Why does the 987 do nothing for me?

[Menoporsche]

Yup, much better than a 986  

[Daboy3000]

Living up to your name.

[Menoporsche]

Nah, then I'd be menopaininthebutt.

 

Actually, Araf is that one already taken?

[Terryg]

On 2/8/2022 at 6:43 PM, Boxsum said:

Those 987 look amazing !

Unless you own a 986.

[brillomaster]

They still look good to me!

[Ol' Shatterhand]

Facelifted 987s with their DFI engines, PASM suspension and last-of-the-line hydraulic steering are in some respects peak Boxster but my God are they ugly! They had an opportunity to fix the aesthetic misgivings I have with the 987.1 and they made matters even worse. They squared off the wrong part of the re-designed headlights (how annoying!), and added fussy grilles to the radiator intakes which look like something out of the late 80s, a problem they share with the apertures on the facelifted 986. What a shame. 

[GmanB]

1 hour ago, Ol' Shatterhand said:

Facelifted 987s with their DFI engines, PASM suspension and last-of-the-line hydraulic steering are in some respects peak Boxster but my God are they ugly! They had an opportunity to fix the aesthetic misgivings I have with the 987.1 and they made matters even worse. They squared off the wrong part of the re-designed headlights (how annoying!), and added fussy grilles to the radiator intakes which look like something out of the late 80s, a problem they share with the apertures on the facelifted 986. What a shame. 

I think the 986 facelift bumper looks like proper porn.  In all fairness there aren't many Porsches I find ugly. I've not driven a 987, but have sat in one and felt a nice place to be, just not sure I could cope with the air vents.

[Ol' Shatterhand]

I was thinking more of the side vents on the 986.2. In a dark colour like yours, the radiator inlet slats don't look bad at all! The more prominent square lips on either side of the radiator intakes give the bumper a more jowly, less pebble-shaped appearance, but in that respect it's closer to the sculpting on the concept car I guess. I still prefer the 986.1, but I will admit I am jealous of your glovebox and the revised design of the retractable rear spoiler. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Ol' Shatterhand

[GmanB]

47 minutes ago, Ol' Shatterhand said:

I was thinking more of the side vents on the 986.2. In a dark colour like yours, the radiator inlet slats don't look bad at all! The more prominent square lips on either side of the radiator intakes give the bumper a more jowly, less pebble-shaped appearance, but in that respect it's closer to the sculpting on the concept car I guess. I still prefer the 986.1, but I will admit I am jealous of your glovebox and the revised design of the retractable rear spoiler. 

I think the biggest thing that annoys me about the side vents is the horrendous million part bracket that holds it in place. The plastic tends to crumble over time and rattle a bit, especially on the offside where hot air exits the engine compartment. 

[Ol' Shatterhand]

14 hours ago, GmanB said:

I think the biggest thing that annoys me about the side vents is the horrendous million part bracket that holds it in place. The plastic tends to crumble over time and rattle a bit, especially on the offside where hot air exits the engine compartment. 

It screams Mk1 MR2. I'd be looking to back-date it to 986.1.

It's interesting how the 986 near-side air intake has a boundary layer diverter on it, whereas on the off-side hot air vent they didn't bother. The aero skirts under the front radiators are very subtle too. 

[Mattman42]

2 hours ago, Ol' Shatterhand said:

It screams Mk1 MR2. I'd be looking to back-date it to 986.1.

It's interesting how the 986 near-side air intake has a boundary layer diverter on it, whereas on the off-side hot air vent they didn't bother. The aero skirts under the front radiators are very subtle too. 

isn't it the same as the snorkel on the 987 - its fitted to the left hand side to prevent cigarette ends being sucked into the air filter if disposed of by drivers out of the window as part of US regulations? No idea if that's true or just urban myth.

MR2 air vent was much more prominent from what i remember of mine - and very square, definitely in line with the 80's

Edited February 11, 2022 by Mattman42

[BBB]

10 minutes ago, Mattman42 said:

isn't it the same as the snorkel on the 987 - its fitted to the left hand side to prevent cigarette ends being sucked into the air filter if disposed of by drivers out of the window as part of US regulations? No idea if that's true or just urban myth

On page 117 of the manual.

