Porsche Boxster (987) · Facelift 2009
Car comparison
Porsche Boxster (987) · Facelift 2009 S 3.4vsKTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonKTM X-Bow GT
2.0 Turbo
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo
- Quickest 0-100 km/h4.1 s
- Highest torque420 Nm310 lb-ft
- Lightest847 kg1,867 lb
- Best power-to-weight336 hp/t251 kW/t3.0 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption8.3 L/100 km28.3 mpg US34.0 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions189 g/km
- Best economy score85/100
- Best practicality score27/100
Porsche Boxster (987) Facelift 2009 S 3.4
- Fastest top speed272 km/h169 mph
- Most powerful310 hp231 kW
- Best estimated range691 km430 mi
- Best overall score55/100
- Best performance score68/100
Specification comparison
| Model | PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 310hp231kW | 285hp213kW |
| Torque | 360Nm266lb-ft | 420Nm310lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,380kg3,042lb | 847kg1,867lb |
| Gross weight | 1,675kg3,693lb | - |
| Top speed | 272 km/h 169 mph | 231 km/h 144 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 78.5s99% target: 269 km/h / 167 mph Calculated | 43.1s99% target: 229 km/h / 142 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 5.2s | 4.1s |
| 0-200 km/h | 18.2s | 17.0s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 4.9s Calculated | 3.9s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 9.4L/100 km25mpg US30.1mpg UK | 8.3L/100 km28.3mpg US34.0mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 14.1L/100 km16.7mpg US20.0mpg UK | - |
| Fuel consumption highway | 6.6L/100 km35.6mpg US42.8mpg UK | - |
| Quarter mile | 13.3s Calculated | 12.3s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 225hp/t168kW/t102hp/1000 lb Calculated | 336hp/t251kW/t153hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 261Nm/t175lb-ft/ton Calculated | 496Nm/t332lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 691km430mi Calculated | 482km299mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 3,436cc210cu in | 1,984cc121cu in |
| Length | 4,342mm171in | 3,738mm147in |
| Width | 1,801mm71in | 1,915mm75in |
| Height | 1,294mm51in | 1,202mm47in |
| Wheelbase | 2,415mm95in | 2,430mm96in |
| Front track | 1,486mm59in | 1,672mm66in |
| Rear track | 1,528mm60in | 1,626mm64in |
| Ground clearance | 123mm5in | - |
| Trunk volume | 130L | - |
| Doors | 2 | - |
| Seats | 2 | 2 |
| Fuel tank | 65L | 40L |
| CO2 emissions | 221g/km | 189g/km |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Porsche Boxster (987) Facelift 2009 S 3.4: Power / Torque
- KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | 7,200 rpm | 4,750 rpm | 7,500 rpm |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 6,400 rpm | 3,200 rpm | 6,650 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 4.9 s | 3.9 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 5.2 s | 4.1 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 18.2 s | 17.0 s |
| Top speed | 272 km/h 169 mph | 231 km/h 144 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.2 s | 2.0 s |
330 ft 101 m | 5.8 s | 5.3 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 8.7 s | 8.0 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 11.2 s | 10.3 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 13.3 s | 12.3 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 174 km/h 108 mph | 180 km/h 112 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | 310 hp 231 kW |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 285 hp 213 kW |
Porsche Boxster (987) Facelift 2009 S 3.4 has 25 hp more than KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo.
The biggest power difference is between KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo and Porsche Boxster (987) Facelift 2009 S 3.4: 25 hp (19 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | 360 Nm 266 lb-ft |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 420 Nm 310 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | 1,380 kg 3,042 lb |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 847 kg 1,867 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | 272 km/h 169 mph |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 231 km/h 144 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | 5.2 s |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 4.1 s |
Although Porsche Boxster (987) Facelift 2009 S 3.4 has more power, KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo and Porsche Boxster (987) Facelift 2009 S 3.4: 1.1 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo and Porsche Boxster (987) Facelift 2009 S 3.4: 1.1 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | 225 hp/t 168 kW/t 4.5 kg/hp |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 336 hp/t 251 kW/t 3.0 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | 691 km 430 mi |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 482 km 299 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | 310 hp 231 kW | 5.2 s | 272 km/h 169 mph |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 285 hp 213 kW | 4.1 s | 231 km/h 144 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 |
| 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK | ||||||
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo |
| 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK | ||||||
KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK | 5.2 s |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK | 4.1 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | 225 hp/t 168 kW/t 4.5 kg/hp | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK |
| KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | 336 hp/t 251 kW/t 3.0 kg/hp | 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | PorscheBoxster (987)Facelift 2009S 3.4 | KTMX-Bow GT2.0 Turbo | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 310 hp 231 kW | 285 hp 213 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 360 Nm 266 lb-ft | 420 Nm 310 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 5.2 s | 4.1 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 272 km/h 169 mph | 231 km/h 144 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,380 kg 3,042 lb | 847 kg 1,867 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK | 8.3 L/100 km 28.3 mpg US 34.0 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 691 km 430 mi | 482 km 299 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 221 g/km | 189 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 130 L 4.6 cu ft | - | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 225 hp/t 168 kW/t 4.5 kg/hp | 336 hp/t 251 kW/t 3.0 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Porsche Boxster (987) Facelift 2009 S 3.4 | KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 9.4 L/100 km25 mpg US30.1 mpg UK | 8.3 L/100 km28.3 mpg US34 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 16.45 LC100 km | 14.53 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 26.47 LC100 mi | 23.38 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,410 L372 US gal310 UK gal | 1,245 L329 US gal274 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,468 LC/year | 2,179 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Porsche Boxster (987) Facelift 2009 S 3.4
- Has 25 hp more
- Has 41 km/h (25 mph) higher top speed
- Has 210 km (130 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Highest CO2 emissions
KTM X-Bow GT 2.0 Turbo
- Has 60 Nm more
- Is 533 kg lighter
- Is 1.1 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Uses 1.1 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 112 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Emits 32 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Lowest power
- Lowest top speed
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























