 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / July 2006Z4 M vs Boxster S vs SLK 55
Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think? Here's a Russian article. Can anyone translate this. http://bmw.carclub.ru/articles/allarticles/0000004340/ I'm not sure which one I'd choose. I probably lean towards the Z4 M, but Boxster S has probably better handling. Recently Boxster S won vs Z4M in a comparo. SLK 55 has nice hardtop but no manual, but has presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all are winners. Any thoughts? This month's issue of Car and Driver has a comparison of the M Coupe' and the Cayman S, the Cayman was quicker in all but one accleration test and was 2 seconds quicker around the test track. C&D gave it the win because of it's superior performance and dynamics. Although I'm aware that you're talking about the M Roadster and Boxster S, not the M Coupe' and Cayman S, there's a reason for my bringing this up: Porsche is introducing the Cayman's engine range to the Boxster models for the 2007 model year along with minor suspension tweaks. As far as I know, all comparisons made thus far between the M Roadster and Boxster S have used the less powerful, less evolved 06' model year Boxster S for comparison, rendering the results moot unless you're planing on buying an 06' model year unit as opposed to waiting for the new version. As far as the SLK55 is concerned, it's very quick in a straight line, but I'm hard pressed to believe it can handle on par with either the BMW or the Porsche. It's a more "fashionable" sporty GT coupe than it is a sports car and it's probably most akin to the *outgoing* MKIV platform Audi TT than anything else, although I'd personally prefer the DSG equipped 3.2 TT to the SLK despite it's less frantic accleration. If you're really considering spending the cash on a sports roadster, a Comptech supercharged Honda S2000 isn't a bad way to go either, although the supercharger will void your factory warranty and it isn't as refined as the European vehicles. You can also look for a second hand Boxster S (I'd go for an 03' or newer model) and fitting it with an intake/exhaust upgrade and GIAC's chip, which will net you around 15-20 horsepower combined. > Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all > are winners. Any thoughts? > If you're really considering spending the cash on a sports roadster, a > Comptech supercharged Honda S2000 isn't a bad way to go either, > although the supercharger will void your factory warranty and it isn't > as refined as the European vehicles. Thanks for all the details. As for above, probably off-topic for these ngs, any idea how the Honda S2000 compare with the Nissan Z? A factory stock S2000 will keep up with a 350Z in accleration tests and probably be quicker around a given track. However, getting that kind of performance from the S2000 means driving it *really* hard and knowing how to keep the engine inside it's narrow powerband between 6,000 and 8,200 RPM. The 350Z is a more refined vehicle, more comfortable and nearly as quick, it's also got a much more flexible engine. In the real world, the 350Z is a more well rounded choice, but the S2000 has appeal as a weekend canyon carver. > > If you're really considering spending the cash on a sports roadster, a > > Comptech supercharged Honda S2000 isn't a bad way to go either, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > As for above, probably off-topic for these ngs, any idea how the Honda > S2000 compare with the Nissan Z? >> > If you're really considering spending the cash on a sports roadster, a >> > Comptech supercharged Honda S2000 isn't a bad way to go either, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >world, the 350Z is a more well rounded choice, but the S2000 has appeal >as a weekend canyon carver. Well, ok, but ya gotta be a tiny little dude to fit inside an S2K, where even a 6' 5"er can fit inside a 350Z.... >This month's issue of Car and Driver has a comparison of the M Coupe' >and the Cayman S, the Cayman was quicker in all but one accleration >test and was 2 seconds quicker around the test track. C&D gave it the >win because of it's superior performance and dynamics. I'd love to get a Cayman. Too bad it's out of my league, money-wise... 8( > Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all > are winners. Any thoughts? I've driven a Boxster S quite extensively and tried a Z4M coupe yesterday. The Z4 was way more fun but I suspect the Porsche would be as quick if not quicker. Just a more accurate car where the Z4M was definately more involving. Didn;t get to switch DSC off though as I was nannied by the dealer :-( > Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all > are winners. Any thoughts? The article is too long to translate, but here are the pluses and minuses that they assign to each: Boxster: + for handling, quality, display arrangment - for lack of comfort SLK: + for comfort, power - for handling, braking Z4: + for handling, transmission - for visibility, comfort > > Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think? > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > + for handling, transmission > - for visibility, comfort Thanks. Too bad Google does not have the Russian translation engine. Did the article give an overall winner? Not that it matters much - it's like a composite index anyway, so depends what you're looking for. But since it's posted to a Russian BMW carclub possibly the reviewers gave the nod to the Z4M? And - for looking the same at both ends.. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Boxster: > + for handling, quality, display arrangment > - for lack of comfort [...] Lets not forget a Cayman S will be $15K more the MZ coupe. That ain't chump change. Anyway, I think I'll keep my 11 year old supercharged E36 M3. > Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all > are winners. Any thoughts? >Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all >are winners. Any thoughts? Top Gear conpared the Boxter and the SLK55 and was shocked that they found it more capable in every area than the Porsche.  SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net richasiankid, which one are you planning on getting? the mercedes is a sissy status-seeking sport's car, the z4 looks weird, to say the least....i like the suave-ness, curvacious body, poise and grace of the boxster. midengine, rear-wheel drive..the ultimate for balance and stability. > Which of the above is the best roadster? What do people think? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all > are winners. Any thoughts? i like the way the boxster looks like it glides on the road...with those 'propeller' wheels spinning. i like the fact that there's no backseat as well. who needs that dead space for a sportscar anyways? i also like the soft, drop-top...even though you don't like convertibles...it still looks sexy...it reminds me of a bikini top, lol > richasiankid, which one are you planning on getting? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> presence (read: chicksmobile?) from the front like the SLR. I think all >> are winners. Any thoughts? >the mercedes is a sissy status-seeking sport's car, The 6's were. The 55 will out-evrything the Prosche. >say the least....i like the suave-ness, curvacious body, poise and grace of >the boxster. midengine, rear-wheel drive..the ultimate for balance and >stability. You're guessing, and guessing wrong. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net And the first Merc CLK Cab W208 looks much better then any of these and has space for 4 reasonably-sized adults. And doesn't require one to stop and think which end is which...;-) DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] >>say the least....i like the suave-ness, curvacious body, poise and grace >>of >>the boxster. midengine, rear-wheel drive..the ultimate for balance and >>stability. > > You're guessing, and guessing wrong. > >the mercedes is a sissy status-seeking sport's car, > > The 6's were. The 55 will out-evrything the Prosche. The CLK 63 (481hp) is coming out; any word on whether a SLK 63 is in the works? But then maybe that'll make it too 'hood-heavy' assuming it's heavier than the 55 equivalent. >> >the mercedes is a sissy status-seeking sport's car, >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the works? But then maybe that'll make it too 'hood-heavy' assuming >it's heavier than the 55 equivalent. Beats me. All I know about new cars is what I see on Top Gear. I only know old cars. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net > >> >the mercedes is a sissy status-seeking sport's car, > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -- A good site is autospies http://www.autospies.com/ Some say it's biased towards BMWs but I don't think so. > Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org > Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org > 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net > 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net > >> >the mercedes is a sissy status-seeking sport's car, > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -- A good site is autospies http://www.autospies.com/ Some say it's biased towards BMWs but I don't think so. > Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org > Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org > 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net > 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net A. There won't be an SLK63 for two reasons: 1. The SLK can't take that engine (it's to heavy anyhow) 2. MB is trying to give people a reason to spend more cash on the CLK model B. The only time the SLK55 has ever taken favor over the Boxster was in that sill Top Gear comparison. Overall, the Boxster is considered the shining star in it's class and the the new engine lineup and suspension tweks that are coming for '07 are only going to help. I'll refer all to the following for final words: http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11265/comparison-test-review-2006-bmw-z4 -m-coupe-vs-2006-porsche-cayman-s.html Keep in mind the 2007 Boxster S is effectively a Cayman S minus the hard roofline. Journalists' opinion is that Boxster drivers have it as a consolation prize as they would rather be driving a 911... ;-) DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- > A. There won't be an SLK63 for two reasons: > 1. The SLK can't take that engine (it's to heavy anyhow) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Keep in mind the 2007 Boxster S is effectively a Cayman S minus the > hard roofline. >Journalists' opinion is that Boxster drivers have it as a consolation prize >as they would rather be driving a 911... Shades of the 914-6. Cool car, but for not much more you can get a real Porshe. (a 911). SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net > Shades of the 914-6. Cool car, but for not much more you can get a real > Porshe. (a 911). Oh, please. Porsche has been building mid-engined cars for road and track since the 1960s, most of them very succesful, at least as race vehicles. The 914 was part Porsche, part Volkswagen, so many "purists" claimed it wasn't a real Porsche (just like the 924). I can argue over that, but I'm not going to waste the time. The point is that the Boxster is just as much a "real" Porsche as has been any variant of the 911 - which isn't even a "real" 911 anymore if you ask the a.sholes who think that the model must have an air-cooled engine to qualify. I'll also point out that the four cylinder 914 vastly outsold the 911 during it's lifetime (as had the 912 before it) and that as much as I love the 911, the Boxster would throw the 911 to the wind on track if Porsche would stop dicking around with the engine lineup and start putting the full blown 911 engine into the Boxster. I'm willing to bet that either Porsche is going to go to 8-cylinder power for the next 911, or they're going to break down and finally admit that the model has probably gotten as good as it's ever going to get - 52 years ain't a bad lifespan folks. >> Shades of the 914-6. Cool car, but for not much more you can get a real >> Porshe. (a 911). