To 'S' or not to 'S'

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

Boy I could not disagree more. Aside from tires, if there was only one area I could upgrade on a car it would be the brakes. The ability to brake a few feet sooner could be the difference between saying "PHEWW!!! THAT WAS CLOSE!" and a seriously bad day that can't be undone. I once read a report that said that 70% of car accidents would be avoided if a driver had just one extra second of reaction time or half a car length.

The other great investment in Pcar ownership would be to enter a few autocross events with your local Porsche Club. After a mere twelve laps on an autocross course you have become a 1000% better Porsche driver on the open road.

Taking your arguement to it's logical conclusion, why should anyone be even satisfied with the big Brembo 'S' brakes? Shouldn't everyone be upgrading to the PCCB ceramics for $13k? And even then, they could just as well come up that one foot short in an emergency.

So it really becomes a cost/benefit arguement, how much improvement per $ spent. To me, given the cost of the upgrade ($6k), it is not a good C/B. That is, unless you track the car, or need to make up for a feeling of inadequate brakes (which really isn't the case). I'm not saying you can't do the upgrade, if that's your thing, go for it. You can feel better, or think it's cooler, and that's OK, I'm just saying that the performance gain doesn't justify it.

But, even putting the big Brembos on a base model won't duplicate the stopping distances of the 'S' simply because to further improve brake response for the 'S' model, Porsche’s development engineers increased the transmission ratio of the brake servo by 18%, helping to apply the brakes in a shorter time and in the process reducing pedal forces. So, unless you also swap the vacuum booster, you only gain a couple feet at best on a converted Base model.

The base Boxster brakes have an average stopping distance of 119ft. vs the 'S' model's avg. of 112ft., vs the overall avg. stopping distance of all cars at an est. 185ft.. (source: http://www.jmu.edu/safetyplan/vehicle/generaldriver/stoppingdistance.shtml ) . And this avg. assumes that the car is unloaded (except for the driver), has brakes in good condition, on dry, hard, approximately level stretches of highway free from loose material, in other words ideal conditions. Anything less, and the stopping distance increases. So, there are many times when (given differing circumstances) the Base car will outperform an 'S'.

So it is not at all inaccurate to classify the Base model's brakes as adequate, in fact, you can make the arguement, given that they're stopping distance is ⅔ that of an average car, that they are really more than adequate. The main advantage to the big Brembos is on the track, where repeated application of the brakes results in less fade than the single monoblocks of the Base.

You are correct that reaction time is critical to achieving the shortest stopping distance. Given an average car length of 15 ft., with either the Base or the 'S', you need to be on the brakes (@60mph) 7+ car lengths (7.4 for the 'S' vs 7.9 for the Base) before the car in front of you to assure you're not going to collide. But, you also need to factor your reaction time to this. At 60mph, your car is traveling at 88 ft./sec. With a reaction time of .75 sec. (considered avg.) you've added another 4+ car lengths (66') to the equation.

All the upgrades in the world won't improve this reaction time. Rather than spend $6k on an upgrade, most owners would be better served in improving their reaction times. If you spent 5 min./day on a reaction tester like this one for example: (http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/index.php ), you'd most likely gain much shorter stopping times than simply swapping the hardware.

[Perfectlap]

112' vs 119' is actually a greater difference than I imagined it would be (given equal reaction times). That's a much better upgrade than getting an extra 15 ponies with some intake/exhaust mods in my opinion.
My argument wasn't that the base wasn't adequate, but that you have a better option available to you and at a great value in the second hand car market.
Would I pay an extra $5-6K for better brakes? Absolutely. I consider brakes to be safety equipment. Can I afford $10K PCCB's? Let me check my stocks....err nope!
Actually Porsche have a history of running out of these before the end of a production year. So they are popular even at the price of a Kia.

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

112' vs 119' is actually a greater difference than I imagined it would be (given equal reaction times). That's a much better upgrade than getting an extra 15 ponies with some intake/exhaust mods in my opinion.
My argument wasn't that the base wasn't adequate, but that you have a better option available to you and at a great value in the second hand car market.
Would I pay an extra $5-6K for better brakes? Absolutely. I consider brakes to be safety equipment. Can I afford $10K PCCB's? Let me check my stocks....err nope!
Actually Porsche have a history of running out of these before the end of a production year. So they are popular even at the price of a Kia.

But you won't get anywhere near 112' by just swapping the rotors and calipers, more like 116' or 117'. You need to do the Vac Booster and mc upgrade to come into the 112' range and in doing so, you've just added another $650 to the project.

Don't get me wrong, I believe you shouldn't have the GO without the WHOA, but not at any price, especially when the improvement is less than a car length for the $$ involved. But, I respect that others may/do have different opinions.

[JackG]

Originally Posted by Lil bastard

The base Boxster brakes have an average stopping distance of 119ft. vs the 'S' model's avg. of 112ft., vs the overall avg. stopping distance of all cars at an est. 185ft.. (source: http://www.jmu.edu/safetyplan/vehicle/generaldriver/stoppingdistance.shtml ) . And this avg. assumes that the car is unloaded (except for the driver), has brakes in good condition, on dry, hard, approximately level stretches of highway free from loose material, in other words ideal conditions. Anything less, and the stopping distance increases. So, there are many times when (given differing circumstances) the Base car will outperform an 'S'.

The rest of your stuff was generally good, but that paragraph above is some twisted pretzel logic. You should have written "Anything less, and the stopping distance increases for BOTH".

Otherwise, I can claim that the base takes twice as long to stop than does the S... when the S is on good, dry pavement, and the base is on sand. And saying that, of course, is meaningless, just like your last sentence.

Put them on identical surfaces, and the S outperforms the base every time. Do it repeatedly, and it's advantage grows as its resistance to fade comes into play. Comparing them in an unequal situation means nothing.

[racer_d]

It seems once again, the S/NonS debate has split the Boxster community.. Its almost as if the BS guys need to defend their purchases. In fact, it seems the BS guys are acting towards base Boxsters just like 911 owners react to boxster owners about which car is superior

That said, the passion here shows that no matter which boxster you end up buying, it will be a great car to drive!

[JackG]

I dunno, racer... it sounds like you're feeling inadequate.

I bought an S because it was the one that became available to me in the right situation. It didn't make any difference to me whether or not it had the S on the back. It makes no difference to me whether anyone else's has it either.

The slight you seem to be feeling is all yours.

Like you said, and I've already posted as well... they're great cars. Enjoy what you've got!

[gmboxster]

LOL. I have a 1998 base 2.5l boxster and love it. I dont care what anyone else thinks about it. I drive it and no one else. If you buy a car to appear macho, what does that say about you ? BTW my 'inferior' base boxster is plenty fast enough for me and under normal driving conditions it's actually too fast sometimes.. You can get a speeding ticket just as fast in a non S as you can in an S !! Like someone else said, just be happy with what you've got. Things could always be much worse !

[Lil bastard]

Originally Posted by JackG

The rest of your stuff was generally good, but that paragraph above is some twisted pretzel logic. You should have written "Anything less, and the stopping distance increases for BOTH".

Otherwise, I can claim that the base takes twice as long to stop than does the S... when the S is on good, dry pavement, and the base is on sand. And saying that, of course, is meaningless, just like your last sentence.

Put them on identical surfaces, and the S outperforms the base every time. Do it repeatedly, and it's advantage grows as its resistance to fade comes into play. Comparing them in an unequal situation means nothing.

Fair enough. I should have been more clear.