AustinS2k2003

I haven't seen one; stopped into the Austin dealership about may they said stop back in June, but they also told me I could pretty much forget about getting one till 2005. Some people on ebay are selling spot one with supposed delivery middle this month (July)...at a $10K markup

The s2k is still the best bang for your buck if you ask me and the Z offers many more options...

zmann

Update: Drove an 04 Boxster S Saturday. I was underwhelmed with the Boxster and more enamored with the Z after the experience. Plus, a guy in a red BMW M3 convertible raced up to me on the way home and yelled "I love that car!". Felt pretty good. The Z has a lot to be proud of! It has its quirks, but it is easy to love...(grin).

srm

Darthvol

Yes, both, so here are my impressions of Z v. Boxster S (partner just bought a fully optioned S, and I've ragged it out):

1. I will grant you that all around, the S "handles better". Feels more softly sprung than my '04.5 Z w/18s, and can still take a corner on a tad faster (which would be borne out by the S's slightly better skidpad #s in the auto mags).

2. I couldn't tell any difference, but I'll assume that the mags are right in saying a stock S beats a stock Z in 0-60 and quarter times, albeit by a small margin.

3. It's only subjective, but I HATE the look of the stock Porsche rims.

4. Again, some may prefer it, but putting R just a couple of mm to the left of the 1 shift gate seems absurd. I like the G35/Z/Honda S2000 (I've owned all three; only the current Z is a 5AT) idea of requiring you to push straight DOWN and to the right, b/c it's idiot proof (yes, I know, you'll probably say that Porsche drivers don't make any such stupid shifting mistakes ).

5. I thought the Porsche was supposed to be a "refined, european" sports car, but the stock exhaust sounded mighty harsh under hard acceleration at about 4500.

6. I've known several people w/Boxsters and/or 911s, and all of them have had reliability problems far in excess of Japanese makes (yes, I know that the Z had a couple of minor issues [alignment/tire feathering, holes in tops of earliest mfg'd roadsters] of its own, but that was at product launch of an entirely new car, not many years into production). Bottom line, check out the color of the reliability dots in Consumer Reports. I simply put too many miles a year on a car to invest in a Porsche, w/o better reliability. In contrast, the only significant problem I've EVER had w/a Japanese car after owning seven of them was having to replace a radiator in an old Honda Accord w/100k mi.

7. In sum, I won't even try to convince you or anyone else that the Z is a "better car" than the S, b/c the S probably is "better," all other things being equal. The fact is, however, that all other things, like price and reliability, are NOT equal, and how in the world can anyone argue that the S is a $20k better car? Yeah, yeah, heritage, the rest of us aren't sophisticated enough drivers to appreciate all the subtle advantages of Porsche engineering, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada, but the truth is, you weren't sophisticated enough to take all that Porsche dealer sales talk w/a grain of salt.

BTW, R&T loved the Z roadster in an August, '03, comparo w/the S2000. As a true sports car, the S2000 won in the ratings, but both of the testers preferred the Z as a liveable, daily driver, and one of them bought the Z test car! They also wrote that while there were a couple of dissidents on staff, most of their editors thought the Z looked better as a roadster than a coupe. Finally, the much trashed "butt" of the Z in MT was described as "sturdy," "brawny," and "stout" in R&T.

BTW #2: syf0n, I don't like flamers, either, and I know you said you also owned a Z in addition to a Boxster S (and maybe some more Porsches), but as the defender of all things Porsche, why refer to a flamer as a "troll," of all things? You seem a tad more "trollish" yourself; I've gotta ask, if you are so enamored with the clear superiority of the Porsche to the Z, why did you buy a Z?

SORRY SO LONG, but I had to VENT!!

zmann

Usually don't comment, but well written and enlightening! Thanks.

srm

jnanadev

I considered the Boxster, but I didn't get it because:

a) I'm 6'4", 220 lbs and I don't fit!
b) with decent options the S approaches $60k easily. For that kind of money I'd get an M3 over a Boxster any day!
c) I just can't get my head around the exhaust styling of the boxster. It looks a little too much like the car's ******* or something.... javascript:smilie('')
d) The Boxster is totally the "me too" car here in Silicon Valley. There are hundreds of them everywhere, and no one even pays attention to them anymore. I've only seen a couple of Roadsters and heads turn everywhere I go.

Now that I have the Roadster I couldn't be happier! I'm absolutely in love with the car and wouldn't trade it for a Boxster S today as an even swap! I don't give an "f" what Motortrend says. I had an absolutely gorgorgeous woman in an Audio TT convertible stop me at the light to tell me how much she loved my car. I've had owners of 911's tell me they think it's a hot ride. I had a compliment from the owner of kick-*** Mercedes in a gas station asking me if it was the new Maserati.

