Talk:Porsche Boxster and Cayman

Super Replica Link from their web site(s)
Consumer Alert: There is a Panamanian "kit car company" company that uses You Tube extensively as a source of promotion to solicit and defraud consumers. They have now started using Wikipedia as a second platform by which to claim legitimacy. The wiki entries that they have created on themselves have thus far been removed, but they are now linking into legitimate articles, and this Porsche Boxster is one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.183.6 (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Engine - horsepower
Not really important but since my editing of the engine power was reverted I had to check other sources. It seems to me that the numbers in the US is different from the numbers in Europe? In Europe the first models of the 2.5l had 204 bhp, the 2.7l 220 bhp, and the 3.2 S 252 bhp I have the 2000 Boxster S myself and it says 252 bhp in the manual. Of course, the differences are so small that they are unimportant, but still found it a bit strange.

Europeans rate horsepower using DIN standards (Deutsche Industrie Norm, I believe it means). U. S. makers rate horsepower using SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) criteria, and the two differ slightly. When a Eurpean car is sold in the U. S., its horsepower rating is converted to an SAE, via a simple conversion factor. DIN hp is always a bit higher than SAE hp, so if that weren't donethe Europoean makers would have minutely better bragging rights.

Stephan Wilkinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.96.49 (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm ... A more likely suspect might be differences in emissions equipment, which most definitely has an effect on performance and horsepower. I've seen this horsepower discrepancy before between European and US versions of the same car, and it was due to the catalytic converter. Usually the US model comes out on the short end, losing a few horsepower. BMW's 3 series specifically comes to mind. --68.183.100.3 (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Links
I don't know what the standards are for external links, but there seem to be a few links that aren’t exceptionally useful. If someone could chip in a second opinion on these it would be very helpful (after a quick glance at the pages, I don’t see any great reason to keep them – and the last one should probably have the “very helpful” comment removed?): Nick
 * 986 and 987 Forum boards
 * Porsche Pete's Boxster Board
 * Used Boxster Buyer's Tips from a Boxster Owner - Very Helpful!

Mid-engine
"The Boxster has a mid-mounted engine"? Has it? I thought it was tail mounted. // Liftarn


 * Yes, the engine is mid-mounted. It's the Porsche 911's engine that is rear-mounted. SamH|Talk 10:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Anywhere handling, braking and balance cannot be compromised the mid-engined design will be used. In most automobiles, and in sports cars especially, ideal car handling requires balanced traction between the front and rear wheels when cornering in order to maximize the possible speed around curves without sliding out.


 * The mid-engine layout as used on the first Porsche, the James Dean Porsche 550 the neat little Porsche 914, the current Boxster's, and Cayman's, make these cars more like racing cars than the big front-engined 924, 944, 928, Cayenne, and Panamera, or the soon to be extinct from all but vintage car racing, the rear-engined 911.

-oo0(GoldTrader)0oo- (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And it is very low too!-Ez5698

Porsche Boxster
What year did the Boxster switch from a "plastic" rear window to a glass one?


 * The glass top comes on the '03 and up models.

I think it should also be mentioned that the Boxster competes directly with the Audi TT, Saab 9-3, 350z, and the honda s2000.

What is the average RWHP of a 2000 boxsterS ? Because the Brake horsepower or Bhp is higher than the actual RWHP.

The engine is in the middle of the car (mid engined) and all i know is that the 3.4 litre flat 6 in the modern boxter s develops 295 BHP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.197.27 (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

