Sold a Boxster to get a S2000
Registered User
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 5,252
Likes: 1
From: Hong Kong
[QUOTE=seeker97,Oct 1 2008, 04:10 PM] You guys are great, thanks so much for the warm welcome and the comments! It will be a lot of fun swapping ideas and experiences with you.
markfromaurora, I am in biotechnology. I don't work in anything related to the automotive field, I am just a gear head that has been crazy about cars for over 35 years (since before I could even drive). I've owned 97 cars just because I like playing with them, and can't afford to "collect" them. I've never had more than 4 cars at one time (currently 3, a 2008 G37 'daily driver', and a Volvo S60 shared with my wife). Since I can't afford a 'collection' all at once, I tend to go through them serially (but the ones I like I keep for many years, like my old air-cooled 911, a Mazda RX-8, past Miatas, a 1965 Plymouth Valiant (for different reasons) - and, I can tell will be, the S2000).
I agree with the comments on *driving* a Boxster. It is comfortable, luxurious, stable, well planted, feels secure, partly due to the low center of gravity and low polar moment of inertia inherent to a mid-engine design, and partly due to its greater weight and wider track. I loved driving my Boxster S. It was *owning* it that was a disappointment. If all I cared about was a half-hour test drive or a few laps around a track, the Boxster would be very compelling (though I still prefer the more raw, visceral, direct-connection feel of the S2000). It was the whole ownership experience that was a let down.
Owning a water cooled Porsche means taking the end of a vacume cleaner hose and sticking it in your wallet, and letting the dealer turn it on full. It's the difference between a company that puts engineering excellence first, vs. one that prioritizes being 'the most profitable car company in the world'.
In the 1980's (yes, I am old enough to remember then), a reporter for Fortune magazine interviewed Roger Smith (then Chairman of GM) and Toyoda-san, then head of Toyota Motor Co. He asked them, "is your company in business to make money, or to make cars?". Smith said that of course, GM is in business to make money, any way it can. Toyoda-san said, no, Toyota is in business first and foremost to make cars, and by virtue of making the best cars in the world, Toyota will make a lot of money. It's a question of what is the first priority. Watching what has happened with both GM's and Toyota's market shares over the past 30 years I think clearly shows which strategy worked best.
The same thing seems to have happened with Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz over the past 10 years. Their first priority is now to make money. Of course, they are a business, they have to make money (I run a business, I certainly aprpeciate that). But it is a question of *how* one makes the money. Does one focus on the long term, with quality product, repeat buyers, and customer loyalty, or the short term, and squeeze whatever dollars you can out of moving the metal out the door TODAY.
Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes used to be known for, and pride themselves, on excellence in engineering. Porsche was the standard of the world for the best sports cars. Mercedes' were over-engineered and built like tanks. BMW created a generation of fans with the 2002. But, IMHO, they got short-sighted, and greedy (like most businesses lately, just look at what is happening on Wall Street right now as the best example of out of control avarice and greed). Now they seem to be selling their cars based on their past reputations, not on what they objectively are today.
About 10 years ago Mercedes decided they could put the 3-pointed star hood ornament on a turd and sell it as a Mercedes. So, they lowered the quality of their product, cut costs, and boosted profits in the short term. It worked for a while, but there are a lot of people that bought M-B cars in the past few years that now swear 'never again' because of all the reliability and quality control problems. The short term profits are nice, but once a car company pisses someone off, they will likely never come back (which is what GM did to a whole generation of people with the rubbish they peddled from the 1970's through the 1990's).
BMW followed suit. If you take a close, careful, *objecitvely critical* look at the 335, it's also a car that is a blast to drive, but will likely be a headache to own, just like M-B products of recent years (or my Boxster). It's luxurious, fast, beautiful and fun to drive - but, IMHO it is a car built to last through the warranty period, and then to provide a repair & maintenance annuity to the dealer. Flimsy windshield wipers (that cost $48 to replace). Some interior control knobs that would shame a Hyundai. No spare tire (saves $50, and most people will still buy it and pay the same price as if it had one). No limited slip differential, which is shameful inn any car with sporting pretensions. Like the Boxster, no oil dipstick. Composite brake rotors, which cannot be turned and must be replaced at every brake job (20,000 miles or so), to the tune of $740. The same save $5 here and $10 there mentality.