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >911 - which isn't even a "real" 911 anymore if you ask the a.sholes who >think that the model must have an air-cooled engine to qualify. The 914-6 was may favorite Porsche ever, frankly, being a sucker for mid engined card. My understanding is the 914 was a VW and sold in Europe as such but that the 914-6 was built by Porsche. But this has nothing to do with "what's a real porsche" just the simple economics of the day when for $3K more you could have a 911. >I'll also point out that the four cylinder 914 vastly outsold the 911 >during it's lifetime (as had the 912 before it) and that as much as I >love the 911, the Boxster would throw the 911 to the wind on track if >Porsche would stop dicking around with the engine lineup and start >putting the full blown 911 engine into the Boxster. Uh huh. And if pigs had wings they could fly. 911's still dominate racing. Call me if that ever changes. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net > The 914-6 was may favorite Porsche ever, frankly, being a sucker for > mid engined card. My understanding is the 914 was a VW and sold in > Europe as such but that the 914-6 was built by Porsche. Porsche and VW designed the chassis and body togethor, 914/4 models got VW engines, transmissions and suspensions - 914/6 models got a de-tuned 911 motor, gearbox and suspension. In Europe, 914/4 models were sold as VWs while Porsche sold the 6s under their own badge. Marketing B.S. made them sell both versions as Porsches here in the states. > But this has nothing to do with "what's a real porsche" just the > simple economics of the day when for $3K more you could have a 911. The price difference between the 914/4 and the 911 may have been bigger than that. Also, keep in mind that in 1974 you could still buy a domestic sedan for $3,000 dollars, it wasn't a small amount of money at the time. > Uh huh. And if pigs had wings they could fly. 911's still dominate > racing. Call me if that ever changes. First of all, please read the part where I made a point of Porsche's habit of giving the Boxster line less powerful engines than the 911 line - this is done intentionally to ensure that the 911 goes unthreatened. If they planted a 360 Hp 911 motor into a Cayman and gave it slight suspension tweaks it'd blow the doors off a 997 S. The Cayman S is already as auick to 60 as the 996 was and it's about as fast as a base 997 around the Nurburgring. Secondly, Porsche has never developed a race prepped version of the Boxster, nor have they ever entered it into competition, nor will they ever because it's a convertible. However, if they built a Cayman GT3 it would dominate in-class and would essentially end 911 sales except to hardcore enthusiasts. Can you imagine a Cayman with the new 400 Hp GT3 motor? Giving that car a race-ready suspension and a 105 Hp boost in power would make it a monster. >> The 914-6 was may favorite Porsche ever, frankly, being a sucker for >> mid engined card. My understanding is the 914 was a VW and sold in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >VWs while Porsche sold the 6s under their own badge. Marketing B.S. >made them sell both versions as Porsches here in the states. The difference being, (and "as I understand it") VW (karmann?) built the 914-4 and porsche built the 914-6. >> But this has nothing to do with "what's a real porsche" just the >> simple economics of the day when for $3K more you could have a 911. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >domestic sedan for $3,000 dollars, it wasn't a small amount of money at >the time. PLitting hairs. The point was "in for a penny in for a pound" and the reason cited I alwsys read for the poor sales of the 914-6 and 912 was the nearness of he 911 in price. >> Uh huh. And if pigs had wings they could fly. 911's still dominate >> racing. Call me if that ever changes. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >S is already as auick to 60 as the 996 was and it's about as fast as a >base 997 around the Nurburgring. I understand all this. Whether the boxster comes close to or surpasses the 911 remains to be seen. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >> The difference being, (and "as I understand it") VW (karmann?) built > the 914-4 and porsche built the 914-6. Karman built the 914/4s entirely within their own facility. Cars destined to be 914/6s were partially built by Karmann and then sent to Porsche for the engine, gearbox and tranny. >> PLitting hairs. The point was "in for a penny in for a pound" and the > reason cited I alwsys read for the poor sales of the 914-6 and 912 > was the nearness of he 911 in price. No, I'm sorry but this isn't splitting hairs. You could have bought a 914/4 and a Mercury sedan for what a 911 cost in 1974, that's huge. In addition, the 914 actually outsold the 911 in 4-cylinder guise. >> I understand all this. Whether the boxster comes close to or surpasses > the 911 remains to be seen. I'm not sure why this is such an issue for you. The Cayman S produced times around the Nurburgring nearly identicle to a 997, even with less power. Given the same engine and the same level of suspension tuning, the Cayman's superior dynamics would win, period. >>> The difference being, (and "as I understand it") VW (karmann?) built >> the 914-4 and porsche built the 914-6. > >Karman built the 914/4s entirely within their own facility. Cars >destined to be 914/6s were partially built by Karmann and then sent to >Porsche for the engine, gearbox and tranny. Ok, thanks. >>> PLitting hairs. The point was "in for a penny in for a pound" and the >> reason cited I alwsys read for the poor sales of the 914-6 and 912 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >914/4 and a Mercury sedan for what a 911 cost in 1974, that's huge. In >addition, the 914 actually outsold the 911 in 4-cylinder guise. They're VW's. Not really a fair comparison. And as I've repeatedly said this is just what I've read. >>> I understand all this. Whether the boxster comes close to or surpasses >> the 911 remains to be seen. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >power. Given the same engine and the same level of suspension tuning, >the Cayman's superior dynamics would win, period. Would. This is a pointless discussion. Let's see who takes the checkered flag. