World's first full review of the Rega ISIS

[tonepub]

Hey troops:

Just finished this one. It's a beauty.

http://www.tonepublications.com/spotlight/the-rega-isis-cd-player/

As always, we welcome your feedback!

 

[amey01]

Where can I get a used (or beat up and crashed for that matter) Boxster for only $20K??

 

[tonepub]

Where can I get a used (or beat up and crashed for that matter) Boxster for only $20K??

Uhhh, look on the Auto Trader. I can buy a 2001 Boxster with 35k on the clock for $11,000 bucks all day long, and an S for about 20. There's tons of them for sale. They've become the 944 of the 21'st century.

Great deals to be had.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Uhhh, look on the Auto Trader. I can buy a 2001 Boxster with 35k on the clock for $11,000 bucks all day long, and an S for about 20. There's tons of them for sale. They've become the 944 of the 21'st century.

Great deals to be had.

Jeff is absolutely right!

 

[RichTeer]

Great scoop, Jeff!

 

[amey01]

Uhhh, look on the Auto Trader. I can buy a 2001 Boxster with 35k on the clock for $11,000 bucks all day long, and an S for about 20. There's tons of them for sale. They've become the 944 of the 21'st century.

Great deals to be had.

$29,999 is the abosolute cheapest here

For a 1998 model. I must say though - a bit cheaper than I thought.

 

[twich54]

Uhhh, look on the Auto Trader. I can buy a 2001 Boxster with 35k on the clock for $11,000 bucks all day long.

I would hope so....the car's a 'turd' !!

 

[MiTT]

If only one could buy a Caiman for that sort of coin...

 

[tonepub]

I would hope so....the car's a 'turd' !!

And what kind of Porsche do you drive?

I've owned 911's. And I've driven 100's of them over the years. They are great cars. I just don't want another one. And I've had the privilege to drive just about every other exotic car there is and I just want a nice clean Boxster to put the top down on and go for a drive on a sunny day.

The car snobs are even worse than the stereo snobs. When I was working with Porsche, I had the good fortune to spend the day with Hurley Haywood, who's won LeMans about four more times than I have. Of course the discussion led to "what car should I buy?" and he told me to get a stripped, base model Boxster and spend 10 grand on driving school. His exact quote was, "Most guys in 911's are posers. If you want a drivers car, get a Boxster it has much better balance."

Again, I've owned my share of Porsches over the years and except for the 924, I love them all. But for my money, I'd buy a Boxster S in a heartbeat. That would be a turd I'd be happy to polish on a sunny afternoon.

If you're writing the check for my next car purchase, make it a 911 GT3 all black. Otherwise, keep the uninformed comments to yourself. I don't tell any of you that your car or stereo choices are stupid. Why does it always go here?

 

[twich54]

'84 911 Targa, I loved the car although the 915 transmission was pure crap, shifted like a school bus, Porsche didn't make a good transmission untill '87 I believe....G50.

As for the Boxster you mention, my reply is not aimed at the 'S' but rather the overpriced 'standard' .....why do you think they are selling so cheap ???

Put the same competent driver in that and a Honda S2000 and the Porsche will be looking at the Honda's taillights !

The Boxster 'S'....that's a differnet story, regardless $$ for $$, myself I'd take a Z-06 or Grand Sport Vette.

I do agree with you on the GT-3, one of my top three picks if $$ were no object.

 

[User211]

'84 911 Targa, I loved the car although the 915 transmission was pure crap, shifted like a school bus, Porsche didn't make a good transmission untill '87 I believe....G50.

As for the Boxster you mention, my reply is not aimed at the 'S' but rather the overpriced 'standard' .....why do you think they are selling so cheap ???

Put the same competent driver in that an Honda S2000 and the Porsche will be looking at the Hondas taillights !

The Boxster 'S'....that's a differnet story, regardless $$ for $$ myself I'd take a Z-06 or Grand Sport Vette.