“Danger of fire in engine compartment due to burning cigars of cigarettes. Do not throw any cigars or cigarettes out of the vehicle. They can be blown into the air inlets (A) by the air flow and cause a fire in the engine compartment.”

In the picture (A) is the passenger side vent.

[Scubaregs]

1 hour ago, Mattman42 said:

MR2 air vent was much more prominent from what i remember of mine - and very square, definitely in line with the 80's

Exactly and it suited the car perfectly. Loved mine.

[½cwt]

9 hours ago, Ol' Shatterhand said:

It screams Mk1 MR2. I'd be looking to back-date it to 986.1.

It's interesting how the 986 near-side air intake has a boundary layer diverter on it, whereas on the off-side hot air vent they didn't bother. The aero skirts under the front radiators are very subtle too. 

The near side is the engine intake and the diverter allows higher pressure airflow into the intake system (turbulent slowing air is higher pressure than laminar, constant speed flow) but adds drag, whereas the off side is to draw in cooling air when the engine bay fan cuts in which will usually be at low speed so no need to add drag by using a diverter.

The skirts at the front you refer to I believe are to divert some air flow out around the tyre squish zone to reduce turbulence as the wake from the tyre and wheel arch are pretty messy aerodynamically and this will help a little to guide this turbulence pattern reducing overall drag rather than going into the front face of the tyre and adding to it.

[Pinewood]

On 2/7/2022 at 3:42 PM, Menoporsche said:

I don't like the 986 as the designer got frustrated and threw his breakfast at the front of the car.

But that's just my opinion.

he said what I was thinking! 

fried eggs belong on plates. 

The 986 is the "classic" Boxster, and whilst it will remain special, it's best left to others. 

I prefer the 987.2 S over any 986 because it has a stonking 3.4L Dfi engine. The interior still feels modern (headunit upgraded). 

Would i buy a 981 Boxster? yes, but all I'm really getting is the same engine in a redesigned and better body. Not enough to tempt me as yet, and then there is a 911 itch that needs to be scratched at some point. 

 

[Ol' Shatterhand]

14 hours ago, Scubaregs said:

Exactly and it suited the car perfectly. Loved mine.

It did suit the MR2 perfectly. Great car. Like a faster X1/9, I gather... 

[BBB]

9 hours ago, ½cwt said:

The near side is the engine intake and the diverter allows higher pressure airflow into the intake system (turbulent slowing air is higher pressure than laminar, constant speed flow) but adds drag...

I’m not sure this is correct. It’s true that faster moving air tends to be turbulent and slower air tends to be laminar. But even slow (low pressure) air flow can be made to be turbulent. The diverter will slow the air, make it turbulent, wasting energy and produce lower air pressure, not higher. I don’t think it’s trying to be a ram effect, I think it’s just there for the risk of fire.

On normally aspirated engines the ultimate air pressure flow into the engine is going to be dictated by the air filter anyway.

“When the flow is turbulent, the flow contains eddying motions of all sizes, and a large part of the mechanical energy in the flow goes into the formation of these eddies which eventually dissipate their energy as heat. As a result, at a given Reynolds number, the drag of a turbulent flow is higher than the drag of a laminar flow.”

https://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/transition.html

[½cwt]

1 hour ago, BBB said:

I’m not sure this is correct. It’s true that faster moving air tends to be turbulent and slower air tends to be laminar. But even slow (low pressure) air flow can be made to be turbulent. The diverter will slow the air, make it turbulent, wasting energy and produce lower air pressure, not higher. I don’t think it’s trying to be a ram effect, I think it’s just there for the risk of fire.

On normally aspirated engines the ultimate air pressure flow into the engine is going to be dictated by the air filter anyway.