video game
I remember that when the boxster was released there was a playstation racing game, presumably made for marketing puirposes, where the boxster was the only car you could drive. I think perhaps it should be mentioned here, but I can't remember the name of that game. 85.28.65.75 15:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It was Porsche Challenge. According to Moby Games, "The game was developed in collaboration with Porsche. As a result of this collaboration the game features only Porsche Boxsters as cars and focuses more on realistic look and feel of these Boxsters than on fast and furious action and spectacular crashes." --Edvvc 22:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Zscout370's deletion of the majority of the links
Zscout370, why did you delete the majority of the external links? They most assuredly weren't spam -- two were from Porsche's own website! I understand that some of them may technically have violated some oft-ignored linking rules (for example, external forum links are ostensibly forbidden, although many car articles have them), but but Boxster FAQ if nothing else is beyond reproach. Please don't just delete the links again without commenting here first. Stephen Hui 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything from the official website of Porche to the the FAQ, I would not mind keeping. However, it was brought to our attention offline that many of the Porche articles are getting spammed with links to the autowiki and by fourms. I am going to remove the forum links again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Engine output figures
The European and American engine output figures apparently differed. I reverted the last edit because it changed one model year's listed figure from the American one to the European one. We should probably list both for all model years, but we shouldn't mix them between model years, especially without having an appropriate notation. For example, before my edit the 1997 car's output was listed at the American car's 201 hp, while the 2000 car's output was listed at the European car's 204 hp, making it sound like the 2000 was essentially no more powerful than the 1997. Stephen Hui 21:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Boxster's discs rust unusually quickly"
I'm deleting this assertion because I can't find any data to justify its inclusion per WP:Verifiability. The two sources the original posted added were both columns written by individuals describing their own cars; while they may have had problems, that doesn't mean it's a common issue. Automobile didn't have the problem in their long-term test, nor did MotorWeek or European Car. Popular Mechanics did an owner's survey, and rusty brakes didn't get mentioned. Neither Consumer Guide nor MSN Autos mention brakes as a problem area in their reliability surveys. So why exactly does this merit inclusion in an encyclopedia?

From the linked Wikipedia policy page:


 * Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

Stephen Hui 14:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Shares everything forward of the windshield with the 996
Is it worth noting that the Boxster shares the same front of the car with the 996 Carrera, in terms of suspension, steering, etc. and body / headlights (at least up until the 996 got the Turbo's headlights to differentiate it from the Boxster)? Geoff126 19:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source? The 996 grill looks different than Boxster's...  swa  q  17:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is widely recognized in the Porsche community; you probably have your choice of sources. For example, Bruce Anderson writes in "Porsche Market Update: Boxster & 996" (Excellence #167, September 2008, pp. 115-119), "From the doors forward, they [Boxster and 911] are nearly the same car, using the same forward chassis (Carrera 4 and Turbo excepted), suspension, fenders, hood, headlights, and much more." Slaquer (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * At the time Porsche really didn't have much choice. The 1993 concept was quite a bit smaller than the production car and frankly, it was well-known at the time that Porsche's finances during that era couldn't allow for that much difference in development, particularly with the virtually all-new Type 996 911 about to be released. It made sound business sense to share as much development between the two platforms as possible, particularly in areas of crashworthiness and engine development; besides, this sort of shared commonality is something that all automobile companies do as common practice. And Porsche throughout its own history has done this to some level across model lines and with separate generations within a particular model. According to the noted Porsche authority, the late Paul Frère, in his book, "Porsche 911 Story" (7th edition), Porsche "had to share most of its most important components with the new 911". It's a classic Wendelin Wiedeking move, Porsche's managing director during the Boxster's birth and development.Monoblocks (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Design credit and where it's due
It was my understanding that then Porsche design chief Harm Lagaay was the instigator/motivator for the original Boxster concept, but that the design itself was actually penned by Grant Larson. Monoblocks (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Manual listed twice for 0-60, tiptronic missing
In the Model History box, in the year 2000, for the base model, manual is listed twice and tiptronic not at all. I know the tip is a bit slower 0-60, but I just wanted to toss it out there to someone with the actual figures so they could verify the accuracy for both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.100.3 (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

IMS failure rate figures
Hopefully someone can source the section about the IMS failure rate being 5% ... I've researched the subject extensively and have never seen any verifiable figures. In fact, from all I've learned, Porsche keeps that number very quietly to itself. I'd love to know what the actual rate it. But to tease out an actual number, versus mere speculation, has proven beyond my research abilities.

