 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Porsche / Porsche Cars / September 2004Thinking about buying a boxster, need direction!
I'm ready to trade in my lame a$$ Olds Alero for a nice car, and need some direction. The Boxster (no S) looks like a nice entry level Porsche and more in my price range, but I'm hesitent about shelling out the cash when it seems just as small as a Miata and less powerful than a Mustang. Don't get me wrong -- I know I'm getting a much much nicer car if I go with Porsche. I'm not trying to make any comparision, not even going there! I just feel like I'm NOT really getting a Porsche when I go with a 220hp engine. I'm wondering if I should even bother looking at Porsches if the entry level model is all I want to spend. I suppose you can't put a hitch on a Boxster either (for my jetskis) lol! -Max > I'm ready to trade in my lame a$$ Olds Alero for a nice car, and need some > direction. The Boxster (no S) looks like a nice entry level Porsche and more [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -Max 220 in a boxter will still be more entertaining that 280 in a mustang. You are buying road feel, styling, and a lovely engine note. If you want more bang for your buck, go get a nice mid 80's 911sc, it will run for 225,000 miles easily, so get a nice one with 100,000 on it, and you are ahead. Or get a nice 928, like I did, but be prepared to cry when you get it worked on, or learn to work on breath-takingly complex machinery. Or get a mustang, if you are too worried about the number you say when people ask.. Bernard I smell a troll... <I just feel like I'm NOT really getting a Porsche when I go with a 220hp> The 550 Spyder...(the James Dean death Porsche) produced 136HP. Anybody can build fast. Fast does not equal quality. > I'm ready to trade in my lame a$$ Olds Alero for a nice car, and need some > direction. The Boxster (no S) looks like a nice entry level Porsche and more [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -Max Yeah, trolls always say things like, "Don't get me wrong -- I know I'm getting a much much nicer car if I go with Porsche. I'm not trying to make any comparision, not even going there!" > I smell a troll... > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > > -Max What's a troll? > Yeah, trolls always say things like, "Don't get me wrong -- I know I'm > getting a much much nicer car if I go > with Porsche. I'm not trying to make any comparision, not even going > there!" I said that so people wouldn't spend time writing about how great a porsche is compared to a Miata. lol! I want to get a feel for what Porsche I should be looking at in my situation. > Yeah, trolls always say things like, "Don't get me wrong -- I know I'm > getting a much much nicer car if I go > with Porsche. I'm not trying to make any comparision, not even going > there!" Well Max, there is an alternative to the Boxster that might suit you better...a 968 Cabriolet is a very nice ride. 240HP, handles like a dream. Problem with 968's is they tend to be more expensive than '97-'99 Boxsters. Keep in mind...an entry level Porsche is not like an entry level Chevy. An entry level Porsche just happens to be the least expensive of the line. You still get a Porsche. > I said that so people wouldn't spend time writing about how great a porsche > is compared to a Miata. lol! I want to get a feel for what Porsche I should [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > with Porsche. I'm not trying to make any comparision, not even going > > there!" Read the first paragraph...Trolls typically make an underhanded comments followed by a compliment. If the person REALLY understood that a Porsche was a nicer car, he wouldn't be concerned with power compared to a Mustang. Did you read this line??? <I just feel like I'm NOT really getting a Porsche when I go with a 220hp> What is that supposed to mean? The most successful 911 lines ever (the 78-83 SC and 84-89 Carreras) were 180HP and 202HP respectively. So those aren't really Porsches? As I pointed out, the 550 Spyder that James Dean died in had 138HP. The 944's that smoked the Camaros and Corvettes in IMSA had 150HP. How about this: <I'm wondering if I should even bother looking at Porsches if the entry level model is all I want to spend.> Anyone that knows cars or has researched cars knows that an entry level Porsche refers to the lowest priced car in the group. An entry level Porsche is usually better than a flagship any other brand. If the man was serious, I apologize, but it smelled of troll. > Yeah, trolls always say things like, "Don't get me wrong -- I know I'm > getting a much much nicer car if I go [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > > > > > -Max > If the person REALLY understood that a Porsche was a nicer car, he wouldn't > be concerned with power compared to a Mustang. Performance is a part of every car's overall "how good is it" factor. Porsches are "nicer" than various other cars, but when even a Nissan Maxima sedan has 255hp, the power numbers can start factoring in. If a Porsche is to be considered a performance or sports (or even grand touring) car, then it must be partly judged on performance. > Did you read this line??? > <I just feel like I'm NOT really getting a Porsche when I go with a 220hp> > What is that supposed to mean? It means when the average person thinks of a Porsche they think of a fire-breathing, 400hp, turbocharged wundercar. Just like when the average person thinks of a Mustang they think V8, even though there are more V6's on the road than V8's. It's like back in the '80's when someone bought a 4-cylinder Mustang or Camaro. They looked like Mustangs and Camaros, but the performance didn't fit the image and hence "not really getting a Mustang or Camaro." <Performance is a part of every car's overall "how good is it" factor. Porsches are "nicer" than various other cars, but when even a Nissan Maxima sedan has 255hp, the power numbers can start factoring in. If a Porsche is to be considered a performance or sports (or even grand touring) car, then it must be partly judged on performance. > Here we go again! Power is only a part of performance. Does the extra 600 or so lbs and torque oversteer of the FWD Maxima hurt it compared to the Boxster, of course it does. Going back to the R&T Pro-SCCA Racer-Amateur story last year. The 911 vs. The Corvette vs. the NSX. The 911 did not have the top power, did not have the top handling, in fact only won in the braking competition, yet was chosen the overall winner by 2 of the 3 judges because of its all around great performance. The reason why a Mustang is such a crappy comparison, is because power is ALL it has. Power is the easiest and cheapest part of the picture. Anybody can do power. Getting everything else right plus quality is the trick. Anyone researching a Boxster knows they are getting a high performance car NOT a high power car. > > If the person REALLY understood that a Porsche was a nicer car, he wouldn't > > be concerned with power compared to a Mustang. