996C2 to NSX?

[Papalazarou]

Sorry; 986 is the Boxster equivalent of the 996, as the 987 is to the 997.

I posted a much less terse reply, but hit that ****ing "reply to thread" button in error again!

Hey Nick,

It wasn't the prefixes, it was the rest;-)
I do commiserate with the 'reply to thread' button. Some of my best messages have fallen victim to this.

Cheers,

James.

[havoc]

There is no doubt that the accountants had a say in the 996 design development and the result was the worst model of the entire 911 series. This is not just the well documented RMS issues but also down to quality of interior fittings, seats,switches etc..all the tactile elements that are the things which lift a car out of the ordinary.

PLEASE stop blaming accountants. We measure and report, we don't make decisions.

The real people to blame are Board Directors and Shareholders, both of whom want to make as much out of the company as possible. Less directly, it's marketeers and customers, who both put things like engineering integrity (and often ergonomics) right at the bottom of the list. We accountants don't have any say, we just get asked to report on what different options will cost. Directors then decide the car can't cost that much, as otherwise the company won't make any money and the Shareholders will replace the Directors with different ones.


Porsche and Honda are both victims of this in recent times - both were renowned for the utmost engineering purity and detail but weren't the most profitable. Cue leadership by engineers falling away and leadership by salesmen/businessmen coming to the fore, and cue a deterioration in the substance of the product in favour of the style of the product...



Edit: Nick, interesting you prefer the Boxster. Sat in (note: not drove) the Boxster Spider and 997 C2 at PH SS yesterday, and the 997 had the better driving position, better visibility and felt the better product...I'm assuming that on the road the balance of the Boxster really does shine through?

[coanda]

Thanks for all the replies,

It's good to here about direct comparisons between recent Porsches and the NSX. I have driven a couple of hundred miles in a Boxster, and it is lighter on its feet than the Cayman was (same engines), but, overall, I preferred the Cayman. Hard to say why, but the extra stiffness, better view, and the hard top (in particular) are appealing to me. The 996 is a bit of a brute in comparison. I originally disliked the interior, having come directly from the Cayman, but it has grown on me over time, and I think finding one in good nick is essential. As has been said, they don't age very well.

It seems, from whats been said here, that the NSX is a more engaging drive than the 996, which is something I'm looking for. I'm looking forward to having a go in one now. I should think I'll be looking at early Spring for a swap, as the market for these cars slows for Winter. Actually, what I've got to try and do is figure out a way to keep both the AW11 and the 996!

Thanks again everyone.

coanda

[Lowndes]

[QUOTE=havoc;87953]PLEASE stop blaming accountants. We measure and report, we don't make decisions.

QUOTE]

Though I wouldn't disagree that what you say is often the case, at Porsche a fundamental restructuring took place in August 1992 when the 4 Production Directors who had overseen the whole manufacturing process were replaced by 7 Cost Center (sic) Managers..source Womak and Jones Chapter 9 Lean Thinking versus German Technik.

[Nick Graves]

There is a correlation between too many directors from finance & boring yet profitable products - look at the cynical crap Ford used to turn out. Ultimately, it leads fo brand destruction, which is why you need 'product' guys.

However, too many product guys can end up endlessly buggering about & never produce anything for sale; that was very much Porsche for a long period before the 986/996.

So there IS an elephant of truth in the beancounter thang. I know; I'm boring, tedious, dull, dull; so deadly dull.

Anyway, I found the seat seems to go back a tad further on the Boxster, making it easier to heel & toe. That's something which is rarely good on German cars - their ergonomics seem to be designed for the ham of fist and clodden of foot.

It has also been widely reported as admitted tacitly by Weissach engineers that the mid-engined layout is dynamically far superior; the 98x cars are deliberately crapped-down (for years they had no LSD available, etc) by product planners (the true enemy of beancounters and engineers!) in order to justify the more expensive car's existence. That I can easily believe.

I suppose if you can only have one car, the 911 has to be a convincing choice. It is like a (cramped) taxi-saloon when driving gently and is really pretty good when you get used to it. It's wonderfully compact due to that 1930s packaging in a way no other mechanical layout can be. However, being brought up on the depressing descendants of that layout, I find the rear-engined pitching & nose lightness (far less noticeable in a 911; the damping is very good) still slightly nauseating. Mid-engined it has to be.

Indeed; if I needed the rear seats, I'd have an Evora, thanks. It has far more of that 'aliveness' thing (deadly dull engine apart; Toyota is definitely overflowing with accountants!) and really is the car to go for if you cannot find a good NSX. It still feels slightly as if I made it and doesn't have that production-engineered feel the Honda & Porsche have. These cars are however slightly on the edge of rationality, so don't let that entirely put you off.

As you can probably tell, this was kind of the test drive/rationalisation process that led to me buying an NSX in the end; its 'specialness' is an intangible asset (sorry!) that is difficult to over-value.