--68.183.100.3 (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Porsche 981 Article Expansion
As of right now the information about the 981 seems limited. Perhaps we can do more work to expand it? I will start by adding the top speed, 0-60 mph time, and possibly some other information. HEROofOURtime (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Gen I & Gen II 987 Vs Second Generation 981
In my experience the 987 facelift model from 2009 onwards is referred to as a "Gen II". Therefore, using the words "Second Generation" as the subtitle for the 2013MY 981 seems rather spurious. Is "Second Generation" an official term? More clear ways to refer to the variants are perhaps 987.1, 987.2 and 981. Here's a credible link showing use of the term Gen II meaning facelift 987: http://caymanregister.org/faq.php?faq=models. I propose this needs clarifying in the article and use of "Second Generation" needs to be dropped when referring to the 981. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.76.125 (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this new section title "Third generation: 981 and 718 (2012–)" and I don't think Porsche would either. Although the 981 was such a short-lived variant, hardly any parts are common between 981 and 718 - plus of course the engine is again entirely different. The 718 is far better described as the Fourth generation (986, 987, 981, 718). Hockeyshooter (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the correct split between "generations", the current content is inconsistent: section titles and "Fourth generation: 718 (2016-present)" content treat the 718 as a new generation, while the content of the introduction to "Third generation: 981 (2012–2016)" refers to the 718 of 2016 as a facelift of the 981. Porsche is using "718" as part of the model name, as it uses "911" as a model name. Model names are no longer well-connected to internal type codes. Does anyone know if the 718 Boxster and Cayman are actually type 718, or just model name 718... and type 981 or something else? I understand the marketing reason for using "718" in the model name, but that number seems unlikely as an internal type code. brian&#124;bp 04:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Specifications
Seems to me that the specifications provided by Porsche indicate a 3.4 L on the Cayman S ...194.183.196.141 08:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

In the specifications section, there is a list of four versions of the Cayman which is a speculation before the release of the first version of the specifications of the Cayman S by Porsche last month.

And there there are the official specifications, which contradict what is written above. I think that the specification section should be rewritten on the basis of the actual information provided by Porsche and not on the basis of pre-release rumors of the press.

Please in particular be coherent for the Cayman S 194.183.196.141 28 June 2005 10:53 (UTC)

photo
I'm not certain that picture is up to date and it certainly doensn't do it justice. Any better pictures in the public domain that show the car?

Up to date
says scheduled to release in 2005... Its out... I saw it at the dealer...maybe someone knowledgeable can update?? 24.211.135.6

Cayman or caiman
It is said that it is named after the Caiman, isn't it the Cayman Islands rather than the Caiman ? Hektor 05:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your confused as to what the Cayman is named after. It is after the Caiman reptile as noted in the teaser promotional material release by Porsche. http://www.porsche.com/international/aboutporsche/pressreleases/archive2005/quarter1/?pool=international-de&id=press36Jdeviant 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson?
"British motoring columnist Jeremy Clarkson does not like the styling of the car. Nor is convinced by it's performance. He also suggests that it should be refered to as "Gayman". Which is totally wrong." Totally unnecessary POV... who cares what Jeremy Clarkson thinks? I don't believe Jeremy Clarkson's opinion would really appear in an encyclopedia so I am taking it out.