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Mustangs and Camaros, but the performance didn't fit the image and hence > "not really getting a Mustang or Camaro." The point of my comment was more to compare a new $40k Porsche with a $100K Porsche. I don't feel like I'm getting a Porsche with a lower-end model. I brought up Mustang, because I don't really consider a Mustang a Mustang unless it's a GT, Cobra, etc. The Mustang is a crappy car if you aren't even going to get the big engine without any options. I felt there was a similar comparision with a $40k Porsche and a $100K Porsche, or even a $60K Boxster. Am I really getting a Porsche I can feel good about having if it has none of the nicer options? -Max ~~~~~ > > > Did you read this line??? > > > <I just feel like I'm NOT really getting a Porsche when I go with a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Mustangs and Camaros, but the performance didn't fit the image and hence > > "not really getting a Mustang or Camaro." <The point of my comment was more to compare a new $40k Porsche with a $100K Porsche. I don't feel like I'm getting a Porsche with a lower-end model.> Max, the point I think you are missing is there really are no "lower end models" just models with different prices and features. For instance, would you feel in 1995 you were getting a "lower end model" if you got a brand new 911 (993) ? Well, in your terms, you would because the "top of the line" model was the 928GTS4. When I was buying my latest Porsche I drove several late 80's 911 Carreras and finally decided on the "lower end" 944S2 Cabriolet, you know why? The 944 offered far better all around performance than the "top of the line" 911. All Porsches are/were built to the highest standards and all models share a lot of common parts, some just come with more expensive engines, come in limited numbers or just plain have more features. Here's another example...the current generation Boxster is 10 times the machine as my old S2. The Boxster costs around $45K and my old S2 cost well over $50K in 1990! Do I consider the far cheaper Boxster below my more expensive 944? Hell no...you are not buying the "bottom" of anything except the price scale. Another way to look at it is, you want to buy in a 50 story building overlooking Elliot Bay. The condo on the 50th floor will cost more than the condo on the 30th floor, but the view will generally be the same....get it? You won't really be missing any features on your Boxster and I can guarantee you will enjoy the hell out of it. > The point of my comment was more to compare a new $40k Porsche with a $100K > Porsche. I don't feel like I'm getting a Porsche with a lower-end model. I [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > Mustangs and Camaros, but the performance didn't fit the image and hence > > > "not really getting a Mustang or Camaro." In the end, a car's real value boils down to its "seat of your pants" feel, right? I mean, a VW GTI is a nice little car - nothing impressive, it just scoots along very nicely. Same with the Nissan 300Z (now the 350Z). However, if you want "prestige" in your nameplate, Porsche will buy some of that - but Ford and Mustang won't. If you want (cheap) power, then Mustangs and Camaros are the way to go - but they drive like a brick! Go drive a Porsche 944, then a Boxster, then a Mustang Cobra. You will likely discover that the Porsche products (both young and old) are far and away the better "seat of your pants" cars than the top-of-the-line Mustang. If you are interested in screeching away from stoplights, then why pay for nameplate? Everyman's Mustang (or any American musclecar) will work for this. p.s. - If you are interested in skittering around corners like a mad squirrel, then consider a Beck Spyder (a replica of the Porsche 550 Spyder) - no "power" but those 150+ horses only have to move about 1200 pound of car. My research indicates you can spend about $25K for a good used one. I'm yet to drive one, but I hear great things about them. 0 to 60 MPH in under 6 seconds for less than $30K? Cool by me. > <The point of my comment was more to compare a new $40k Porsche with a $100K > Porsche. I don't feel like I'm getting a Porsche with a lower-end model.> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 911 (993) ? Well, in your terms, you would because the "top of the line" > model was the 928GTS4. I'd say the 914 was a lower-end model than a 911. I'd say a Boxster is a lower-end model than a 911. I'd say a non-turbo 911 is lower end than an AWD twin-turbo 911. Going back to Mustang examples, I'd be surprised to hear anyone ever say a V6 Mustang is just simply a Mustang with a different price and different "features" than the supercharged Cobra version. Well, I for one don't feel the Boxster is 'low end' per se. True, I could afford it much better than a Carrera, but in its own right I like the mid-engine design. Also, the Boxster is more a roadster, while a Cabriolet is more like a mere convertable sports car.  SignatureDan Stephenson Photos and movies from US Parks and all over Europe: http://homepage.mac.com/stepheda > <Performance is a part of every car's overall "how good is it" factor. > Porsches are "nicer" than various other cars, but when even a Nissan Maxima [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > chosen the overall winner by 2 of the 3 judges because of its all around > great performance. "Here we go again!" It was chosen the overall winner by 2 of the 3 judges because of its all around great performance, you say. Now go read my very first sentence up there again. I may have made a specific example for horsepower, but it wasn't the only "performance" part considered. Straight-line speed is merely the bigger factor for a typical person's idea of performance, in general. Power is only part of performance, but it's generally a big part. > The reason why a Mustang is such a crappy comparison, is because power > is ALL it has. Power is the easiest and cheapest part of the picture. > Anybody can do power. Not anybody. Not an n/a 944. That's why people stick Chevy V8's into them. "Here we go again!" lol. > Not anybody. Not an n/a 944. That's why people stick Chevy V8's into > them. A conversion that has been done in no significant number. A few equations: Faster than a Boxster = Lotus Elise Faster than a Lotus Elise = Caterham Less weight = better Mid engine = better than one at either end Power = spurious unless handling / balance are sorted Otherwise, but a truck - they are quite powerful <Not anybody. Not an n/a 944. That's why people stick Chevy V8's into them.> You actually believe what you write, huh? The N/A 944 from the early to late 80's had THE SAME horsepower as a V-8 Camaro or Firebird at half the engine size and half the curb weight. In other words...in it's day the N/A 944 was quite powerful. Once again...your subjective "stick Chevy V-8's in them" is still just that subjective. You have no concrete proof that it is done in significant numbers. Once again, coming from someone who doesn't own a Porsche and someone who has never driven a Porsche, you come across as a troll. > > <Performance is a part of every car's overall "how good is it" factor. > > Porsches are "nicer" than various other cars, but when even a Nissan Maxima [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > "Here we go again!" lol. > <Not anybody. Not an n/a 944. That's why people stick Chevy V8's into > them.> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > still just that subjective. You have no concrete proof that it is done in > significant numbers. Did I really need to include a smiley for what I wrote? Since you can't handle *anything* even remotely considered to be a negative toward a Porsche, apparently so. This is further evidenced by you recently claiming that a 914 is not a lower-end Porsche than a 911. But, since you want to pursue it, fine. You constantly bring up what old Porsches did back when they were new and pretend that has ANYTHING to do with today's performance expectations. You say an n/a 944 from the 80's had the same hp as a V8 Camaro. That means nothing for today's standards. And so for today, if you want a fast n/a 80's 944, you either spend some bucks to put a Chevy (or some other) engine into it, or you spend even more bucks trying to modify it as it sits. Who cares about if putting a Chevy engine into a Porsche is or isn't done "in significant numbers"? It's been done, and it's usually the way to go to make lots of power in those particular year and model Porsches. I once linked you to the page of the guy who put a 200hp Chevy V6 into his 924 because it was a similar price and more powerful than fixing the head on the stock engine. He has since put a Grand National V6 into it and is having a blast. I can give you his email address if you want to tell him how to get the same power for the price out of the original 924 engine. You may as well tell the entire newsgroup how to do it, though. This is now the part where you sidestep answering me about how to get a reliable 300hp/400hp/500hp/600hp out of an 80's n/a 944. I know how to get that much power out of an 80's Camaro. You tell me how to get that much power out of an 80's n/a 944. You know, since that's the point you were refuting in the first place. And you say the 80's n/a 944 had the same horsepower as a V8 Camaro. Really? I didn't know n/a 944s had 225hp in 1987. 1985's TPI 5.0 had 215hp and 275lbs-ft. What did 1985's n/a 944 have again? Summing up and going back to my first paragraph, you absolutely cannot stand seeing anything negative of any kind being said about any Porsche. The year is 2004. I said old n/a 944s are slow. You then reply by traveling back in time two decades and talking about how they didn't used to be slow. An 80's 944 had this much horsepower, an 80's Z28 had that much horsepower -- it doesn't matter because today they are BOTH slow stock. See the point? Probably not. But, hey, you liked using the word "subjective" up there, and, yes, "fast" is subjective. So if you consider a 150hp Porsche to be fast today, then there you are, I guess. > Who cares about if putting a Chevy engine into a Porsche is or isn't > done "in significant numbers"? It's been done, and it's usually the way > to go to make lots of power in those particular year and model > Porsches. I once linked you to the page of the guy who put a 200hp > Chevy V6 into his 924...... Who cares? If the swap was a practical alternative it would be done in significant numbers. The absence of a line of Porsche owners clamoring for a bowtie for their cars suggests this is nothing more than one man's fancy. Anybody can swap practically any motor into any vehicle if they're willing to put in the time and money, but it doesn't mean the conversion is worth a cup of warm spit. Yeah, "it's been done" by one guy, and it doesn't mean jack....... > > Who cares about if putting a Chevy engine into a Porsche is or isn't > > done "in significant numbers"? It's been done, and it's usually the way [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > conversion is worth a cup of warm spit. Yeah, "it's been done" by one > guy, and it doesn't mean jack....... It means jack when the topic is how to make an 80's n/a 944 "fast." That is what Devils refuted in my post. If he thinks they are still considered "fast" stock in the year 2004, fine, but for those people who don't think that, he still needs to provide a practical way of making them fast using the stock engine since he's the one who wanted to chime in about it. Devils could have easily just agreed and said that particular year and model are now slow and that he'd recommend putting a 951 engine in, etc, or simply just saying they are what they are and probably aren't worth trying to hotrod, but he couldn't do that. He merely attacks anything negative said about any Porsche. >It means jack when the topic is how to make an 80's n/a 944 "fast." > That about sums it up for all of us you jack off...the topic is "Thinking about a Boxster, need direction" > > > Who cares about if putting a Chevy engine into a Porsche is or isn't > > > done "in significant numbers"? It's been done, and it's usually the way [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > trying to hotrod, but he couldn't do that. He merely attacks anything > negative said about any Porsche. > >It means jack when the topic is how to make an 80's n/a 944 "fast." > > > That about sums it up for all of us you jack off...the topic is "Thinking > about a Boxster, need direction" As usual, you lie. You said Porsches could do "power" as well as anything else. I said an 80's n/a 944 couldn't. You then jumped into your way-back machine and went back two decades to when those particular models were considered fast. Why did you have to go back two decades? It's because YOU KNOW they can't compete in power against newer cars. Face it, you're a Porsche snob who can't let ANY negative comment about ANY Porsche go by. I mean, really, who the hell besides someone like you would not only say an 80's n/a 944 is still considered "fast" but also say that there are no "low-end" Porsches when a Porsche is compared to another Porsche. You lie and you're full of sh.t, as usual. I wouldn't even bother replying to half of your stuff if you'd at least be honest about what you write. Don't want me to reply? Then start being honest. > It means jack when the topic is how to make an 80's n/a 944 "fast." Wrong. You continue to miss the point. You said "That's why people stick Chevy V8s in them". People aren't sticking Chevy V8s in them. You cited one guy. ONE GUY. Like I said, there's always someone who'll swap anything into anything, but the simple fact is people are not putting Chevy V8s into the 944 in any significant numbers - it's not a practical alternative for anyone other than someone who wants to undertake the engineering headaches and expense (or lay out even more money for someone else's headaches). I'll let you in on a secret: every time the local Porsche club has a get together, the hot topic among the 944 drivers is NOT how soon their Chevy V8 conversion will be ready. You can talk theoretical engine swap "what ifs" all you want, but until a hoard of 944 owners line up for bowties, it's just more Chevy BS, and it doesn't mean jack. The fact that one guy drops a V8 into a 944 (and then apparently gets rid of it and puts in a Buick V6) doesn't equate to "people stick Chevy V8s in them" in the real world. Anybody can fire off some snappy little rejoinder like "That's why people stick Chevy V8s in them", but when you can't back it up IT DOESN'T MEAN JACK. Actually Jim, I know about 2 others than the guy he is talking about, the first stuck in an LT-1 and loves it, EXCEPT he warns anybody that does it to be ready to turn some wrenches, it breaks and breaks often. He has personally had it out of the car three times since the conversion. He definitely will debunk the "cheap to maintain" argument. The other guy that did it and has the same maintenance issues and STRONGLY advises against it, he said that you