IdriveFast

just admit that a maxima is no where near the performance of a boxster or a boxster S. Theres no way you can justify that statement to SLK55 or yourself, or anybody who owns a fast car

If a boxster(s) being a few tenths of a second or a few seconds around a 1 min lap faster than a maxima is not a big difference to you, then by the same logic you should have bought a maxima instead of a SLK55. because hey...whats the difference between 0-60 in 4.9 and 0-60 in 6.1 right? 1.2 seconds isnt that much to you right?

Well obviously you believe 1.2 seconds is big difference in 0-60. By the same respect a boxster being a few seconds faster around a 1 min lap faster than a maxima is also a big difference.

It might not seem like a big deal when you think ONLY about the 1.2 seconds longer it takes the maxima to get to 60 or the 2 or 3 seconds longer it takes the maxima to complete the lap, but when you put things in perspective...we all know better 1.2 seconds to 60 is alot and 2 or 3 seconds in a 1 min lap is alot.

plus my example a maxima being only 2 or 3 seconds slower in a 1 min lap than a boxster is EXTREMELY generous. The difference between a C32 and an M3 around a 1 min lap like hockenhiem (however you spell it) is EXACTLY that. 2 or 3 seconds.

And we all know the that the difference between a maxima and a boxster is much greater than the difference between a C32 and an M3, 2 cars which can arguably be called equals.


just give it up

edit: in reallife, the difference between a boxster and maxima around a 1 min lap could be as much as 10 seconds, or more. Plus, a boxster is no where near 100k out the door. Even 70k is stretching it and thats only if you add EVERY SINGLE OPTION. Including the PCCB which is 8000 by itself.
Plus the maxima is fwd, and everybody knows fwd sucks

SLK55AMG

Just a few lap times to further put the Maxima discussion to bed...... Maximas are obviously not usually tracked because I can't find any track times for them but I'm hopefully not to far off the mark by using the 350Z instead (superior to the Maxima).

987S Nurburgring 8:18 Vs 350Z 8:26
987S Hockenheim 1:15.7 Vs 350Z 1:18.8

CDN-SLK55

Cars with low torque seperate the men from the boys. Low torque means you need to work a bit more and use your head when racing. It is what makes racing fun, the challenge of doing it right. When you hear guys say, "It depends on the driver", this really holds true to low torque cars. These guys don't know the meaning of floor it and hang on!

SLK55AMG

True...... my Boxster S spec would cost less than $61k over there (I've just priced it up on the US Porsche website). The spec I would have in the SLK55 would be around $72k.

benz-aficionado

I need to point out some errors before we go any further.

- In Canada, a boxster S is about $100k out the door.
- The SLK55 accelerates to 60 in 4.5 seconds, not 4.9

CDN-SLK55: As pointed out by someone else here on the board, there is a difference between not enough torque, and lower than hp torque. Cars like the F430, 360 and 911 GT2/3 have lower than hp torque, but are still adequate. Cars like the S2000, Boxster, and M3 have inadequate torque.

F1 is as real as racing gets, and let me tell you, if there is a technology out there that will make them faster, they are on it. They don't lower the torque output just to keep things fun. They put as much damn torque in there that the rules allow for. If torque makes your car faster, easier to drive, and outperform everything, then it's a good thing.

IdriveFast: A maxima does 0-60 in 6.1. A boxster s does it in 5.3. In the real world you will have wheelspin, rolling starts, passengers, cargo, a/c, and a slew of other variables that a low hp/torque car cannot always overcome. Have more power than you need, and all will end well.

Hey, it's been said here that porsche doesn't put more power in their boxster because it would be competiton to the 911. So you pay $100k for a car that isn't allowed to be fast. MB on the other hand makes their big ticket cars insanely fast, so they have no problem making their more affordable cars just very fast. Porsche should get on that.

AMG&AMG

if it was my decision, I would take the SLK 55 , but if it was a 911 carrera S , then 70% I would get the 911... in fact I had the dicision, But I bought the SLK 55, for the mean time, to save and wait for a vehicle that is better than 997 S , so for me either the GT3 or The 997 Turbo ....