More worrisome is the overheating problem with the 335, which clearly points to some serious thermal management issues. First Road & Track experiences an engine overcooking its oil and going into limp mode after a few gentle laps on a track. Then, all sorts of reports of engines grenading themselves start showing up on the BMW forums. BMW seems to have cut the corner too closely on this one, and it
markfromaurora, I am in biotechnology. I don't work in anything related to the automotive field, I am just a gear head that has been crazy about cars for over 35 years (since before I could even drive). I've owned 97 cars just because I like playing with them, and can't afford to "collect" them. I've never had more than 4 cars at one time (currently 3, a 2008 G37 'daily driver', and a Volvo S60 shared with my wife). Since I can't afford a 'collection' all at once, I tend to go through them serially (but the ones I like I keep for many years, like my old air-cooled 911, a Mazda RX-8, past Miatas, a 1965 Plymouth Valiant (for different reasons) - and, I can tell will be, the S2000).
I agree with the comments on *driving* a Boxster. It is comfortable, luxurious, stable, well planted, feels secure, partly due to the low center of gravity and low polar moment of inertia inherent to a mid-engine design, and partly due to its greater weight and wider track. I loved driving my Boxster S. It was *owning* it that was a disappointment. If all I cared about was a half-hour test drive or a few laps around a track, the Boxster would be very compelling (though I still prefer the more raw, visceral, direct-connection feel of the S2000). It was the whole ownership experience that was a let down.
Owning a water cooled Porsche means taking the end of a vacume cleaner hose and sticking it in your wallet, and letting the dealer turn it on full. It's the difference between a company that puts engineering excellence first, vs. one that prioritizes being 'the most profitable car company in the world'.
In the 1980's (yes, I am old enough to remember then), a reporter for Fortune magazine interviewed Roger Smith (then Chairman of GM) and Toyoda-san, then head of Toyota Motor Co. He asked them, "is your company in business to make money, or to make cars?". Smith said that of course, GM is in business to make money, any way it can. Toyoda-san said, no, Toyota is in business first and foremost to make cars, and by virtue of making the best cars in the world, Toyota will make a lot of money. It's a question of what is the first priority. Watching what has happened with both GM's and Toyota's market shares over the past 30 years I think clearly shows which strategy worked best.
The same thing seems to have happened with Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz over the past 10 years. Their first priority is now to make money. Of course, they are a business, they have to make money (I run a business, I certainly aprpeciate that). But it is a question of *how* one makes the money. Does one focus on the long term, with quality product, repeat buyers, and customer loyalty, or the short term, and squeeze whatever dollars you can out of moving the metal out the door TODAY.
Porsche, BMW, and Mercedes used to be known for, and pride themselves, on excellence in engineering. Porsche was the standard of the world for the best sports cars. Mercedes' were over-engineered and built like tanks. BMW created a generation of fans with the 2002. But, IMHO, they got short-sighted, and greedy (like most businesses lately, just look at what is happening on Wall Street right now as the best example of out of control avarice and greed). Now they seem to be selling their cars based on their past reputations, not on what they objectively are today.
About 10 years ago Mercedes decided they could put the 3-pointed star hood ornament on a turd and sell it as a Mercedes. So, they lowered the quality of their product, cut costs, and boosted profits in the short term. It worked for a while, but there are a lot of people that bought M-B cars in the past few years that now swear 'never again' because of all the reliability and quality control problems. The short term profits are nice, but once a car company pisses someone off, they will likely never come back (which is what GM did to a whole generation of people with the rubbish they peddled from the 1970's through the 1990's).
BMW followed suit. If you take a close, careful, *objecitvely critical* look at the 335, it's also a car that is a blast to drive, but will likely be a headache to own, just like M-B products of recent years (or my Boxster). It's luxurious, fast, beautiful and fun to drive - but, IMHO it is a car built to last through the warranty period, and then to provide a repair & maintenance annuity to the dealer. Flimsy windshield wipers (that cost $48 to replace). Some interior control knobs that would shame a Hyundai. No spare tire (saves $50, and most people will still buy it and pay the same price as if it had one). No limited slip differential, which is shameful inn any car with sporting pretensions. Like the Boxster, no oil dipstick. Composite brake rotors, which cannot be turned and must be replaced at every brake job (20,000 miles or so), to the tune of $740. The same save $5 here and $10 there mentality.
More worrisome is the overheating problem with the 335, which clearly points to some serious thermal management issues. First Road & Track experiences an engine overcooking its oil and going into limp mode after a few gentle laps on a track. Then, all sorts of reports of engines grenading themselves start showing up on the BMW forums. BMW seems to have cut the corner too closely on this one, and it
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
trymev8
California - Southern California S2000 Owners
3
Oct 22, 2012 01:06 PM