will be impressed initially by the added power, but once used to it, the money factor ruins the whole experience. > > It means jack when the topic is how to make an 80's n/a 944 "fast." > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > people stick Chevy V8s in them", but when you can't back it up IT > DOESN'T MEAN JACK. > Actually Jim, I know about 2 others than the guy he is talking about, the > first stuck in an LT-1 and loves it, EXCEPT he warns anybody that does it to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > he said that you will be impressed initially by the added power, but once > used to it, the money factor ruins the whole experience. I suspected there might be a few others. One guy, three guys, the point is the same: a V8 swap into a 944 isn't being done in any significant numbers, certainly not to the point where a global statement like "that's why people stick Chevy V8s in them" has any merit. But I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know...... >>>It means jack when the topic is how to make an 80's n/a 944 "fast." >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>people stick Chevy V8s in them", but when you can't back it up IT >>DOESN'T MEAN JACK. > Actually Jim, I know about 2 others than the guy he is talking about, the > first stuck in an LT-1 and loves it, EXCEPT he warns anybody that does it to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > he said that you will be impressed initially by the added power, but once > used to it, the money factor ruins the whole experience. So you're saying that lots of power breaks parts? Wow, imagine that. Who'da thought that having more than a wimpy 150hp might actually break something. There are a number of 928 owners who have posted about their Chevy swaps who couldn't be happier. I can give you personal account after personal account of GM engines doing 200k miles without a hitch. 200k is nothing special nowadays. Doing 200k with 300+hp is a little different. Why you can't separate the two, I don't know. Must be your ego. 3 times in one year? Hardly 200K. > > Actually Jim, I know about 2 others than the guy he is talking about, the > > first stuck in an LT-1 and loves it, EXCEPT he warns anybody that does it to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Doing 200k with 300+hp is a little different. Why you can't separate > the two, I don't know. Must be your ego. > > It means jack when the topic is how to make an 80's n/a 944 "fast." > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > people stick Chevy V8s in them", but when you can't back it up IT > DOESN'T MEAN JACK. Good Lord. You're like a Devils944 clone. Devils said any car can do power like a Mustang. I said an 80's n/a 944 can't. And then Devils jumped in pretending an 80's n/a 944 could accomplish such a feat without an engine swap (possibly a Chevy). I talk about people putting Chevys into them when the topic of POWER comes up. No one talks about power with the stock engine. I mean, come on. It's easier to put a Chevy engine into a 928, but that's not the topic at hand. Be honest, an 80's n/a 944 is hard to make "fast" compared to current standards. They are fine cars, but they simply can't keep up in a straight line with current stuff without some serious mods. If you can be honest about that last sentence, then I don't know why you are arguing. If not, then tell me how to make some big power numbers out of an 80's n/a 944 without a Chevy engine swap. I'll even let you swap a 951 engine in. You know why? It's because I don't care what the engine is, just tell me how to make it fast. That's something that Devils simply won't do. He'll sit there until hell freezes over telling you that an 80's n/a 944 with a K&N and an exhaust will keep up with the 300+hp cars of today. I don't care if you want to swap a 951 engine in, just don't bs me and tell me you can keep up with the n/a engine. I'm not missing the point at all. Devils changed the point when he claimed what he did about n/a 944's. I've already said I'd have no problem if he would have just said they are what they are and that other cars are faster for easier/cheaper in a straight line. (The cars are 20 years old, after all). But his Porsche ego didn't allow that. So, the question remains: tell me how to get 300/400/500/600hp out of an 80's n/a 944 engine as easily and as cheaply as you could out of a 5.0 Mustang. THAT was the point. Devils continues to argue it. Will you? I'd have a hard time arguing about a Z28 doing power as easily or as cheaply as a 5.0, so good luck if you want to argue an 80's n/a 944 Porsche doing it. I hope you understand this. It's not about Porsches being "bad" or "inferior" or anything else. It's about power. You can not care about straight-line power if you want, but Devils denied it and so here we are. If he wants to compare the power potential of an 80's n/a 944 to a 5.0 Mustang, well, he can go ahead. And he will lose that argument every time. > If not, then tell me how to make some big power numbers out of >an 80's n/a 944 without a Chevy engine swap. There are a number of factors that need to come into consideration when attempting to increase the general performance of a car. Curb weight and gear ratios are two of the most important. A 1991 944 S2 weighs 2,998 pounds and makes 208 horsepower. A 2001 Camaro Z28 weighs 3,439 pounds and makes 310 horsepower. So The Camaro makes approx. 11.1 Hp per pound where the 944 makes about 14.4 horsepower per pound. The Z28's big advantage is in it's flatter powerband and greater amount of low-RPM torque. If we could increase the 944's horsepower to 240, which would be an increase of 32 horsepower, we could drop it's power to weight ratio to 12.49 pounds per horsepower and probably drop it's 0-60 time into the high 5s. Even lower with stickier tires and a short-shift kit. You can probably see the methodology here, so I won't go along any furthur, but making an N/A 944 competant to compete with a Camaro is entirely possible, even without a V8 swap. Of course the easy method to is start with a 944 Turbo and start chipping it. Steve- You make perfect sense (like usual), but what you have to understand, Brad is not interested in talking about the subject at hand (Boxsters)he is a non-Porsche owner who wants to troll about Chevy's to tweak Porsche owners. He is stuck in the "straight line power" mindset, as are most Americans, and simply does not understand the nuances of a finely prepared sports car. Anything you say will be pretty much lost on him. He simply does not understand. So back to the subject at hand...Boxsters...fine ride, but I might prefer a 968. > > If not, then tell me how to make some big power numbers out of > >an 80's n/a 944 without a Chevy engine swap. