boxster exhaust too quiet?

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by eslai

I don't think he intended for you to take it quite so harshly and certainly I don't think that it is an affront to your depth of knowledge. Throwing paragraphs at him in defense is a little over the top.

You have a lot of knowledge and you want to share it, that's fantastic, but sometimes you can be a bit overwhelming in your demonstration of that knowledge. Even the most knowledgeable of experts can be questioned, y'know?

Sometimes anecdotal evidence is all we have to go on. This guy's experience showed that he got a 50% reduction in gas mileage when desnorkeled. It may not be very scientific, but neither are your anecdotal claims that a strut tower bar improves handling yet you continue to defend those.

This 987 owner stands by his claims; they warrant discussion.

Hi,

Actually, I think he did. Using upper case in Internet Courtesy is akin to shouting and there were no emoticons to indicate otherwise. Most people would have taken it the way I did.

Thank you for your compliment on my knowledge, but that's merely a discovery and retention of fact - I did not invent this stuff - those are the really smart People! Most of what I learned was passed on to me and has stood the test of time if nothing else. But, I am always ready and willing to be challenged. If I'm incorrect, I want to know it and I also want to learn, so no problem there. If you feel I'm overwhelming, point taken. Read my posts and avoid looking for inferences and other meaning and maybe it won't seem so overwhelming.

Agreed, anecdotal evidence can be a good thing, it leads to further exploration and confirmation, but lacking this, it must always be viewed with some skepticism, maybe even much skepticism.

So far as my claims for the Strut Braces, there is some degree anecdotalism in my claims, but not totally. I took a couple pieces of kitchen string and attached one end to a Stud on each Strut Tower. I joined the Strings in the middle with a Glue Stick sufficient that they would withstand a little tension. Then I ran the Car 3 times on a twisty road with left and right handers and some off-camber surface. The string broke each time. After installing the Front Brace, I used the String setup again, 3 runs on the same road, same weight, speed. The string did not break once proving that the Towers do indeed move in opposition.

Also, I ran a favorite stretch of road, same weight, speed, tire pressure and noted at what speed the Car broke loose. After adding each Brace, I ran it again in duplicate conditions (identical to the degree allowed by Quantum Physics which states that no two events can ever be the exact same), and was able to increase my speed by 7MPH, then 12 MPH respectively. Add to this that virtually everyone who has done the install has confirmed my claims. This is somewhat more empirical than simple Feel. And, you can do the same thing and you will get the same results - it is repeatable!

There were any number of reasons why the Lister experienced a 50% reduction in MPG, independent of the action of removing the Snorkle, including the possibility that he didn't experience a reduction at all, but only thought he did because of some factor which he didn't account for.

As I stated, the only function of the Snorkle is to reduce Noise. The Intake System of the 986/987 are identical in the way they function (though not truly identical). Many 986 Owners and 987 Owners have sucessfully de-snorkled with no ill effects. This further leads me to believe that the Lister was mistaken and merely concluded an invalid Cause & Effect...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[eslai]

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.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by eslai

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

[2000SoCalBoxsterS]

Originally Posted by eslai

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.

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.

[Porsche-Eh]

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:

[particlewave]

Originally Posted by Porsche-Eh

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.

[Boxstard]

Originally Posted by particlewave

Or just fix it properly.

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?

[2000SoCalBoxsterS]

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.

[Geof3]

Originally Posted by 2000SoCalBoxsterS

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.

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.

[particlewave]

Originally Posted by Geof3

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.

[Geof3]

Originally Posted by particlewave

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

Ha ha! As are you!

Seems there are a few of these these days!