MR2 SpyderChat banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
Poeh.
A comparison between apples and pears.

The Porsche is a WAY more sophisticated car. The new prices by and large reflected this.
If what the car can dó is the paramenter then there is no contest; the Boxster it is.

Older Boxsters have bcome more affordable because their maintenance is just as unaffordable as it ever was and the Toyota maintenance is Toyoya priced.
If budget is any priority then the Spyder it is.

If image is a thing. Well, there are two sides to that too. Some feel the Porsche adds to their ego, some do want nót that image sticking to their ego.

Simples.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
Again, the Porsche is in another league of sophistication of design. Although the McStruts are perfectly ok, the Boxster suspension is a serious step of wheel control up.
Same thing the engine.
The in mý opinion crux is the fun bit.
Take a step to the side and look at Toyota fitting Eco rubber to the GT86. The result was easily obtained fun at moderate speeds.
Same thing the Boxster. The things are heavier, more powerful with better road holding. To get the same thrill factor the Porsche needs be driven faster.
For mý use that asks for a caveat as the roads I want to enjoy simply do not allow for Boxster speed/power/limits. I cán flog my little ZZW30 up, over and down the mountain passes here but I would scare myself going just as quickly with more risk in a Boxster.
That I tried, tested before buying the MR2.

The Boxster are indisputable, incomparably bétter cars and as the model develops increasingly so. Increasingly beyond mere mortals on real world roads. Hence they shift to the comfort side of things with more and more gadgets adding weight; píng!
The later models can be dubbed a grand tourer, the MR2 .... not.
Pick your choice.

Oh and luggage space? Really?! Get a hot hatch. Great fun too. 300 hp and easy maintenance even. The latest crops leave the MR2 waywáy behind on a track.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
As long as the seats are comfortable and instruments are easy to use that's all that matters.
Highly subjective. Both the verdict and the priority.
I have stripped the interior, fitted had shell buckets in my pfl. Comfy enough for me and lóve the extra space.
Totally personal though.

Objectively, from an engineering p.o.v. the Boxter ís a better, superior spec design, car.
Yet I bought the MR2 for mý mountain road use. The higher weight and excess power make ány Boxster way more difficult to drive as quick hére.
Still, my Spyder being better fit for mý purpose does not make it a better car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
No you can't.
Just as you can't compare a 986 to an MR2 spyder. You are deluding yourself if you think the spyder is in the same league.
Agreed.

Horses or courses can make it confusing though.
You also write that the ZZW30 feels more nimble. Easy; it ís. Lots lighter, less rotational inertia (MR2) so it cán be more suited to specific purposes. For mine the 718 is even wórse than the 968 ;)
Yet the 718 is way better than the 986 and bétter cars than the ZZW30.

Enjoy your stable!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
Having owned a 718 Boxster for three years, there is no way it is "more of a GT car" than a sports car. At the Porsche experience day at Silverstone, on their tight tracks, I spent an afternoon going past 911's and I am no F1 driver.
You fall in the same trap of equalling performance with sports car.
It is the ´sports car conundrum´ created by motoring journalists.
In the real world faster does not equal better or more sporty.
The track is totally disconnected from real world roads. Surface, conditions, general traffic are but three aspects.
But then one simply changes the definition of ´sports car´ away from nimble, spirited driving in the real world and presto!

The creature comfort things in the Boxster family but for the track versions says it all.
They are superb, awesome, period, but more autobahn & comfort than Touge roads nimble ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
Again, I disagree. The two tracks at the Porsche experience centre are short and twisty, the 718 was built for them.
Ofcourse you would disagree when you keep confusing track use with driving open to traffic mountain roads. The 718 is indeed built for ´them´, not back road mountain passes.

Take the 911 Nürburgring Special. An awesomely fast car. A REALLY góód car. Imo Porsche is the summit for that type of car. Superb engineering; both specs and quality. Still, my crappy old MR2 is a better one for a spirited fun run from my place to neighbouring Archidona over the ´molinillo´ inner road.
The 911 would probably be faster but you´d get out with the pants soiled whereas with a smile out of mine. Horses for courses. The better/best horse is not always the good one.
Also about what makes a ´sports car´ for the real world roads. In mý opinion as an old racer, a too powerful/capable a car does not cut it there on the nimble, sprited, fun charts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
There you have it FunkyCheeze. With the PDK to SMT you nail it. The PDK is better yet...
On the roads I refer to there is very, véry little shifting though. In the Porsches less still.

