Have you dynoed your 2.7L Boxster?

[edevlin]

I was hoping to be able to do the dyno pulls, but they would not let me. They actually put up a barrier to keep folks from getting too close during the runs. They have one technician that does all the dyno pulls. Must be an insurance thing.

I know what you mean about the cost of the mods Jim. They cost over 2K. Because I dont have a pre-mod baseline, I dont know if the car was making its advertised HP, and hence just how much of an improvement the mods made with performance.

That was one of the reasons I was asking to see if anyone had done a dyno on a stock 2000 2.7L Boxster, mine has 50k miles on it. Do six year old cars still make their advertised HP, or are they typically down a dozen hp or so.

Also, I have seen the 2000 2.7L advertised as having 217 hp in some sources (thats what my owners manual says) and 220 hp in lots of others. Its not big deal, but anyone know what the actual rating is?

With the intake and chip, the car sounds much better to me, and between the flatter torque profile and the 15 or more whp, the car sure seems more responsive. I just wish it was not that expensive to squeeze a little more performance out of the car.

Now, I wonder what headers and high-flow cats might do..... Help me, I am sliding down the slippery slope of car mods, hee, hee, hee.....

Ed

[ohioboxster]

Well if my math is correct the numbers you posted seem to make perfect sense at about 15% loss. If your car is advertised at 220hp I would have to say they are using flywheel hp. 220 x .15 = 33 ......... 220-33=187 hp at the wheels you have 198 at the wheels so a ball park figure would bring your mods in at 11hp. You are probably somewhere around 231 hp at the flywheel.

You can look at it this way too:

1) Your increased HP (11) cost about $181 per horse ($2,000/11).

2) Comparing a 2007 987 vs. 987S the HP increase is 50 and costs $9,900 or $198 per horse. A 2006 comparison would be $242.50.

Looks like you did OK. The most important thing is that you are happy. And that has far greater value than anything!

[mtch]

The explanation of driveline loss from engine to wheels sounds right. My last car was an Acura RSX-s. It advertised 200 HP and I dynoed it with 3k miles. It dynoed at 174, which is 12%-13% loss. After bolt-on mods mods it dynoed at 204whp, very easy and cheap to make power.

After a couple of years, with no further mods, whp went up by 6. It dynoed @ 210whp @ 30K mi. I think cars perform better from 25K -75K miles. I dynoed my Z28 every year I owned it (it was free), and it didn't begin to lose power until 85K miles. Power was down 7% at 140K miles, so unless you have major engine problems you shouldn't lose power anytime soon.


One last thought.... When comparing AWD-RWD-FWD power loss, these are ordered most loss to least loss, but wouldn't a mid or rear engine be more similar to a FWD than RWD. Based on proximity if engine to drive wheels, there is no drive shaft or rear diff that most RWD cars have, which causes most of the additional loss. The Boxster's drivetrain would probably lose closer to 12%, which is more consistant with FWD.

Just my thoughts

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mtch

One last thought.... When comparing AWD-RWD-FWD power loss, these are ordered most loss to least loss, but wouldn't a mid or rear engine be more similar to a FWD than RWD. Based on proximity if engine to drive wheels, there is no drive shaft or rear diff that most RWD cars have, which causes most of the additional loss. The Boxster's drivetrain would probably lose closer to 12%, which is more consistant with FWD.

Just my thoughts

That's a real good point. I was thinking about that the other day myself. I would think that the boxster would be more efficient than say a front engine Rwd car that has a long heavy drive shaft to spin?