Anyone have a Raby rebuild yet?

[blue2000s]

Originally Posted by dmcutter

My car is an '04 S. He was talking about the capabilites of the Motronic so I guess engine management will be handled by remapping the exisitng system. Hey, I'm just a civil engineer-all the things I deal with are supposed to be standing still. I have to assume that the guys doing the development work are capable of handling the details.

Motronic is a completely independent engine management computer, eliminating the stock DME.

[dmcutter]

Sorry, my bad. I'm obviously not educated on all the details of an engine swap or rebuild. I won't even pretend to be on the same level as most of the contributors to this thread. That's why I posed the question about NOS in the other thread-I wanted to know why it could or couldn't be done.

My perspective is that the car is beautiful in what I feel to be a classic, timeless way, and it is an awesome handler. The engine appears to be the weak link. If I can find a way to make the engine more powerful and longer lasting, it would be worthwhile to do it to ensure years and years of driving pleasure.

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by blue2000s

Motronic is a completely independent engine management computer, eliminating the stock DME.

Motronic is Bosche's engine management software brand. It is used in all Boxster DME. Depending upon model and year, you either have Motronic 5.2, Motronic 7.2 or Motronic 7.8. The file sizes for ver. 5.2 is 16k while ver. 7X file sizes are 512k, allowing for greater programming and greater dynamic response.

[blue2000s]

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

Motronic is Bosche's engine management software brand. It is used in all Boxster DME. Depending upon model and year, you either have Motronic 5.2, Motronic 7.2 or Motronic 7.8. The file sizes for ver. 5.2 is 16k while ver. 7X file sizes are 512k, allowing for greater programming and greater dynamic response.

Brain fart, I was thinking Motec.

[Sputter]

This thread is one that has significant value to a good many of us. I for one would like to see it stickied.

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by blue2000s

Brain fart, I was thinking Motec.

As far as Motec, I totally agree with you

[Jake Raby]

All the heads flow incredibly, even the 2.5 has an amazing amount of flow for such small valves and ports.. and a stock 3.4 head has an exhaust valves thats the same size as the 2.5 intake, and the 3.2 head is similar to those.

Boosting torque is what really makes an engine responsive, be it street or track and torque is something that these engines lack from the factory, especially at lower RPM. The 3.2 is a bit better just because of it's size, but it's still pretty lame at low revs.

Grant,
Any turbo engine would never pass smog in an area that requires a visual inspection... You could keep the OE exhaust system and re-install it for smog time though.

[grantsfo]

Lack of torque is why I have been considering 3.4. Tracks I drive the torque issue is problematic with Boxster gearing and I do plan to do AX where torque is king.

What would be a good approach for a guy with a 1999 2.5.

I have my suspension all ordered and it will be installed next week. So researching motors is next.

Originally Posted by Jake Raby

All the heads flow incredibly, even the 2.5 has an amazing amount of flow for such small valves and ports.. and a stock 3.4 head has an exhaust valves thats the same size as the 2.5 intake, and the 3.2 head is similar to those.

Boosting torque is what really makes an engine responsive, be it street or track and torque is something that these engines lack from the factory, especially at lower RPM. The 3.2 is a bit better just because of it's size, but it's still pretty lame at low revs.

Grant,
Any turbo engine would never pass smog in an area that requires a visual inspection... You could keep the OE exhaust system and re-install it for smog time though.

[Brad Roberts]

Why did everyone call him "Jack" for the first 3 pages of this thread?? :LOL:



B

[Jake Raby]

Its been a joy working with Phil.. He has assumed the role of our new test Pilot so hopefully his car will be the bench mark for all others to follow.

When we turn up the volume on any combination it is a matter of finding the new weak link and then addressing it.. Phil's was the strongest 3.2>3.6 to date and let me tell you, that car is a rocket ship!!

At the same time it is very driver friendly, I drove it to/from home about 100 miles before he took delivery of the car and it was very docile and easy to drive until the hammer is dropped. It even passed an Ohio State Emissions test, which is somethbing I didn't expect to occur!

We are going to install the same data acquisition system in Phil's car that I have on both my dynos and the test car, so we can compare notes on the same sheet of paper.. Phil wants us to make him go even faster, so we are taking this opportunity to do that and gather more data.

Mts,
The stage 1/ 3.6 engine based from a 3.2 nets about 250 RWHP, we hope to have that up to 265 with even more torque after this week as I am assembling one of them now. I have another one in line right behind this one.

What I shoot for on the full street engines is big torque and all very usable..

An engine like Phil's can be easily driven daily and would offer more power than anyone could ever imagine from a pump gas 3.2 base. I am building one now for my 996 using the same combo as Phil's..

[Jake Raby]

The 2.5 can only be made into a 2.9 by using the crank and carrier from a 2.7 core @ 78mm stroke. The 2.5 block is maxxed out (safely) at 89mm bore, to create the 2.7 with the 2.5 crank, or the 2.9 with the 2.7 crank.

The 2.9 is rated at 260HP and thats attained without high CR or putting the engine "on edge".

We may have the ability to get more HP as time goes on from the 2.9 combo, especially with camshaft manipulation. The limiting factor will be the hydro lifters, but our solid lift mods (that require periodic valve adjustments) can extend RPM ranges and use more aggressive cam profiles for more power.

As always, time will tell....

[grantsfo]

Guess the other option would be turbo but I'm unsure wether I'm willing to make the car dedicated track car due to smog issues. Probably need to learn about possible smog issues with other configs as well.

[Cloudsurfer]

I certainly agree, with respect to the "3.6," that I'd much rather have a nice broad torque curve than a peaky high HP motor. If this is achievable with the 3.2 heads, fantastic, though as far as I know, the X51 heads are a good bit different than standard 3.6 heads, which are already quite different from 3.2 heads.

I'll be very interested to hear what you find once you have a look at 3.6 X51 heads on the flow bench.

Patrick