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net > I'm willing to bet that either Porsche is going to go to 8-cylinder > power for the next 911, or they're going to break down and finally > admit that the model has probably gotten as good as it's ever going to > get - 52 years ain't a bad lifespan folks. I think you'll see it with an 8, but I doubt they'll discontinue it. Porsche tried to stop making the 911 before but popular demand prevented it. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] admit that the model has probably gotten as good as it's ever going to > get - 52 years ain't a bad lifespan folks. > Porsche tried to stop making the 911 before but popular demand prevented it. The only time Porsche executives ever gave serious consideration to discontinuing the 911 was when they were developing the 928, thinking that it would eventually replace the Carrera. Unfortunately for Porsche, the 928 never sold real well, partly the by product of it's high price. During the 1980s when the company was nearing bankruptcy, the 911 was the only thing keeping them alive, and it stuck around for a few more years. Enthusiasts certainly love it, but profitability is what;s kept the 911 in the lineup, not demand. Keep in mind that there are many Porsche lovers out there, but only so many who can continue to buy new vehicles for such high cost. Today, the Cayenne and Boxster sell enough units on their own to finance the company, and the Cayman is almost sure to follow. The compact, mid-engined design of the Boxster and Cayman are inherently superior to that of the 911, which although amazing in it's capabilitites will always be limited by it's rear engined design. Notice that most of the world's best sports cars (Pagani Zonda, Ferrari F430, Ford GT, Lotus Elise, Lamborghini Murcielago and Gallardo, Ariel Atom, etc...) are mid-engined, it's for good reason. Given the same level of suspension tuning and power output that the 911 benefits from, the Boxster and Cayman models would easily surpass the 911 in performance. I *love* the 911, every model of it they've produced since 1964 (although I have special soft spots for the 964 RS 3.8, 993 GT2 and 996 GT3). It's an icon, an incrediblly well versed automobile, and despite it's flaws, one of the best sports cars in the world. I was on board when Porsche went to liquid cooling in the 996, even while other self proclaimed "purists" were yelling and screaming that the "real" 911 was dead. Nonetheless, 52 years is a long lifespan, and Porsche is facing increasingly stiff competition. The Corvette crawls ever closer in terms of performance and agility to the 911, and although the Porsche will always win for build quality and prestige, that's not always enough. The company needs to grow beyond pandering to enthusiasts who want to keep the marque locked into the past. They need to be able to look forward, not backward. The rear-engined revolution was well fought, but destined to end. We've proven our point - the layout can work, and work well, even in race cars. All hail the 911, but the 911 is nearly ready to die. Agreed. I think that was the reason Porsche wanted to ditch the 911, knowing very well the limitations of the rear engine. But they have done well with it, as you say. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > superior to that of the 911, which although amazing in it's > capabilitites will always be limited by it's rear engined design. [...] > forward, not backward. The rear-engined revolution was well fought, but > destined to end. We've proven our point - the layout can work, and work > well, even in race cars. All hail the 911, but the 911 is nearly ready [...]> > The company needs to grow beyond pandering to enthusiasts who want to > keep the marque locked into the past. They need to be able to look > forward, not backward. The rear-engined revolution was well fought, but > destined to end. We've proven our point - the layout can work, and work > well, even in race cars. All hail the 911, but the 911 is nearly ready > to die. Porsche makes several variants of an SUV, soft and hardtop mid-engined two-seaters and is designing a four door front-engined sedan for introduction in 2009 or so. How is this pandering to enthusiasts who want to keep the marque locked into the past? The 911 is still a formidable vehicle no matter where the engine resides, and market demand is strong. Porsche doesn't lose money on the 911 - its not like they keep it around out of sentiment. I don't think it goes away until market demand goes away, "Jim Keenan" <jimkeenan@cox.net> wrote > Porsche makes several variants of an SUV, Sadly, on my way back from Hood River, OR to Seattle last week, I saw a small camp trailer (caravan for you EU guys) being hauled by a Cayenne. ;-( The horror, the horror. FloydR > Sadly, on my way back from Hood River, OR to Seattle last week, > I saw a small camp trailer (caravan for you EU guys) being hauled > by a Cayenne. ;-( The horror, the horror. Oh dear. That is just wrong. -s >Porsche makes several variants of an SUV They make one SUV in four trim leves. >soft and hardtop mid-engined > two-seaters Essentially two versions of the same car that Porsche has intemtionally kept back to protect the 911. >and is designing a four door front-engined sedan for > introduction in 2009 or so. A mistake, IMO. The Maserati Quattroporte's poor sales will speak to this. How is this pandering to enthusiasts who want to > keep the marque locked into the past? Porsche has long known that the 911 is a valuable part of the lineup and have intentionally protected it by doing things like limiting the amount of power given to the Boxster and Cayman. Given another *compareable* choice, I'm not sure the 911's sales would remain so strong. Market demand for the 911 is high in part because the next closest thing is the Ferrari F430 at near double the money. >Porsche has long known that the 911 is a valuable part of the lineup >and have intentionally protected it by doing things like limiting the >amount of power given to the Boxster and Cayman. Given another >*compareable* choice, I'm not sure the 911's sales would remain so >strong. They would. I agree with you, but the fact is the 911 is, to most of its buyers, a dream car. People tend to be irrational about dream cars, and overlook their flaws and pay happily for the privilege, from 911 engine placement to Ferrari maintenance costs to Corvettes