Boxster

AFAIK Porsches are generally pretty bombproof but parts prices are loaded up, presumably due to the relatively small market.

I've read the early Boxsters were blindingly slow even given the

2500cc'ish engine size (Wiki says 6.9 manual/7.6 auto 0-60) to avoid treading on the toes of the "proper" Porkers. Though looks like your budget stretches to the newer model 2004-on cars. Though the 2.7 is still 6.2/7.1 sec 0 to 60 which seems a bit hopeless for a sporty car.

Ah, I see why. It says the curb weight is 1420kg which seems crazy for a 2 seater car - that's the same as my 3 series Touring. Mind you, apparently it puts it on a par with the Z4. The Z3 is nearer the tonne so, in conclusion, erm... MX5? :-)

The best MX5 is about 7.5 seconds 0-60. The worst nearer 10. ;-)

Yeah a boxster was no match for my Mreg Saab 9000 2.3 Turbo (200bhp).

So, I have a Boxster. A pre-facelift 3.2S Tiptronic. I've had a paddle conversion done, and disabled the rockers.

They're quick in 3.2S form, but the 2.5 is lighter and many fans say it's a more 'pure' experience.

The flat 6 howl is addictive.

Costs. I've done over 10k miles in mine in the last 20 months.

It has been serviced twice by my local man. No point in paying for a specialist to do routine stuff. Cost, maybe £300 - but he's only 30 quid an hour.

I needed a new alternator. Again, local man fitted and I had change from £250, including the exchange alternator. I did, however, strip most of the engine access bits to make it easier for him. But I can get into the bay in half an hour these days.

Just replaced a window regulator - that'll be another 90 quid. But I did the job myself.

Tyres can be pricey - Continentals or similar are over 600 quid a set for an S, but I run mine on Hankooks at 100 quid a corner.

Just be aware that they have a known issue with the intermediate main shaft bearing - Porsche under specified it and some cars have gone bang in a big way. It's around 1500 quid for preventative replacement with a better part - early cars are less prone to issues than later cars. Early

987 shaped cars are possibly the biggest risk, as I believe you can't easily do a bearing swap. Failure rates are under 1% for early cars with a dual row bearing and up to 5% for cars with the single row bearing - which mine has...

You can't really predict if the bearing will go, garage queens appear to be most prone, and there's a school of thought that anything approaching

100k miles is probably going to be fine. Depending on my bonus this year, I may send mine in to be looked at.

One thing to note is that the OEM audio system in 986 shape cars is shocking - dash speakers only. You can get 2 upgrades - a Porsche system with amp. in the front boot and door speakers, and a Bose system which adds speakers in the parcel shelf behind the seats. I have the Porsche system and it's adequate. Wouldn't want a standard car, though.

I think that's all I can think of right now.

Personally, I'd get the nicest 986 3.2S I could find. With a £10k budget you should be able to get a really nice one - mine was £8k from a reputable specialist.

One thing to note, post facelift cars have a glovebox and better roof, with glass screen.

[snipped, too many lines for my news server

There is more to an engine than just the nominal power. What I like in the Saab 2.3 is the incredible smoothess of this big 4 cyl engine. This B234 is really something to savoir. From Wikipedia:

"Saab has further refined the balance shaft principle to overcome second harmonic sideways vibrations (due to the same basic asymmetry in engine design, but much smaller in magnitude) by locating the balance shafts with lateral symmetry, but at different heights above the crankshaft. This introduces a torque that counteracts the sideways vibrations at double engine RPM, resulting in the exceptionally smooth B234 engine"

Then of course you also get the turbo shove at mid range. For this reason I'm now conditioned to loath diesel engines or harsh petrol engines or unduly loud engines (Subaru). I'm simply spolied by the 20 year old B234.

You've obviously never driven anything with a decent multi-cylinder lump, then.

Turbos fool you into thinking they're stronger than they are with the boost - big capacity, high revving multis don't have that big surge, but just have more power and torque throughout the range.

The Porsche flat-6 is unbelievably smooth.

Yeah maybe. But you wouldn't guess that B234 is 4 cyl only just by driving or being a passenger, unless you know already. It's that smooth, it's that powerful.

[Snip]

Thanks for the advice, Steve. It's really what I wanted to know. I can easily look up performance figures. But getting info on a relatively cheap used one isn't so easy.

Why not just do the job properly with a decent sized 6 cylinder? Then no need for expensive and troublesome turbos or balance shafts.

SAAB simply didn't have the budget to design their own decent engines so had to make do. ;-)

It will still sound like a boring 4 cylinder. ;-)

Yeah, but Saab did quite clever things instead with the old Triumph engine, also more fuel efficient than a 6 cyl. At modern times, look at e.g. Volvo XC90 and S90. Seems it can be done with 4.

I've had an extended test in a 9-5 Aero. It was grin inducing, and had silly BHP - that probably was capable of edging the Boxster. But it wasn't the most exciting engine ever.

[...]

They clearly weren't that clever...

Chris

Clever = Bodging someone else's design because you can't afford to desgn a new lump yourself... and they're definitely not fuel efficient if you use the performance. Even the later Ecotec based turbos are thirsty things - I was seeing mid 20s mpg from our 9-3 Aero. That's pretty much on par with the Boxster.

I'd rather not look at Volvo either - hardly cutting edge designs.

Those who are willing to pay for an upmarket car of that size usually want more than 4 cylinders. And rightly so. ;-)

B234 was one of Ward's 10 best enginesfor 1995-1995, far removed and far more advanced than the ancestor Triumph 1709cc engine. Saab did everything their own way. Tuners get 700+ bhp out of B234 if you're in that mood...

's_10_Best_Engines

Yes, the Americans sure do know a good engine when they see one. Hence the proliferation of massive, thirsty V8s which couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding.

Yeah, Volvo may have a marketing problem with a 2L 4Cyl in that class, the reaction remains to be seen, although testers has acknowled it as a true luxury vehicle. Engine is 300 bhp and turbo lag has been eliminated, possibly by an electrically controlled pressure tank or something.

Americans, like everybody else, have embraced the smaller turbo engines. See e.e Buick Regal Luxury Sports Sedan, 2L Ecotech 259 bhp.

But you can still get some outrageous US cars, like the 6.2L 707 bhp Dodge Hellcat. Would pull the skin off anything.