Help me soup up my boxster

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by Boxster_luver

I do appreciate all of your opinions except for the guy who laughed at me lol.

Sorry I'll try to be more constructive, it's just that an 11 s 1/4 mile with the Box is a loooooooong stretch. Even with $3K it would be hard to see much improvement. You're lucky though in that right now there's a blue light special over in the Classified section. Check this out, for $1,500 you could supercharge your engine (honestly this is a steal at this price):

Tpc Supercharger 2.5

That's the best improvement that you could see for the money and it would really impress any of your fast and furious friends. Otherwise, save some more coin for swapping in a 3.4L 996 engine, which would give you 300 HP and last a lot longer than the supercharged 2.5L engine will.

Kirk

[Jake Raby]

Its funny this should pop up now, the same week that I am working on a 3 stage performance enhancement package for the 2.5 Boxster engine.

Last week I was able to take power output of one of test cars (2.5 with 38,000 miles that we have not modified internally) from 164 HP to 192 on our Dyno Jet chassis dyno by applying several bolt on procedures including de-snorkel, K&N replacement filter, a set of our most recently developed headers and muffler and then topped all of this off with an under drive pulley.

With the first stage development applied I am getting better MPG and the car runs better and is much more crisp and throttle responsive. The torque is increased throughout the RPM range and due to that drive-ability is also enhanced and even my Wife like to drive the car better now. All around the engine is better and it's certainly not just on paper as the acceleration is now through the roof!

This week I am working on the second stage of the kit that will include some other bolt on induction changes and believe that after these are done and we develop an ECU flash for them that 200 RWHP is a possibility with this second stage of the package.

In my experience the stock 2.5 cars have adequate brakes and suspensions for up to a 75HP upgrade in performance, and the cars really wake up around 200 RWHP, and are fun to drive. (actually being able to throttle steer them is fun!)

Historically, the problem with enhancements for the M96 has been that no one knows what is compatible and performance packages that are proven have not been available.

You can read more about the test work and keep up to date with the developments on my forums, here
http://forums.aircooledtechnology.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3138
I'll be posting graphs and data on my forums in the coming days and even some video of the car before and after the changes with the data mixed in as a heads up dsplay for comparison. The data logger is now in the car for field testing.


As for other enhancements like Turbos and Superchargers:
They make real big power, but the engine already has reliability issues and these "power adders" are catalysts for failure for a stock, non internally upgraded engine...

If you want big power, turn the 2.5 into our Big Bore 2.9 and see 250 RWHP for the same cost as a stock factory replacement engine.. Heck we can build that 2.9 into a low compression engine with forced induction cams and heads and then big power over 350 ponies is a possibility as a bolt in with no conversion complications.

[Topless]

Originally Posted by Jake Raby

(actually being able to throttle steer them is fun!)

HEY! I can throttle steer my lil 2.5 pea shooter now... in the rain!

A well thought out, tested, reliable, tuning package would be interesting. Up to now we had RUF and Farnbacher Loles on the high end for those with more money than brains and a bunch of unmatched aftermarket bolt on products from China that were hit or miss... mostly miss.

[mikefocke]

You seem to be a results-based engineer and the results I've seen say I wouldn't let one near my car for longevity reasons.

Can you cite any independent tests that refute the ones cited here ?

[Boxster_luver]

I think that is what im going to do to get the power that I want, swap engines.
Ok, so should the 996 engine fit perfectly in my boxster or are there modifications I need to make?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Boxster_luver

I think that is what im going to do to get the power that I want, swap engines.
Ok, so should the 996 engine fit perfectly in my boxster or are there modifications I need to make?

This is one of the most disussed topics on the board so I would advise you to do a search on here and you will have more info than you can shake a stick at.

[kabel]

Originally Posted by Adam

This is one of the most disused topics on the board so I would advise you to do a search on here and you will have more info than you can shake a stick at.

+1 Thank you Adam, I dislike repeating myself more than once.

[Jake Raby]

Originally Posted by mikefocke

You seem to be a results-based engineer and the results I've seen say I wouldn't let one near my car for longevity reasons.

Can you cite any independent tests that refute the ones cited here ?

Mike,
I typically am not a fan of K&N filters, in fact I generally find that they are counter productive for power plus a lot of the gripes that you stated in the article on your site.

The M96 filter has not followed suite with the previous units I have noted for other applications. I feel that part of this is due to the location of the Boxster's air intake. I have not noted any issues with the unit and my shop is at the end of a 1/8 mile dirt road.

I was able to pick up a solid 1 MPG (data logged) with the K&N in place and in every run on my dynojet I have seen a 2HP increase at minimum. Tonight I ran a test and saw almost 4HP from an engine that I was gathering baseline data from before we do an ECU flash tomorrow. I swapped the K&N for the stock filter back to back as I do with most every combination.

I give everything a chance to prove it's self and the K%N was something I was objective of until I saw the benefits in data, and didn't notice any degradation in filtration.

A bone stock engine won't see enough of a benefit from the K&N to justify it's expense and added maintenance, but when a 2.5 approaches and exceeds 200 RWHP the benefits are favorable.

My only gripe is that over-oiling the element can foul the mass air sensor and cause problems.

[jhandy]

http://www.turbowerx.com

These guys here in Austin have a neat twin turbo upgrade for the boxster. I have driven one of thier test cars and i must say it is impressive. Enough power to scare the hell out of me. They sell it for @8-9000$. I suspect that your engine will explode after a while, but the power is monstrous.

