Z4 vs SLK vs Boxster

[nhhiep]

Currently driving a BMW E90 325i, very dependable so far with 75k miles. Now I am thinking about picking up a new 2 seats convertible.

My choices would be Z4 35i, SLK 350, Boxster S. Price is not a problem, since they are within 10% difference.

The Z4 looks surprisingly good even thought the design is a few yrs old, where the SLK and Boxster are totally new.

what do u think?

[Mr. ///M3 RD]

I recommend the Z4 35i ... I had one then got back into the M3 since I need a larger car, Having set that, the Z4 is a wonderful car we took it it all the way from Southwestern Ontario (near Toronto, ON. Canada) to the west coast along Route 66 then along scenic US 1 coastal highway before heading back inland near Portland Origen toward Chicago homeward bound. The car performed as expected. Great pickup super ride.

One tip just don't get one with the OEM Style 296 wheels.

By all means my recommendation would be to drive all three, for looks and performance I'll pick the Z4 before anything else.

Good luck in your hunt for the right one

[jparnes1]

You're asking a biased crowd. We're all going to say Z4. BTW, the Boxster is not close to cost with the Z4. You get killed on options with Porsche. Prob cost at least 10K more.

[nhhiep]

The Boxster S is just 5K over the Z, but it comes standard with REAL leather, bigger wheels, a little more HP. so that is a wash to me. About options, having special ordered my E90 6 yrs ago, I know how bad BMWs are when it comes to options; the list is super long. Porsche is as bad. Not sure about MB, but I don't plan to put in many options anyway.

But again, 10% price difference is not a deciding factor for me.

Let's say you win a drawing, they let you pick 1. which one would you pick with similar options.

[E36ic4Me]

I think I can help. I have actually owned all three! One SLK, two Boxsters and a new Z4. Here is my take:

SLK: Numb and boring. It offers none of the classic Roadster crisp, enjoyment. Summing it up, the SLK is like an American sedan hiding in a sleek European Roadster body.

Boxster: I really can't say anything negative here. They were fantastic cars to own. The handling and performance are really excellent. With two trunks, they are quite practical, the are roomy and comfortable inside too. The engine sounds are intoxicating. Around town it produces this great almost 'electronic' whirling sound BUT when you hit the gas, it starts growling and rumbling. A very beautiful car.

E89 Z4: Although I loved my Boxster, I wouldn't trade my Z4 for one. The Z4 has a brilliant dual personality. When you feel like lazily cruising around, it is quiet, sophisticated, calm, sturdy and quiet. When you get the itch to zip it, it responds to your wishes beautifully. It snarls and grips down waiting for and anticipating your every need. It attacks both twisty roads and strait aways equally as wonderfully.

Another thought I have is styling as it ages. Look at the original SLK.......they blend into the crowd and are boring to look at. The original and 2nd generation Boxsters tend to blend into the crowd. they are good looking but they aren't a "what the hell was that driving by" type of car. Now look at the Z Roadsters. The Z3 and the original Z4 look like nothing else out there. Even if you don't care for their look, you will notice them on the road. With that wide stance, long nose and short rear end, they make a real statement.

As for the whole "standard leather on the Boxster", I wouldn't look at that as a real selling point. What Porsche isn't real great with admitting to is that it is what the call "partial leather". The only real leather is in the very center of the seats. All of the bolsters and rears are vinyl. Furthermore, the stitched inserts on the doors are vinyl as well. If you want a true leather interior, you have to buy the "Extended Leather Package" for $2,820. ironically, the regular Leather interior of the Z4 has more leather then the standard Boxster's. Of course, the Z4 also has an 'Extended Leather Package'. Also, if we want to discuss what all the Boxster has standard.......lets not forget that the Z4 comes standard with Xenon Lights, Auto Dimming Side Mirrors, Auto Dimming Rear View Mirror, Auto Headlights and Dual Zone Auto Climate Control (to name just a few). None of these are standard on the Porsche! To get these features on the Boxster S, it will run an additional $6,432. I'm not knocking the Boxster, I still love the Boxster. The Z4 gives you a lot more for the money though.

[jparnes1]

Originally Posted by E36ic4Me

As for the whole "standard leather on the Boxster", I wouldn't look at that as a real selling point. What Porsche isn't real great with admitting to is that it is what the call "partial leather". The only real leather is in the very center of the seats. All of the bolsters and rears are vinyl. Furthermore, the stitched inserts on the doors are vinyl as well. If you want a true leather interior, you have to buy the "Extended Leather Package" for $2,820. ironically, the regular Leather interior of the Z4 has more leather then the standard Boxster's. Of course, the Z4 also has an 'Extended Leather Package'. Also, if we want to discuss what all the Boxster has standard.......lets not forget that the Z4 comes standard with Xenon Lights, Auto Dimming Side Mirrors, Auto Dimming Rear View Mirror, Auto Headlights and Dual Zone Auto Climate Control (to name just a few). None of these are standard on the Porsche! To get these features on the Boxster S, it will run an additional $6,432. I'm not knocking the Boxster, I still love the Boxster. The Z4 gives you a lot more for the money though.

