Re: The Boxster is big.

Last night an Alfa Spider was near my car while traveling on a fairly busy multilane road. I couldn't manage to get side by side at any stoplights (bonus: a lone, pretty woman was driving!) but nonetheless I could see how tiny it was by comparison to the big, beefy Boxster. I was reminded of the comparison between the Boxster and the original 550. Got me thinking about the mass and inertia differential, too, and how I used to make either of my Spiders "dance." Then again, I had them when I was a lot younger and did crazier things with cars.
It was an immaculate later/last version, something like this:
[thai.org]

And the Boxster with a 550:
[media.caranddriver.com]

Very stylish, still today.

You're spot on regarding the size differences between models designed in the 60s-70s and current cars. I parked next to a TR6 the other day--used to own one decades ago--and was surprised how much smaller it was than the 981.

Pedro Bonilla
1998 Boxster 986 - 311,000+ miles: [www.PedrosGarage.com]
PCA National Club Racing Scrutineer - PCA National HPDE Instructor - PCA Technical Committee (Boxster/Cayman)

---

Racecar spelled backwards is Racecar

"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting" ... Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney in "LeMans"

"If you wait, all that happens is that you get older"... Mario Andretti

"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose" ... Ayrton Senna

Hah! First car was a TR6, second was an Alfa Spider, third was a Boxster. Guess which one I still own? Got the Boxster in 2002 and never looked back (even though I still turn my head every time an Alfa or TR pass by).

It's amazing how far automotive engineering has come since those were bot built (and why I won't test drive a new 981, as I'm quite sure the leap between my 986 and the new 981 is almost as dramatic).

My wife just replaced her 2010 SLK with a 2014 and was saying the 2014 felt a lot bigger than the 2010 so I looked up the specs on her SLK models and my current and probable 2015 Boxster. The Boxster is bigger according to the dimensions, especially in length (I actually checked with a measuring tape). But the SLK looks a lot bigger because they pile a lot more stuff in the allotted space as proven by the weight. In doing this exercise I was surprised by the weight reduction from the Boxster 987 to the 981. Maybe someone knows the reason for that. As to my wife's concern, I think what she is feeling is not the minor size difference but design changes in how steering and brakes are controlled as well as the ECO/Sport/Manual modes. We also have a 1974 MGB and it is definitely smaller and it is spelled MGB, see measures below.

At home here we need to watch the size of our cars because our two car garage was built a long time ago out of stone and concrete about the time of the Ford model A or maybe the model T and it is a bit tight for today's more modern vehicles. The garage was an add on to our 300 year old house. The MGB is housed in a wooden shed in the back of our property.

Model Length Width Height Wheel Base Weight

MB SLK 350 2010 160.9" 70.4" 51.1" 95.7" 3318 lbs
MB SLK 350 2014 162.8" 71.5" 51.2" 95.7" 3417 lbs
Boxster 2012 172" 71.5" 51" 95.1" 3130 lbs
Boxster 2015 172.2" 70.9" 50" 97.4" 2888 lbs
MGB 1974 159" 60" 49.5" 91" 2394 lbs

Jeff Benson:

2016 Boxster, See it here: www.greatvalleyhouse.com/Boxster

---

First car: 1952 Hudson Hornet

First roadster: 1962 Austin Healy 3000 III

Still have: Computer free 1974 MGB

Previous Porsches since 1982: 924, 944, 944S, and four Boxsters; 97, 03, 08 & 2012



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2014 07:06PM by Jeff (Philly). (view changes)

Quote
Jeff (Philly)
My wife just replaced her 2010 SLK with a 2014 and was saying the 2014 felt a lot bigger than the 2010 so I looked up the specs on her SLK models and my current and probable 2015 Boxster. The Boxster is bigger according to the dimensions, especially in length (I actually checked with a measuring tape). But the SLK looks a lot bigger because they pile a lot more stuff in the allotted space as proven by the weight. In doing this exercise I was surprised by the weight reduction from the Boxster 987 to the 981. Maybe someone knows the reason for that. As to my wife's concern, I think what she is feeling is not the minor size difference but design changes in how steering and brakes are controlled as well as the ECO/Sport/Manual modes. We also have a 1974 MGB and it is definitely smaller and it is spelled MGB, see measures below.

At home here we need to watch the size of our cars because our two car garage was built a long time ago out of stone and concrete about the time of the Ford model A or maybe the model T and it is a bit tight for today's more modern vehicles. The garage was an add on to our 300 year old house. The MGB is housed in a wooden shed in the back of our property.

Model Length Width Height Wheel Base Weight

MB SLK 350 2010 160.9" 70.4" 51.1" 95.7" 3318 lbs
MB SLK 350 2014 162.8" 71.5" 51.2" 95.7" 3417 lbs
Boxster 2012 172" 71.5" 51" 95.1" 3130 lbs
Boxster 2015 172.2" 70.9" 50" 97.4" 2888 lbs
MGB 1974 159" 60" 49.5" 91" 2394 lbs

Largely the result of more aluminum being used in the cars structure including:
-floor pan
-front and rear end structures
-doors, hood, trunk lid and the mounting for the rollover hoops behind the cabin.

IIRC, they also reduced the thickness of the brake rotors a bit.

Not a comparison with the Boxster, but with my 911. Funny thing, I parked next to the 918 knowing that I would not get dinged. Next morning, I see the 993 parked next to me.

I thought I took another pic that showed a better comparison, but it did not come out.


918 picture

I don't see a 918 in that picture. Are you referring to the red 981 parked to the right?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2014 03:10PM by Guenter in Ontario. (view changes)