SLK55AMG

A few comments..... when you use the dollar symbol without adding Canadian everyone is going to assume you mean US dollars..... so is $100k Canadian dollars much more than $70k USD?

"Inadequate torque" is surely just your view..... why choose three cars that are top end of their respective segments (S2000, Boxster and M3) if they are so bad in your eyes?...... if their low torque was a hinderance they wouldn't perform well..... but they do.

F1...... there are no torque limits in F1 rules, the teams do not "put as much torque in there that the rules allow for" because there are no rules..... without a limit why don't F1 cars have big torque you may ask?.... they have low torque (~250ft/lb the last time I checked) because thats what a small capacity naturally aspirated engine produces. Torque is directly related to engine capacity and there are very few things you can do to substantially increase natural torque other than via forced induction. The S2000, Boxster and M3 have reasonable torque for their engine size and configuration (ie. they don't have turbos or superchargers)..... as does the SLK55.

Porsche are no different to any other car maker..... they could make a more powerful Boxster but at the same time they'll need to make the 911 faster as well. MB are no different..... the SLK55 is as powerful as the company feel comfortable with..... any more powerful and it would compete with the SL55. If MB didn't care about that and simply wanted to make a super super powerful car they would have given you the SL55 supercharger in the SLK..... but they didn't

You are entitled to your views all I'm trying to point out is that the Boxsters different approach to performance delivers similar results to the SLK55 and that high torque isn't always a way to guarentee good performance.

Final thing for you to ponder...... the new Elise produces "only" 129ft/lb of torque, is that not enough for you?

IdriveFast

as for boxster being 100k, im sorry i thought we were talking about USD. But the SLK does 0-60 in 4.9. I would be unfair to cherry pick the best times so i used the official 0-60 claim. Plus I am well aware that the slk55 is capable of a 0-60 in under 4.9, but I was giving you the benwfit of the doubt to demonstrate that even the difference between the 4.9 of the slk and 6.1 of the maxima was a huge difference.

Im not taking shots at you, but I have no idea why you said that other stuff at the bottom

The person who pointed out that s2k m3 etc had inadequate torque is me.

Yes I know the maxima does 0-60 in 6.1. I said that earlier. I used the SLk55 for the comparison because you said you owned one. I wanted to point out that since you purchased an SLk55 which does 0-60 in 4.9 seconds. a 1.2 second differnece 0-60 must be a big deal for you. Otherwise, why didnt you buy something slower? Similarly, 2-3 second difference around a 1 min track, or worse 10 secs, must be a great difference also.

benz-aficionado

Somewhere along the course of this debate we went from the boxster being underpowered to it not having enough torque. It hasn't enough of either, that is why it was compared to a Maxima. I chose a maxima completely arbitrarily, I could have chosen a bunch of other production cars that produce more power than the boxster for less money and produce similar acceleration numbers.

The point is that the boxster s does not compare to the current SLK55. It is not in the same league. One car has a V8 that produces a respectable amount of power, while the other one struggles along with an anemic 6 cylinder that is outgunned by 50-80% of performance cars & sedans. Defending the acceleration of the boxster s is futile. It is not one of it's strong points. The new 2007 tiburon will have 250hp, that's 10 more than a stock boxster. Am I the only one that sees a problem here?

129ft/lbs is on the low side, that's one of the reason's why for a 2000lb car, it's 0-60 and 1/4 mile should be better. The difference between the elise and the boxster is that you can supercharge the thing for toyota prices, not porsche prices. So supercar performance can be had for $3-4k.

SLK55AMG

Sorry to nit pick..... the official claim is 4.9 second to 62mph, 0-60mph can be done in 4.5.

SLK55AMG

I'm having fun with this debate so I'll comment again....... The Boxsters engine is probably only considered anaemic by you and a handful of other people that have never driven one..... its your opinion (and I'm not suggesting you've never driven one, you may have done). The opinion of the majority of owners and the motoring press is completely the opposite.

Defending the Boxster Ss acceleration appears to be futile against your deeply held views but its worth doing to avoid people believing some of your statements..... consider it a public service.

