Boxster Spyder

[Papalazarou]

Finally got to drive a Boxster Spyder this week. After driving an Evora the other week, I was interested to know how they compare.
Now it would probably have been fairer if the Boxster had actually been a Cayman, but it wasn't and I'm no journalist and this isn't Autocar.
Anyway, the car I drove was a PDK model. I've driven a manual Cayman before and although if wasn't a slick as the X, it's still pretty good, especially with the short shift.
The PDK was interesting for a number of reasons, but predominantly because the last auto I drove was about 20 years ago.
The paddle shifters were great. The shifting was super smooth and pretty fast especially on the downshifts. Upshifts weren't as fast as I thought they'd be, but perhaps I was expecting too much.
Full auto was very easy to use and in sport mode you could use the auto shifter like a sequential which was fun
Kickdown seemed a bit like overkill but I'm not an auto expert.
On the road the car was excellent. Great steering and the ride was very good, but not Evora good.
Performance was good. The sports exhaust sounds very Porschelike and I think I'd just leave it on all the time as even with the roof down it wasn't obtrusive.
This particular car had sport and sport plus mode. The latter turns off all your Driver aids. The former allows you to drive like a twat with no consequences if only to make you feel like a driving god. I'm very much into disillusion, so really liked this button.

An example would be, stop at 90 degree junction, turn steering 90degrees. Nail throttle and opposite lock until the car decides it wants you to go straight.

The seats are my bitch. I know I've been here before, but why put fixed back seats in anything not destined specifically for the track. I thought I was the only one who found these seats painful, but it turns out the foetal position doesn't work for some other people either.
Luckily you can have the sports seats. They are comfortable but are alas not carbon and according to the wonderful world that is Pistonheads, youll never resell without the backwreckers.

Roof; I know. I was at a car show the other week chatting to a guy with a Boxster S. We were discussing the the pros and cons of a 1960's style MG roof over a fully electrical one.
Personally I like the idea of going out with a roof that could just be a PITA if it decides to rain. Reminds me of the stuff we drove as kids. A bit impractical, especially on those marginal days.
Performance was similar to a well sorted X or Evora S. But again torque is quite impressive, but then it is lighter and has between 200 and 400 cc more than our cars.
Audibly it's got a lot of character. Totally different than the X. I won't mention the Lotus.

So all in all, I thought it was a great car. It looks fantastic with the Carrera GT style back end and it feels very well screwed together. Let's hope the DI engine has less issues than the previous incarnation.
A much better option than an Evora for me as it sounds and goes great, is built very well and also looks a little different from other Boxster. Ok who am I kidding they all look essentially the same.
I also miss open top cars, so that's a big attraction. Additionally, it's a more substantial car than say an Exige, but still offers much of the thrill.
Still not sure about the PDK, but it's of the future I suppose. I think I'm right in saying that Lamborghini do not offer manual transmissions anymore?!

Anyway, there you go.

Cheers,

James

[havoc]

Interesting write-up, cheers.

Sat in one last weekend at PH SS, and ignoring the seats, my overriding impression was a complete lack of rear visibility to your left, bar a narrow slot for the rear-view mirror. What is it with modern cars that the designers think you don't need to see around you?!? (Evora was easily as bad, and that's a mainstream model not a ltd-edition)

[Papalazarou]

Definitely. I guess it's hard to achieve function over aesthetics. NSX aside.
I still find it hard to understand how manufacturers who design cars from the ground up can make pretty unacceptable mistakes even now. Not only visibility but also engines, gearbox linkages, Gearboxes etc etc....

Cheers,

James.

[Geraint]

Interesting write-up

Are you going to buy one then?

[Papalazarou]

Interesting write-up

Are you going to buy one then?

Tempting, but not sure. It frustrates me that nothing really fires my interest. Well nothing that I can afford to own and run. Certainly a convertible appeals. I definitely miss my old targa. But not sure whether I could own another NSX.
There are a lot of nice cars out there, but I'm hard pushed to think of a two seater soft top I'd actually want to own.
If only Honda has made a serious revision to the S2000!

So I guess the answer is I haven't a clue. But still enjoy the car I have. In spite of an acute lack of regional meets;-0

Cheers,

James.

[Geraint]

But still enjoy the car I have.

If it ain't broke...

I like Boxsters, but for me the problem with the Spyder would be the vfm (and depreciation) comparison with a £10k example. It just doesn't make any sense, in my opinion.

You seem to be looking for the perfect car, and (with the possible exception of a NSX-T ) it probably doesn't exist. The alternative is to go multi-car, but then I suppose you'll just have a multi-dimensional version of the same problem... :laughing:

[Nick Graves]

It's when a supposed "performance car" is too damned wide & you cannot see out that I reach for my gun.

It's all the silly FREDs & posey wheel & other options that make me go off the otherwise excellent Boxster.

Good report though, James.

[havoc]

It frustrates me that nothing really fires my interest. Well nothing that I can afford to own and run.

Funny you should say that - was at Grand Designs yesterday and Nissan had a (dull grey) GTR on the stand (Nissan were showing off the Leaf, given the eco-credentials of the show, but unsurprisingly (given the 'net worth' of many punters) want to push their halo car too).

