Thinking about buying a boxster, need direction!

I'll say that the average $30,000 sports car of 2004 is going to be equal to or better than a Naturally Aspirated 944 of mid to late 80s vintage, at least in straight line comparisons. However, the 1991 Mustang 5.0 was not, even at the time, a tremendously fast car. And I'd be interested to see how much faster it is, if at all, than a 1991 944 S2 Coupe. This isn't neccesarily a "knock" aganist the Mustang, just a curious question/observation.

Of course this is an obvious. And any "Porsche-o-phile" not willing to live in the land of reality where this claim holds true, doesn't deserve to be part of the Porsche community. However, I think we can all agree that there is more to great cars, great *sports* cars especially than straight line speed. Hell, a Neon SRT-4 is .02 faster to 60 MPH than a 944 Turbo S, and on-par with a *well* driven Boxster S. Does that mean that the SRT-4 is a better car than either a Boxster S or 944? Hardly!

I'll say it: On the dragstrip a well driven 5.0 Mustang is likely to match or beat even the most competantly driven N/A 944. However, I think we'll all agree that a 944 Turbo would probably tip the scales, and that when the comparison turns to road-holding and track times, there is a definite advantage to the Porsche. I've never personally been bothered much by the fact that many "new-era muscle cars" are as quick to 60 as some Porsches. Come road-course time, the scales usually lean toward my boys from Stuttgart, with little exception.

I think there are other appraoches to 944-performance besides basterdizing it with a GM engine. But to each his own. I'm not about to tell you *not* to drop a GM engine into a car *you* spent *your* money on.

There are a number of factors that need to come into consideration when attempting to increase the general performance of a car. Curb weight and gear ratios are two of the most important. A 1991 944 S2 weighs 2,998 pounds and makes 208 horsepower. A 2001 Camaro Z28 weighs 3,439 pounds and makes 310 horsepower. So The Camaro makes approx. 11.1 Hp per pound where the 944 makes about 14.4 horsepower per pound. The Z28's big advantage is in it's flatter powerband and greater amount of low-RPM torque. If we could increase the 944's horsepower to 240, which would be an increase of 32 horsepower, we could drop it's power to weight ratio to 12.49 pounds per horsepower and probably drop it's 0-60 time into the high 5s. Even lower with stickier tires and a short-shift kit. You can probably see the methodology here, so I won't go along any furthur, but making an N/A 944 competant to compete with a Camaro is entirely possible, even without a V8 swap. Of course the easy method to is start with a 944 Turbo and start chipping it.

Steve- You make perfect sense (like usual), but what you have to understand, Brad is not interested in talking about the subject at hand (Boxsters)he is a non-Porsche owner who wants to troll about Chevy's to tweak Porsche owners. He is stuck in the "straight line power" mindset, as are most Americans, and simply does not understand the nuances of a finely prepared sports car. Anything you say will be pretty much lost on him. He simply does not understand.

So back to the subject at hand...Boxsters...fine ride, but I might prefer a 968.

Hard choice. I'd certainly take a used 968 over a used Boxster, as the 968 will have similar performance for far less money with minimal loss of amenities, etc...However, a new Boxster will best the 968 to 60 MPH by about a half second, and while we shouldn't attempt to donwplay the 968's wonderfully balanced handling, the Boxster's is so superb it's hard to want anything else. I'd probably try and get a used Boxster S as opposed to either a used 968 or new non-S Boxster.

Hello! I'm not Devils. If you have issues with him they aren't part of our argument. I'm contesting (again, still) your blanket assertion "That's why people put Chevy V8s in them".

You provided ONE instance of someone putting a Chevy V8 into a 944. Devils came up with a couple more, for a total of three. The point I have made (several times now), and you miss or choose to ignore is that a Chevy V8 into a 944 isn't being done in any significant numbers. It's not a practical alternative, which is why you don't see 944 owners lined up to the horizon waiting to get it done. By your own admission the guy you mentioned has since swapped in a Buick V6; Devils said one guy he knows doesn't recommend the swap, and the other is in the garage with broken parts more than he is on the road. Not exactly ringing endorsements........

I had a Boxster loaner when the Carrera was in for rear tires. Nice car, but for me there's a huge blind spot back over the left shoulder because of the width of the convertible top C pillar. Even with a major head turn, I find it hard to see back there for lane changes.

Not a convertible guy, so if the 968 was a coupe I'd probably agree......

There was a 968 Coupe, till' 1995.

These are the same (few) "nutjobs" who'll also drop Chevy crate motors into vintage VW Beetles and other small cars just because they can do it "on the cheap", and they want to prove it's possible. It's one thing when done just for hell of it, it's quite another thing when people are claiming that the OHV-pushrod 350 is a superior motor to anything Porsche has ever built. The only motor GM has ever built, IMO, that can honestly be called "world-class" was the LT5. It only lasted from 1988 to 1994 and wasn't even built in a GM factory.

Yep. With enough time and money, someone can swap almost anything into anything, but the fact that a few folks have doesn't, in any way, shape or form qualify for the global assertion "That's why people stick Chevy V8s in them ".

I agree. Even the old 912 can be be tuned, for close 200Hp. It's just easier for some people to want to swap in a newer 911-spec six, or even drop in a V8. I don't endorse it, I think of it as basterdization, but some people will do it.