No car styling is going to please everyone, but everyone who's seen my roadster so far has had nothing but good things to say.

I think the Roadster looks $20,000 more expensive than the 350 Coupe, but that's just my opinion. The style of this car is going to be fresh in 10 years, whereas others like the Z4 are going to look dated very quickly--just like the ugly-*** RX8's.

So...each one, each one.

Darthvol

Almost forgot in the midst of my earlier rant to give syf0n credit where credit is due--the 911 will out pull the Boxster S torque-wise in a straight line, and a 911 turbo will flat-out run away from it, BUT the current 911 is more of a grand tourer than a true sports car, while the Boxster S feels more light, nimble and "tossable," to use a favorite word of the automotive press (although someone may point out that the 911 turbo has posted better skidpad #s in some mags), and is the better-handling machine.

One other thing I forgot to mention in the Z v. Boxster S analysis: I'll readily concede that some parts of the Z's interior look rather cheap in terms of plastics quality and overall appearance, but I was disappointed to find that the Boxster S looks almost as cheap (except for that little crest in the center of the steering wheel), and had poorly designed, outdated looking audio and HVAC controls, IMO.

And while seats are largely a matter of personal preference and physical size, the S seats didn't hold me securely during hard cornering due to being more "cushiony" than the Z seats (the S seats are softer but the bolsters are plenty big), but were still a bit too narrow to fit my form. The Honda S2000 has been criticized by some for having seats designed to fit "narrow, Japanese behinds" (I'm 6'; 195 lbs., so that ain't me), and the Boxster seats felt similarly narrow (anyone the size of jnanadev need not apply, as he points out). I LOVE and much prefer the Z seats, but the slim, athletic framed types, however, might prefer the Boxster seats. Again, from an interior standpoint, you can certainly argue that the Boxster looks "better," and more expensive, but it sure doesn't look $20k more expensive.

syf0n

Darth,

A agree almost entirely with everything you've said. Several small exceptions, but no big deal really. Both of the cars in comparison are still in my driveway and both are driven frequently. I love'em both. If I came out sounding like a Porsche defender to the end, I apologize. I am not -- I admire every car company in some respect for what they are good at. I do think that Porsche has more things right than most other companies, and I realize this comes at a cost which is not affordable for everyone out there.

In many respects the Z is a better car, and as a serious racing enthusiast I prefer it because of the ease and cost of modification. Mine is fairly well modified (enough to make it unique is performance and appearance) and I enjoy it much more when I am in the mood for performance driving.

As far as your individual complaints, I have never had any problems shifting in the S although the throw is definitely longer than the Z. I am not going to make some jerky comment about Porsche drivers being perfect, because that's not me, I'm not perfect, and a lot of Porsche drivers I know make me ashamed to drive a Porsche.

What I do think is silly is the idea of comparing the build quality of these two cars. Performance aside, Porsche's offering costs twice as much and so Porsche has twice as much money to make these cars. Of COURSE they're going to be nicer and more refined around the edges! Theres no need for people here to be up in arms about it.

zrdude

I agree with that in general, but the question is: is a Porsche Boxster S $25,000 more "refined" than a 350ZR?. BMW's for example have some of the best handling and performance for the money--such as an M3, or even a 330ci. They are expensive, and there are large mark-ups involved, but generally you get what you pay for. Yeah, you can get a G35 or Lexus that will come close to the BMW 3 series performance-wise, but BMW's still notch them (and us) out in performance and handling, and for not "that" much more dough.

What I am not convinced of any more is that the same goes for Porsches, especially having ridden in so many around here in Silicon Valley. Interior-wise, I prefer the 350z over the Boxster. As Darth mentioned, the seats are more comfortable, there is more room inside and overall the 350ZR is more of a compliment inducer than the Boxster S because it is fresh and new.

You can put a fart can and a wing on a Honda Civic, but it's always going to be a Honda and won't fool anyone, no matter how much money you dump into it. But if you put $25,000 worth of mods into a ZR (twin turbo/supercharger, top of the line suspension, recaro racing seats, best wheels and rubber money can buy), tasteful body kit, etc. you are going to have a car that will outperform and look as good as a stock 911, for $40,000 less money than the entry fee into the 911 club.

So what I don't agree with is that you are getting $40,000 more worth of engineering and refinement in that Porsche. That $40,000 is the entry fee into the Porsche club--just like the $100,000 yearly dues to the golf club and the yacht blub--it's the price of admission into the "hey look at me, I'm "rich" too club.

syf0n

I don't think that is the question at all. If you need to ask this question at all, the Porsche isn't for you. Porsche has never been about getting a good deal, and if price is of high importance than it would be best to look elsewhere.

elyliu

Ya, if you throw $45k of mods on a civic ($15k car + $45 = $60k boxster S price).... you are gonna get a boxster S killer too.