 * Response: I agree with you on excluding the the Clarkson comments, but it is true that Clarkson called it the "Gayman" (he does so in his Sunday times Op-eds; on Top-Gear he calls it the "Coxster"). BMan1113VR 06:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree the comment shouldnt be in here, a hell of a lot of people watch top gear (bbc2's top rated show isnt it?) so SOMEONE cares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.223.6 (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifications: Porsche official vs. third-party
Roguegeek and BMan1113VR have a disagreement over whose performance specifications to publish -- Road & Track's (an American car magazine) or Porsche's official specifications. I can't find any official policy guidance on this, but I'm strongly inclined to cite Porsche's official specifications. Two reasons to avoid third-party specifications when official ones are present are that every third party source will differ (e.g. Car and Driver got different times than Road & Track), and third-party publications often have typographical errors (e.g. there's no way the Cayman S can only do 160). - Stephen Hui 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Updated with many more sources (other magazines (and other Road&Track Articles claiming 171)and 2 videos[more available]) all claiming 171. The 160 claim is probably and error/typo on R&T's part. Maybe they confused Cayman with Cayman S (the base Cayman has a top speed of 160/161 depending on transmission). I know this is unencyclopedic (hence why I didn't include it), but as an owner who took European Delivery, I personally drove it to just over 170 on the Autobahn. Simple explination: 0.29 Drag Coefficient + ~270+rwhp +6-speed=Car running out of 6th gear at ~170mph. BMan1113VR 05:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't matter to me. I was just bothered by the fact that NO SOURCES were cited when I did my original edit. Now that there are some there, I don't see a problem. FYI, multiple third-party sources are always better than a single first-party source. Roguegeek (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with automotive performance specifications is that they're variable -- different cars will perform differently on different surfaces with different drivers in different conditions. For that reason, you can have a half-dozen accurate sources (in this case, Car and Driver, Road & Track, etc.) that all disagree.  I'm inclined just to put Porsche's stats in the chart and change the header to "Manufacturer's rated performance specifications" or some such.  Sure, some manufacturers will fudge the numbers, but I can't think of a more compelling argument to include anyone else's stats instead. Stephen Hui 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First-party sources fudging numbers is the main reason why Wikipedia asks for several secondary sources instead. Inconsistencies between secondary sources could easily be overcome by saying stating best and worse from what we could find. It's really all a mater of what the editors can agree on. In any case, secondary sources are almost always better to use unless there is simply a lack of sources (which in this case, there wouldn't be). Roguegeek (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Predecessors
- Stephen, I strongly disagree with the 968 being the "predecessor" the fact that the 968 was a coupe and wasn't a 911 isn't enough to make it a predecessor to the Cayman. They share no parts, no design philosophy, they don't even drive the same! :) Porsche has stated that both the 550 LeMans Coupe and the 904 were inspirations for the Cayman, the 968 was not.  I mean you could argue that the 912 was a predecessor by stating that it was the least expensive coupe offered at the time that wasn't a 911, but that doesn't really make it related in any way or even a predecessor.  Just because there was a gap of some 40 years between the 904 and the Cayman doesn't make it any less a predecessor, the same for a 50 year gap and the 550 LeMans Coupe.  The Boxster (on which the Cayman shares the same platform group - 987) was soley based on the old 550 spyders, the 550 was the Boxster predecessor, not the 944 Cabs or 914's or anything else that happened to be topless and not a 911 coupe/cab, etc.  Let's look at Chevy for a moment.  The Camaro used to be the entry level sports car.  It is gone (for now) and the Chevy Cobalt SS is the entry level Chevy sports car. When the new Camaro is released next year are you going to say that the predecessor to the new Camaro was the old Camaro or the Cobalt SS? I'd argue for the old Camaro and I think most Chevy fans would too. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.165.229.30 (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the predecessor entry in the info box back to the 968. Saying that the 550 and 904 is romantic, but not really relevant to any buyer. I expect that the vast majority of people would say the Cayman's predecessor was Porsche's previous inexpensive, hardtop car, which was the 968; "Porsche's previous mid-engined hardtop car" is too narrow a definition, in my opinion. Stephen Hui 15:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia content must verifiable. Porsche has published that the 904 is a predecessor:


 * "The Porsche 904, a predecessor of the Cayman S, is arguably among the most exciting sports cars of all time—"
 * Quoted from Porsche's Christophorus magazine article, 'Double Excellence'
 * http://www.porsche.com/usa/accessoriesandservices/christophorusmagazine/archive/archive2006/april-may/


 * That the Porsche 550 is also a predecessor can be verified by reference to another publication from the manufacturer:


 * "The ... unique combination of mid-mounted engine and hard-roof body was originally prototyped in 1953 on the Porsche 550 coupé... The result: the new Cayman and the Cayman S."
 * http://www.porsche.com/all/transitional/uk/pdf/Cayman_MY07_gb.pdf


 * Is the assertion that the 968 is a predecessor of the Cayman verfiable as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines? --Wiley 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because the 904 is a predecessor of the Cayman doesn't mean it's the Cayman's immediate or only predecessor. The Cayman is Porsche's less-expensive hardtop model.  Prior to the Cayman, what Porsche's less-expensive hardtop model?  The 968, or course.  While I could cite sources for this, frankly that would be silly, as it's common knowledge and thus would serve no purpose but to clutter the article.


 * It's also worth pointing out that Porsche marketing copy hardly qualifies as NPOV source material. Other than Porsche marketing copy evoking the image of the 550 and 904 in an attempt to grant the Cayman mystique, on what basis do you assert that either car is an immediate predecessor of the Cayman?  Stephen Hui 07:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on the tag description in Template:Infobox_Automobile:
 * "predecessor: previous models of the manufacturer in the segment or similar".
 * I'll go along with leaving the predecessor as 968. --Wiley 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. Thanks also for your recent round of edits to the article, even if I disagreed with this particular one.  :-)  Stephen Hui 15:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I recently part-exchanged my 968 for a Cayman S Sport, so it was definitely its predecessor for me :-) Strobie (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lap times
Bwileyr, I see you distinguished between Röhrl's Ring lap time in a car equipped with PASM, PCCB, etc. and the Porsche literature's stated time for a "standard" Cayman S. I think it's a bit of an assumption to say that "standard" means non-optioned, as implied by your original wording of the lap times section. Unless someone can find a more explicit description of the 8:20 car's options, I think the current wording is better. Stephen Hui 05:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Röhrl was quoted about that in the article Porsche's new kid on the grid:

"We were a little bit surprised how near we were to the 911 (in performance)," says Rohrl of the Cayman. "But that was a car with (optional) 19-inch wheels and ceramic brakes, so it was a bit quicker (than the standard model)."
 * --Wiley 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was referring to Porsche's describing the lap time of the "standard" Cayman. I'm not disputing that Röhrl's car had options; what's ambiguous in my mind is what constitutes "standard".  Standard (manual) transmission?  No options?  The option configuration Porsche expects most people to buy?  Stephen Hui 04:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a better version of that quote in the interview section (at the end of that article):
 * "'We were at Nurburgring, it was my first lap and I did 8 minutes, 11 seconds - my first lap! But that was a car with (optional) 19-inch wheels and ceramic brakes, so it was a bit quicker. A normal (unmodified) Cayman S will do it in about 8.20, ...'"
 * --Wiley 18:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Another time line thought. Why are the Boxster and Cayman listed as separate entities when one is just the hardtop version of the other? --9toes (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Getrag
In case anyone else was wondering if the name of one of the gearbox manufacturers should be shown in Wikipedia as GETRAG or Getrag, there are WikiProject Automobiles and a Talk:Getrag discussions about that. As of today, the winner is Getrag. --Wiley (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Zuffenhausen
The article says Zuffenhausen is near Stuttgart, but Zuffenhausen is IN Stuttgart. It is a district.--75.80.43.80 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed it.--75.80.43.80 (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 * Approve - the Porsche Cayman R page is too short, and has no categories applied. It should be merged into Porsche Cayman as an individual section. -- David Spalding ( ☎   ✉   ✍  ) 17:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: I think there is not enough article ( R ) to make the merge a problem. I'm all for it and will help if needed. Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 03:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: The R is just another Cayman model and not unique enough to have it's own article. Bjmullan (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As no one seems to object I will look at merging the article in the near future. Bjmullan (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Bjmullan (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge Article Boxster and Cayman


Three generation as: 986, 987 and 981. Porsche Cayman as Boxster Coupe since 2005, It Merged Article to 718. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.69.37.206 (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're proposing. Are you able to state it more clearly? DH85868993 (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Porsche Boxster stopped production. The New 718 Boxster is here. Launched at the Geneva Motor Show 2016. 718, Boxster and Cayman, Its Merged Article, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.69.37.206 (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting this article should be renamed to Porsche 718 (production car)? DH85868993 (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Porsche 718 as Facelift. Porsche 718 including Boxster and Cayman to The Article. Porsche 718 Boxster moved page to Porsche 718 (production car). Porsche 718 new 4-cylinder turbo engines: 2.0L (for 718 Boxster and 718 Cayman) and 2.5L (for 718 Boxster S and 718 Cayman S) replace 2.7L (for Boxster and Cayman) and 3.4L (for Boxster S and Cayman S) The Article Merged To 718, Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.69.37.206 (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. As an initial step, I have moved this article to Porsche 718 (production car). The consensus at WP:CARS was that the 1950s/1960s 718 and the 2017 718 should be described in separate articles. I'll leave it to others to decide whether Porsche Boxster and Porsche Cayman should be merged into this article. DH85868993 (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * the 718 Boxster is not a "facelift" - that is very misleading and can someone check rev range has been increased? more significant are the better brakes, chasis and steering — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.14.182 (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The Article is Merged, Thanks, The 718, The Legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.69.37.206 (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Article title
Should this article be titled "Porsche Boxster and Cayman" instead of "Porsche Boxster/Cayman"? DH85868993 (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably, just like Alfa Romeo Brera and Spider. But a slash is fine. Prodigy55 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 one external links on Porsche Boxster/Cayman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930022321/http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=116535?imw=Y to http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=116535?imw=Y
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160206200040/http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050530/FREE/505300712&SearchID=7326483737143 to http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050530/FREE/505300712&SearchID=7326483737143
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160130210314/http://www.autobild.de/sport/touren/artikel.php?artikel_id=13895 to http://www.autobild.de/sport/touren/artikel.php?artikel_id=13895
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130118224929/http://autozine.org:80/Archive/Porsche/new/Cayman.html to http://autozine.org/Archive/Porsche/new/Cayman.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716070915/http://www.world-challenge.com/news/story.php?story=1856 to http://www.world-challenge.com/news/story.php?story=1856
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110725181323/http://www.club-porsche-france.org/html/archives/2009/CaymanCuprglttech2009.pdf to http://www.club-porsche-france.org/html/archives/2009/CaymanCuprglttech2009.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091227215702/http://www.italiamotorsport.it:80/campionato.php?id=31&anno=2009 to http://www.italiamotorsport.it/campionato.php?id=31&anno=2009
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110711122151/http://www.grand-am.com/schedule/entrylist.cfm?series=k&eid=1502 to http://www.grand-am.com/schedule/entrylist.cfm?series=k&eid=1502