+1 My point exactly. I built a Boxster to have features as my Z4 and it wound up costing $12000 more.

[javol]

SLK: the worst one, no driving emotions, no styling emotions; an elegant nice roadster without soul (except the overpriced 55 AMG)

Boxster S: chassis at top, handling at top. Driving emotions at the track where the chassis, steering, brakes show their qualities; not so impressive when driving around (NA engine loves high revs); soft top not for me....

Z435i (is): exotic car and styling emotions + .... the N54... try it. Tons of torque in any circumstances and easily tunable up to 400 whp; clearly not as sporty as the Bosxter S at the track.

[rfx45]

I'll quote myself from the other SLK thread:

This is how I see it. The Boxster is the pure performing, handling vehicle while the SLK is the polar opposite, it is the perfect everyday driving and not as "sporty". The Z4 is right in between, it is not too harsh for everyday driving and still very fun for spirited driving.

As for looks, the new Boxtser is nice but I am not a fan of soft-top convertibles (too much risk of someone slashing it) so the Cayman is the only option for me really but then it's not a droptop. The SLK has become more masculine from it's previous gen and it looks good in certain angles but I feel the with the roof up it doesn't flow as well as the Z4's. The front and back also looks like it's designed fro two different cars.

I also believe Z4 is one of the best looking hardtop convertible with either the top up or down.

Since price isn't a problem, I'd also suggest getting a 35is so the hp matches with the Boxster S.

[persian54]

If the boxster was a hard top, I'd pick that

but soft tops aren't for me

so Z4 wins

I looked at the SLK, and they just wanted too much $ for it (lease)

[rfx45]

The SLK350 is pretty slow too, it's as fast as the 28i in 0-60 and I know a few people who hate the start-stop system.

For me to consider the SLK, it'll have to be the 55.

[nhhiep]

how is the SLK350 slow? it has as much power as the others. the SLK 55 put it in another level in term of power though.

[baldguyj]

I think E36ic4Me said it best! The Z-4 is a great compromise. If all you are going to do is track it, go with a bare bones 911 turbo. But if you plan on driving an every day or most of the year, the torque and hardtop are hard to beat.

[Wraith.]

If the new Boxster S was a Hard-Vert and I didn't mind spending 85K, I'd probably jump ship. Sadly, until they start building CF retractable tops, it's never going to happen.

[egtownsend]

I'd say it's between a Z4 and a Boxster. You get more bang for your buck in the Z than the Porsche, but you probably already know that.

I thought the SLK looked nice too, until I got up close to one in a dealer showroom: plastic everywhere! The design is coming along, but I still don't think the materials are up to snuff. That electronic "magic sky" roof is pretty neat though (not neat enough to justify the whole package, in my opinion).

Good luck, sounds like a fun choice to make.

[nhhiep]

yes, hardtop is nice to have. probably more solid and less wind noise too. That is one of the problem with the Boxster, otherwise it would be a super easy decision. I am surprised that they did go hardtop with this one when all the cars in its class offer that.

[Stupenal]

Check out this video:

Watching them take the cars around the track, it is pretty easy to see which car handles better. If your #1 priority is having the "best" track car, there's really no question. However, if you test drive the two cars back to back in daily driving conditions, I wouldn't be surprised if the z4 came out much further ahead.

I don't know how nice the new Canyon Brown interior option is, but the prior interior option of getting nappa ivory extended leather makes the z4 interior absolutely refined.

[CeEl]

Originally Posted by Stupenal

I don't know how nice the new Canyon Brown interior option is, but the prior interior option of getting nappa ivory extended leather makes the z4 interior absolutely refined.

It makes the interior look very sophisticated, i like mine a lot. I do wish they still had thwho pry white available....

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by nhhiep

how is the SLK350 slow? it has as much power as the others. the SLK 55 put it in another level in term of power though.

As I said, SLK350s 0-60 is on par with the 28i (5.5), a car with 4cylinder turbo in comparison to the it's V6 (5.5) and it is ~$5k more. The 35i is almost half a second faster (5.1) and tick off a few more tenths of a second off for the 35is (4.9).

In comparison, the SLK250 with Benzes own turbo 4 is a whole second slower (6.5) to 60 than the 28i.