So, having not had a proper sit- and poke-around in one before, I did. And got chatting to the salesman (Becs, top girl, dropped the letters "NSX" into conversation twice, but they went straight over his head), who despite trying his best to avoid awkward questions let these nuggets slide:-
- £500 a tyre! So about 4x the cost of NSX rubber.
- £500 option from new is the "servicing pack" which "Saves you £2k over 3 years". So £2,500 for the first 3 years servicing then?!? :ouch:
- Nissan "like to see the car every 3,000 miles to make sure everything's OK...but of course it's a Nissan so that should just be routine"
- The clutch will only withstand about 5 "launch control" launches...so why FIT the damn thing then...oh, I forgot, you've got statistics to hit to claim your car is as good as a 911 Turbo!

Oh, corker of the day though has to be his attempt to evade questioning about the (very stiff) suspension - "Yes it's stiff, but then it's designed to go on-track as well as on-road. But it rides better than an R8." Really, how? "I was in an R8 around a track and it made me queasy" Ah, too much body roll in the R8 then? "Yes, that's right" So the Nissan rides better because it's stiffer???


I was genuinely surprised at the running costs...I know I shouldn't have been, but come on!!! Assuming nothing goes wrong on either car, the GTR will cost easily 3-4x as much to service as the NSX, will return maybe 2/3 of the fuel economy, and will depreciate like a white elephant. Granted it's substantially quicker than our old girl, but is it that much 'better'?!?



Geraint "multi-dimensional view of the same problem" - very true. I'm sort of with James in that I wish Honda had evolved the S2000...but my primary wish is that the DC2 had been RWD not FWD - I can't pick another real fault with that car*. Combine the best bits of both cars and I genuinely think Honda would have had the perfect 'affordable sports car'...

* Well, nothing a C30 (C25?) shoehorned into it wouldn't have cured!

[Nick Graves]

Funny you should say that - was at Grand Designs yesterday and Nissan had a (dull grey) GTR on the stand (Nissan were showing off the Leaf, given the eco-credentials of the show, but unsurprisingly (given the 'net worth' of many punters) want to push their halo car too).

So, having not had a proper sit- and poke-around in one before, I did. And got chatting to the salesman (Becs, top girl, dropped the letters "NSX" into conversation twice, but they went straight over his head), who despite trying his best to avoid awkward questions let these nuggets slide:-
- £500 a tyre! So about 4x the cost of NSX rubber.
- £500 option from new is the "servicing pack" which "Saves you £2k over 3 years". So £2,500 for the first 3 years servicing then?!? :ouch:
- Nissan "like to see the car every 3,000 miles to make sure everything's OK...but of course it's a Nissan so that should just be routine"
- The clutch will only withstand about 5 "launch control" launches...so why FIT the damn thing then...oh, I forgot, you've got statistics to hit to claim your car is as good as a 911 Turbo!

Oh, corker of the day though has to be his attempt to evade questioning about the (very stiff) suspension - "Yes it's stiff, but then it's designed to go on-track as well as on-road. But it rides better than an R8." Really, how? "I was in an R8 around a track and it made me queasy" Ah, too much body roll in the R8 then? "Yes, that's right" So the Nissan rides better because it's stiffer???


I was genuinely surprised at the running costs...I know I shouldn't have been, but come on!!! Assuming nothing goes wrong on either car, the GTR will cost easily 3-4x as much to service as the NSX, will return maybe 2/3 of the fuel economy, and will depreciate like a white elephant. Granted it's substantially quicker than our old girl, but is it that much 'better'?!?



Geraint "multi-dimensional view of the same problem" - very true. I'm sort of with James in that I wish Honda had evolved the S2000...but my primary wish is that the DC2 had been RWD not FWD - I can't pick another real fault with that car*. Combine the best bits of both cars and I genuinely think Honda would have had the perfect 'affordable sports car'...

* Well, nothing a C30 (C25?) shoehorned into it wouldn't have cured!

The GT-R's anti Darwin bonnet costs 11 large to replace.

The ATF is made from virgins' tears & is horrendous.

Just because it's a cheap old Datsun, people expect its running costs to be sensible - they're not.

And like you say, the fashion victim wheels and 'Ring-fixated set up do not help the ride one bit.

Actually, I agree that the useability balance with Honda is probably hard to beat; buy an S2000 & shove a Rotrex on it!

Even a CR-Z with an HKS snail putting out around 200BHP would be worth it just for the shock factor!

[Papalazarou]

The GTR can certainly be expensive to run against certain other cars.
However, you can run one on a tighter budget if you use a specialist. The tyre costs were originally £2,400 for a set of Dunlops but you can have Bridgestones for just over half that. Brakes are expensive to replace though and if you go over the 120 degree transmission temperature you've got to have the fluid replaced.
I still think that if you were careful with your purchase you could run one for a year or so without be bankrupted.
Compared to a 997 turbo it's still great value with regard to initial outlay and capabilities.

Reference the S2000, I really liked mine but thought the rear suspension was unresolved on bumpy roads. Could have been seized bushes I guess. Love to try one with the Rotrex though.

Geraint, I thought you were spot in with your comment about 'a multiple dimensional problem' but it doesn't get a SW meet organized;-0 seriously, that's what I found when I had the S2000.

Cheers,

James.