yes, but I think he meant in Mexico . . .

 

My stock 03Cab is stable at 135 I only slowed for fear of blue lights.

 

Unless, there was very high crosswinds, it shouldn't be doing that since the downforce at that speed would "plant" the car more solidly on the road. I've had my C4S up to 140 and it was very stable and linear. I've also driven a C5 Vette on the Autobahn at 170 and that was also as stable as a rock. get the alignment and shocks checked.

 

Same here with my '99 cab at 130+ with the top down.

 

First off...he has H&R springs, and probably the stock shocks...thats a bad performing combo as the springs will prematurely wear out the shocks since they are riding around partially compressed all the time....secondly...its a standard bodied C2...he probably has lots of air getting under the car and so "lifting" the front end....this makes the front end feel wierd and the spring and shock combo will make it worse. There is a reason people dont suggest just springs for these cars....He needs to do a few things...new shocks, and also maybe body kit....The shocks will tighten up the handling so that the front wont start to "float" around, and the aerodynamics will prevent as much air from getting under the front of the car and creat more downforce...or is that reduce lift, well either way, it will be more planted. For those with C4's remember you have about 200 more pounds over the front of the car, it keeps them more stable at high speeds than C2's....For those at stock heights and an issue with high speed stability, remember your car was designed to be LOWER...it was raised for US DOT bumper height specifications...which is why the front of the car is higher than the rear...at high speeds you have alot of front end lift. ROW M030 at the least will fix that...if you dont want to go too low...PSS9's or X73/X74 would be even better....My C4 cab is ROCK SOLID up to 160 which is about as fast as I had the guts to go....very stable....even more stable than lower speeds...I attribute that to the downforce....I also have the GT3 side skirts and TT front and rear bumper and I imagine those increase downforce and reduce lift in certain areas. Its also lowered with PSS9's.

 

140 in a 2003 C4S, rock solid. Trees fly by fast, though.

 

The CGT has almost NOTHING in common with the Boxster except the position of the engine....thats like saying a Boxster and a F1 car are based on the same design....The Boxster also doesnt handle better...it handles differently...period. Mid engined cars have advantages and disadvantages...the same with rear engined cars. They are different, one is necesarily better than the other and in the case of Boxster vs 911 in handling...I think the concensus amongst experts is the Boxster is easier to drive fast initially, but you can go faster with a 911 once you learn how to drive it.

 

Ouch....trees+high speed does not mix well...be careful....

 

I have owned both as well....and again, I am not just talking about MY opinion, but just about EVERY test driver and magazine out there....can we all be wrong? I am not disagreeing with you personally, but when you make a statement like that, I just chimed in to disagree....Lets just say that when cornering hard in my Boxster, i often got the car sideways and the rear broke loose often....In the Carrera, I am going faster and the rear NEVER breaks loose or the car gets sideways....hmmm....just my opinion, that you can go faster in a Carrera...The mid engined design makes directional adjustments and turns easier, but when it starts to break loose, the car will act like a top, and is MORE prone to spin becase the weight is all in the center making it HARDER to correct...a rear engined car has more of a tendancy to push and understeer, but because the weight is over the rear, corner exit speed can be greater and you can "launch" the car out of corners, and begin to accelerate sooner in the corner...and anyone who knows about track driving knows the faster you can get on the gas in the corner, the higher the exit speed and the faster you go around a track....again, I say its EASIER to drive a mid engined car up to about 70-80% of its limits because its neutral feeling, but it will be harder to drive at its limit. The 911 will be harder to drive at 70=80% of its limits, but it will be FASTER at that limit...So a 911 requires more skill to drive fast, but will be a faster car. Why does Walter Rohl who drives ALL Porsches prefer the 911? Because it doesnt handle as well? No, its because at his skill level, he is FASTER in a 911. Oh and The CGT is nicknamed the widowmaker by some not because of its excellent balance and handling....Some say its got some SERIOUS handling issues.

 

Not that I consider Nurburgring times Holy Grail to performance numbers, but your Boxster S around the Nurburgring being lighter and with the 280 HP did the EXACT same time as the 300 HP Carrera 4. Slower than the C2 by 6 seconds.....Also the CGT was slower on some days then the 997 GT3 while having a 200 hp advantage....at its best, it was only 3 seconds faster....

 

Have you ever tracked both? I have yet to get my car to step out of line, and I am running with GT3's. Cayman s's and Boxster's are always behind us in the corners. They inspire no where near the level of confidence a 911 does. That being said, I still consider the Boxster more fun to drive.

 

those cars are extremely sensitive to alignment set up. have it checked first.

 

That reminds me...I need to do an alignment and lower the car a bit more Arling....so I'll call you for an appointment.

 

Wish I could help, but I haven't taken her over 55MPH since I bought her.

 

I had a similar problem, my car ran just fine at 155+, no problems untill I changed the tires, went with Pzeros (same size) and then anything over 100 didnt feel very good. I was puzzled, took it to Ruf, turns out the alignment was out, now the car feels even better then it did before. I think the tire place might have knocked it out of allignment.