The SLK55 is only $3k more than the 35is and goes to 60 in 4.5 seconds. Like I said, if OP wants power and speed, to even consider the SLK it'll have to be the 55. In comparison to SLK350, Boxster and 35i, the SLK is the slowest.

[nhhiep]

in the video, the Boxster S is not even the new one. the Z definitely looks better than the old Boxster though, especially with Blue. The new Boxster looks great too. The new SLK front looks too angry to me.

[E36ic4Me]

Maybe I'm just not getting it but what is with all of the 'its a folding hardtop or nothing' mentality? Yes, yes, I know folding hardtops are (typically) quieter and what not but c'mon! If you are really in it for the thrilling open top experience, then who cares. I've owned about six folding hardtop convertibles and about 50 soft top convertibles. As a whole, I don't really care. Granted, there are some soft tops that are a cheap afterthoughts and can't stand up to modern cars, with noise control and whatnot. Modern soft tops are different though. Many of the ones available today, if you were riding in them blindfolded you could not tell you were in a convertible. As for the whole 'soft tops get slashed' thing......thats SORT OF on old wive's tale. Yes, it has happened. Is it common, absolutely not! I've been in more car clubs for more years then I care to remember. In all my many years of car collecting, only once did someones top get slashed. I also might add that it was by her daughter as retaliation for getting grounded. Thieves want to get in and out ASAP. Cutting a roof an climbing in is not subtle and it takes more time then smashing a window and reaching in or simply going up to an unlocked car. The two cars that I drive most often right now are my new Z4 and my 99' 328i Convertible. The 328 is a soft top (fully powered), it even has a plastic rear window (I'm not a fan of those)! Ya' know what? I don't care. They're the same thing. They are both nice and quiet when the tops are up, they are both exciting and cool when the tops are down. Isn't that the most important points in owning a convertible?

By the way, there is a reason that the Boxster is not a folding hardtop. While the top is folded it sits 2.3 inches above the engine. There is not nearly enough room to allow a folding hardtop to be integrated. If hardtops are your thing though, you have this option:

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by E36ic4Me

As for the whole 'soft tops get slashed' thing......thats SORT OF on old wive's tale. Yes, it has happened. Is it common, absolutely not! I've been in more car clubs for more years then I care to remember. In all my many years of car collecting, only once did someones top get slashed. I also might add that it was by her daughter as retaliation for getting grounded. Thieves want to get in and out ASAP. Cutting a roof an climbing in is not subtle and it takes more time then smashing a window and reaching in or simply going up to an unlocked car.

It isn't an old wives tale, you've experienced it once and to me, that is good enough reason not to take that risk, family member or not.

I have at least 3 friends who had his car slashed (Eclipse, Miata and most recently a 135i). Again, why would I risk that? I rather save myself the hassle and headache.

Originally Posted by E36ic4Me

Maybe I'm just not getting it but what is with all of the 'its a folding hardtop or nothing' mentality? Yes, yes, I know folding hardtops are (typically) quieter and what not but c'mon! If you are really in it for the thrilling open top experience, then who cares. I've owned about six folding hardtop convertibles and about 50 soft top convertibles. As a whole, I don't really care. Granted, there are some soft tops that are a cheap afterthoughts and can't stand up to modern cars, with noise control and whatnot. Modern soft tops are different though. Many of the ones available today, if you were riding in them blindfolded you could not tell you were in a convertible.

Versatility.

To me, hardtop convertibles just tends to look better and it can double as a coupe. My E89 Z4 is often confused for a coupe. So to me that is a good thing, two cars in one.

Some softtops are also just plain ugly, not all but some are just terrible looking. Some people simply do not prefer the mismatched roof color, one reason I am not fond of some Minis. There are also terrible looking hardtop convertibles though.

Having a hardtop is also much better for almost any weather. I've ridden in soft-top convertibles during a rain, it is very loud and annoying. In my Z4, the cabin stays relatively quiet. I also park my Z4 outdoors often, it's difficult to do that with a soft top and it certainly requires more attention and maintenance. When dust gets in my car, I simply wipe it with my giant California Duster, my friend could do that with his Audi TT. When washing, with the hardtop, I just clean, polish and wax the roof just like the rest of the car. It may not take much effort care for soft tops but it is still an extra step/work/materials, etc... Overall, the hardtop is just easier.

But like you said, who cares what the top is, right? So why concern yourself so much on other people preference? If you are truly intrigued why people are interested in it, well hopefully I answered your question.

[jparnes1]

Originally Posted by E36ic4Me

I've owned about six folding hardtop convertibles and about 50 soft top convertibles.

50?! What are you, like 150 years old?