Heavier cars are better for touring because they're, well, "heavier!" Seriously, the more mass a car has, the less likely it is to be disturbed by any irregularities in the road. That is, it rides smoother! That's just a generality as there are often exceptions. The Corvette is a good one, I think! Although if the current Vet rides anything like the last version "I" got to ride in, "smooth" isn't exactly a word that comes to mind!

As for why the S (I'm assuming you meant the BS or Boxster S?) seemed so much better than the S2k? As a matter of fact, they "did" throw in a new engine for 2005. If I remember the specs right, the previous "standard" model only put out around 220 hp and the Boxster S was the one making 240 hp like our S2k's. Recheck the specs off of Porsche's web site that I quoted a couple of posts above. I'm sure there were other tweaks to the car also.

Considering the price differential between the S2k and the BS, the BS should outperform the S2k. That it didn't for quite a while was probably pretty embarrassing for Porsche. It's about time they did something about it.!

Drive Safe,
Steve R.

 

Here's some comparison numbers from the R&T article. If anyone has any real-world experience so that we're not just "magazine racing", please chime in.

----------

Engine:
S2000: 2.2L inline-4, 240 hp @ 7800 rpm, 162 lb-ft @ 6500 rpm
BS: 3.2L flat-6, 280 hp @ 6200 rpm, 236 lb-ft @ 4700-6000 rpm

The BS weighs about 300 pounds more.

Tires:
S2000: 215/45R-17 front, 245/40R-17 rear
BS: 235/35R-19 front, 265/35R-19 rear

Brakes:
S2000: 11.8-in front, 11.1-in rear
BS: 12.5-in front, 11.8-in rear

Acceleration: (S2000 is first number, BS is second number)
0-60: 5.4 vs. 5.0
0-80: 8.9 vs. 8.1
0-100: 13.8 vs. 12.2 (this seems wrong)
1/4-mile: 13.9 @ 100.2 mph vs. 13.4 @ 105.0 mph

Handling: (S2000 is first number, BS is second number)
Skidpad: 0.91g vs. 1.00g
Slalom: 69.7 mph vs. 73.9 mph

Braking: (S2000 is first number, BS is second number)
From 60 mph: 115 ft vs. 107 ft
From 80 mph: 206 ft vs. 184 ft

Lap times:
S2000: 69.88 seconds
BS: 67.27 seconds

The BS was also faster in eight of nine track sections in their section-by-section breakdown.

----------

In summary, the new BS now has more engine, more rubber, and bigger brakes vs. a stock S2000, and it shows in the performance numbers. Getting back to the original poster's question, to compete with a new BS on the track, I would start with upgrading the brake system and getting stickier track-only tires. If that wasn't enough, then a supercharger is the obvious next step.

 

Yeah, that 0-100 number looks like a typo. Especially given the 1/4mi times right below it. 13.2 is probably what they meant to print.

 

I just read an old Motortrend from 2001 and it seems the S2k did a little better back then. Going from the top of my head I think it was:

0-60: 5.2 seconds
1/4 mile: 13.8@101
Slalom: 71.? MPH
Skidpad: .93g?
Braking 60-0: 113ft

Again, that is coming off the top of my head, I'll check the mag again when I get home from work to verify the exact #'s.

 

For those who have an open mind, chew on this...... In the beginning they were all sports cars! This definition stresses the sporting character of the pioneer motorists. The early cars were playthings of the rich, amusing toys for the sportsman who had grown tired of horses.

Or how about this thought.... The racing car of today is the touring car of tomorrow!

Broadly speaking, sports cars are those in which performance takes priority over carrying capacity. (That's why a Jeep does not meet the definition). Over the years sports cars have been redefined as each new era of the modern sports car appears. Terms like roadster, GT, Tourer, Sports-Racer, etc. are attempts to further define the character of certain sports cars.

To say a Vette is not a sports car is a bunch of crap. Certain models and years are closer to the purest definition than others but all fit the definition.

Naturally there is no perfect definition of a sports car as people have debated its definition since the term began.

 

0-60 in my opinion is pretty useless, because there are a lot of people who can get kick ass launches. In my opinion, 5-60 is a better measure.

 

Hitting an S2000 for about 6 hours with an ugly stick!

 

If you like to race from a rolling start.

 

The 987 Boxster S on R&T is 300 lb heavier than the S2000 only because it has a number of options on it (Nav, 19

 

[QUOTE=PsychoBen,Apr 15 2005, 07:58 AM] A $53,000 BS comes far more equipped than an S2000, and it costs $20,000 more, not $30,000.