[tsammyc]

The latest Auto issue of Consumer Reports lists the Cayman and 911 as very reliable (their highest rating), while the Boxster is moderately unreliable (their 2nd lowest rating). That's unusual as they are from the same platform.

 

[Marc-In-The-Box]

Unless there were specific convertible top unreliability issues I can't imagine why one would have a different rating than the other.

 

[xdamage]

Don't know except the Boxster preceeds the Cayman. First generation cars tend to have issues, and even after they are fixed in subsequent years, the emotional sense that they exist tends to hang on in the minds of us people.

 

[TheBookof911]

Yes, I saw that as well. I read stuff like that and I seriously begin to doubt the reliability of CR's data. I am not aware of pending issues related to the convertible top. I am fairly certain that many of the systems are identical. For example, why would the electronics in the Boxster be worse than a Cayman. There really did seem to be a big disparity.

 

[gtscayman]

Could partially be due to the more flexible nature of the Boxster? I know my 987 Boxster had a few more rattles and shakes than my Cayman. Hell, I have a few more rattles and shakes than my Cayman.

 

[CrocNV]

As I recall, last year Boxster was on CR recommended list and Cayman was not--go figure.

 

[Jim Michaels]

I don't know why they report the Cayman reliability at all. I didn't see it in the reliability tables in back. Maybe they haven't gotten enough reports from Cayman owners to consider the data reliable yet. All the reliability data comes from questionnaires that car owners fill out. Maybe CR would have second thoughts after reading our "Cayman Complaints" forum.

The Boxster reports have a longer history, so more time for problems to develop.

 

[DaveC]

I didn't see the report but the question is whether or not CR lumped the 986 "Boxster" w/ the 987 "Boxster. If they did the report is fatally flawed. The 986 and the 987 are really two different cars. If not it needs a lot of further clarification. The most reliable aspect of my 99 Boxster was it's convertible top mechanism so I doubt that the downgrading of the 987 Boxster compared to the Cayman was its top. Let's also not forget that the hatch on at least the 06 Cayman was not it's strong suit in the problem free department, as many of us know.

 

[Falcon7]

It you want to buy a toaster check CR, if you want to buy a sports car go some where else for credible information. I remember reading a review a few years of ago on a sports car, They said the ride was firm and that there wasn't a lot of room in the trunk if you needed to fit 4 or 5 suit cases in. DUH! Its a sports car not a Crown Vic. They just don't get it.

 

[Boxsterbob]

I remember a few years ago CR reviewing refrigerators and they had a long list from highest rated to lowest and you had to read the footnotes to realize that ALL of them fell within a range where there was no significant difference between them. Further if you left out the icemaker the worst became the best. A few years before that they rated a particular brand of diswasher number 1, the failure rate on one key part was 100% but they did not fail during the test so they were great
CR is good if you know nothing about the subject but they often do not Know much more and as has been demonstrated in many industries.
Since the Boxster and Cayman are the same car except for the top it just further prooves the meaningless CR's reviews are.

 

[K-Man S]

To Sum Up:

Toaster Reliability - CR

Cayman / Boxster Reliability - Planet-9.com !!!!

 

[ehanauer]

Apparently nobody told them the Boxster and the Cayman are essentially the same car.

The few times I've checked CU's ratings on products I'm familiar with: computers, cameras, and cars, I've laughed at their ratings.

Dish soap, vacuum cleaners, mommy wagons, yes.

Sports cars, no.

 

[lspain]

I agree that CR's Boxster rating makes little sense based upon the data they present. That said, CR does not usually fudge reliability figures and I don't think they have an axe to grind so something has appeared in their data that made this happen. For example, no one doubts their reliability data on sedans and SUVs. Rather than discount everything they say, I would ask that they reveal more of their data on what exactly they have seen.

 

[DaveN007]

I find that Boxsters are completely unreliable when it comes to keeping rain off of my head when the top is down.

Seriously, though, people have higher expectations for higher priced cars. Just look around here...there are folks who are indignant that an engine would wear out after 20,000 miles on a race track.

My ML430 was roundly criticized by people who expected an E430 experience...despite the fact that they just bought a TRUCK.

 

[ed1]

Saw elsewhere on this site recently that someone saw Boxsters being assembled in Zuffenhausen. If true and if Caymans are still assembled in Finland, the different assembly line locations could be a factor. (I presume all engines are still made in Zuffenhausen.) They also reported 911 and Boxsters on the same line, yet 911 gets a good quality report. Start-up problems due to moving Boxster assembly from elsewhere?

 

[johnrweb]

CR basically said that the Boxster reliability went down and that's why they removed it form their recommended list.

That being said, CR really liked it in 2005. "The Porsche Boxster outscored six competitors to become Consumer Reports' new top- rated vehicles in the upscale roadster category following new car testing for the October issue. The vehicles ranged in price from $34,000 for the Honda S2000 to $57,500 for the Chevrolet Corvette. The Porsche Boxster, which was partially redesigned for 2005, achieved an "Excellent" overall score in testing conducted at Consumer Reports' Auto Test Center in East Haddam, Connecticut."

 

[Morbo]

I wouldn't base any of my buying decisions on that rag. It's about as reliable as the National Enquirer.

Just because they are owned by "non-profit" doesn't mean they don't have bills to pay and circulations numbers to meet. Their billing practices are pretty nefarious.

If you know about the Samurai Suzuki debacle, you know they fudge numbers, and perform out of context tests just to get results to meet their pre-conceived "conclusions". Their computer related reviews are good rivals for the funny pages.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19970422/press001969.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0Xq4kH8gNM

 

[Speedy]

Many, many moons ago when buying my first new car - a 1989 Nissan 240SX (oh, if I'd only known about drifting then!) - I thought I'd be all grown-up and responsible and check out CR in addition to Car & Driver, Road & Track, etc. (who all loved the car) before making my final decision.

Though at the time there was only one year of data available on the model, CR rated the car very highly in nearly every catagory. At the end of the article, however, they went on to note they could not recommend it because of it's dangerous emergency handling.

The hilarious thing about this was the CR explanation of what they considered the cause of the dangerous emergency handling. Rear-wheel drive was the culprit!

I went straight out and bought the car! :banana:

 

[Cantrax]

I had an 05 German made Boxster. Great car but it had considerbly more issues than my 07 Cayman assembled in Finland. Maybe it was just luck of the draw?

 

[ralarcon]

The latest Auto issue of Consumer Reports lists the Cayman and 911 as very reliable (their highest rating), while the Boxster is moderately unreliable (their 2nd lowest rating). That's unusual as they are from the same platform.

Between '00 and '04 , the Boxsters especially the S model had an unusual increase in midshaft failures, necesitating engine replacements. I know I had one. Maybe that is what is showing up in their statistics. Otherwise . I think the Boxster should have the same reliability as the Cayman, barring the complexities of the mechanical convertible top.

Cheers.