Anyone have a Raby rebuild yet?

[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

[Brad Roberts]

Jake,

I haven't checked on it yet, but can I bolt 3.2 heads to a 2.5?? I have the heads and I have a 2.5 I need to get apart.


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..

[Thumper]

I'll be following this closely as it sounds like the ticket! :dance:

[mts]

Originally Posted by Jake Raby

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,

Is that 250whp on a Mustang dyno? My stock 3.2 makes 228whp on a dynojet (2004 anniversary edition). There seems like there should be a bigger difference for all the work/cost involved. Maybe its in the torque numbers? I realize comparisons dyno to dyno are hard, but what am I missing? For some reason I was thinking that 3.6/3.2 upgrade would produce closer to +50-60whp on the same dyno vs stock?

Thanks,
Mike

[Jake Raby]

Originally Posted by mts

Jake,

Is that 250whp on a Mustang dyno? My stock 3.2 makes 228whp on a dynojet (2004 anniversary edition). There seems like there should be a bigger difference for all the work/cost involved. Maybe its in the torque numbers? I realize comparisons dyno to dyno are hard, but what am I missing? For some reason I was thinking that 3.6/3.2 upgrade would produce closer to +50-60whp on the same dyno vs stock?

Thanks,
Mike

The next stage of the 3.2>3.6 makes 290 RWHP on my Dynojet...

The torque is the big difference on the stage 1, 3.6 engine as thats what a street car needs most. On the base engine we keep the heads stock and only bump[ the CR .5 point over stock. This engine does not need any aftermarket components to make the power I listed, not even an ECU flash.

We make more torque at a lower RPM and that enhances drive ability greatly. We also make the HP lower in the RPM range which is great if you like to DE or AX the car and don't want to drive it around at red line all the time and that makes for a longer life.

Attached is a dyno graph from a recently completed stage II 3.6 engine that started off life as a 3.2.. Here are the before and after differences that my program made for this Boxster S. Don't just look at the peak numbers, look at how fat that torque curve is and how broad the power is..

[edevlin]

Jake, I know your exhaust system analysis is in process, but I was wondering what exhaust you are using with, or recommending with your 3.2 > 3.6L conversions? The engine in my 2.7L is running fine now, but if it dies, I would love to be able to stuff one of your 3.6L conversions into it. But I dont know what I would need for the conversion besides the engine.

Stock base 2000 ECU?

Stock base 5-speed manual tranny?

Do most folks stick in a new clutch?

Intake?

New exhaust system?


Ed

[mts]

Jake,

Thanks for the info. The area under the curve on the torque piece is what I was missing. For the stage II, you've got a 70+ whp peak difference and a 50+ torque peak difference in addition to a much fuller area under the curve which is in the range (actually slightly higher) than what I was thinking.

Do you have a before/after on a stage I?

Thanks for all your efforts with this.

Mike