Thinking about buying a boxster, need direction!

The engine problem was fixed many years ago! I believe it was a problem only in the first generation Boxsters in 1997-1998. The Boxster now is not only bullet proof, it gets a recommended rating from Consumer Reports. I would have your factory trained source rethink his position.

Reply to
Devils944S2
Loading thread data ...

I'd say the 914 was a lower-end model than a 911. I'd say a Boxster is a lower-end model than a 911. I'd say a non-turbo 911 is lower end than an AWD twin-turbo 911.

Going back to Mustang examples, I'd be surprised to hear anyone ever say a V6 Mustang is just simply a Mustang with a different price and different "features" than the supercharged Cobra version.

Reply to
Brad

Not anybody. Not an n/a 944. That's why people stick Chevy V8's into them.

"Here we go again!" lol.

Reply to
Brad

A conversion that has been done in no significant number.

Reply to
Jim Keenan

A few equations:

Faster than a Boxster = Lotus Elise Faster than a Lotus Elise = Caterham Less weight = better Mid engine = better than one at either end Power = spurious unless handling / balance are sorted

Otherwise, but a truck - they are quite powerful

Reply to
Darren Hall

Well, I for one don't feel the Boxster is 'low end' per se. True, I could afford it much better than a Carrera, but in its own right I like the mid-engine design. Also, the Boxster is more a roadster, while a Cabriolet is more like a mere convertable sports car.

Reply to
Dan Stephenson

You actually believe what you write, huh? The N/A 944 from the early to late

80's had THE SAME horsepower as a V-8 Camaro or Firebird at half the engine size and half the curb weight. In other words...in it's day the N/A 944 was quite powerful. Once again...your subjective "stick Chevy V-8's in them" is still just that subjective. You have no concrete proof that it is done in significant numbers.
Reply to
Devils944S2

Did I really need to include a smiley for what I wrote? Since you can't handle *anything* even remotely considered to be a negative toward a Porsche, apparently so. This is further evidenced by you recently claiming that a 914 is not a lower-end Porsche than a 911.

But, since you want to pursue it, fine. You constantly bring up what old Porsches did back when they were new and pretend that has ANYTHING to do with today's performance expectations. You say an n/a 944 from the 80's had the same hp as a V8 Camaro. That means nothing for today's standards. And so for today, if you want a fast n/a 80's 944, you either spend some bucks to put a Chevy (or some other) engine into it, or you spend even more bucks trying to modify it as it sits.

Who cares about if putting a Chevy engine into a Porsche is or isn't done "in significant numbers"? It's been done, and it's usually the way to go to make lots of power in those particular year and model Porsches. I once linked you to the page of the guy who put a 200hp Chevy V6 into his 924 because it was a similar price and more powerful than fixing the head on the stock engine. He has since put a Grand National V6 into it and is having a blast. I can give you his email address if you want to tell him how to get the same power for the price out of the original 924 engine. You may as well tell the entire newsgroup how to do it, though.

This is now the part where you sidestep answering me about how to get a reliable 300hp/400hp/500hp/600hp out of an 80's n/a 944. I know how to get that much power out of an 80's Camaro. You tell me how to get that much power out of an 80's n/a 944. You know, since that's the point you were refuting in the first place.

And you say the 80's n/a 944 had the same horsepower as a V8 Camaro. Really? I didn't know n/a 944s had 225hp in 1987. 1985's TPI 5.0 had

215hp and 275lbs-ft. What did 1985's n/a 944 have again?

Summing up and going back to my first paragraph, you absolutely cannot stand seeing anything negative of any kind being said about any Porsche. The year is 2004. I said old n/a 944s are slow. You then reply by traveling back in time two decades and talking about how they didn't used to be slow. An 80's 944 had this much horsepower, an 80's Z28 had that much horsepower -- it doesn't matter because today they are BOTH slow stock. See the point? Probably not.

But, hey, you liked using the word "subjective" up there, and, yes, "fast" is subjective. So if you consider a 150hp Porsche to be fast today, then there you are, I guess.

Reply to
Brad

Who cares? If the swap was a practical alternative it would be done in significant numbers. The absence of a line of Porsche owners clamoring for a bowtie for their cars suggests this is nothing more than one man's fancy. Anybody can swap practically any motor into any vehicle if they're willing to put in the time and money, but it doesn't mean the conversion is worth a cup of warm spit. Yeah, "it's been done" by one guy, and it doesn't mean jack.......