"The Boxster is out gunned by 50-80% of performance cars and sedans"..... now that you've made a statement like that not many people are going to take you seriously........ unless you can come up with some credible examples..... we are looking for cars with power to weight ratios of 210 and above that can do 0-100mph in around 12.5 seconds. Forget outright power figures as they are meaningless unless you are comparing cars of the same weight..... just because a car has more power doesn't mean it will be better, 300bhp is not better than 280bhp if the 300bhp car weighs considerably more than the 280bhp car! Your example of the 2007 Tiburon may end up as true but the 250bhp is just a rumour at the moment but even then it would still have a lower power to weight ratio than the base Boxster (it would be a very good value sports coupe mind you). The only cars I can think of that offer more performance for much less money are things like the Mitso EVO or Subaru WRX, the Audi S4 is close but also just as expensive, Vauxhall Monaro is good, as are the cheaper TVRs...... if the 50-80% of other performance cars are better which ones did you have in mind (lets forget the Maxima for the moment )????

Final point "The new 2007 tiburon will have 250hp, that's 10 more than a stock boxster. Am I the only one that sees a problem here?" if you continue to insist that more power must be better yes you may be the only one that thinks theres a problem if you're point is value for money then you are right, value for money has never been something you get with a Porsche while Hyundai are famed for it!

I also tend to agree with you that the SLK55 is in a different league to the Boxster S but only when it comes to racing between stop lights, if like me you get your kicks on twisty country roads the two cars are definitely comparable..... if not you would expect SLK55 track times to be better but they are not.

I look forward to seeing your list of performance cars that you consider outgun the Boxster S......

P.S. Something has just occured to me..... you do know we are talking about the NEW Boxster S and not the old one which was low on power compared to its nearest rivals?

novabenz

OK, I'll take a stab at this:

Porsche Boxster S is a good performance roadster. It handles well, goes quickly, and has a traditional fabric roof. However, it does not offer the V8 grunt of the SLK55.

Corvette Z06 is high powered pushrod V8 American sports coupe. It does not offer an open air driving experience, so for me it does not qualify as a direct competitor to the SLK55 which still maintains it's roadster status due to the retracting metal roof.

I honestly find it very hard to believe that a customer who strongly desires an SLK55 would cross shop a Porsche Boxter S. The differences between the two cars are very glaring, especially when you factor in the metal folding roof of the SLK. Some very obvious areas are: 1) traditional, albeit small, trunk offered by the SLK vs. the Porsche's more "organically" shaped storage areas, 2) manual vs. automatic transmission (this debate could rage for years), 3) the metal roof (I know, again) security offered by the SLK, 4) the exclusivity of an AMG hand built engine.

For me, the above, plus being a Mercedes Benz fan, the choice was easy.

steve-p

4.3 seconds is the best a magazine has actually achieved with a real car, isn't it, or was it 4.2? Even so, that's not the whole story. If it had more traction it would certainly be quicker still.

SLK55AMG

Some extra grip wouldn't do any harm! The Boxster now has 265mm width tyres on the rear compared to the AMGs 245mm so it could certainly cope with some wider rear boots!

steve-p

Yes, and also the Boxster has the advantage of more weight over the driven wheels.

If I do the 550 or 596 bhp Kleeman mods in a couple of years time, then they recommend 275/30 ZR 19 on the rear.

mtimmy

I highly doubt if he ever owned or driven a Porsche before...,,, so its gonna be an endless debate ...,,, he will keep on putting Hondas and Toyotas models out and compare it to the Boxster.

Being owner of a few Porsches and a few Mercedes,,,, even my CLK puts out 500hp and can smoke your SLK in every stop lights.... I still perfer driving the Underpowered 300hp 911

As you can see.,., Supercharge the Elise....,,,, NO, you cannot supercharge an Elise like the way you supercharge a Celica GTS...,,, even they use the same engine... And the Elise with the Toyota engine is as fast as your current ride already.... have you driven one yet?... if not go try one out ...

and btw.. if you not already know.. Elise is a Supercar.!!!

SoCalCLK

SLK55 AMG is my choice. The Boxster S is nice, but still considered second hand to the 997. The new Cayman, however is a different story.

