boxter versus boxter s re mpg

[richard lloyd hughes]

I presumed a 2.7 would be better on mpg rsther than a 3.2

maybe I am wrong

would do 70 miles per day longish run on dual carriageway to and from work

god I wished I was only 10 mins away then would be a no brainer !!

 

[Black80XSA]

I did short commutes albeit in lightish traffic in my old 986 2.7 and got about 27mpg including a bit of weekend local driving, i would expect a longer /steadier run to get about 29-30 provided you are around the speed limit and not too severe on the acceleration front, perhaps a bit more if your progress is slowed by volume of traffic.

987 3.2s in same use gave around 25-26, not much less. However the S is noticeably more reluctant to return much over 30mpg, even on a steady 70-75mph run. You need a good 40 miles or so before you can get up to 32mpg.

I did see 37mpg from my old 2.7, that was on a run from N.Wales to Ullapool - very sedate on the motorway, less so once north of Glasgow, but very little congestion !

 

[Robin M]

Best I got on my 3.2 986 was 32.7 on a run avaraging abiout 70 to 80 Mph with little traffic. I tried a 2.7 but thought the power in the 3.2 was so much better that I would live with a bit lower fuel consumtion. After all you can't take it with you so spend it one way or the ohter!

 

[oliver]

As nice as the 2.7 is, the 3.2'S' really does feel noticeably better, and worth the extra.

 

[colinbythesea]

Fuel consumption on my 2.7 seems to be much better according to my fuel computer.

Living in a crowded city it does a quite a bit of local urban running. The worst it has ever registered is 27MPG. On a run it easily does 35MPG and a good average is about 32MPG if I don't reset the computer for some time. I wouldn't say I was easy on the gas either as I do like to hear the engine make that lovely howling noise.

 

[akwaugh]

Sadly I keep records as an unpaid tax collector :

986 (2000) Boxster 2.7 manual, over 12000 miles - max mpg - 36.19 / min mpg - 20.03 / average mpg 28.83

Max on a run from Glasgow to Aberdeen at a decent clip
Min after a scoot around Knockhill with no corner spared
Average - bolstered by a few decent runs, I would say to take 26 / 27 as regular.
Note - I used all the available fuels (V Power, standard unleaded, and there is no measurable difference in consumption over a number of fills.

987 (2005) Boxster 2.7 tiptronic, over 6500 miles - max mpg 34.89 / min mpg - 22.51 / average mpg 25.97

Note - no track days!!
I'd expect a manual to do much better despite the power increase from 225 to 245 bhp as efficiency is by definition greater, plus the old 986 was a five speeder and the newer model 6 speed.


General use was/is on the daily commute from the North of Glasgow to Govan of about 15 miles which is actually a broken journey of 4 and 11 miles with a 1.1/2 hour stop in between, mostly at reasonable speeds.

Generally the computer is not to be relied upon - in one case it said 31mpg when the reality was 28mpg. These figures are from a maintained spreadsheet comprising every fill, bill and main journey type. Told you it was sad! Then again if you don't do it the Government is very happy to relieve you of loadsamoney.


As Carroll Shelby once said - Power costs money - how fast do you wanna go?

That's really the question - I'd agree with Robin about an "S" but I'm long since fed up visiting petrol stations every other day as I used to when I had bigger engined cars like my A8 4.2, Rangie 3.5 and Jeep 4.0
I'm very impressed by Colin Martin's 27mpg though.

Andrew

 

[colinbythesea]

My 27 was a one time minimum Andrew but it was from the fuel computer.

The car now has 105,000 miles on it so maybe it improves with age. Using Sainsbury super mainly. In fact it's a year 2000 986 that started life in Scotland. Was your 986 red?

 

[akwaugh]

Colin,

Nope, not red, sorry (wife doesn't like it!)
My old car, now with another PCGB member, was another classic colour, Amazon Green with sand upholstery. Love the combination but it's fairly unusual! Original owner was a chap from Edinburgh, I was second owner.

Andrew

 

[Glyn]

Although your specific question was about fuel economy between a 2.7 and a 3.2 I feel you are missing something in the equasion.

The 3.2 has so much more to the car than just 500cc, lots of little differences, and a few bigger differences like better brakes and of course red calipers.
If you are running 70 miles per day i cant see what a few miles per gallon is going to make as a real difference in the pocket as opposed to how much better the 3.2 is and the time spent in a better car.
If you want economy then go buy a little diesel with 65mpg - of course its not a porsche and you buy the porsche because you want something more than just an economical drive - well using a 3.2 over a 2.7 will give you even more pleasure - and extra power on tap for those moments when you need it or want it.

 

[richard lloyd hughes]

fine comment Glyn - noted and agreed with !!

 

[matt643]

So its not just me who has an interest in fuel consumption!! 3.2 986!

 

[jdpef356]

I have just got back from the PEYT with my 986 S and on the way back up the M11 my OBC showed 31.4 mpg.

Test drive both - no question you will only pick one - It has to be the one with the one with that extra bit of grunt
and the longer legs (ie 6 gears) - remember the extra horses are always there but you dont have to use them!

 

[TomYates]

I'd have loved a 3.2 tip S - very little difference in price to buy a good 2005/2006-ish one, but for me the decider was the extra I'd pay on insurance for the 3.2, which was over £900 more because of my girlfriend and I's age (23), so we decided to settle for a 2005 2.7 tip S. When leaving work I drive through town in slow traffic and that returns a very low mpg - the computer usually says around 12 - 15 until I get onto the dual carriageway, where it begins to creep up to mid to high 20's.

I don't know why the 3.2 is so much more for us to insure - infact a 2005 997 carrera 4 would have been around £450 less than a Boxster 2005 3.2!