using leaf springs *decades* and Mustangs using drum brakes decades after you could get a cheap hatchback with a better suspension and 4-wheel disc brakes. epbrown -- "Everybody wants a normal life and a cool car; most people will settle for the car." Chris Titus 2003 BMW 325i Black/Black, 2003 BMW Z4 Black/Black >The only time Porsche executives ever gave serious consideration to >discontinuing the 911 was when they were developing the 928, thinking [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >are many Porsche lovers out there, but only so many who can continue to >buy new vehicles for such high cost. I'm okay with most of what you wrote, but it wasn't the 911 that kept Porsche alive during the 80s - it was the 944. The 944 was the Boxster of its day - an "entry level" Porsche with moderate power - by Porsche standards - and phenomenal handling that sold by the bucket-load. (And if you read the old articles, writers often said that the 944 would outperform the 911 if only it had as much power, the same thing we hear about the Boxster and Cayman today). The 911 was out-selling the 928, but both models combined wouldn't have kept Porsche afloat. Even now, I think I read Porsche sells fewer than 3000 911s a year. The company learned its lesson a decade ago - they can't make a living selling 911s. Accepting this is why they branched out to all the different model lines. But the 911's value goes beyond sales - every model variant generates pages and pages of free publicity in every car magazine on the planet, it's the benchmark car in every comparison road test, and its shape remains the first thing in most people's mind's-eye when they heard the word Porsche. The Cayenne and Cayman don't come close to generating the same ink. Until *that* stops, they'd be crazy to stop producing the 911, despite being able to make something better in their sleep. epbrown -- "Everybody wants a normal life and a cool car; most people will settle for the car." Chris Titus 2003 BMW 325i Black/Black, 2003 BMW Z4 Black/Black >dead. Nonetheless, 52 years is a long lifespan, and Porsche is facing >increasingly stiff competition. The Corvette crawls ever closer in >terms of performance and agility to the 911, and although the Porsche >will always win for build quality and prestige, that's not always >enough. You might be horrified to look up the correct meaning of the word "prestigue". I do not disgaree with the rest of your post but this was an unfortunate choice of words. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >You might be horrified to look up the correct meaning of the word > "prestigue". I do not disgaree with the rest of your post but this > was an unfortunate choice of words. Well "Prestige", which is the word I choose (not "Prestigue") means the following: 1. The level of respect at which one is regarded by others; standing. 2. A person's high standing among others; honor or esteem. 3. Widely recognized prominence, distinction, or importance: a position of prestige in diplomatic circles. I think that works fine. >>You might be horrified to look up the correct meaning of the word >> "prestigue". I do not disgaree with the rest of your post but this [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I think that works fine. Try the original definition. The French one. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >> Try the original definition. The French one. Well, I'm using the modern English variance of the word, so it's not an issue for me. >>> Try the original definition. The French one. > >Well, I'm using the modern English variance of the word, so it's not an >issue for me. That's what I said before I found out what it was. :-) SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >>Journalists' opinion is that Boxster drivers have it as a consolation >>prize >>as they would rather be driving a 911... > > Shades of the 914-6. Cool car, but for not much more you can get a real > Porshe. (a 911). Right. That's like saying the only real Mercedes has gull wing doors. No. The only real Mercedes is always the last model but one... DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > Right. That's like saying the only real Mercedes has gull wing doors. >>>Journalists' opinion is that Boxster drivers have it as a consolation >>>prize [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Right. That's like saying the only real Mercedes has gull wing doors. You say that like it's a negative thing. You're referring to the 4 rotor C111, right? SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >>"Richard Sexton" <richard@news.vrx.net> wrote in message >>> Shades of the 914-6. Cool car, but for not much more you can get a real [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You say that like it's a negative thing. You're referring to the > 4 rotor C111, right? No, I'm saying it in the sense of the tired, worn "real Porsche" crack. The C111 was an interesting test bed that never saw the light of day in a showroom. 300SL, circa 1954-1957. >>>"Richard Sexton" <richard@news.vrx.net> wrote in message >>>> Shades of the 914-6. Cool car, but for not much more you can get a real [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >C111 was an interesting test bed that never saw the light of day in a >showroom. 300SL, circa 1954-1957. I dunno, the gullwings were pretty but the 300SL roadsters had rear discs the coupes didn't. And they were made up till 61. I think if you want more milage out of the "real mercedes" crack you'd want to point to the M100 limos or and of the handbuilt coupe/cabs - if you're over 40. If you're under 40 the any real mercedes crack is better aimed at anything not assembled in Germany. And the "real porsche" crack will never be tired as long as porsche people overreact to it. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net "Richard Sexton" <richard@news.vrx.net> wrote in message > And the "real porsche" crack will never be tired as long as porsche people > overreact to it. No, the "real Porsche" crack remains tired since so many uninformed folks keep using it. >"Richard Sexton" <richard@news.vrx.