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Boxster and Cayman sections. Merged?
Just wanted to add my thoughts here. The merging of the Cayman and Boxster articles is a bad idea. Many people interested in learning more about the specifications of these cars visit the Wikipedia pages. It is now extremely messy and complicated. Given the sheer numbr of model variations when considering both these models together, makes it extremely difficult. Bad move. I propose splitting of these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:209F:FEAE:7141:62B:43CB:6DC4 (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. It really makes it complicated. U1Quattro (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I would rather separate each generation into its own detailed article like the 911 and other cars but keep the Boxster and Cayman together. As of the 987 generation they've been fundamentally variants of one and the same car, with the latest generation now more so than ever. We don't separate the 911 Cabriolet into its own article either. --Epistolarius (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * As stated above, it was getting rather complicated, so I've decided to Be Bold and bring this in line with the Porsche 911 article by splitting specs and specific model information into Porsche 986, Porsche 987, Porsche 981 and Porsche 982. Then hopefully over time this page can become a useful overview of the model without listing every variation, etc. Bob talk 13:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The mass deletion of information makes this a less informative page
There have been two mass deletions lately. The first is additional information about the 982 generation Cayman and Boxster. I cannot fathom a reason for deleting so much information here, given that there is no other place for it on Wikipedia. But, the far more concerning edit is losing all the historical context about the 986 Boxster.

This is undoubtedly one of the most important cars Porsche has ever released. And information about special models and history isn't superfluous or unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissingPerspective (talk • contribs) 13:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You will have to be more specific and point to the previous version that contained more information. And don't overlook that each generation has been split off to its own wiki page, in line with the 911. -- Epistolarius (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, I missed that, thank you. I am unsure that non-expert readers will understand enough about Porsche designation numbers to understand that the 718 is really the 982 - but understand the purposes for uniformity. -- MissingPerspective (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Two Articles
Shouldn't this be split into the Boxster and the Cayman, given there are now multiple generations of each.Theanonymousentry (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion that shouldn't be needed, the pages got merged as both Boxster and Cayman always have been very similar cars based on the same platform (and even sharing many parts with the 911), and particularly since the 982 gen 718 Boxster and Cayman they are effectively the same car just with different body styles - and split into the different model generations to make the articles more readable, because each gen has substantial differences and to be more in line with the 911 article structure. It wouldn't make sense to spin off the 911 cabriolet into its own article either. -- Epistolarius (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's a little far-fetched to compare the Boxster and Cayman to a 911 and 911 cabriolet. Just seems that will be crossover information, but with the proliferation of both distinct cars it would be beneficial to have unique articles that would refer to both unique and cross-shared information. I don't think that anyone who owned or seen them would see them as anything but distinct models, just seems odd to still have them combined after all these years.Theanonymousentry (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * They are the same cars with different bodystyles so no split is needed. U1 quattro   TALK  01:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

986 & 987 Engines
Article states that all 986 and 987 models use the same engine, this is factually incorrect. The 987.2 models use a totally new engine with no IMS bearing, engine designation is 9A1 : 94.175.102.211 (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomenclature
Can someone edit this please??? The Boxster's name is derived from the 356 Speedster. Not roadster. Thanks. 163.47.228.7 (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Source?  Stepho  talk 21:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Porsche Boxster/Cayman → Porsche Boxster and Cayman – The article makes it clear that these are two different cars, the Porsche Boxster and the Porsche Cayman. Per MOS:SLASH, a slash shouldn't be used in cases like this: avoid joining two words with a slash [...] because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how. Replace with clearer wording. Gonnym (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and per WP:AND, as there is no reasonable overarching title available. — Material  Works  22:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, for the reasons above. IPBilly (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.