Jan 23, 2005 3:24:25 PM
- lemansbluem5
- Newbie
- Loc: Ilinois
- Posts: 23, Gallery
- Registered on: Dec 18, 2004
Jan 23, 2005 3:24:25 PM
Jan 23, 2005 3:39:21 PM
Jan 23, 2005 5:33:18 PM
Jan 23, 2005 10:31:08 PM
Jan 23, 2005 11:11:23 PM
Jan 23, 2005 11:19:51 PM
Jan 23, 2005 11:37:51 PM
Quote:
lemansbluem5 said:
Yes, that is very helpful.
I'm not as concerned about resale because I intend on keeping it > 5 years, and will probably only drive it about 3-4K miles a year, if that. The 987 might look a little better to me inside and out, but the difference is pretty small IMHO.
That's a matter of taste. I drive an 03 986S, but like the 987 interior a lot better.
I've driven an 03 986S and it's simply awesome, so unless the 987 is that much better dynamically, which is hard to fathom,
They say it is even better, and I'm sure it is.
Question is: Would you rather have a 240 bhp no-equipment car, that handles a bit better than a loaded 260bhp similar car that already is recognized as one of the most well-handling cars in the world?
I wouldn't mind going with the 986S at all, since it's faster, looks great, and is loaded vs the base 987. However, it's a little difficult from a psychological standpoint buying an outgoing model, if that makes any sense.
That makes a lot of sense.
And thats why I said before, that I would have picked the new model any day, had it not been for the lack of equipment, and the 987 being the "small" version. A standard 987s versus a standard 986s and the answer is clear.
I would absolutely advice you to test BOTH cars if you have the chance.
And its hard for me to justify (and explain to the spouse) spending >40-45K on a non-essential vehicle-
Well, THAT is a totally different debate...hehe
From a "sanity" point of view, I think you can pretty much forget it.
But if your wife (I assume you're a guy?) accepts you having a Boxster in the first place, I dont think any of the two you're looking at right now would make more or less sense to her.
I dunno how the market is in the US, but over here in Scandinvia the price stays pretty much up there.
Older 986'es from 1999 are still sold (or at least put up for sale) at around 60-75% of the new vehicle price.
Jan 23, 2005 11:39:58 PM
Quote:
lemansbluem5 said:
I'm not as concerned about resale because I intend on keeping it > 5 years, and will probably only drive it about 3-4K miles a year, if that.
Jan 23, 2005 11:57:11 PM
Jan 24, 2005 3:47:13 AM
Jan 24, 2005 3:56:27 AM
Jan 24, 2005 4:46:59 AM
Quote:
lemansbluem5 said:
Which would you guys (and gals) prefer as a long-term purchase at this point- a very lightly used loaded 2004 986 S (perhaps anniv edition) w/2-3K miles vs a new 2005 987 NON-S? Cost is the major concern as this is not a primary vehicle. Both would be about $45K US; I could not justify spending another $10K for a new 987S. Thanks!
Quote:
senra said:
I have a 986 S 03 and have tried both 987 and 987 S. I think 987 is a huge improvement over 986 non-S. I had a blast testing the 987 but if I had to choose in between a fully loaded 986 S and a naked 987, I would no doubt choose the 986 S.
Quote:
senra said:
By the way, do you think 986 S will go a lot in value after a year or 2 once you start having second hand 987 S in the market or do you think most of the price drop has already been accounted for with the intro. of the new model?
Quote:
DrPhil said:Quote:
senra said:
By the way, do you think 986 S will go a lot in value after a year or 2 once you start having second hand 987 S in the market or do you think most of the price drop has already been accounted for with the intro. of the new model?
I believe the depreciation has already taken place. IMO it's a very good thing for the market value of the 986 that the 987 is visually just a conservative makeover. It's good thinking from Porsche.
Thanks for the nice report, btw
Jan 24, 2005 7:35:28 PM
Jan 25, 2005 2:23:38 AM
Jan 28, 2005 6:49:23 PM
Jan 29, 2005 3:58:45 AM