SLK55 AMG is the top-dog, raw monster of the SLKs. You get the great luxury-comfort of a hard top Benz, plus the raw power of the AMG engine, and the exclusivity of the AMG package as well.

IdriveFast

actually MBUSA also claimed 0-60 in 4.9. I know its capable of faster, but for fairness I used the official time

Yellow R1

What does your blown CLK have to do with an SLK (he can put a blower on his SLK & pull your CLK...the point being?). A 4 seat CLK is not a sports car. A Boxter vs. an SLK, yes, they are both sports cars & compete for the same sales dollar/target market. CLK?

BTW, you can supercharge & Elise & its been done on the same powerplant (by Lotus in fact) in a limited edition Exige.

Last point. An Enzo is a supercar. An Elise handles well & has decent power, but its not a supercar - especially with that go kart interior. I swear I lost an inch in height from my spine shrinking due to the road jar during a test drive. That thing was comfortable for about the first mile, it then turned into a go-kart ride (absolutely zero refinement).

See ya,
-Matt

mtimmy

Please excuse me ... but which part of the Exige is supercharged if you could tell me....

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...6_lotus_exige/


and before you say Elise isn't a supercar

check this website out....

www.supercars.net

Exige

benz-aficionado

What I am gathering from this discussion is that porsche fans have something against horsepower & torque. All I keep hearing is that the boxster is fast enough. A 911 is powerful enough. Who needs power when you've got handling?

I've driven last years boxster s, ya, ya I know the new one is revolutionary, better handling, more power blah, blah. All I know is that the car had a hell of a time squaking the rear tires. Now, I don't believe that wheelspin is good for acceleration, but it would be nice if the car could lay down a good old fashioned peel. The boxster s I drove did a one wheel shake-a-leg-peel-n-hop. Now I hear they addressed this problem in the new boxster s, but you still have to rev to 5000 to make anything happen.

You ever seen a mustang do a smoke show? A corvette?, a benz?, a bimmer?, heck even the new caddy's can show some testosterone from time to time. It's a beautiful thing. Every sports car should be powerful enough to peel in 1st gear at least.

Anyways... now for the list of cars that perform within a few tenths 0-60 for equal or less $$$:
- mustang GT
- pontiac GTO
- corvette
- cadillac cts-v
- chrysler 300c
- chrysler crossfire
- dodge magnum srt8
- ford f150 lightning
- honda s2000
- infiniti g35 coupe
- jaguar s type-r
- lexus gs 430
- nissan 350z
- subaru wrx, mitsu evo
- mazda rx-8

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea. Too many regular cars on that list. So, where does this leave the boxster? Right where we began, underpowered and overhyped.

SLK55AMG

You are correct..... but I think the US website is wrong considering that both the German and UK AMG sites show 0-62mph in 4.9, it looks like the US website guys have confused 0-60 with 0-62mph.

SLK55AMG

We obviously like completely different types of cars (which is fine), to me spinning up the rear wheels is wasted rubber and time so I have no desire to have a car that does that

Now the list..... please remember I'm in the UK so some of the cars you mention aren't available unless you import them and costs probably vary:

- mustang GT = lower P/W but almost as quick and cheap but doesn't handle
- pontiac GTO = lower P/W and slower.... can't get them here
- corvette = higher P/W and faster but $100k in the UK
- cadillac cts-v = higher P/W and faster but doesn't handle and is expensive
- chrysler 300c = lower P/W and much slower not cheap over here
- chrysler crossfire = much lower P/W and slower
- dodge magnum srt8 = does this exist yet? should be quick but heavy
- ford f150 lightning = much lower P/W and can't go round corners
- honda s2000 = lower P/W and slower but a great car (my last car)
- infiniti g35 coupe = see comments for 350Z
- jaguar s type-r = higher P/W but slower and more expensive
- lexus gs 430 = lower P/W much slower and almost as expensive
- nissan 350z = lower P/W slower but good value
- subaru wrx, mitsu evo = yep I gave you those two as examples
- mazda rx-8 = lower P/W slower and only does 14mpg

So of the cars you added to the list to prove that 50-80% of performance cars outgun the new Boxster S only the Corvette, CTS-V and Jag S Type R have better power to weight ratios, the Corvette is a car I would own if the price was right over here, the CTS-V may be quick but its not a sports car and the Jag would cost me nearly $18000 more than my 987S. The 350Z and S2000 are the only other cars from that list that I'd consider close enough to the Boxster to take seriously...... the others may be close in your eyes but as others have already said the difference between 0-60 times of around a second is a BIG deal. I was very happy with my old S2000 as it offered 85% of the Boxster S performance for almost half the price but we all like a change and the Boxster S does everything better than my old Honda but that extra performance comes at a price.