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > entirely possible, even without a V8 swap. Of course the easy method to is > start with a 944 Turbo and start chipping it. >So back to the subject at hand...Boxsters...fine ride, but I might >prefer a 968. Hard choice. I'd certainly take a used 968 over a used Boxster, as the 968 will have similar performance for far less money with minimal loss of amenities, etc...However, a new Boxster will best the 968 to 60 MPH by about a half second, and while we shouldn't attempt to donwplay the 968's wonderfully balanced handling, the Boxster's is so superb it's hard to want anything else. I'd probably try and get a used Boxster S as opposed to either a used 968 or new non-S Boxster. > So back to the subject at hand...Boxsters...fine ride, but I might > prefer a 968. I had a Boxster loaner when the Carrera was in for rear tires. Nice car, but for me there's a huge blind spot back over the left shoulder because of the width of the convertible top C pillar. Even with a major head turn, I find it hard to see back there for lane changes. Not a convertible guy, so if the 968 was a coupe I'd probably agree...... >Not a convertible guy, so if the 968 was a coupe I'd probably agree...... There was a 968 Coupe, till' 1995. > I'm not missing the point at all. Devils changed the point when he > claimed what he did about n/a 944's. Hello! I'm not Devils. If you have issues with him they aren't part of our argument. I'm contesting (again, still) your blanket assertion "That's why people put Chevy V8s in them". You provided ONE instance of someone putting a Chevy V8 into a 944. Devils came up with a couple more, for a total of three. The point I have made (several times now), and you miss or choose to ignore is that a Chevy V8 into a 944 isn't being done in any significant numbers. It's not a practical alternative, which is why you don't see 944 owners lined up to the horizon waiting to get it done. By your own admission the guy you mentioned has since swapped in a Buick V6; Devils said one guy he knows doesn't recommend the swap, and the other is in the garage with broken parts more than he is on the road. Not exactly ringing endorsements........ >The point I >have made (several times now), and you miss or choose to ignore is that >a Chevy V8 into a 944 isn't being done in any significant numbers. It's >not a practical alternative These are the same (few) "nutjobs" who'll also drop Chevy crate motors into vintage VW Beetles and other small cars just because they can do it "on the cheap", and they want to prove it's possible. It's one thing when done just for hell of it, it's quite another thing when people are claiming that the OHV-pushrod 350 is a superior motor to anything Porsche has ever built. The only motor GM has ever built, IMO, that can honestly be called "world-class" was the LT5. It only lasted from 1988 to 1994 and wasn't even built in a GM factory. > These are the same (few) "nutjobs" who'll also drop Chevy crate motors into > vintage VW Beetles and other small cars just because they can do it "on the > cheap", and they want to prove it's possible. Yep. With enough time and money, someone can swap almost anything into anything, but the fact that a few folks have doesn't, in any way, shape or form qualify for the global assertion "That's why people stick Chevy V8s in them ". >Yep. With enough time and money, someone can swap almost anything into >anything, but the fact that a few folks have doesn't, in any way, shape >or form qualify for the global assertion "That's why people stick Chevy >V8s in them ". I agree. Even the old 912 can be be tuned, for close 200Hp. It's just easier for some people to want to swap in a newer 911-spec six, or even drop in a V8. I don't endorse it, I think of it as basterdization, but some people will do it. > > > It means jack when the topic is how to make an 80's n/a 944 "fast." > > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > 5.0 Mustang, well, he can go ahead. And he will lose that argument > every time. You guys are a hoot. I've built Chevy's and Porsche's and professionally raced both. They are apples and oranges. The 350 (a bored out extended stroke 283) is one of the best engines ever made. The Porsche 917/30, a 35 year old construction, is still one of the (if not the) fastest race cars ever to rip up a track. Before it was banned from racing it destroyed the Can-Am Challenge Cup series by finishing 1, 2 and 3 in many of the events. The "better" car is the Porsche but it will cost 3 or 4 times the cost of a Chevy and the Chevy is no disgrace. > > > It means jack when the topic is how to make an 80's n/a 944 "fast." > > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > 5.0 Mustang, well, he can go ahead. And he will lose that argument > every time. > But, since you want to pursue it, fine. You constantly bring up what > old Porsches did back when they were new and pretend that has ANYTHING [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > either spend some bucks to put a Chevy (or some other) engine into it, > or you spend even more bucks trying to modify it as it sits. I don't understand this line of thinking. I have a twenty year old 928 with over two hundred thousand miles on it, and it has gone up to it's listed top speed of 143 for me, twenty year old Porsches are still fast. Why do you think people couldn't go fast in the '80's? We did. SNIP . > But, hey, you liked using the word "subjective" up there, and, yes, > "fast" is subjective. So if you consider a 150hp Porsche to be fast > today, then there you are, I guess. If you can go fast with 150 hp. who cares that some cars have a higher number? Bernard > > But, since you want to pursue it, fine. You constantly bring up what > > old Porsches did back when they were new and pretend that has ANYTHING [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fast. Why do you think people couldn't go fast in the '80's? > We did. "Fast" meaning horsepower and torque. Not top speed. Pretty much anything decent in the past 15 years can do around 140mph. But, switching to top speed for a moment, newer performance cars can do much more than 143mph. If someone has an old Porsche and wants to have a higher top speed than that, what will Devils tell him -- to not worry about any other cars because your car was tops two decades ago? Devils refuted my statement that an 80's n/a 944 can't do big power easily, so I am awaiting his answer on how to make one do big power easily without an engine swap. I see he has already replied to another thread posted eight hours after mine, so I don't expect a reply to mine. He tries to build up the n/a engine by saying it had as much horsepower as the V8 Camaros and he tries to build them up by talking about performance of two decades ago, when all he had to do was be honest and say, "Yeah, an 80's n/a 944 engine has a hard time competing in the power department against various other cars." For some reason he just can't stand the thought that another car could possibly be better in one area than a Porsche of any kind. <If someone has an old Porsche and wants to have a higher top speed than that, what will Devils tell him -- to not worry about any other cars because your car was tops two decades ago? > Yeah Devils, what do you tell that person with an 85HP 356 or 130HP 550 Spyder...damn right, those old cars are now slow so slam a Chevy powerplant in'em. You know Brad, speaking about being honest, I am still waiting for you to come clean...what Porsche do you own ? Yeah, just as I thought. You won't answer the reliability question about the Chevy engines. You won't address the weight issue. You won't address the cost issue. You are just a big bullshitter with nothing positive to say and can't seem to get it through your thick skull that nobody cares about what you have to say. Big power was never the goal of the 944, never has been, never will be, but watching you trip all over yourself because of your Porsche history