Spyder vs Boxster ´comparison´

[Petrus]

Entertaining; nothing more in it:

https://celsmr2.tripod.com/MR2%20VS%20BOXSTER.htm

[Nvy]

Entertaining; nothing more in it:

https://celsmr2.tripod.com/MR2%20VS%20BOXSTER.htm

To be honest I am keep on trying the 987.2 Cayman and Boxter, want to feel what is everybody raving about. I think its the last gen with the hydraulic steering.

[1979scotte]

Entertaining; nothing more in it:

https://celsmr2.tripod.com/MR2%20VS%20BOXSTER.htm

To be honest I am keep on trying the 987.2 Cayman and Boxter, want to feel what is everybody raving about. I think its the last gen with the hydraulic steering.

They're great just a shame about the long gearing.

[scm2004red]

Entertaining rather than a practical long term test.

[Petrus]

Entertaining rather than a practical long term test.

The long term test result is that the MR2 suffers from oval bore and oil consumption and the Boxster from a series of gremlins.
The MR2 is cheaper to run, maintain, own.

The Boxster very much more sophisticated.
They are bothe aimed at totally diiferent markets.
Ditto the image.

They basically should not be compared. The one I gave is just a bit of fun and no more.

[scm2004red]

Quite agree, they are not comparable. The Boxster, in my opinion, is larger, tougher and better built, it's what you are paying for. The MR2 has it's own market.

[Petrus]

Quite agree, they are not comparable. The Boxster, in my opinion, is larger, tougher and better built, it's what you are paying for. The MR2 has it's own market.

So why next compare then ;-)

[Mickemo]

Quite agree, they are not comparable. The Boxster, in my opinion, is larger, tougher and better built, it's what you are paying for. The MR2 has it's own market.

Agree with this 100%, comparisons with a 986 are understandable to a point.

The key factor though hasnt been mentioned yet and that's fun...MR2 Roadster beats the Boxster in that respect.

For me the MR2 offers the best balance of fun, great handling and low running costs when compared to other similar cars including the 986.

[Dev]

Better built is a very different thing if the car you are comparing has very little in it to begin with and the other is far more sophisticated with too much stuff or some might say more car.  Sometimes simplicity wins out in more ways than just cost.

My BIL had a Boxster S around that vintage and it was very problematic but most of all very expensive to fix and maintain. The appearance  of the interior parts are better but they didn't hold up over time. The MR-S has a basic interior and it is ugly plastic but it is a good quality plastic like all Toyota cars and trucks that just holds up even if it is not as opulent.

[scm2004red]

So why next compare then ;-)

Not entirely sure of your meaning, I was attempting to point out the 2 cars were for different markets due to price.

However just for the fun of it, a fairly sensible comparison between the three main competitors when new.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/cars/reviews/mazda/mx-5/performanceconvertible-2003/18-2dr/33838/

[Petrus]

The key factor though hasnt been mentioned yet and that's fun...MR2 Roadster beats the Boxster in that respect.

For me the MR2 offers the best balance of fun, great handling and low running costs when compared to other similar cars including the 986.

They are concéptually more alike than the MR2 and MX5.
They are however tótally aimed at a different use, user, market. Comparing them because of the concept is like a vintage 911 and a Seat 600...

Just look at the 2.700 cc. 6 cil, boxer vs the mundane 1ZZ-FE.
It should stop there imo.

The opening post was just a bit of fun.

[shnazzle]

I like the Boxster. There's certain aspects that just feel a lot more balanced. Steering and brakes. Feels a solid car.
Doesn't feel like it goes miles better than the 2 though.
I'd have one

[Mr2paul]

How much is a booster though ?

[1979scotte]

How much is a booster though ?

Cheapest Boxster on autotrader is 3.6k
The cheapest mr2 is 2k

[Dev]

You could actually have both and not be redundant. 
I would say the MX-5 and our car is comparable and there is no other cars like this at any price for what they do which is having fun at reasonable speeds.

It would have been nice if Porsche made such a vehicle and I believe they had plans a long time ago for a light weight roadster based on a VW mid engine convertible car that was in the works but it fizzled out.  This would be comparable and probably blow the doors off what we have but Porsche in its current form do not have a light weight fun to drive roadster that drives like a go kart. 
I would dare put a vintage 911 in the ranks of what it is to drive light weight and slow but viscerally fun.

[Petrus]

You could actually have both and not be redundant. 
I would say the MX-5 and our car is comparable and there is no other cars like this at any price for what they do which is having fun at reasonable speeds.

Cár ok, but I doubt you have ever driven a motorbike with detachable sidecar :-)
That is a fundamentally núts concept. Drives like nothing else. Drives like nothing actually. Mán those are fun.