The SLK55 is much the same...... its a premium product at a premium price, if you wanted a car that "only" hits 60mph in five and a half seconds you would could have bought the SLK350..... but you didn't. There are a few cars over here that are quicker than the AMG and cheaper but they don't offer the features tha most SLK drivers are looking for.

P.S. My challenge was for you to find cars with a higher power to weight ratio, faster 0-100mph that are cheaper than the Boxster S...... even some of the EVOs and WRXs are slower to 100mph.....

Yellow R1

Sure, here is the blown Exige for your reference since you are not aware of it:

"Supercharged" Lotus Sport Exige 240R
www.elises.co.uk

Lotus Sport, the performance division of Lotus Cars Ltd., has developed the Lotus Sport Exige 240R, a limited edition high performance sportscar with total global build volumes kept strictly to 50 cars. Lotus Sport will build the Lotus Sport Exige 240R within its facilities at the Group Lotus Headquarters in Hethel, Norfolk. This facility, located in the centre of the famous Hethel Test Track, has a great history of producing bespoke versions of Lotus products and can list the Lotus Sport Exige 400 hp racecar and over 100 Elise and Exige racing cars in its portfolio.



With a supercharged and intercooled high revving engine producing over 240 hp and over 170 lbft of torque, the Lotus Sport Exige 240R reaches 60 mph in less than 4 seconds and 100 mph (160 km/h) in less than 10 seconds before topping out at 155 mph (249 km/h). At this top speed the advanced aerodynamics produce 113 kg of downforce increasing grip, stability and safety.

The 50 versions of the Lotus Sport Exige 240R will be built as post registration official factory conversions of new Lotus Exiges. Up to 40 of these cars will be sold in the EU and the balance is intended to be predominantly sold in Japan. The suffix of 240R indicates the approximate horsepower of the engine, conservatively rounded down from the actual figure of 243 hp (181 kW, 247 PS). The total unladen weight is approximately 930 kg and the power to weight is approximately 261 hp / tonne (195 kW / tonne, 266 PS / tonne).

Regarding if an Exige is a "Supercar".... having some internet site called "Supercars.net" does not make it a "Supercar". Its a $45k 2 seat go kart that handles well & accelerates pretty well to boot. It is not an Enzo, a Carerra GT, an Edonis, a CLK DTM AMG, a Pagani Zonda, etc. Those cars are Supercars (rare, big money, 200+ mph, comfortable, a different league alltogether).

See ya,
-Matt

kimchiFLAVA

Never driven a SLK55 AMG but i disliked the interior and the front end looked like a wedge with alotta creases. In person it was kinda ugly but pictures made it look really nice.

Love porsche with its "real" sports car feel and excellent handling. It think the SLK55 is more a mini auto cruiser with a huge engine.

Ordered the SLK first cancelled it (thank god) fought tooth and nail to get deposit back (check threads on deceiptful mercedes service)
Bought the boxster (since i couldnt wait 6 monthes for for a order on a 911) and the boxster s they had wasnt the colour i wanted. Thought i be a lil disapointed with only 240 HP but nope i was grinning when i booted it.
(good enough anyways for a 2 year lease cause im getting a 911S in 14 monthes) I just blew my engine cause i was going 220 km/h and shifted down into third instead of 5th by accident. I wasnt supposed to be covered cause it was %100 my fault but porsche covered it! ( shows to you porsche service. )

And yah what can i say i got the porsche virus!

The mercedes is the lazy man's sports car hit the gas your gone..Porsche is for people who want to "be one" with the car.