“When the flow is turbulent, the flow contains eddying motions of all sizes, and a large part of the mechanical energy in the flow goes into the formation of these eddies which eventually dissipate their energy as heat. As a result, at a given Reynolds number, the drag of a turbulent flow is higher than the drag of a laminar flow.”

https://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/transition.html

It is flowing into the negative pressure area of the intake system as the engine is drawing air, thus the breakdown of the airflow is not as if it we being stalled into a single volume with no exits, it is being drawn through.  Effectively what would become turbulent as it 'trips' over the diverter in a static condition is able to not turn turbulent due to the lower pressure zone it is entering, which effectively reduces the amount of turbulence in the air box allowing the flow to remain more attached as it follows the smooth faces of the intake duct before reaching the engine airbox box allowing a greater volume of air to enter it than if it were just a flush intake without the diverter, which would also create a greater amount of turbule3nce unless a feature like a NACA duct were used up stream to achieve a similar effect.  The air filter is the principal blockage, however better the airflow presented to the filter and the better designed the flow through the filter, the lower the losses will be whether n/a or forced induction.

Faster moving air tends to be laminar and lower dynamic pressure but can have a higher total pressure (due to the Reynolds number referred to being different i.e. not the conditions given in the quote) as long as it is not changing direction at a rate greater than that at which it can remain laminar, it only gets more turbulent when it runs out of a body or streamline it can remain attached to.

[Ol' Shatterhand]

Lots of amateur aerodynamicists here and we've gone off topic.

I should not have called it a boundary layer diverter, it is a spoiler. Its function is to prevent rain ingestion when the car is on the move, so as not to get air filter wet.

I don't expect there is any laminar flow in this region at full scale Reynolds numbers in the real world, definitely not past a surface discontinuity of this magnitude, and I doubt the engine suction and duct curvature are anywhere near sufficient to strain the flow to the point where it re-laminarises.

Going back to fried eggs:

a) Why did this term persist even after the lights were de-ambered? 

b) If they did look like fried eggs, wouldn't it be the round part of the light, housing the main and dipped beams and round like a yolk, that should amber?

I suppose there would be nicknames for distinctive features on the 987 too, if it had any... 

[Little Silver]

It worries me not one jot if some folks are disparaging about the early 986 headlights, it’s horses for courses and what one likes another doesn’t and great that we all like different styles/ features in the cars we own. What does slightly annoy me is when people come up to you and say things like why didn’t you buy a 987 ( or other number you would like to insert) as they are better cars, well I could have but I chose the 986 because that’s the one I liked with the features I liked and that’s the way I like my eggs.

[Southy]

Porsche liked fried eggs once too - GT1

 

[BBB]

I find the airflow discussion fascinating but don’t have the expertise to know what’s really going on. I’ve had similar discussions on motorbike forums where we’ve been modifying air box internal snorkel lengths and swapping air filter types. Conjecture is fun.

Anyway, I removed the plate on mine, have a 3D printed mesh cover over the intake but left the snorkel in place. I think I’m cigar and rain proof.

[Mattman42]

20 hours ago, BBB said:

I find the airflow discussion fascinating but don’t have the expertise to know what’s really going on. I’ve had similar discussions on motorbike forums where we’ve been modifying air box internal snorkel lengths and swapping air filter types. Conjecture is fun.

Anyway, I removed the plate on mine, have a 3D printed mesh cover over the intake but left the snorkel in place. I think I’m cigar and rain proof.

Yep, the baffle isn’t going to stop rain getting in as it’s not sealed. Ran for 2 years without it and never had a problem.

Although when I first heard about it I did see some people quoting a 5hp+ gain for removing it which is clearly b*ll*x 😁

[Daboy3000]

On 2/12/2022 at 1:49 PM, Southy said:

Porsche liked fried eggs once too - GT1

 

The GT1 is the reason why the Boxster has it's lights.  I just wish they were deambered from the start.

I'm not a massive fan of the orange, have always done my best to remove it from any car, but something is telling me to stay original with this 986, which is hard as my car has already got clear sides and backs!!

[Southy]

55 minutes ago, Daboy3000 said:

The GT1 is the reason why the Boxster has it's lights.  I just wish they were deambered from the start.

I'm not a massive fan of the orange, have always done my best to remove it from any car, but something is telling me to stay original with this 986, which is hard as my car has already got clear sides and backs!!

It was all the rage 6/7 years ago to just de-amber the cars by replacing the lights. Still a doable option as everything can be changed back,  nothing permanent required.  

Just personal choice,  get some clear front lights and try them out. You'll never lose money on clear lights