Boxster Dilemma!

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by WAY

True to a certain extend. All soft top versions of hard top cars are heavier and less rigid. However some cars are dedicated open top cars, such as the ones mentioned above. But those aren't even hardcore sportscars. A Carrera GT and F50 comes to mind when I think of hardcore open top cars.

The difference is cars that were designed from their inception to be open tops. And cars that were designed as coupes and then transformed into convertibles. The latter, no matter what the brand says, loses some sort of structural rigidity.

[spudw]

This 'chick car' debate has gone way over the top. It ruins otherwise good threads. It's a way for the painfully insecure (commonly know as having 'Hummer's Syndrome') to try to make others question their car choice by introducing a false sexual connotation. Want to refer to a pink Cadillac or a lavender Beetle as a 'chick car', I can see where you're coming from. But anyone who jumps on the bandwagon of calling a Porsche Boxter a 'chick car' is seriously compensating... Must be close to launch. The fanboys are starting to chime in...

[PB07NOVA]

Originally Posted by MastaMind

That's a pretty ridiculous blanket statement. For instance, the S2000 was designed to be structurally rigid, comes only in 6MT, and provides a "pure" driving experience.

The hard top Miata weighs more than the soft top version (and with the top up the weight is at the top of the car), so why would an enthusiast pick the hard top model if they were going to track it?

Sure, there are several feminine roadsters, but being a convertible does not automatically relegate a car to chic car status. Any self-respecting sports car enthusiast knows that.

You're overlooking details in my post. I said 'when a hardtop version is available', referring to a fixed roof car. The S2000 and Miata are not available as such; a Miata with the folding hardtop option is still a convertible.

I owned a Miata and enjoyed driving a buddy's S2000, so I've got no beef with either. But I wouldn't choose a convertible if a fixed roof version was available, because quite simply, the convertible would be inferior.

The Miata and S2000 are fine cars, but they would perform even better if they weren't saddled with excess weight from the additional structural bracing required to make up for no roof.

[white911]

Originally Posted by SR08NOVA

You're overlooking details in my post. I said 'when a hardtop version is available', referring to a fixed roof car. The S2000 and Miata are not available as such; a Miata with the folding hardtop option is still a convertible.

I owned a Miata and enjoyed driving a buddy's S2000, so I've got no beef with either. But I wouldn't choose a convertible if a fixed roof version was available, because quite simply, the convertible would be inferior.

The Miata and S2000 are fine cars, but they would perform even better if they weren't saddled with excess weight from the additional structural bracing required to make up for no roof.

How do you feel about the Cayman since it is a derivative of a car that was designed from the ground up to be a convertible?

[PB07NOVA]

Originally Posted by white911

How do you feel about the Cayman since it is a derivative of a car that was designed from the ground up to be a convertible?

I have enjoyed driving both the Boxter and Cayman, and for the reasons I've stated, I would opt for a Cayman in a hearbeat. Same reason I chose to purchase an E36 M Coupe and a Z4 Coupe when they were introduced following their roadster progenitors.

[MastaMind]

Originally Posted by SR08NOVA

You're overlooking details in my post. I said 'when a hardtop version is available', referring to a fixed roof car. The S2000 and Miata are not available as such; a Miata with the folding hardtop option is still a convertible.

I owned a Miata and enjoyed driving a buddy's S2000, so I've got no beef with either. But I wouldn't choose a convertible if a fixed roof version was available, because quite simply, the convertible would be inferior.

The Miata and S2000 are fine cars, but they would perform even better if they weren't saddled with excess weight from the additional structural bracing required to make up for no roof.

You said: "I'll double that comment by saying ALL convertibles are 'chick cars', if that definition includes posing and more show and little go."

The only criteria outlined in that sentence is that they must include posing and more show and little go. Since those are subjective (and a bit silly) by nature, I stand by my statements.

If you're stating that convertibles are "chic cars" only if they are based upon hard top versions and were not designed to be a convertible from the ground up, then I can somewhat see your point.

The fact stands, however, that most people won't consider a convertible based upon how it was designed. Rather, they like the general premise of a car and also want the drop top feel.

[spudw]

^agreed. Don't wasnt to make too much of this. I just think the term 'chic car' is unnecessary, highly subjective and derogatory.

There are lots of cars out there that are all show and no go, some of which are driven by guys and some by girls. By the same token, there are a lot of serious performance cars that are driven by very capable women.

Labeling a car a 'chick car', unless the car itself is so laughably gender-biased towards stereotypical female characteristics, like a pink Cadillac with in-dash perfume dispenser (and there are 'guy cars' too along the same lines...), really serves no purpose but to offend a car choice that someone else has made.

Some people make ridiculous over-the-top choices that beg to be labelled and maybe even ridiculed (see example above). I don't think driving a Porsche Boxter or a Z4 Convertible will ever come close to deserving the label 'chick car'.

'nuff said...