18's are the best allrounder as others have already said.

IMO... The only advantage to the bigger wheels is aesthetic. I don't even hold with the opinion they handle better on them. They do have more grip due to the increased width. But that seems to mostly come from the back causing more understeer when pushing on. The balance is better on the narrower wheels. You get noticeably better ride on the 17's too. I'd have sold my Cayman long ago if I'd not had the option of getting shot of the bigger wheels due to the nature of the roads around where I live. It was pretty much unbearable. I wrote about it in my blog anyhow if you wanna have a read. http://juansolo.demon.co.uk/motas/porker3.html Best change I made to the car.

jcelee said: I have 19" and 17" on my Cayman 2.7. In summary: 17" = much better ride,much lower grip levels, initial turn in is sharper - the car simply (and is) significantly lighter on its feet. The 17s are less foolproof, you can much more easily provoke oversteer / 4 wheel drifts at relatively modest speeds. The car is ultimately slower but much more involving / old skool (more handling than grip - even more 968 like in that respect). 19" = significantly harder ride, much higher levels of grip (point to point the car is much faster)with significantly higher limits, much much less movement through a bend, little/no chance of provoking oversteer / 4 wheel drifts below licensing losing speeds. Slightly better braking. The car becomes much easier to drive fast but significantly less involving - much more about grip than handling, feel or feedback (although at higher speeds the steering is even sharper). Beautifully described. This is exactly why I preferred the 19" on both my 987's and why I opted for the 20" on my 981. It's great that Porsche offer the larger wheel for the aesthetics AND greater grip. My car is a daily driver which covers 30K a year. I don't want to be handling the unexpected or having 'fun' on the public roads when I am returning from a meeting 100 miles away from home on a wet, dank evening. I don't drive 'to the limit', but I still enjoy the car immensely and much prefer driving my Cayman every day over anything Audi or BMW have to offer. Yes, my personal opinion is the car looks gorgeous with the larger rims.....perhaps that makes me bling, but I only specify the options Porsche design and offer for their particular model/year of manufacture. My personal idea of 'bling' is covering a car in stickers and pretending it's a 'racing car'.

18's with PASM is a good compromise of traction, grip, steering feel and ride. Anyone who thinks 19/20" wheels are faster point to point is deluding themselves. They might see a second or two on a track lap but for road use when speed is constrained by other traffic, limits, sight lines and the ability of the driver there's bugger all difference. SS7

I don't doubt the differences between 18" & 19" will be quite marginal (235 & 265 tyre widths respectively for both diameters in spite of the extra 0.5 - 1" wheel width on the 19s). The switch from 19" to 17" is night and day because not only are you moving from 35 profile to 55 front 50 rear profile tyres, you're also stepping down from 235/265 to 205/235 width tyres. The 17" wheels are 1.5" narrower and significantly lighter too.

I think you should add into the equation that it looks sh7t on 17's and is barely passable on 18's... oh and the fact that most of you wouldn't know the difference in a "blind" handling test-drive. And when I say "most", I mean "all". As for the ride comfort... maybe you should get yourself a nice little Kia estate.

ilduce said: And when I say "most", I mean "all". Presumably you're including yourself in this inability to recognise good chassis dynamics? SS7

shoestring7 said: ilduce said: And when I say "most", I mean "all". Presumably you're including yourself in this inability to recognise good chassis dynamics? SS7 Odd. You are literate enough to use the words chassis and dynamics yet fail to understand the word, "all". Yes, in case you didn't understand. I'm also in the small group of people that don't believe that "less is more" as in non-S versus S. Silly billies.

ilduce said: shoestring7 said: ilduce said: And when I say "most", I mean "all". Presumably you're including yourself in this inability to recognise good chassis dynamics? SS7 Odd. You are literate enough to use the words chassis and dynamics yet fail to understand the word, "all". Yes, in case you didn't understand. I'm also in the small group of people that don't believe that "less is more" as in non-S versus S. Silly billies. Try a car on 17s and then one on 19s and come back and tell us there's no discernible difference or that the Cayman is not a more satisfying drive on smaller wheels. SS7 PS It's not just me: http://www.arthurlea.com/Porsche/Harris/harris3.jp... And here: http://www.arthurlea.com/Porsche/Harris/harris4.jp... Edited by shoestring7 on Wednesday 5th March 16:24 Edited by shoestring7 on Wednesday 5th March 16:31

shoestring7 said: ilduce said: shoestring7 said: ilduce said: And when I say "most", I mean "all". Presumably you're including yourself in this inability to recognise good chassis dynamics? SS7 Odd. You are literate enough to use the words chassis and dynamics yet fail to understand the word, "all". Yes, in case you didn't understand. I'm also in the small group of people that don't believe that "less is more" as in non-S versus S. Silly billies. Try a car on 17s and then one on 19s and come back and tell us there's no discernible difference or that the Cayman is not a more satisfying drive on smaller wheels. SS7 PS It's not just me: http://www.arthurlea.com/Porsche/Harris/harris3.jp... And here: http://www.arthurlea.com/Porsche/Harris/harris4.jp... I've driven both types, and on 18's too. No discernible difference? I think I said that earlier, didn't I? More satisfying drive? No, not possible, because every minute I'd be thinking my car looked like something drawn by a child. As for quoting Monkey Harris... dear god, he's a 2nd rate journalist- he's hardly going to write the non-controversial article ,"19's and S's are the best" is he? Finally, if 17's and non-S's were better, then I can assure you, those cvn'ts in Stuttgart would be charging more for them. Carry on.

You are a very strange man, and I pity you.

juansolo said: You are a very strange man, and I pity you. Non S and on 17's is it? Shame.

ilduce said: juansolo said: You are a very strange man, and I pity you. Non S and on 17's is it? Shame. ...and by choice. I must be INSANE!

anonymous said: [redacted] I've a 986 'S' and the wheelarches are pretty big too. I have 18" (they came with the car) but don't look all that big; I was parked next to a Ford Mondeo the other day that had 19" alloys that barely filled the arches. It's a trait with modern cars it seems to have huge arches. Makes them all 'sporty' to drive, or, in my book, with suspensions that are too damn hard. On a sports car yes, but not a cooking hatchback.

juansolo said: ilduce said: juansolo said: You are a very strange man, and I pity you. Non S and on 17's is it? Shame. ...and by choice. I must be INSANE! No. I'm sure you're an excellent driver. And allowed to go slowly on the drive every Saturday.