Imagine a Jake Raby modified motor with a twin turbo addon....That would be insane.
I wonder if the car could even put that much power to use without melting the tires?

[Topless]

Jake,

I have used K&N filters since the 70's in off road racing. They worked great in that application but we cleaned them every race and rebuilt the motor every 10 races. I don't want to do that with my Porsche. I have studied the dyno runs, compared flow rates and particle intrusion testing and the K&N doesn't make sense to me on a M96 motor. A good clean paper filter still looks like the way to go. If we significantly increase displacement or intake flow rates, we may need a larger tuned intake and larger paper filter but a K&N still isn't clean enough.

I appreciate your knowledge and experience with Porsche motors and I have learned a lot from you about the internals of this very German machine. I have to agree with Mike on this. The K&N filter goes against everything you have been saying about improving the reliability of M96 motors over the past year. It is inconsistent with your design philosophy. Give this some thought while you ramp up production as a major player in the Porsche M96 aftermarket business.

[Jake Raby]

Up to now we had RUF and Farnbacher Loles on the high end for those with more money than brains and a bunch of unmatched aftermarket bolt on products from China that were hit or miss... mostly miss.

Nothing currently available is developed to the level that we are taking this program for all the models that use the M96 engine.

I am more concerned with coming up with cost effective combinations that can be purchased with the budgets of most Owners.

[kabel]

^A good business man and my hero.

I don't want my engine to blow, but if it does, I know who to turn to.

[23109VC]

Michael-

Flip open any car magazine and look at the cars that run the 1/4 in the 10s and 11s. Virtually no car made runs in the 10s. That is like Bugatti Veyron fast. There are cars in the 11s, and they are all very expensive and MAJOR hp cars - 500-600+. That is ZR1, Z06, Ferrari, Lambo, etc territory. Your boxster was never meant or made with the goal that it be a speed demon.

cars are purpose built tools. As a simple analogy - you wouldn't take a shotgun to shoot at a target 250 yards away, and you wouldn't take a .308 bolt action hunting rifle to shoot skeet....

you don't take a boxster to the drags, and you wouldn't take a Mustang Cobra on a set of twisties... you can do both with each - but the boxster will lose bad at the drags and then leave the Mustang in it's dust on teh twisty mountain roads....

Ask yourself this: What do you REALLY want? Do you want a car that mashes you into your seat and blows people away driving light to light? if so, sell your boxster now and buy a big V8. Go buy a used Z06 - a C5 or C6 Z06 are insanely fast out of the box and can be made into seriously fast cars.

The boxster is more of a handling car. You can make it marginally faster iwth bolt ons, and the only way to make it substantially faster would be to swap motors which is going to cost you $10k+, and even then you will still be nowhere near as fast as an 11 second car if you are after straight line speed.

There is no right or wrong answer. Everyone likes something different. Just remember, no matter how fast you make your car, there will always be somebody faster.

As I've aged (I'm *only* 36), I've come to learn that it is more fun to have a car that is "fun" to drive versus a car that is "fast". Fast does not equal fun.

"Fun to drive" is a holistic factor. It's nothign you can measure with a stopwatch or a G-tech. It is something that you ONLY know from sitting in the drivers seat and taknig the car for a spin, and it is totally subjective.

FOR ME - the boxster is one of, if not THE, MOST FUN cars i have ever driven. If you want fun, you have the right car.

[mikefocke]

"I am more concerned with coming up with cost effective combinations that can be purchased with the budgets of most Owners."

More than what?

Maybe, with the K&N, the recommendation shifts to clean the filter every ?k miles and replace the oil every ?k, and with that the particulate buildup would be tolerable. Please do base your recommendation on your tests and give us some more insight into what your oil tests and tear-downs reveal.

Learning is half the fun. Driving the other half?

[Jake Raby]

"I am more concerned with coming up with cost effective combinations that can be purchased with the budgets of most Owners."

More than what?

More than catering to the 5% that has a budget of 5K for a couple of bolt ons from a company that has a huge name, but hardly any comparative data.

I'd much rather make progressive packages that people can afford to apply one item at a time and still end up with a known performance package in the end.

Maybe, with the K&N, the recommendation shifts to clean the filter every ?k miles and replace the oil every ?k, and with that the particulate buildup would be tolerable.

Exactly. And that would depend on the atmosphere the car is exposed to heavily as well. In a metro area there isn't as much dust and etc as I see here in my rural area with a dirt road to traverse daily. Dust is THE HARDEST thing for an air filter to collect and it collects faster than anything else.

Please do base your recommendation on your tests and give us some more insight into what your oil tests and tear-downs reveal.

Thats all I will do. I learned long ago not to condemn a product or process until my own eyes and data have proven that it is not acceptable, that said, I do test everything very objectively and everything is guilty until I prove it innocent. I do not and will not allow other people's experiences to cloud my development and half of what we have developed for all Porsche engines would not have existed if I had "listened" to reports from others or their recommendations about what works and doesn't work.

Learning is half the fun. Driving the other half?

Learning is half the fun, perfecting it is the other 49%.... To me driving it is just proving what we have developed and thats only 1% to me...

This is all a challenge, thats the only reason why I ventured into this engine in the first place.

[renzop]

There's an old adage in racing circles "Speed costs, how fast do you want to go?" Basically a 300hp iBoxster s available right now new from Porsche - it will cost you about $70K and have a 4 year warranty. It still won't turn 11 second quarters.

Or you can get a 300hp Boxster by dropping in a different motor or turbocharging your existing 2.5L. Either method is going to cost you $10K and neither comes with any warranty.