| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2575.1 | | CHEFS::UKARCHIVING | Master of cracked foot style. | Thu Feb 06 1997 14:26 | 1 |
| Urr, it's Boxster, I think.
|
| 2575.2 | shouldn't that be urr, its a boxster | WOTVAX::BARRETTR | | Thu Feb 06 1997 16:19 | 14 |
| re .0
Faster than your 328 ?? - all the magazine reviews I've read seem to
think the Boxster is slower than your 328 ( nice name sounds like a
Ferrari ;-) )
The 'S' version sounds nice though !! - But I will wait to see what the
2.8 litre Z3 is like, since ( i may be the only one in the world ) I
prefer the looks of the Z3 over the Boxster.
Just my two penneth !!
Rick
|
| 2575.3 | | LEMAN::CHEVAUX | Patrick Chevaux @GEO, DTN 821-4150 | Thu Feb 06 1997 21:15 | 11 |
| 2575.4 | | LEMAN::CHEVAUX | Patrick Chevaux @GEO, DTN 821-4150 | Thu Feb 06 1997 21:19 | 9 |
| The things that worry me about the Boxster:
- length/width, it's bigger than a 911
- weight, but that applies to most modern cars
Now I need to test drive one.
I must say the Kompressor powered Mercedes SLK has a number of
interesting assets (integrated hard top, peak torque).
|
| 2575.5 | fun | HLFS00::BOSHUIJER_F | Frits Boshuijer | Thu May 01 1997 14:38 | 34 |
| I've test driven the Boxster yesterday, a full two hours.
It's fast but not really fast. To drive it fast you have to keep
it above 4500 rpm, then you have some power to play with.
It is a very smooth engine though, accelerating from 1500 rpm in third
gear is no problem.
The enigine sounds great inside the car.
The handling of the car is superb. A lot of grip, very neutral in
corners going into slight understeer. Not as tricky as a 911.
The suspension might be a bit harder when you want to drive real fast,
but further it's good.
The breaks are absolutely super.
It is great fun to drive and I think it looks absolutely great. I want
one too.... (what would the leaseprice be??? ;-) )
A nice story about a friend of mine who ordered a boxster.
He had already ordered it. The he asked the salesman where the engine
hood was. The salesman said there wasn't a real engine hood. My friend
said "then I don't want it.... then I want this one..." while pointing
at a new carrera 4S...
He want's to be able to look at the engine.....(and show it to his
friends...)
what a problems...
cheers,
Frits.
(who's '67 911 targa is almost finished, finally)
|
| 2575.6 | MGF? | 45862::rasmodem43.reo.dec.com::hiltong | hiltong@mail.dec.com | Thu May 01 1997 16:14 | 6 |
| Frits,
Have you driven an MGF? A lot cheaper, and many reviews say faster
and more fun!
Greg
|
| 2575.7 | | COMICS::CORNEJ | What's an Architect? | Thu May 01 1997 18:03 | 4 |
| And of course, Greg isn't biased :-)
Jc
|
| 2575.8 | Dont think so !! | 45862::BARRETTR | | Thu May 01 1997 19:44 | 25 |
| Sorry, but if you think the MGF is faster and more fun there is
definately something wrong. I've seen numerous performance figures for
the MGF VVC ranging from Rovers claimed 7 seconds to 8.2 seconds.
Having driven one I would be more inclined to believe the higher of
those two since the power to weight ratio isn't that good - certainly
compared to other cars with 7 second 0-60's times its not even close.
As for fun - ALL of the magazines who have reviewed it have said the
Mazda MX5 is better handling and more fun to drive - although not as
practical on a daily basis. Autoexpress rated the MGF number one but
they said that the Mazda was more fun !!
Personally having tried the two - the Mazda won hands down - the MGF
being the first mid engined rear wheel drive car I've driven that
handled like a front wheel drive hatchback ( allbeit a hot one ! )
But then again you could say Im biased since i've now got an MX5 - but
I wasn't biased when I drove them both !! Only problem with the MX5 is
it needs more speed ( 131bhp isn't enough although some chip
manufacturers reckon they can get over 140bho out of it with a chip
change !! )
Just my two penneth ( besides the MGF is a tarts car ;-) )
Rick Barrett
|
| 2575.9 | not driven the MGF | HLFS00::BOSHUIJER_F | Frits Boshuijer | Thu May 01 1997 20:20 | 7 |
| re -.3
Nope, haven't driven the MGF. Good looking it is too, but that's all I
can say 'bout it.