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >No, the "real Porsche" crack remains tired since so many uninformed folks >keep using it. See? SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >>"Richard Sexton" <richard@news.vrx.net> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > See? Exactly. > Journalists' opinion is that Boxster drivers have it as a consolation > prize as they would rather be driving a 911... > ;-) Well, yes, but journalists don't pay for their cars... Signature*Why isn't there a special name for the back of your knee? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> Journalists' opinion is that Boxster drivers have it as a consolation >> prize as they would rather be driving a 911... >> ;-) > >Well, yes, but journalists don't pay for their cars... True, but they've got a point. Neither the 912 nor 914-6 did well being a few K shy of a 911. I'm surprised the boxster is doing as well as it is. There is one school of thought that says it (and the lessor SLKs) are "secretaries cars". Snicker. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net Which one was the hairdressers' car? DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > There is one school of thought that says it (and the lessor SLKs) > are "secretaries cars". Snicker. > Which one was the hairdressers' car? > > DAS That would be all those three-pointed star cars that can't even surpass Chevrolet and Ford on the JD Power Initial Quality and Reliability surveys.................. >> Which one was the hairdressers' car? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Chevrolet and Ford on the JD Power Initial Quality and Reliability >surveys.................. Yeah. Chicks dig that sh.t. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net Dodge Neon or no car due to DUI. Maybe I need to know better hairdressers. >Which one was the hairdressers' car? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> There is one school of thought that says it (and the lessor SLKs) >> are "secretaries cars". Snicker. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net > Journalists' opinion is that Boxster drivers have it as a consolation > prize as they would rather be driving a 911... > > ;-) > DAS Really? What journalists? The Boxster's mid-engine configuration is generally considered to offer better handling characteristics than the rear-engine of the 911 (and I have a 2002 Carrera) since the weight distribution is more equal. While it has been largely engineered out of the 911, the car will still exhibit trailing throttle oversteer if you get into a corner at 11/10ths and lift. If you know what to do at the limit the Carrera is a formidable handler, but the natural reaction of most drivers in this case is exactly wrong. I had a Boxster as a loaner while the Carrera got tires, and the car is a wonderful handling car. Not as fast as my Carrera, but a very nice ride and hardly a consolation prize. Anybody who tells you so is just kidding themself. > A. There won't be an SLK63 for two reasons: > 1. The SLK can't take that engine (it's to heavy anyhow) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the following for final words: > > http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11265/comparison-test-review-2006-bmw-z4 -m-coupe-vs-2006-porsche-cayman-s.html Ouch! That's last paragraph's harsh! > Keep in mind the 2007 Boxster S is effectively a Cayman S minus the > hard roofline. Off topic, but some (ahem, obviously biased) stats from 2003: http://www.sandsmuseum.com/cars/elise/information/press/magazine/magazine2002/ge tagrip2.html >>the mercedes is a sissy status-seeking sport's car, > >The 6's were. The 55 will out-evrything the Prosche. Oh? How's the manual gearbox? >>>the mercedes is a sissy status-seeking sport's car, >> >>The 6's were. The 55 will out-evrything the Prosche. > >Oh? How's the manual gearbox? Not available, but you already knew that. Not really relevant either and you knew that too. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >>>The 6's were. The 55 will out-evrything the Prosche. >> >>Oh? How's the manual gearbox? > >Not available, but you already knew that. Right. >Not really relevant either and you knew that too. Wrong. here's my take (996 cabrio driver in Germany) The BMW Z3 and Z4 are great looking cars, real retro/nuevo looking roadsters. I like 'em plenty. If I had a bunch of cash and a twenty car garage I'd one one of both. I really don't give a rat's a.s about track times, etc. The other day I was picking my son up from school, and there's this Mercedes Benz, concours, 190 SL cabrio parked in front of me. Wow! Silver paint, lipstick red interior, and a bakelite white steering-wheel. Hello! Sexy! At least as sexy/hot as an E-Type Jaguar of the same vintage. Lots of chrome trim and chrome bumpers that actually did their job back before *park assist* radar. So, for me, it's not about class, track times, top speed. It's style plus performance. We own a 996 because my good wife always wanted a Porsche cabriolet, and we find ourselves at that point in life where we can afford one as a garage queen. > The BMW Z3 and Z4 are great looking cars, **Vulgarity Warning** Opinions will differ, both are too phalic for my personal taste, although I did sort of like the old Z3 based M Coupe. The new Z4 coupe looks like a penis and scrotum turned upside-down to me. >> The BMW Z3 and Z4 are great looking cars, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >although I did sort of like the old Z3 based M Coupe. The new Z4 coupe >looks like a penis and scrotum turned upside-down to me. Compared to the much more subtly phallic, and very beautiful early series Jaguar E-types, yes. Those were pretty much timeless sculptures, as compared to the here-today-gone-tomorrow styling of which you speak. SignatureDan. >>> The BMW Z3 and Z4 are great looking cars, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >sculptures, as compared to the here-today-gone-tomorrow styling of >which you speak. I've read, lots of reviews where this was said about the Z3, but this is the first time I've ever heard it about the Z4. The Z4 has the same proportions, but it's angular design and seams make it less organic, imo. epbrown -- "Everybody wants a normal life and a cool car; most people will settle for the car." Chris Titus 2003 BMW 325i Black/Black, 2003 BMW Z4 