ignorance is just hilarious. I will try to somehow explain this one last time...the 944 was built as an all around performer. Outstanding power for a 4 cylinder car of it's era, handling matched by no one, Porsche quality build and finish, easy and fun to drive and the ability to run circles around the V-6's and V-8's of it's era. They stopped making them in 1991, so comparing them to "new" cars is pointless. Dropping a Chevy engine in one properly is neither cheap nor reliable and mostly against everything the 944 was originally built for. You want a faster 944, get a 951, you want a faster 944S2, you get a 968, and so on. Now get back on topic or shut the hell up. > > > But, since you want to pursue it, fine. You constantly bring up what > > > old Porsches did back when they were new and pretend that has ANYTHING [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > just can't stand the thought that another car could possibly be better > in one area than a Porsche of any kind. > You know Brad, speaking about being honest, I am still waiting for you to > come clean...what Porsche do you own ? Yeah, just as I thought. Maybe I've had two in the past and liked them but sold them. What's the difference? The fact remains that you still lie and bullshit and can't be honest when it comes to Porsche performance. > You won't answer the reliability question about the Chevy engines. You won't > address the weight issue. You won't address the cost issue. We've been through those before. Every time I give answers, you pretend I never did and then continue on your merry way of pretending that no Porsche of any kind or of any year has ever had anything negative about it ever. How many times do I have to say how good Porsches are. How many times do I have to say they are great cars. You never read those parts because you are a moron. You want to bring up the weight issue even though you have no idea what you are talking about. You just grasp at straws trying to make every Porsche better than anything else on the road. Even when the Porsches are 20 years old you try to pretend they are competitive with 2004 cars. Come on. You are just a > big bullshitter with nothing positive to say and can't seem to get it > through your thick skull that nobody cares about what you have to say. Big > power was never the goal of the 944, never has been, never will be, but > watching you trip all over yourself because of your Porsche history > ignorance is just hilarious. "Porsches are great cars." How is that not positive? Moron. So are you agreeing that an 80's n/a 944 would need some SERIOUS mods or an engine swap to compete with most newer cars, or even an 80's Mustang in a straight line? That's what you refuted in the first place. You seem to be leaning towards that in your reply there, so just go ahead and say it and then I will stop replying and you will be proven once again to be the lying bullshitter that you are. Don't you see what a dope you are? I have NEVER bashed Porsches. I have NEVER said they suck. All I've ever said is that some cars do better in a straight line than they do. And then you refute me on it and claim otherwise, yet then you come back and say things like you just did, yet again proving that you are a Porsche snob as well as a moron. Go ahead and say again that a 944 was never meant to compete in a straight line and say that a Mustang is better in a straight line than a 944. You will have proven my statements as fact and shown youreself to be a liar and that I speak the truth. What choice do you have? What could you possibly say otherwise? > I will try to somehow explain this one last time...the 944 was built as an > all around performer. Moron. I never said it wasn't an all-around performer. You just like to claim I did. I said other things are faster for cheaper in a straight line. You then refute those statements even though you MUST know that you are full of sh.t when you say them. I've never said a 944 wasn't an all-around performer; however, YOU have said a 944 can compete with a Mustang in a straight line. And so, you are an idiot and a bullshitter. > era. They stopped making them in 1991, so comparing them to "new" cars is > pointless. Moron. If someone has a 1991 Porsche and his neighbor has a 2004 whatever, and the 2004 whatever stomps the hell out of the 1991 Porsche in whatever performance category you want to name, and then the 1991 Porsche owner asks you, "Devils944, what do I need to mod on my 1991 Porsche in order to keep up or compete with my neighbor's 2004 whatever," you have no answer because you are a Porsche snob idiot who wants to reminisce about performance from two decades ago. When someone says, "I have a 1991 Mustang and my neighbor has a 2004 whatever, how do I compete with him?" People have answers. You have no answers because you are a liar and you suck. Get it yet? Instead of giving owners of older Porsches recommendations on how to make their cars even better than they currently are, you always resort to, "Hey, it's a Porsche, who cares what anyone else drives even if it whips on your car all day long." I don't know how you can possibly misunderstand such a thing. I mean, hey, don't drop a Chevy engine in to a 944. *I dont' care.* What I do care about is how to make a 15-20 year old Porsche be able to compete with the newer super-whiz-bang cars available. You are such a f.cking moron it is unbelievable to me. I talk about making older Porsches new again and about making them competitive with newer cars, and you just sit there with your head in the sand and lie and bullshit. Why you want to want to let older Porsches get spanked by newer cars, I don't know. >So are you agreeing that an 80's n/a 944 would need some SERIOUS mods or >an engine swap to compete with most newer cars, or even an 80's Mustang >in a straight line? I'll say that the average $30,000 sports car of 2004 is going to be equal to or better than a Naturally Aspirated 944 of mid to late 80s vintage, at least in straight line comparisons. However, the 1991 Mustang 5.0 was not, even at the time, a tremendously fast car. And I'd be interested to see how much faster it is, if at all, than a 1991 944 S2 Coupe. This isn't neccesarily a "knock" aganist the Mustang, just a curious question/observation. > All I've ever said is that some cars do >better in a straight line than they do Of course this is an obvious. And any "Porsche-o-phile" not willing to live in the land of reality where this claim holds true, doesn't deserve to be part of the Porsche community. However, I think we can all agree that there is more to great cars, great *sports* cars especially than straight line speed. Hell, a Neon SRT-4 is .02 faster to 60 MPH than a 944 Turbo S, and on-par with a *well* driven Boxster S. Does that mean that the SRT-4 is a better car than either a Boxster S or 944? Hardly! >Go ahead and say again that a 944 was never meant to compete in a >straight line and say that a Mustang is better in a straight line than a >944. I'll say it: On the dragstrip a well driven 5.0 Mustang is likely to match or beat even the most competantly driven N/A 944. However, I think we'll all agree that a 944 Turbo would probably tip the scales, and that when the comparison turns to road-holding and track times, there is a definite advantage to the Porsche. I've never personally been bothered much by the fact that many "new-era muscle cars" are as quick to 60 as some Porsches. Come road-course time, the scales usually lean toward my boys from Stuttgart, with little exception. >I mean, hey, don't drop a >Chevy engine in to a 944. *I dont' care.