+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: For Sale/Trade, WTB (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: FS: 2000 Boxster (/showthread.php?tid=6743)
Pages:
1
2
- Apoc - 11-27-2007
Evan Wrote:Boxster > S2000
not even a contest
...especially if you're talking about an ugly contest.
- Mike - 11-27-2007
.RJ Wrote:its better than the torqueless wonder under your hood - and sounds much better too, if you like a flat-6
a) better in what regard? bigger? yeah. slower? yeah. if bigger and slower is your thing, you should get a mustang instead
b) sounds better than 9k rpms? debatable.
this is assuming we're talking about the base model. when we're talking boxster s, i'm with you.
- .RJ - 11-27-2007
217hp, 192 ft-lbs and 2800 lbs for the base model - compare to 240hp/153/2800 lbs for the S2000, and the boxster is a bit quicker in the 1/4 miles. I'd take the p-car.
How's the
![[Image: kool.gif]](http://rr-ax.com/bbs/images/emoticons/kool.gif)
taste?
- JustinG - 11-28-2007
.RJ Wrote:Goodspeed Wrote:Boxster and 911 are two different things
Yeah, the boxster is a hairdresser's car
.RJ Wrote:I'd take the p-car.
So when can I stop in for a haircut?
- .RJ - 11-28-2007
I dont have any desire to own a S2000, either.
- Mike - 11-28-2007
.RJ Wrote:the boxster is a bit quicker in the 1/4 miles. I'd take the p-car.
talk about kool-aid. where are you getting your info from? it's wrong. the following site is comprised only from data found in reputable sources: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html">http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/ ... times.html</a><!-- m -->
s2000: 5.5 0-60, 14.0 1/4
boxster: 6.0 0-60, 14.5 1/4
boxster s: 5.1 0-60, 13.8 1/4
again, the base-model boxster is a good bit slower than an s2000, which is why i would not buy one.
- Apoc - 11-28-2007
Doesn't anyone care that the Boxster is fucking ugly? Cause it is!!!1112onebbqipodomg
- Sijray21 - 11-28-2007
has anyone actually driven the boxer??
i agree with the boxer being ugly.
- .RJ - 11-28-2007
Sijray21 Wrote:has anyone actually driven the boxer??
Yes, they're fun - mikey would rather bench race
Its not sharp edged like the S2k, so diff'rent strokes.
- Mike - 11-28-2007
.RJ Wrote:mikey would rather bench race
or point out that you're wrong...
looks like an '00 Boxster S w/ 65k miles goes for ~20k. hrmmmm... what's maintenance like on these suckers? how well do the interiors hold up? hrmmm. do i want to trade one 5+ year old convertible w/ 60k miles for another? hrmmm.
- .RJ - 11-28-2007
The very early cars (97-98 ) had some serious issues - i'd stay far, far away. After that... pretty solid but replacement parts and dealer labor ARE more expensive than on a honda.
- Chris - 12-05-2007
Sijray21 Wrote:has anyone actually driven the boxer??
i agree with the boxer being ugly.
Jay, I'm disappointed...
My parents used to have an 02 Boxster S, and I have to say it was the most fun I've ever had in a car. I agree the normal boxster isn't as fun, but how are they ugly?
- ScottyB - 12-05-2007
Mike Wrote:what's maintenance like on these suckers?
you'll never know since you can't touch the engine :lol: . ugh i hate cramped engine bays...anyway like RJ said the early ones had engine issues (can't remember what it was) and can be oil leakers.
it's german, and a p-car, you know it won't be cheaper than your honda.
- Mike - 12-06-2007
ScottyB Wrote:it's german, and a p-car, you know it won't be cheaper than your honda.
nothing could be... this thing has bee amazing. i've changed the oil probably 7 times and given it 2 new tires in 3 years of ownership
- ScottyB - 12-06-2007
Mike Wrote:2 new tires in 3 years of ownership
you're driving way too slow
- Mike - 12-06-2007
ScottyB Wrote:Mike Wrote:2 new tires in 3 years of ownership
you're driving way too slow
i currently need 4 more
badly.