Black/Black >>the mercedes is a sissy status-seeking sport's car, > > The 6's were. The 55 will out-evrything the Prosche. The only areas MB outdoes Porsche is on the JD Power Initial Quality and Reliability surveys, where Porsche leads or is near the top of the list on both, while MB languishes well below the industry average - MB just racks up so many more black marks. Hell, Ford and Chevrolet are doing better than MB. > The only areas MB outdoes Porsche is on the JD Power Initial Quality and > Reliability surveys, where Porsche leads or is near the top of the list on > both, while MB languishes well below the industry average - MB just racks up > so many more black marks. Hell, Ford and Chevrolet are doing better than MB. Which is really sad, because Mercedes cars used to be renowned for their build quality and long term reliability. My grandfather owned a 1979 350SD and a 1990 560SEC as new cars - great machines. More revently he's owned a 1998 500SL "Sport" and a newer E500 wagon. I liked both, but the rock solid build isn't there anymore, nor is that "special feeling" the older ones gave off. An uncle recently traded in his E500 sedan and went back to Lexus, apparently his E had to many niggles for his comfort. Hopefully they'll get back on track, but I think the company is spread thin - they're trying (very, very slowly) to fix all of Chrysler's problems while getting back on track with their own products. Another family member recently purchased a BMW 530i, and while it drives well, it's interior feels cheap, especially the back of the center console where the rear a/c controls are and the door panels - it's cheap plastic that feels much like that of a firend's 2006 Honda Accord. I'm not impressed. >> The only areas MB outdoes Porsche is on the JD Power Initial Quality and >> Reliability surveys, where Porsche leads or is near the top of the list [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > it's cheap plastic that feels much like that of a firend's 2006 Honda > Accord. I'm not impressed. My dad had an '88 300 SEL - had a leaky sunroof and needed top end motor work at 65K miles while on a trip. The day after he sold it to the mechanic who had worked on the car most of its life, the tranny suffered a major malfunction. I talked him out of an E wagon in favor of a Lexus RX330 about 18 months ago. I'd be very leery of buying a MB right now. BMW makes some nice cars, but I haven't seen a 300 series where the door to fender creases weren't off a bit. Saw the same on a brand new 750iL today...........when we took delivery of our Carrera I went over that car with a microscope - the fit and finish were perfect. Of course, BMW makes about 10 times the number vehicles Porsche does annually, but you'd think they could at least get the fenders on straight. >My dad had an '88 300 SEL - had a leaky sunroof and needed top end motor >work at 65K miles while on a trip. The day after he sold it to the mechanic Newsflash: that engine sucked. The top ends on most (vergasser) MB's seldome last mroe than 150K miles but the bottom ends seem to never die. 65K is a little early and sounds like too infrequent oil changes. >who had worked on the car most of its life, the tranny suffered a major >malfunction. I talked him out of an E wagon in favor of a Lexus RX330 about >18 months ago. I'd be very leery of buying a MB right now. Sadly that's true, but it's not endemic to just MB. Any contemporary German car out of warrenty is too scary to consider - the shadetree mechanic has somewhat less of a fightiung chance these days which is putting it mildly. >BMW makes some nice cars, but I haven't seen a 300 series where the door to >fender creases weren't off a bit. Saw the same on a brand new 750iL >today...........when we took delivery of our Carrera I went over that car >with a microscope - the fit and finish were perfect. Of course, BMW makes >about 10 times the number vehicles Porsche does annually, but you'd think >they could at least get the fenders on straight. You get what you pay for. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >> Newsflash: that engine sucked. The top ends on most (vergasser) MB's > seldome last mroe than 150K miles but the bottom ends seem to never > die. 65K is a little early and sounds like too infrequent oil > changes. And you know this how? Tea leaves? Crystal ball? Newsflash for you: my dad halved the service interval for oil/oil filter changes (as he has always done with his cars). Stick to what you know and not what you'd like things to be. >>> Newsflash: that engine sucked. The top ends on most (vergasser) MB's >> seldome last mroe than 150K miles but the bottom ends seem to never [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >done with his cars). Stick to what you know and not what you'd like things >to be. I said "sounds *like*" not "here's an authoritative answer from a registered psychic". That is, to say the least, a very unusual and early failure. Eh, sh.t happens. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net > I said "sounds *like*" not "here's an authoritative answer from a > registered > psychic". I know what you said. The point is, you don't know the car or the driver, and have no basis for suggesting the failure was the result of infrequent oil changes. >> I said "sounds *like*" not "here's an authoritative answer from a >> registered [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and have no basis for suggesting the failure was the result of infrequent >oil changes. I agree with you. I said "it sounds like" not "it's because of". SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net > I agree with you. I said "it sounds like" not "it's because of". Brilliant. You said it sounds like infrequent oil changes were the cause of the motor problems on a car that had oil changes at half the intervals recommended by the factory. >> I agree with you. I said "it sounds like" not "it's because of". > >Brilliant. You said it sounds like infrequent oil changes were the cause of >the motor problems on a car that had oil changes at half the intervals >recommended by the factory. So... your point is? SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >>> I agree with you. I said "it sounds like" not "it's because of". >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So... your point is? Exactly what it's been all along - you have no knowledge of the service records of the car in question and are in no position to postulate the reason for the engine problem. It's a simple concept. >Exactly what it's been all along - you have no knowledge of the service >records of the car in question and are in no position to postulate the >reason for the engine problem. It's a simple concept. Absolutely. Maybe he didn't change the oil enough or something. