"Tim S Kemp" wrote in message
...
Tom De Moor wrote:
Dan may use his V6 every day, but I've met people who actually use
their boxster for repping, up and down the country, hundreds of
miles per day, with samples and overnight bags and things. Not
something you can do in many sports cars (luggage space - you gonna
suggest an MX5?)

No but a BMW M3 would do that very nicely indeed ... and if you'd
take a 330d idem on one tank of fuel.

What's a sportscar? Is a Subaru Impreza Turbo a sportscar? Is an Audi
(R)S4 one?

OK, let's make the phrase Roadster, or 2 seater convertible car, or
whatever you want to call it. The only RS4 I've been in was an estate,
previous type (2.7), full on MTM + nitrous - fast yes, but fun? Not from
the passenger seat.

I presume you know what to compare it too. Can you compare the
throttle response of an M3, a Boxster, a Mercedes C with the
V8-engine? Or do you compare the Boxster to normal shopping trolley?

Resistance in my list of three is not linked to weight: it is air
resistance, drag.

There the Lotus with its completely flat undertray and *working*
diffuser is far superior to the Boxster whose aerodynamics are so bad
that the Porsche factory opted for a moving spoiler in order to keep
the car stable at speed.

Ahh drag. So small frontal area, which means small car, for small people,
with small luggage. And I think the elise has an integrated spoiler in its
rear edge. So what? It's the way it's designed.

The Boxster weighs 30% more than the Lotus Elise S2 who has also
ABS, aircon.

It has also a proper engineered roof, isn't made of plastic, and has
a six cylinder engine and an optional autobox. And I would expect it
to be far more crashworthy though I don't think either have been
compared in testing.


Yep: a proper engineered roof, a six cilinder engine with autobox. I
presume you call those the sportscars ingredients? The Porsche six-
potter is indeed a work of art and very innovatif: it's been around
for how many decades?

Personaly I don't give a toss what engine is in a sportscar as long as
it delivers the power needed. Nor do I give a damn if the car is made
out of steel, wood or plastic as long as the materials choosen do the
job.

Finally the crashworthyness: both cars passed them. It should stand to
reason that the Lotus with its lesser weight and aluminium structure
(which absorbs energy more efficiently than steel) is superior to the
Boxster.

Imho you base your opinion on the dynamics of the Boxster on feelings
not on actual facts. As stated befo the Boxster is made up using
obsolete Porsche parts, it is shape before fonction and its technical
design is nowhere innovatif nor dared but that was (is) quite OK for
those people who buy it.

Lotus customers however are the exact opposite: lightweight and
sporty. They even kept up with (former Lotus) cars and their bad to
worse reliability. Go to any trackday and count the Lotusses compared
to the Boxsters...


Used lotus in the UK - 10000 quid, spares available from local breakers
yard in the Austin Metro section. Used boxster? More money. Spares
available at local porsche dealer for arm + leg. We were talking about
road use, and a K powered elise isn't going to get past 100k miles without
a headgasket, lots of little bits and a visit to a chiropractor every 10k
miles. The Boxster will be fresh and reliable.

Couldn't care less about the Elise vs Boxster debate, but I was discussing
seats with a mate the other day. He's got a VX220, so similar seats to the
Elise I'd guess (so on the floor buckets with no adjustment (apart from
fwd/bkwd)), and he's also got a dodgy back. The VX has been one of the only
cars he hasn't had backache in. And on the longish journeys I've been with
him neither have I - apart from the lack of space width-wise I actually
found it quite comfortable. Weird.

Anyway, carry on.