In Reply to: Here's one off the top of my head.. posted by Praveen on June 14, 1999 at 13:57:02:
I hear what you're saying about gearing, torque, and weight. But the Boxster weighs about the same as a Z3 2.8, and is geared taller, i.e., higher. The point is that the 201 HP claimed for the Boxster is not demonstrably inaccurate, at least based on 0-60 and 1/4 mile performance. By the way, I checked Edmund's web site and couldn't find the test you refer to, but I'll keep looking.......
: Edmunds got 6.1sec for the 2.8, and 6.5 for the boxster. I know that r&t had it the other way. So I tend to believe that they are both about the same. BTW, HP does little for 0-60 times; weight, torque, and gearing have a far bigger impact. The 2.8 has more torque than the boxster, this is a fact. The weight difference in the US is only about 20lbs; this is a fact. The gearing on the 2.8 is such that it can hit 60 in 2nd if you redline both 1st and 2nd; not sure whether the boxster is capable of this. The boxster has an advantage in that the engine is sitting on the rear wheels, so probably is less susceptible to wheelspin on takeoff. Whatever the case, I think they are so close that the better driver will always win in a 0-60 race. Differences of less than 0.3 sec are insignificant since a person's reflex is more than 0.3 sec. You can check out teh roundel site for the auto-vs-auto test. Finally, Andrew Potts, an ex-Boxster owner has a table of the 30-70 sprint times on his site where the 2.8 was significantly faster for some reason, than the boxster (by almost a second). This might really be the 10% more torque at play.
: Again, the 0-60 sprint says nothing about horsepower ratings, since that only affects the top end speed. Given the 10% optimisitic speedo on the boxster, I wouldn't be surprised if the power is overrated too ;->