[Dev]

You could actually have both and not be redundant. 
I would say the MX-5 and our car is comparable and there is no other cars like this at any price for what they do which is having fun at reasonable speeds.

Cár ok, but I doubt you have ever driven a motorbike with detachable sidecar :-)
That is a fundamentally núts concept. Drives like nothing else. Drives like nothing actually. Mán those are fun.

 I haven't but when I use to ride motorcycles there is no denying that its more fun than any car.   
 I would love to own a vintage two stroke RZ350. 

[cptspaulding]

They are concéptually more alike than the MR2 and MX5.

No, they're not. The MX5 & MR2 are much more alike in terms of weight, power, build quality & interior fitment. The concept being the affordable (to the ordinary man) 2-seater rag-top.

The Boxster may be mid-engined but weighs another 250kg for a reason (well many reasons). Cost new was about twice the MR2 & MX5. 6 cylinder, etc.

Going back to the comparisons, @scottee hits the nail on the head with the gearing. I now drive a 987 Boxster & I wouldn't be accelerating to 70 in 3rd as per the test. The gearing means I hit the limiter in 2nd at 69mph (ok I change into 3rd about there but you get the point).

fun...MR2 Roadster beats the Boxster in that respect

I would reluctantly agree. The 2 feels much more like a toy, hence the fun. I also think that because I paid (relatively) much more for my 987, I'm less inclined to throw it around as I would the 2. That said, it's been over a year since I was allowed to that I've rather forgotten how I drive it in anger. 

[Petrus]

They are concéptually more alike than the MR2 and MX5.

No, they're not. The MX5 & MR2 are much more alike in terms of weight, power, build quality & interior fitment. The concept being the affordable (to the ordinary man) 2-seater rag-top.

Interesting that you see rear mid engine rwd less as a concept than price bracket.


When looking to buy mý ´concept´ car, I only had RWD rag top as criterium.
And low weight.
And none too wide.
The Boxster and BMW Z cars were too cumbersome and the former also simply too powerful to enjoy in the mountains.

Still.... I´d say mid engine rwd is a design concept, price bracket a marketing concept and míne a user concept.

Right; Petrus calling girfriend, Petrus calling girlfriend; a week iffy weather so putting on the hardtop. All winter top down. Now in spring it is best up :-O

[1979scotte]

They are concéptually more alike than the MR2 and MX5.

No, they're not. The MX5 & MR2 are much more alike in terms of weight, power, build quality & interior fitment. The concept being the affordable (to the ordinary man) 2-seater rag-top.

Interesting that you see rear mid engine rwd less as a concept than price bracket.


When looking to buy mý ´concept´ car, I only had RWD rag top as criterium.
And low weight.
And none too wide.
The Boxster and BMW Z cars were too cumbersome and the former also simply too powerful to enjoy in the mountains.

Still.... I´d say mid engine rwd is a design concept, price bracket a marketing concept and míne a user concept.

Right; Petrus calling girfriend, Petrus calling girlfriend; a week iffy weather so putting on the hardtop. All winter top down. Now in spring it is best up :-O

How many boxsters and Caymans have you driven?
Cumbersome you are having a laugh.
Agreed that they could be narrower especially the current 718 which looks huge compared to a 2.
And as usual I don't drive in the mountains as we don't have any in SE England.

[Petrus]

And as usual I don't drive in the mountains as we don't have any in SE England.

So why comment on my ´cumbersome´ here in the mountains?! Dûh...

[cptspaulding]

They are concéptually more alike than the MR2 and MX5.

No, they're not. The MX5 & MR2 are much more alike in terms of weight, power, build quality & interior fitment. The concept being the affordable (to the ordinary man) 2-seater rag-top.

When looking to buy mý ´concept´ car, I only had RWD rag top as criterium.
And low weight.
And none too wide.

There's the MX5 right there. But if you're thinking mid-engine as part of your concept & comparison, you may as well include any quantity of Ferraris & other such exotica.

Interesting that you see rear mid engine rwd less as a concept than price bracket.

That's not what I said. I hope you're not trying to bait me.

[Petrus]

There's the MX5 right there. But if you're thinking mid-engine as part of your concept & comparison, you may as well include any quantity of Ferraris & other such exotica.

Tried the MX.
Fit mý concept indeed. Mid engine was not remember?!

Ferraris et al too heavy, too wide, too powerful. Would not do at all. There is a snag with long wheelbase too in combination with width. Very obvious in F1 btw.
Was and am tótally in love with the Alfa Brera V6 awd but again hopelessly lardy.

[shnazzle]

Time to put the rulers away again.

To be honest I find it a very interesting comparison, especially after I drove the Boxster.

Sigh..