A ZR with $25k worth of mods is still "just" a Z in the end...

Darthvol

I don't necessarily disagree, but "price" may be important to different people for different reasons. Unfortunately, for some folks (I used to be one), price is important in terms of what they can afford. For some of the rest of us, however, the question (within reason) is "how much is it worth, versus how much I'm paying?" In other words, VALUE. I could have afforded a 911, M3 or 6 series conv. instead of my Z, but I just didn't think it was "worth it." Many other attorneys who know what I can afford have asked me why I don't quit getting Japanese cars and buy something "decent" like the M-B, Bimmer, or Porsche they're driving (for some [no, not all] of them, as if they have a neon sign on the front of the car that says, "Hey, everybody, look at me! I'm rich!!).

For example, when I first got out of law school, I was so poor I had to shop almost exclusively at Dollar General and Wal-Mart for clothes, and thankfully, most of my duds now are Ralph Lauren, Nautica, Johnston & Murphy, and Brooks Brothers, but even so, only if it's ON SALE (I have actually haggled my way to a better deal than an advertised sale price at Brooks Brothers).

For an even better example, my senior partner has a net worth well into the 8 (not 7) figures; he's the one who bought the Boxster S, but still usually tools around in his Chevy Prism w/200k mi. on it. He recently went to a used Ferrari auction and nearly pulled the trigger on a Spyder that was still going up in bidding at $165k, but he couldn't do it despite his lust for the car because he didn't think it was "worth it." In other words, the old saying that "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it," isn't always true. My partner would tell some of you that many years of ALWAYS asking how much it costs is the very REASON he can now almost always afford it, if he wants to.

To each his own, however, as someone else said above, and I certainly have no problem whatsoever with folks who choose the Boxster S (or any other Porsche, or Bimmer, or M-B). My objection is the assumption that when it comes to cars, you always get more if you pay more. That assertion may USUALLY be true, but with some of the traditionally high brow makes, I do believe that people are paying a premium for nothing more than springing cat; propeller; three-pointed star; and crest. All these are excellent, wonderful cars, but some people who could afford them do consider whether the DEGREE of excellence is commensurate with amount of the extra price premium in deciding against purchasing one of those makes. They're better, but are they that much better?

I heard recently on XM that a study showed that if a plastic surgeon arbitrarily raised his prices, he made more money, because people assume (wrongly) that if he charges more, he must be better. Sometimes the ol' "invisible hand" works in reverse.

To paraphrase Mick Jagger, "I know it's only a Z, but I like it. I like it. Yes, I do!"

zrdude

I totally agree. My Fiance is an Interior Designer and has done work in quite a few multi-multi million dollar homes around here. For the most part, her clients are the cheapest b#$stards you've ever met! On the other hand they want "the best" and like to show off their opulence--they always want name brand such and such, but never want to pay full price for it. Like you said--there's a reason they're so rich!

Not too long before I had my Z, the 911 was my "dream" car. When I started doing research to find out what my $90,000 could get me, I started to find that $90,000 buys a heck of a lot of car--and the good 'ol 911 is pretty darn plain jane when you look at what else you can get for the same price. But nothing that cost $90,000 was really "me" and with the way I was raised, I just couldn't swallow spending that much on a "car."

Then I started looking at what $60,000 can get for your money. I tried all the competition on for size, including the Boxster S. I nearly wound up with a gorgeous M3 Convertible until I finally got a test drive in my ZR (I had to threaten my Nissan dealer I was going to buy the M3 if they didn't let me drive it--and I was!). I am so glad I didn't get the M3--the ZR is more "me" than any other car out there right now--I fell in love with it instantly--and I feel like a teenager again (okay I'm only 32, but I'm having my mid-life crisis a bit early). And I'm having an absolute blast personalizing it with mods, etc. The dealer had a used Z04 on the lot that the guy had traded in on a new Roadster too, which goes to say a LOT about this car!

Don't get me wrong--if you dropped a 911 in my lap I wouldn't say no. But in a purely philosophical thread about value--the ZR has got to be one of the best ones out there right now!

elyliu

well articulated arguement....

zzz350

The Roadster is actually quite ugly from the rear. I could have bought one but chose the much more exciting looking coupe. I love the coupe and like Nissan cars (also own a 2000 Maxima SE) so I am not prejudiced, but the roadster is just plain ugly, IMHO.