Reply to
Jim Keenan

I don't understand this line of thinking. I have a twenty year old 928 with over two hundred thousand miles on it, and it has gone up to it's listed top speed of 143 for me, twenty year old Porsches are still fast. Why do you think people couldn't go fast in the '80's? We did.

SNIP

.

If you can go fast with 150 hp. who cares that some cars have a higher number?

Bernard

Reply to
Bernard Farquart

It means jack when the topic is how to make an 80's n/a 944 "fast." That is what Devils refuted in my post. If he thinks they are still considered "fast" stock in the year 2004, fine, but for those people who don't think that, he still needs to provide a practical way of making them fast using the stock engine since he's the one who wanted to chime in about it.

Devils could have easily just agreed and said that particular year and model are now slow and that he'd recommend putting a 951 engine in, etc, or simply just saying they are what they are and probably aren't worth trying to hotrod, but he couldn't do that. He merely attacks anything negative said about any Porsche.

Reply to
Brad

"Fast" meaning horsepower and torque. Not top speed. Pretty much anything decent in the past 15 years can do around 140mph. But, switching to top speed for a moment, newer performance cars can do much more than 143mph. If someone has an old Porsche and wants to have a higher top speed than that, what will Devils tell him -- to not worry about any other cars because your car was tops two decades ago?

Devils refuted my statement that an 80's n/a 944 can't do big power easily, so I am awaiting his answer on how to make one do big power easily without an engine swap. I see he has already replied to another thread posted eight hours after mine, so I don't expect a reply to mine. He tries to build up the n/a engine by saying it had as much horsepower as the V8 Camaros and he tries to build them up by talking about performance of two decades ago, when all he had to do was be honest and say, "Yeah, an 80's n/a 944 engine has a hard time competing in the power department against various other cars." For some reason he just can't stand the thought that another car could possibly be better in one area than a Porsche of any kind.

Reply to
Brad

Nice spin, nice try, but no cigar. We were comparing Boxsters and 911's, but if you want to go back to the late 60's to mid 70's, you will find a 914 was about as far from the 911 of it's era as the Boxster is from this generation 911.

There you go again...you still haven't explained how Chevy is considered reliable. Cheap yes, reliable, not exactly part of their history from 1973 to present.

Really? I didn't know n/a 944s had 225hp in 1987. 1985's TPI 5.0 had 215hp and 275lbs-ft. What did 1985's n/a 944 have again? >

Once again, nice try. You were somewhat smart to pick specific models from specific years, but you have to do better than that to prove your point. How about those other years, tell us about those 145HP 305 CI V-8 screamers put in the MAJORITY of those models, why don't you tell us about those 135HP 3.1 liter V-6's installed through 1992? I have a 3 liter slanted 4 in my 944 and I get 211HP. Explain to us why the 944 handily beat those V-8's in the IMSA series. As for your 1987 question... the n/a 944S had 190HP, meaning an engine half the size gave up 35 horses to the Z-28. I can guarantee you the weight of that GM pig more than slowed it down enough to allow the 944 to run circles around that V-8.

Enough to beat every Camaro, Firebird and Corvette in IMSA stock competition that year.

Once again you turned this into a Chevy swap thread and frankly were tired of it. If you want to have a faster 944 get a 951. If you want a faster

944S2 you get a 968. If you want a screamer...turbocharge your 968 to 968 Turbo S specs. Since you would only need to change to the 8V heads and add the turbo charger, you could keep the much more reliable Porsche powerplant, have something as fast as any production car on the planet and output about the same $$$ as you would on a proper $15K Chevy swap.

Bottom line...why downgrade to a Chevy when you can own a Porsche.

Reply to
Devils944S2

That about sums it up for all of us you jack off...the t> >

Reply to
Devils944S2

Wrong. You continue to miss the point. You said "That's why people stick Chevy V8s in them". People aren't sticking Chevy V8s in them. You cited one guy. ONE GUY. Like I said, there's always someone who'll swap anything into anything, but the simple fact is people are not putting Chevy V8s into the 944 in any significant numbers - it's not a practical alternative for anyone other than someone who wants to undertake the engineering headaches and expense (or lay out even more money for someone else's headaches). I'll let you in on a secret: every time the local Porsche club has a get together, the hot topic among the 944 drivers is NOT how soon their Chevy V8 conversion will be ready.