* What I do care about is how >to make a 15-20 year old Porsche be able to compete with the newer >super-whiz-bang cars available. I think there are other appraoches to 944-performance besides basterdizing it with a GM engine. But to each his own. I'm not about to tell you *not* to drop a GM engine into a car *you* spent *your* money on. I speak the truth. You're the guy who tried to tell us that John Force had a Chevy V8 in that Mustang-bodied funny car. You're the guy who made the global statement "That's why people stick Chevy V8s in them" and provided a single example, who has since swapped that motor for a Buick V6. <914 is not a lower-end Porsche than a 911> Nice spin, nice try, but no cigar. We were comparing Boxsters and 911's, but if you want to go back to the late 60's to mid 70's, you will find a 914 was about as far from the 911 of it's era as the Boxster is from this generation 911. <reliable 300hp/400hp/500hp/600hp> There you go again...you still haven't explained how Chevy is considered reliable. Cheap yes, reliable, not exactly part of their history from 1973 to present. > And you say the 80's n/a 944 had the same horsepower as a V8 Camaro. Really? I didn't know n/a 944s had 225hp in 1987. 1985's TPI 5.0 had 215hp and 275lbs-ft. What did 1985's n/a 944 have again? > Once again, nice try. You were somewhat smart to pick specific models from specific years, but you have to do better than that to prove your point. How about those other years, tell us about those 145HP 305 CI V-8 screamers put in the MAJORITY of those models, why don't you tell us about those 135HP 3.1 liter V-6's installed through 1992? I have a 3 liter slanted 4 in my 944 and I get 211HP. Explain to us why the 944 handily beat those V-8's in the IMSA series. As for your 1987 question... the n/a 944S had 190HP, meaning an engine half the size gave up 35 horses to the Z-28. I can guarantee you the weight of that GM pig more than slowed it down enough to allow the 944 to run circles around that V-8. <1985's TPI 5.0 had 215hp and 275lbs-ft. What did 1985's n/a 944 have again?> Enough to beat every Camaro, Firebird and Corvette in IMSA stock competition that year. Once again you turned this into a Chevy swap thread and frankly were tired of it. If you want to have a faster 944 get a 951. If you want a faster 944S2 you get a 968. If you want a screamer...turbocharge your 968 to 968 Turbo S specs. Since you would only need to change to the 8V heads and add the turbo charger, you could keep the much more reliable Porsche powerplant, have something as fast as any production car on the planet and output about the same $$$ as you would on a proper $15K Chevy swap. Bottom line...why downgrade to a Chevy when you can own a Porsche. > > <Not anybody. Not an n/a 944. That's why people stick Chevy V8's into > > them.> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > "fast" is subjective. So if you consider a 150hp Porsche to be fast > today, then there you are, I guess. > <914 is not a lower-end Porsche than a 911> > > Nice spin, nice try, but no cigar. We were comparing Boxsters and 911's, > but if you want to go back to the late 60's to mid 70's, you will find a 914 > was about as far from the 911 of it's era as the Boxster is from this > generation 911. It's not a spin at all. You spin constantly. I don't spin because I don't care about any particular car. So, tell me, do you consider a 914 a lower-end Porsche than a same-year 911? If so, then why did you lie before? If not, then how can you compare a 914 to a 911? And then after that, how can you not consider a Boxster a lower-end Porsche than a twin-turbo 911. I mean, come on. > <reliable 300hp/400hp/500hp/600hp> > > There you go again...you still haven't explained how Chevy is considered > reliable. Cheap yes, reliable, not exactly part of their history from 1973 > to present. Stop spinning. Tell me how to even get that much horsepower out of an 80's n/a 944. And then after you tell me how to do it, then you can worry about making it reliable. You are dodging as usual, just like I said you would because you are a lying piece of sh.t. > > And you say the 80's n/a 944 had the same horsepower as a V8 Camaro. > Really? I didn't know n/a 944s had 225hp in 1987. 1985's TPI 5.0 had 215hp [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in the MAJORITY of those models, why don't you tell us about those 135HP 3.1 > liter V-6's installed through 1992? Moron. Why would I talk about V6's when you talk about V8's? Why would I talk about the iffy V8's when anyone wanting performance bought a real one? I mean, really. Hey, here's one: 1989 Z28... 240hp and *345lbs-ft* of torque. Is any n/a 944 even within *100* lbs-ft of that torque number? As usual, you use lies and deceit to deceive, but I ain't buyin'. You might fool the commonfolk, but not me. You're the one who wanted to compare an *N/A* 944 to a Camaro. All you had to say was, "Yeah, Camaros had more oomph, but 944's were better cars," and I wouldn't have disagreed with you. Get it yet? I don't hate Porsches, and I don't particularly like Camaros. I just hate you being a lying piece of sh.t. As for your 1987 question... the n/a 944S had 190HP, meaning an > engine half the size gave up 35 horses to the Z-28. I can guarantee you the > weight of that GM pig more than slowed it down enough to allow the 944 to > run circles around that V-8. Hmmm, 35 horsepower is not the same as having THE SAME horsepower as you said it had, eh? As usual, You Lie. Get it yet? Just stop lying. Stop lying and I'll stop replying. > <1985's TPI 5.0 had > 215hp and 275lbs-ft. What did 1985's n/a 944 have again?> > > Enough to beat every Camaro, Firebird and Corvette in IMSA stock competition > that year. Don't care. You claimed they had the same horsepower. Too scared to post the actual numbers? Apparently so, because you lie and you suck. Get it yet? Just stop lying. > Once again you turned this into a Chevy swap thread and frankly were tired > of it. No, YOU did. I said 80's n/a 944's couldn't make power as easily as a Mustang or whatever could. And YOU because of your huge ego disagreed. And then you put up no proof at all to prove your point. Go ahead and prove your point if you can. Which you can't. No one could. > If you want to have a faster 944 get a 951. That's all you had to say in the first place instead of your bullshit lies pretending that an n/a 944 has the same horsepower as a Chevy V8. Why you have such a thick skull, I don't know. If you had been honest in the first place, the last ten posts wouldn't have happened. > Bottom line...why downgrade to a Chevy when you can own a Porsche. No, the bottom line is you suck, you lie, and stop your lying and we won't have threads like this. > I'm ready to trade in my lame a$$ Olds Alero for a nice car, and need some > direction. The Boxster (no S) looks like a nice entry level Porsche and more [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -Max Ahhh, if it were all about HP. But it ain't. I'm a sucker for more HP too, but the power in a Boxster is very well placed even if it's a bit meager in the base model. This car has balance and deft