I test drove the S2000 years ago. It is fast, but it has absolutely no torque at low revs. Unless you thrash the living sh*t out of it at high revs, it just won't move. If you're doing thirty in 4th, absolutely nothing happens when you put yer foot down. You need to drop it into 2nd, really.

Add to that that when wet, the back slides all over the place. Bit dangerous really.

 

[kach22i]

The only Porsche I've driven is my own 1977 911s targa 2.7L, did not really know how fun it could be until I undid all the work some hack shop overcharged me for and screwed up.

I'd love to own a 2005+ Boxster (as pictured in the article) as a daily driver, but perhaps 20K is for a few lucky and diligent bargain hunters.

Nine thousand for a CD player, if I had the money - why not?

 

[Len44]

Put the same competent driver in that an Honda S2000 and the Porsche will be looking at the Hondas taillights !

You got that right!!!

 

[Len44]

I test drove the S2000 years ago. It is fast, but it has absolutely no torque at low revs. Unless you thrash the living sh*t out of it at high revs, it just won't move. If you're doing thirty in 4th, absolutely nothing happens when you put yer foot down. You need to drop it into 2nd, really.

Add to that that when wet, the back slides all over the place. Bit dangerous really.

Why the hell would one be in fourth gear when "doing thirty?" Not any self-respecting S2K driver I know...

As for the "back slides all over the place" comment, well, that may have been YOUR experience -- or it may have been something you read somewhere, sometime ago, but that is why the owners in our club select their tires in a knowledgeable manner. I personally use (as do many others) the Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3, which has extraordinary traction and is absolutely amazing in the rain. Consumer Reports and Car & Driver both rated it as one of the top Z rated tires.

And not intended to offend, but a lot of people just don't "get" the S2000. It is NOT a dragster (although one can readily configure it to become one). It is meant as a pure driver's car, but it is admittedly a bit too pure for some. One should live with it on a wonderfully curvy road to really appreciate it's outstanding capabilities and virtues.

You have encroached into my "other" life here, as you can probably tell...

 

[twich54]

Why the hell would one be in fourth gear when "doing thirty?" Not any self-respecting S2K driver I know...

Exactly Len ! ........now Justin, we know you folks don't know what side of the road to drive on.......it's now apparent you don't know what gear to be in ! LOL .....

I crack up every time I hear someone talk about 'having to rev' the S2000 up..... for Gods sake that's what that engine was desinged for.....duhh !!!!!!

it is arguably the finest naturaly aspirated four cylinder engine on the planet...period !!!!!!

 

[User211]

Dave & Len,

We're not going to see eye to eye here, somehow. Thirty in fourth, well, just to make a point, really. But you could change it to forty and the same is still true. Fifty, even. No revs, no power.

However, it is good fun thrashing it, I don't deny it. It's just a bit of work. Personally, I think the 3 litre V6 in my Merc is a much better engine. At least, more to my liking - put your foor down and it moves, and it's nice and smooth, too. And at the end of the day, it's like hi-fi - it's what you like, not what someone else likes. Buy a car on the strength of someone else's review and expect to be disappointed. Test drives are essential, and I did drive that Honda for quite a good while. For the money, it is great. Just not my cup of tea.

And I still think the back is slidy... at least, I had it sliding quite a bit, much to the worried look on the salesman's face:devil:

The Merc costs quite a bit more, but it has a decent hard roof you can sling in the boot. And it's just plain more comfortable than an S2000 for long stints. Both high priorities for me.

I'm not a Boxster fan, but I do like the Panamera. So here it is, Burmester equipped (I suspect - it seemed lock up all day) at Silverstone, for those who missed it. Very nice indeed - and the side of it looks nicer in real life, somehow.

 

[Len44]

Dave & Len,

We're not going to see eye to eye here, somehow. Thirty in fourth, well, just to make a point, really. But you could change it to forty and the same is still true. Fifty, even. No revs, no power.

Well, the experienced S2000 driver will of course match the engine revs with current requirements. This is a real kick given the world-class manual shifter in the S. Most of the automotive press has in fact referred to it as the "World's Best."

