There are many interesting tangents within this thread and perhaps the crux is that sporting cars are all on a multitude of spectrums, the two primary ones being outright performance and aesthetic appeal. Some of these spectrums, or scales, are relatively easy to quantify (top speed, 0-60mph, BHP, torque), where as others, such as aesthetic appeal, are qualitative and based on personal opinion.
Generally, although not always, I tend to find sports cars that were once deemed to be premium products are generally more aesthetically appealing than ones at a lower price point. For instance, the MX-5 is a pleasing car to the eye but lesser, in my opinion, to the latest offerings from Ferrari. To my mind, it isn't the price that makes them attractive but rather the budget, manufacturing methods (or lack of mass production constraints) that a premium product allows for. Where this becomes a grey area is when said premium cars are a decade or more old and are at a market price where they can be purchased for the same price as something newer but with a lesser price point. This is the grey area where Howard's 360 inhabits. With a practical hat on, a Ferrari will generally cost more to run, maintain and insure than a comparable contemporary; however, the argument is that it will also more than likely hold a much higher residual value. Swings and roundabouts! However, I'd say a Ferrari 360 is a more attractive car than a current Cayman purchased for the same price.
As for useable performance on the road... well, that is a slippery slope. Most modern hatchbacks have far greater performance than the sports cars of the 80s and 90s. I've also heard a lot of talk about bhp but I don't believe anyone has mentioned torque? Personally, I enjoy an effortless surge, rather than the need to ring the neck of whatever I am driving. Whilst there can be immense satisfaction in getting the gears just right on a lovely piece of road in a light and underpowered car, the reality is those quiet roads rarely exist; thus, give me a wave of effortless torque on tap any day. I have owned an MX-5 and numerous other low bhp (by modern standards) sports cars and all too often found myself wishing for a little more go in certain situations... the feeling of willing the car onward. It is easy to dismiss power but it is nice to have when you need it and the road and conditions are safe to use it. An MX-5 may share the same format as a Boxster or a Ferrari but it certainly lacks the breadth of ability. And, once more, I find myself back at the spectrum and in the case of performance, only the individual can decide what level they want, need or desire.
The other element, which I do not believe has been mentioned, which is interesting given the community, is the perception and reaction of other road users. I have never owned a Ferrari but the experiences I have had as a passenger in them made me wonder if the world had gone mad; never have I been in a car that caused such a diverse reaction. Even drive sedately, the behaviour of other road users, and pedestrians, ranged from white van men and young lads yelling at the driver to "give it some beans!" and a every other possible permeation of positive encouragement to the exact opposite that generally took the form of abuse verbal and or hand gestures. The range of sheer joy at seeing the car to the total and utter contempt was bordering on lunacy. Again, this seems to be tempered with the age of the car and a modern classic or classic Ferrari quite possibly would avoid this but I found the experience in a modern one totally unenjoyable. A similar reaction can be experienced in other modern, deemed to be flashy, sports cars (including the Boxster in question) but, in my humble opinion, tends to be exacerbated by the way the car is being driven rather than brought on by the vehicle itself. This for me, is always a tempering point when it comes to whether I want to own a car or not.
I'd be interested to hear Ewan's take on it because there is a chance that it is a Southern English reaction rather than a universal approach to Ferraris!
So, that is my addition, for what it worth and perhaps more of a meandering group of thoughts than a point. However, for me, aesthetic appeal is important, and whilst this isn't price dependent, as I mentioned above, there does tend to be a synergy at least when the vehicle was new! The way it drives is important and again, development, engineering budget and bill of materials cost do tend to correlate to better cars, although not always. Lastly, the way the car makes you feel and this does include how other road users respond to it; I can think of few cars that exemplify this better than a Morgan. If they could bottle people's reaction to them, and pump it into the atmosphere, I'd wager there would be a lot less ill will.