Surprising and a bit disappointing that the crux of lightweight and léss power lights no bulbs. Ah well, tant pis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
Petrus believe in the Colin Chapman sayings.

Colin Chapman:
"Simplify, then add lightness"
"Adding power makes you faster on the straights; subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere"

Of course the Porsche 550 was an early example of this thinking.
The original 718 too (y)
The colour scheme on mine is a wink and bow to the delightful little Le Mans racing Spyders. Thát is how I appreciate them and Porsche sports car engineering.



And the weight thing is not just belief.
Also, many engineers/tuners preceded Chapman in this. His is simply the most published. Ettore Bugatti is but one example in the car world. And Porsche OBVIOUSLY. I am no fan of attributing this so much to Chapman: It was common tuning knowledge. Heck, the whole literally chopper thing of army surplus bikes post WW2 was about it!!!
Anyway I raced for some 23 years. Mostly motorcycles, Then moved to Spain and switched to enduro bikes, later raids on four wheels with son as co-pilot.
Weight ís the crux for all but speed.

And we can add numbers even, Very to the point too.
The MR2 monniker is a pun by the Toyota engineers.
The moment of inertia; the mass times distance squared to the centre of rotation is a/the key factor in response to directional change. Do the math and the ZZW30 outscores the 718.
Also do the math of kinetic energy. A heavier car takes more than proportional effort to ... everything.
Lastly the tyre load sensitivity. Porsches wáy more sophisticated wheel control goes a long way to
compensate but the lighter MR2 is not thát outclassed.

It is no different with motorbikes. You can flóg a KTM 390 Duke up/over/down the passes here and any superbike rider trying to keep up will most likely come to grief. No doubt a BMW S 1000 RR is the way better bike.

Again, there is NO discussion from my part that the Boxter family is better, more sophisticated in every aspect than the ZZW30.
I am properly smitten with the 718 rag top. I think it the dog´s bollocks of cabrios.*
Still the Boxsters take a LOT more to extract the same level of fun out of it on the twisties here. It simply is overkill for the purpose.
I can naíl mine into the sheer endless series of switchbacks up the south side of the Puerto del Sol. Not worry about it trying to kill me, enjoy the sliding, enjoy how easy it is to slow down. It is user friendly when I make a mistake. In contrast I scared myself properly up a softer version pass with the 987 I tried before deciding on the MR2.

But... ok, by all means. the Boxsters are só much better than the MR2 that they are too good for me and my purpose.

Right can we put this to bed now:
The Boxter is a better car, The later the model the more better.
It may be too good, overkill for a specific driver or purpose.

* although for pósing over the paseo maritimo I´d opt for a Maserati BiTurbo Spyder or Ferrari Mondial Cabrio. Both pretty dismal cars yet übercool top down beach front cruisers; bétter for that.
Just as I prefer my ZZW30 for flogging over the back roads here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts
the electrical system decides (or somebody named Lucas) whether you need headlights or not.
Ah, memory lane, intermittently lit by the Prince of Darkness. Had a 6V dynamo with electromechanical voltage irregulator by Lucas on my old Norton Type 7. Tar sealed bakelite battery too. At times it was better to just switch it off. Was in the days before omnipresent street lighting so good night riding training. Served me very well till today.

I have his book on the history of the car here btw. , Setright´s. His poem on the Daffodil (variomatic) too. Imo a pity that his quite knowledgeable writing was largely forgotten while the populist Top Gear fell upwards and the sports car conundrum was hallowed.

But to put a fine point on his tongue in cheek definition, the sports car was basically born with the small capacity 4 and 6 cil. open lightweight ´tourers´ of the nineteen twenties. The French leading the way with p.e. Amilcar.
The MG M-type was the best part of a decade later and the first British affordable open ´sports´ car. Had the lovely cross flow Wolsely engine in which the dynamo spindle doubled as the bevel drive to the overhead camshaft. It was available with a supercharger too.
Quite reliable and but for the first models had all metal chassis. Sorry Setright.

Anyway, thát were the archetypical sports cars which both the MX5 and MR2 Spyder holding that torch in the 21st C.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
825 Posts


and it is só much easier when you are quicker than the car. The later gens of the Boxster family is better than any mere mortal, better than open road conditions. Which Í think is paying a lot for a load of no good ;)
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top