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >> Exactly what it's been all along - you have no knowledge of the service >> records of the car in question and are in no position to postulate the >> reason for the engine problem. It's a simple concept. > > Absolutely. Maybe he didn't change the oil enough or something. LOL! Jim, you are taking it too personally. Richard is suggesting a possible cause of early failure, not saying you or your dad actually are negligent in that respect. >>> Exactly what it's been all along - you have no knowledge of the service >>> records of the car in question and are in no position to postulate the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > possible cause of early failure, not saying you or your dad actually are > negligent in that respect. I understand your point, but he suggested a cause that would be negligent maintenence without knowing any specifics about the car. Now that he knows the car got oil/filter changes at half the factory recommended intervals, he's still pushing the "didn't change the oil enough or something" BS. >didn't change the oil enough or something That's ok, do better next time. Try half the factory recommendation. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net > >didn't change the oil enough or something > That's ok, do better next time. Try half the factory recommendation. Why? Do you do the same with all the fluids in the car, and if so why not? Signature*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> >didn't change the oil enough or something > >> That's ok, do better next time. Try half the factory recommendation. > >Why? Do you do the same with all the fluids in the car, and if so why not? Jesus. I hear there's a sesne of humour on ebay. They take paypal and ship internationally. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net > That's ok, do better next time. Try half the factory recommendation. Whatever you say, Dick. >> That's ok, do better next time. Try half the factory recommendation. > >Whatever you say, Dick. That's the spirit. Hope this helps. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net > That's the spirit. Hope this helps. Not really, dick. >> That's the spirit. Hope this helps. > > Not really, dick. I think you need to capitalize that. >>Exactly what it's been all along - you have no knowledge of the service >>records of the car in question and are in no position to postulate the >>reason for the engine problem. It's a simple concept. > > Absolutely. Maybe he didn't change the oil enough or something. Yeah, half the factory recommended interval isn't near enough. Of course you knew that before you wrote this latest piece of BS............ Jim Keenan wrote: >> I agree with you. I said "it sounds like" not "it's because of". > > Brilliant. You said it sounds like infrequent oil changes were the cause of > the motor problems on a car that had oil changes at half the intervals > recommended by the factory. Let's see, "infrequent" means (not occurring regularly or at short intervals). Failure to change the oil as recommended might be the cause of ... what? Thirty years ago a valid, legally enforceable contract between two business corporations could be written on a single sheet of paper. Today, it requires a ream of paper to write the same contract. Conclusion: Excess chaff and rare wheat grains exist today proving that more is not better. What a joy to see plain simple straight-forward communication without some apparent need for pretense or trying to audition for the 'elite'. No offense is intended: I merely made an observation after reading and re-reading trying to figure out what was being said, or attempted to be said. There's nothing wrong with 'education', but what passes for education and or intellect these days is something I must just shake my head at. >> The only areas MB outdoes Porsche is on the JD Power Initial Quality and >> Reliability surveys, where Porsche leads or is near the top of the list on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >liked both, but the rock solid build isn't there anymore, nor is that >"special feeling" the older ones gave off. An uncle recently traded in Sure, but keep in mind a Mercedes used to cost (a lot) more than a Toyota and this is (absurdly) no longer true. People want cheap. So now they've got cheap Mercedes with overcomplicated electrics and bits that fall off and electromechanical systems so bizarre that MB techs I know have quit claiming the cars are unfixable. One wag says "MB has jumped the shark the way Jag did a decade ago". The long Maybach is still nice though :-) But the days of handbuilt 111 coupes in the somewhat affordable range are gone, period. Which is fine , new cars suck anyway :-) SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net >> One wag says "MB has jumped the shark the way Jag did a decade ago". MB may have jumped the shark, but Jags have always been sh.t for reliability- they just used to be *classy* pieces of sh.t. >>> One wag says "MB has jumped the shark the way Jag did a decade ago". > >MB may have jumped the shark, but Jags have always been sh.t for >reliability- they just used to be *classy* pieces of sh.t. Har. Yeah but then they work... Again, deffering to that great bastion of TV automotive excellence, Top Gear, they recenly tested an E-type and got a 3 (?) second better lap time than a Lotus Espirt. That's pretty damn impressive really. I was impresses that the car could make a complete lap without breaking down. SignatureNeed Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org 1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net 633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message