I agree, I have a hard time following anecdotal evidence, but pretty much any experiment can be shown to have deficiencies.

For instance, your string test doesn't prove that the strut tower brace didn't instead transfer the forces along a different plane/axis than that which the string was tensioned in; that tieing the tops of the towers together didn't force them to move in other ways. It also doesn't show that the strut towers were prevented from compressing, which would slacken the string. As for the speed at which you were able to take the turn, short of actually running the car through that turn repeatedly, with and without the strut tower bar until the car actually DID lose control and spin out, you can't say that the improvement wasn't simply due to improved driver confidence--you never actually proved when the limits of handling and adhesion were reached, with or without the bar.

With your experience, and with your demonstrable ability to find flaws in an experiment, I'm sure you know how easy it is for one to trick oneself into believing one's own hypotheses. Skepticism is a good response to that.

(don't get me wrong though--I'm still interested in getting a strut tower bar, not trying to *prove* you wrong on that, just showing skepticism).

I have no plans on desnorkeling my car because I don't see how it will add any benefit, but you're right, I have no idea whether or not to believe that it would detrimentally affect performance.

Hi,

I take your point(s). But, the String Test did prove that the Towers did move on the same axis that the Brace occupied. Was there additional movement, maybe some, but minimal due to the undercarriage bracing and Radius Arms. The Towers tend to move perpendicular to the Fore/Aft axis of the Car (Side-to-Side) in response to Camber changes of the individual Struts as they respond to bumps and surface variations in the Road. Compressing of the Struts would not slacken the Strings as the Strut Mounting Studs are fixed.

So far as Handling is concerned, it's not truly necessary to run the Car to the point where it breaks loose, any threshold will do. The Road and Tight curve in question is 0.5 mi. down the street I live on - Mississippi River Blvd. This road is the 'Coast' Road along the East Bank of the River and so mimics the meandering of the River itself. I have driven this curve twice daily for a total of 29 years and the last 10 consistently. I know at what speed the Car's Rear End starts to get squirelly and raised this threshold by 7 & 12 MPH respectively by adding the Braces. These speeds would more than makeup for any Experimental error, at least to the point where one could definitely confirm that the Car could now go faster through this stretch. If anyone wants to start a collection for a few accelerometers, I could be more precise.

Defintely agree that proving a Hypothesis can lead to false results, but, while my Data is not precise, nonetheless, the theory was proved...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

The "drill into it" suggestion was not too far off the mark. Have a look at my post at

http://www.ppbb.com/boards/ppbbphp/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=ARCHIVES&Number=1085350&pa ge=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=all&vc=1
and
http://www.986forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5059

These posts should give you something to think about. I wasn't prepared to spend big $$ on a minor improvement in sound that resulted in no HP increase. Some of the aftermarkets systems are just way too loud. I was also not prepared to bypass the cat, as the boxster is a convirtable and i would have to cop all the ill fumes at traffic lights.

I have drilled my exhaust to bypass internal chambers somewhat. Externally you cant pick any modification to the exhaust. Its louder but not by much. If i want it louder i can just increase the size of the holes.

Im suprised more people have not done this.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.....

I think i'm just going to make an audio recording of the carrera GT at top speed and just play it through a loud speaker affixed to the rear of the car!

Thanks for all the posts and heated debate.

I was certain that the techquipement for the boxster listed a sports exhaust - maybe a brain fart!

You are correct.

There is a sports exhaust that operates to bypass chambers in the muffler at certain speeds and rpm (although most will hack it so its always open). There are 2 different types, the earlier (with the bypass pipes being external) and the later one (with most of the bypass plumbing in the muffler)

From what i heave read the porsche sports exhaust is much quieter than the aftermarket sports exhausts (but im sure someone can confirm this). Porsche exhaust, like everything porshe is also more expensive.

mach schnell, yes, Tequipment lists a PSE for the 986, NOT the 987. Interestingly though, the 2006 Order Guide for the 987 did list the PSE in the options section, but it was removed in a printing about 1 month later. I ordered it in my build, and then was told I can't get it. PCNA said the listing in the early printing was a typo. :(

bmussati - that is a bummer! Isn't funny how we have this amazingly perfect automobile, yet we still strive to change it and tweak it?! Is it the desire to be unique or the relentless pursuit for an evading sense of happiness??? :confused:

My "gut" tells me that Porsche pulled the PSE option for the 987 because they did not want to "steal any thunder" from the Carrera!! :( I don't have any proof, just a hunch.

The price for the PSE in the Boxster was $2,100. The Carrera gets $2,400. That's why I don't believe it was a typo...because it appears thay got the price correct!

With regard to de-snorkeling and loss of mpg, I find a 50% difference very hard to believe. If mpg's could be that significantly effected by a simple short tube of plastic I think we would be well on our way to solving the energy problems of the world and reducing gas consumption and prices. :confused:

With Regard to strut tower braces. At least on the S model they are a waste of money. Do you guys below to PCA? Do you ever use their Tech Q&A resources?

Strut braces do not make a difference on the Boxster S. There is enough metal going from one side to the other in very close to the strut towers. The factory built in the front strut brace concept in the car. Aftermarket ones are silly. Check out the GT3 Cup cars, they come from the factory looking just like the Boxster S with the same firewall between the front shock towers, and the same triangulated removable braces.

If you really want to improve handling you need to install a lower stress bar at the lower rear of the car on the subframe right behind the sway bar and above the triangualr shear plate. It attaches where the diagonals fasten to the shear plate.

de-CEL mod
 

Is it just me or has no-one else done the just as quick de-CEL mod? Seriously, taking OUT the CEL involves popping 2 covers off, taking out 2 screws, lifting up the cluster (pops out of clips) and turning the CEL bulb a quarter turn to remove. This can be done in 15 minutes, it's free, and you never have to look at that annoying CEL that turned on because of O2 sensors, MAF, etc.

Oh wait, I know someone is going to flame that I'm turning off a warning light that will tell me when something is wrong with the engine. Since 1996, when most cars added this annoying "feature" that is basically for the benefit of the dealerships, my CEL has never detected something that I couldn't feel or notice by driving. Often times, the CEL won't come on but the car will run terrible. Thus, MY CEL is my brain and seat of the pants. Also, I have an Autotel for when a car really does have a problem.

Just my 2 cents.

:dance:

Or just fix it properly. :rolleyes:

Ditto, it is that annoying CEL that actually motivates me so hard to fix whatever the issue and extinguish it with my Autel as soon as possible. I hate CEL with passion but killing the light will not do it for me... why not knowing a (potential) issue right away and fix it before it becomes a bigger issue?

I would have to agree. A marginal change in mph maybe, but 50%? Not buying it. Most likely there was some sort of computer computation that was thrown off. A snorkel pull is in no way going to dump twice as much fuel into the engine as a norm setup. The AF ratios and mapping simply wouldn’t allow it to happen.

You're responding to a post that's more than a decade old. :)

Ha ha! As are you! :cheers:

Seems there are a few of these these days!

What goes around comes around...
Sometimes it’s good to awaken these old threads though. There’s lots of wisdom to be found from members, some who may no longer be active. :)