Crapwagon Outtake: 2000 Porsche Boxster

by Chris Tonn

Published: November 6th, 2015

A few weeks ago, I made the argument that there can never be such a thing as a “cheap” Porsche. Certainly, there are Porsches that are cheaply made, and certainly some that can be purchased cheaply, but considering the substantial sums of time and money involved in righting a car that is wrong, it’s a folly to even consider it.

Yet, here I am again, perusing eBay. As I write this, there are 155 Boxsters for sale, in various conditions. Quite a few sit under the magic $10,000 mark, including a part-disassembled car for a mere $3,200.

I know. It’s an illness. Talk me off the ledge, please.

That 1997 Porsche Boxster for $3,200 is tempting. Mostly because it’s a near-perfect platform for thoroughly pissing off Porschephiles. Yep, I’m talking about the Renegade Hybrids LSx swap kit. For under four grand ( plus engine), a lightweight, 400 horsepower V-8 will fit nicely — as if it were meant to be there.

Another option is a DIY IMS bearing replacement. Cliff Notes: Porsche built these early watercooled sixes (in the Boxster, the 996 version of the 911, and I think some early Caymans) with an inferior bearing on the intermediate shaft. A failure means a new engine. However, some geniuses at LN Engineering have developed a kit to retrofit a better bearing, and if done in your own shop, the parts run under $1,000. Pelican Parts has a nice writeup, and it doesn’t seem too daunting. This cars’ drivetrain is already out, making the work a bit easier.

Let’s say I were to avoid the greasy-nails method of buying a cheap Porsche. This 2000 Porsche Boxster, shown atop the page, has had the IMS replacement already, and is only $11,500. The burgundy color isn’t ideal, but for the price of a Versa I could buy a fun roadster without worry of catastrophic engine failure.

Just catastrophic regular maintenance bills. Like I said, there’s never a cheap Porsche.

#1997PorscheBoxster #2000PorscheBoxster #986 #Boxster #IMS #IMSBearing #Porsche

Chris Tonn

Some enthusiasts say they were born with gasoline in their veins. Chris Tonn, on the other hand, had rust flakes in his eyes nearly since birth. Living in salty Ohio and being hopelessly addicted to vintage British and Japanese steel will do that to you. His work has appeared in eBay Motors, Hagerty, The Truth About Cars, Reader's Digest, AutoGuide, Family Handyman, and Jalopnik. He is a member of the Midwest Automotive Media Association, and he's currently looking for the safety glasses he just set down somewhere.

More by Chris Tonn

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 89 comments

Voyager on Nov 08, 2015

It says a lot of a brand's popularity that such an ugly car is able to draw that much attention after all those years.

Like Reply
Joeb-z on Jan 04, 2016

This discussion seems so ignorant. What other affordable mid-engine car is out there? What real sports car can match it for less than $15K? For over 5 years ownership my Boxster S has cost me oil changes and an IMS alarm system. In the IMS lawsuit settlement there are exact serial number ranges and failure statistics for 1-row vs. 2 row bearings. 10% failure rate vs. less than 1%.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Varezhka I have still yet to see a Malibu on the road that didn't have a rental sticker. So yeah, GM probably lost money on every one they sold but kept it to boost their CAFE numbers.I'm personally happy that I no longer have to dread being "upgraded" to a Maxima or a Malibu anymore. And thankfully Altima is also on its way out.
Tassos Under incompetent, affirmative action hire Mary Barra, GM has been shooting itself in the foot on a daily basis.Whether the Malibu cancellation has been one of these shootings is NOT obvious at all.GM should be run as a PROFITABLE BUSINESS and NOT as an outfit that satisfies everybody and his mother in law's pet preferences.IF the Malibu was UNPROFITABLE, it SHOULD be canceled.More generally, if its SEGMENT is Unprofitable, and HALF the makers cancel their midsize sedans, not only will it lead to the SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST ones, but the survivors will obviously be more profitable if the LOSERS were kept being produced and the SMALL PIE of midsize sedans would yield slim pickings for every participant.SO NO, I APPROVE of the demise of the unprofitable Malibu, and hope Nissan does the same to the Altima, Hyundai with the SOnata, Mazda with the Mazda 6, and as many others as it takes to make the REMAINING players, like the Excellent, sporty Accord and the Bulletproof Reliable, cheap to maintain CAMRY, more profitable and affordable.
GregLocock Car companies can only really sell cars that people who are new car buyers will pay a profitable price for. As it turns out fewer and fewer new car buyers want sedans. Large sedans can be nice to drive, certainly, but the number of new car buyers (the only ones that matter in this discussion) are prepared to sacrifice steering and handling for more obvious things like passenger and cargo space, or even some attempt at off roading. We know US new car buyers don't really care about handling because they fell for FWD in large cars.
Slavuta Why is everybody sweating? Like sedans? - go buy one. Better - 2. Let CRV/RAV rust on the dealer lot. I have 3 sedans on the driveway. My neighbor - 2. Neighbors on each of our other side - 8 SUVs.
Theflyersfan With sedans, especially, I wonder how many of those sales are to rental fleets. With the exception of the Civic and Accord, there are still rows of sedans mixed in with the RAV4s at every airport rental lot. I doubt the breakdown in sales is publicly published, so who knows... GM isn't out of the sedan business - Cadillac exists and I can't believe I'm typing this but they are actually decent - and I think they are making a huge mistake, especially if there's an extended oil price hike (cough...Iran...cough) and people want smaller and hybrids. But if one is only tied to the quarterly shareholder reports and not trends and the big picture, bad decisions like this get made.