But I don't think it has 200 bhp, does it?
Frits.
|
| 2575.10 | | CHEFS::16.37.12.205::marchr | Mega Hero | Fri May 02 1997 15:15 | 11 |
| > Personally having tried the two - the Mazda won hands down - the MGF
>being the first mid engined rear wheel drive car I've driven that
>handled like a front wheel drive hatchback ( allbeit a hot one ! )
All the "hot" front wheel drive hatchbacks I've driven handle appallingly.
Scabbling front wheels, understeer on acceleration, over-grippy set-up -
designed to give the average driver the sensation of speed. Is the MFG that
bad?
Rupert
|
| 2575.11 | | 45862::lzodhcp-182-48-148.lzo.dec.com::hiltong | hiltong@mail.dec.com | Fri May 02 1997 16:09 | 11 |
| The MGF is rear wheel drive, mid-engineered, and hence no scrabbling
front wheels, no understeer on acceleration etc etc.
Top Gear mag and TV show had it a very close 2nd to the TVR as the
best 2 seater sports car around.
It's excellent fun, easy to live with, and handles great IMHO.
MX5 owners tend to disagree ;^)
Greg
|
| 2575.12 | MGF a tart'd car!!! | 45862::CLEASBYI | | Fri May 02 1997 19:02 | 4 |
| If the MGF is a tart's car, what does that make the MX5........
Ian
|
| 2575.13 | Better to drive actually !! | 45862::BARRETTR | | Mon May 05 1997 02:21 | 29 |
| Read the magazines - none of them rate the MGF's handling and they all
say the steering is awful. The none VVC version got slated by the media
- the only difference between the 1.8i and VVC is the engine. Its
faster alright but no better handling. The MX5 despite its years and
its lack of pace is still the best handling sports car bar none. Not my
words but those in Autocar, What Car, Top gear and performance car. The
MGF has no handling finesse - the VVC understeers very easily, to get
over steer I had to lift off mid bend at high speeds and then it
reminded me of a Pug 1.9 205. During my hour long test drive it just
ploughs straight on during spirited cornering. Its very safe so if your
new to rear wheel drive its ideal !! At the time of test driving i
still had my MK1 MR2 which destroyed it in the handling stakes.
The MX5 is an enthusiasts car. Its not fast and if you get one of the
limited edition models - looks very good ( see mine with the 15"
alloys) Plus you will have more fun than you ever will in an MGF.
To finish I will use Clarksons words :-
The oldest but still by far the most fun to drive.
Cheers
Rick Barrett
P.s. May be a tarts car as well - but the tart will have more fun in my
car !!
|
| 2575.14 | | CHEFS::KERRELLD | To infinity and beyond... | Tue May 06 1997 12:12 | 4 |
| Can you guys with the gurly cars go elsewhere, I want to hear about real
sports cars!
Dave ;-)
|
| 2575.15 | | CHEFS::16.37.10.251::marchr | Mega Hero | Tue May 06 1997 22:14 | 5 |
| Dave, pray tell us what might those be ??
Rupert 8^)
Shelby Mustang? F40? MGA? Jenson Healy!?
|
| 2575.16 | | LEMAN::CHEVAUX | Patrick Chevaux @GEO, DTN 821-4150 | Wed May 07 1997 23:03 | 9 |
| Read a few articles in my favourite car mags on Porsche Boxster vs BMW
Z3 M roadster (comparable prices) and then on Porsche 911 vs BMW Z3 M
(comparable performance for half the price).
Those articles also illustrate how difficult it is to drive a
mid-engined car near or at its limits.
There's one thing everyone seems to agree on: the Porsches have real
brakes. For me that's already a great plus when considering these cars.
|
| 2575.17 | | CHEFS::16.37.8.199::marchr | Mega Hero | Thu May 08 1997 13:58 | 9 |
| Patrick,
Out of interest - what were their final conclusions ?
What were the specific "near-limit" differences between
driving front and mid (although the 911 is rear - I
suppose).
Rupert
|
| 2575.18 | | LEMAN::CHEVAUX | Patrick Chevaux @GEO, DTN 821-4150 | Fri May 09 1997 15:45 | 29 |
| 2575.19 | | CHEFS::16.43.128.205::marchr | Mega Hero | Thu May 15 1997 13:04 | 1 |
| Thanks for the feedback
|