You are probably correct that we are not going to see eye to eye here. Not intending to sound condescending (one can visit a Porsche site for a solid dose of that, BTW), but one does need to know how to drive a high-revving vehicle -- particularly the S. I must confess that I drive it far differently now than when new. Seems I had a bit to learn...

It almost sounds as if your tastes in motoring pleasure may run more along the lines of more sedate, auto-shifting and generally less-involved cruising, as opposed to the visceral pleasures of actively carving twisty roadways. Just a possibility... Which of course is OK if that is what one prefers...

BTW, didja ever throw the S2000 into VTEC? If so, did you still think the S had "no power?"

However, it is good fun thrashing it, I don't deny it. It's just a bit of work. Personally, I think the 3 litre V6 in my Merc is a much better engine.

Of course it is... :haha1: Actually, the 240 HP 4 Cyl in the S has won universal praise -- uh, present company excepted, obviously...

And I still think the back is slidey... at least, I had it sliding quite a bit, much to the worried look on the salesman's face:devil:

I wasn't going to address your "a bit dangerous" comment from your previous post, but since you seem so hung up on this rear end slidey thing, will do so now.

One can "toss" the S if one chooses to do so, provided certain tires and turning off the VSA. As previously mentioned, I use a stickier tire ('scuse, I mean tyre ) and leave the VSA on for most of my driving. As a result, I don't slide the rear end out much.

Perhaps this should be moved to another area of the forum?

 

[amey01]

I crack up every time I hear someone talk about 'having to rev' the S2000 up..... for Gods sake that's what that engine was desinged for.....duhh !!!!!!

It is personal preference. To me, having to rev a car is downright annoying. Fun, yes. But there is no reason for it other than poor engineering. A requirement to rev means the engine is operating inefficiently at low revs. It means that the band of power/torque generated by the engine is delivered over too small an area.

Quality engineering means it is possible for an engine to deliver that "kick" over it's entire operating band. You sh ould still be able to rev it if you want, but you shouldn't have to.

Personally I love that instant kick at low revs. And it doesn't have to be a big V8 - look at Volvo's B5234FT - 1990s technology from a 2.3 litre five-cylinder that delivered full torque from 1800 all the way to 5000 RPM.

Shame they don't make engines like that any more - especially when you know it's possible.

 

[twich54]

It is personal preference. To me, having to rev a car is downright annoying. Fun, yes. But there is no reason for it other than poor engineering. A requirement to rev means the engine is operating inefficiently at low revs. It means that the band of power/torque generated by the engine is delivered over too small an area. .

poor engineering ......:wtf: you have got to be kidding !!!!!!! so lets see......formula one cars, Yamaha R1 motorcycles (plus their snowmobile line up) must also fall into this line of thinking.

Amey your very confussed...... as far as poor efficiencey at low revs you couldn't be further from the truth, one can 'putt around' all day and get incredable mileage......how's that inefficient ??

Power band is narrow and higher up........ that's how it was intended...as Len said, do you understand V-tech technology ??

Hey, as a 'Red, White and Blue' American I love Big cubic inch, push-rod motors, hell I otta' know, my '86 Mone Carlo with it's 462 BB made in excess of 700 hp.

As far as personal preference, that's fine, afterall I stated mine relative the base Boxster lineup, but to say the S2k is poorly engineered is total BS !

 

[amey01]

Amey your very confussed...... as far as poor efficiencey at low revs you couldn't be further from the truth, one can 'putt around' all day and get incredable mileage......how's that inefficient ??

Not inefficient in terms of fuel use, but inefficient in terms of torque delivery for its displacement.

A "theoretically ideal" engine should be able to deliver it's intended torque from zero --> infinity RPM. It is only engineering difficulties and compromises that stand in the way of this.

I'm all for a revvy engine, but it shouldn't HAVE to be revved. F1 excluded because they obviously make engineering compromises there for the absolute fastest possible. That said, those engines are NOT intended for everyday onroad use.

If you're happy with those compromises too (sacraficing low-end performance for high-end performance), then that's why I said "personal preference".