You can talk theoretical engine swap "what ifs" all you want, but until a hoard of 944 owners line up for bowties, it's just more Chevy BS, and it doesn't mean jack. The fact that one guy drops a V8 into a 944 (and then apparently gets rid of it and puts in a Buick V6) doesn't equate to "people stick Chevy V8s in them" in the real world.

Anybody can fire off some snappy little rejoinder like "That's why people stick Chevy V8s in them", but when you can't back it up IT DOESN'T MEAN JACK.

Reply to
Jim Keenan

Actually Jim, I know about 2 others than the guy he is talking about, the first stuck in an LT-1 and loves it, EXCEPT he warns anybody that does it to be ready to turn some wrenches, it breaks and breaks often. He has personally had it out of the car three times since the conversion. He definitely will debunk the "cheap to maintain" argument. The other guy that did it and has the same maintenance issues and STRONGLY advises against it, he said that you will be impressed initially by the added power, but once used to it, the money factor ruins the whole experience.

Reply to
Devils944S2

I suspected there might be a few others. One guy, three guys, the point is the same: a V8 swap into a 944 isn't being done in any significant numbers, certainly not to the point where a global statement like "that's why people stick Chevy V8s in them" has any merit. But I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know......

Reply to
Jim Keenan

As usual, you lie. You said Porsches could do "power" as well as anything else. I said an 80's n/a 944 couldn't. You then jumped into your way-back machine and went back two decades to when those particular models were considered fast. Why did you have to go back two decades? It's because YOU KNOW they can't compete in power against newer cars.

Face it, you're a Porsche snob who can't let ANY negative comment about ANY Porsche go by. I mean, really, who the hell besides someone like you would not only say an 80's n/a 944 is still considered "fast" but also say that there are no "low-end" Porsches when a Porsche is compared to another Porsche.

You lie and you're full of shit, as usual. I wouldn't even bother replying to half of your stuff if you'd at least be honest about what you write. Don't want me to reply? Then start being honest.

Reply to
Brad

Good Lord. You're like a Devils944 clone. Devils said any car can do power like a Mustang. I said an 80's n/a 944 can't. And then Devils jumped in pretending an 80's n/a 944 could accomplish such a feat without an engine swap (possibly a Chevy). I talk about people putting Chevys into them when the topic of POWER comes up. No one talks about power with the stock engine. I mean, come on. It's easier to put a Chevy engine into a 928, but that's not the topic at hand.

Be honest, an 80's n/a 944 is hard to make "fast" compared to current standards. They are fine cars, but they simply can't keep up in a straight line with current stuff without some serious mods. If you can be honest about that last sentence, then I don't know why you are arguing. If not, then tell me how to make some big power numbers out of an 80's n/a 944 without a Chevy engine swap. I'll even let you swap a

951 engine in. You know why? It's because I don't care what the engine is, just tell me how to make it fast. That's something that Devils simply won't do. He'll sit there until hell freezes over telling you that an 80's n/a 944 with a K&N and an exhaust will keep up with the 300+hp cars of today. I don't care if you want to swap a 951 engine in, just don't bs me and tell me you can keep up with the n/a engine.

I'm not missing the point at all. Devils changed the point when he claimed what he did about n/a 944's. I've already said I'd have no problem if he would have just said they are what they are and that other cars are faster for easier/cheaper in a straight line. (The cars are 20 years old, after all). But his Porsche ego didn't allow that.

So, the question remains: tell me how to get 300/400/500/600hp out of an

80's n/a 944 engine as easily and as cheaply as you could out of a 5.0 Mustang. THAT was the point. Devils continues to argue it. Will you? I'd have a hard time arguing about a Z28 doing power as easily or as cheaply as a 5.0, so good luck if you want to argue an 80's n/a 944 Porsche doing it.

I hope you understand this. It's not about Porsches being "bad" or "inferior" or anything else. It's about power. You can not care about straight-line power if you want, but Devils denied it and so here we are. If he wants to compare the power potential of an 80's n/a 944 to a

5.0 Mustang, well, he can go ahead. And he will lose that argument every time.
Reply to
Brad

So you're saying that lots of power breaks parts? Wow, imagine that. Who'da thought that having more than a wimpy 150hp might actually break something. There are a number of 928 owners who have posted about their Chevy swaps who couldn't be happier.

I can give you personal account after personal account of GM engines doing 200k miles without a hitch. 200k is nothing special nowadays. Doing 200k with 300+hp is a little different. Why you can't separate the two, I don't know. Must be your ego.

Reply to
Brad

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.