handling as it's cohorts on the open road. Yes, more HP would make it go faster, but most will find it a handful pushing it around corners at speed. If HP is your only concern, go get the Shtang or something else, but if not look again at the Boxster with its superior open road handling and excellent build quality. With that said, I'd get the S model (I like it's styling and it's extra oomph.) or an older Porsche that fit my fancy to stretch the pocket book further. As I said, I like more HP too, but the base Boxster really wouldn't be the particular Porsche model to provide that. Unless you got the S. Now that would be a fun car. I think used Porsches provide a lot of bang for the buck. Sample those waters and you'll likely not be sorry that you did. Happy hunting and kiss that Alero goodbye! DS 95 993 Coupe Shout out to Devs! Hope all is well and it's not raining too much for ya! >I just feel like I'm NOT really getting a Porsche when I go with a 220hp >engine. I'm wondering if I should even bother looking at Porsches if the >entry level model is all I want to spend. I suppose you can't put a hitch on >a Boxster either (for my jetskis) lol! I recommend you test drive one and see what you're getting into - I think you'll find the driving feel and handling are worth the difference, and you'll still have the speed and acceleration. However, if you don't like it but still want a Porsche with high horsepower, there are other options and they're less expensive. As another poster mentioned, there's the 928. A 928S from 1985 or 1986 has 288 horses, the 928S4s have over 300. Good handling, comfortable ride, with a top speed of ~170 mph, all for $10k-15k. There's also the 944 turbo (aka 951). You can snag a 951 for five or six grand and have a 250hp Porsche that's faster and outhandles a 911, and a few relatively inexpensive mods can get you close to 300 hp. Emanuel Signature1983 Porsche 911 1983 Porsche 944 Thanks for the awesome responses! I'm looking at acceleration and gear ratio rather than top speed. I'm already a target for the cops as it is. I suppose 225hp won't peak out too early in first gear, and you cruise as a nice low rpm at 80mph. I was looking at a '00 boxster at $27k with 42k miles, it's got none of the cool options on it, and it's 5 year old technology. I just can't get excited about that. I suppose adding aftermarket stuff might be fun, although expensive. A seasoned car won't get me too worried about damaging or putting miles on it (I get high anxiety about that). I'm not looking for a trophy car, I want to use it for all its worth! But I'm also told we don't really know how well boxsters hold up in high mileage? Anyone here go with leasing? Or is the resale value generally high enough to make leasing a big waste of money? To me it seems resale value is high only because they were $75k cars new! -Max > Thanks for the awesome responses! I'm looking at acceleration and gear ratio > rather than top speed. I'm already a target for the cops as it is. I suppose > 225hp won't peak out too early in first gear, and you cruise as a nice low > rpm at 80mph. If you consider 3500rpm - redline is 7K - low. > I was looking at a '00 boxster at $27k with 42k miles, it's got none of the > cool options on it, and it's 5 year old technology. I just can't get excited > about that. I suppose adding aftermarket stuff might be fun, although > expensive. A seasoned car won't get me too worried about damaging or putting > miles on it (I get high anxiety about that). I'm not looking for a trophy > car, I want to use it for all its worth! That price is about right - you might be able to go a couple $K lower. Don't forget that "old technology" includes variable valve timing, brakes bigger than on a 'Stang, about 1000lbs less than a 'Stang, etc. Also, we typically get 30mpg highway (on cruise control) at 80mph. If you live in an area where you can have the top down more than just a couple of months a year, you'll definitely get your money out of it - the car is *much* better with the top down than up. > But I'm also told we don't really know how well boxsters hold up in high > mileage? The 2000 and later models have a better engine (oil seals, etc.) and seem to be lasting a lot better. FloydR '2000 Boxster Well if you want to haul the jetski, get the wife a SUV! If HP is what you want, a nice 80's 911 conv will work anyday. ----- '78 911sc Targa w/ '87 3.2 > > Thanks for the awesome responses! I'm looking at acceleration and gear > ratio [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > FloydR '2000 Boxster If you are looking at several vehicles and Porsche is one of them, the worst thing you can do is to drive the Porsche first. You'll never even want to give the others a chance. The base model will beat most 4 bangers and even 6's and many 8's, but not all although those that can really have to try. Even in automatic (tiptronic). But most of the 8's that can beat it off the line can never keep up around those curves. Plus it will go 150+ if you have a place for it. I don't think either of those other cars will do that and I'm not sure I'd want to be in either at that speed anyway. The boxter does it with no fear of coming apart. It was made for it. But do try to get an S if HP is important to you. That will give most cars a run for their money. I have a 2001 boxter and I love it. I test drove a miata but I am too tall for it and there is more trunk space in the boxter. You can put more in the rear trunk than you can in the miata's--then you have another trunk left to fill! You'd be surprised what you can stuff in that car! Another factor is that you won't see yourself driving around everywhere you go. There are a lot of Miata's and Mustangs out there. However, there's still the issue of the trailer. > I'm ready to trade in my lame a$$ Olds Alero for a nice car, and need some > direction. The Boxster (no S) looks like a nice entry level Porsche and more [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -Max Take this as you will, but from what I've gleaned from owners, a reputable Porsche mechanic, and others, I'd run, not walk, away from a Boxster purchase. Why? Engine failures mainly. According to my factory trained source, the engines are failing between 30-60k miles. I personally drove an early tiptronic model and thought "what the hell is this?!" It was absolutely one of the deadest, boring cars I'd ever driven. And cup holders! Cripes. Mind you, I'm a luddite at heart. Give me a short wheel base 912 or 911 any day. A car you have to drive and drive well to go fast and live to tell. The "uber" Miata is coming, the Mini hs a drop top now, and the Solstice is coming. There are a myriad of choices. Drive 'em all and buy whatever makes your heart flutter. The engine problem was fixed many years ago! I believe it was a problem only in the first generation Boxsters in 1997-1998. The Boxster now is not only bullet proof, it gets a recommended rating from Consumer Reports. I would have your factory trained source rethink his position. > Take this as you will, but from what I've gleaned from owners, a > reputable Porsche mechanic, and others, I'd run, not walk, away from a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Solstice is coming. There are a myriad of choices. Drive 'em all and > buy whatever makes your heart flutter. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.