phazed Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 I finally got the opportunity to drive my newly acquired 3.2 S yesterday. Over four months of project work on it. It is up and running very sweetly. Excellent brakes, gear change, and feels as tight as a drum, all positive. Regarding power, I’m feeling a little disappointed. The engine revs what feels like freely enough but seems flat in the mid range. I’m comparing this to my existing 987.1 with a 3.4 engine, which feels more powerful which of course it is by about 50 BHP. I had a 987, 3.2 tip as a project car a year ago and that engine felt very strong indeed. In fact, it almost felt on a par with my 3.4. I know this 02 car of mine is allegedly 250 BHP, the 987, 3.2 is 258 BHP and by RS60 is 303 BHP. My point is, is there a problem? My only thoughts are that I have a problem with the existing 22-year-old cats. I have Toyosports swept stainless manifolds and there less restrictive rear box. Could it be, (apart from being in my mind) that the cats are now restrictive due to age and mileage? The MOT tester struggled to get the emissions down to a passible figure, but in the end with a bit of octane booster and a very, very hot car it just squeezed through. Given that information, would it seem like the cats could be an issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TV8 Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 Sounds like you need a trip to Charlie’s assuming he is still doing the power runs? That would tell you what is happening with the afr under load and assuming all ok, how much difference Porsche designed in to make the Boxster the number 2 to the 911. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phazed Posted March 2 Author Report Share Posted March 2 I was thinking that last night. I will message him today and see if I can get a run next week. I guess I may have to tax the car! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EXY Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 (edited) Disconnect the MAF and see if you notice a difference. Check nothing is binding especially if you replaced brake shoes. Wouldn't do any harm to use the stale fuel up either as the later 986's don't have a fuel circuit as such. Drive another back to back for comparison. When we had our MY04 2.7 986 we test drove a 3.4 987 and both Mrs Exy and I felt our 986 felt livelier and certainly didn't feel like parting with almost £20k to change. Edited March 2 by EXY Some clever trousers would comment £20 was a good change figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phazed Posted March 2 Author Report Share Posted March 2 A back to back would be good. Graham . mechanically, the car if pretty much perfect. Will try the MAF disconnect when it stops raining! A pair of cat delete pipes may be the way forward…Anyone got a pair sitting around that they don’t want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TV8 Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 14 minutes ago, phazed said: A back to back would be good. Graham . I can remember the back to back at Charlie’s when I found out my 5.3 had feeling issues and he stopped the power run. Sure we can sort something. Having driven the 986 back to back with my 996, there is a bit more of a difference than the 200cc and I would say that was throughout rather than just the top of the rev range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edc Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 If the car has been sat for ages and in the main just shunted around then the fuel trims will need time to adjust. Also the old fuel even if you had put octane booster in isn't going to be doing you any favours. Early 986 3.2 is 250 ish, later car a tiny bit more the 550 266. The 987 3.2 was rated at 276 PS from memory so it's nearly 10% more than your car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edc Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 I organised a few Porsche / BoXa rolling road days at Charlie's place and some early 3.2s would be as low as high 220s to mid 230s if not running well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bike Loon Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 When we took my 987.1 3.4 to Surrey Rolling Road, it was 295.5bhp.... typical Germanic efficiency despite it having 110,000 miles on it at the time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patt Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 Shout if you get a date - I may be able to pop over and put my 3.4 on too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobbie Posted March 2 Report Share Posted March 2 2 hours ago, TV8 said: I found out my 5.3 had feeling issues and he stopped the power run. Had you thought about getting it some therapy? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phazed Posted March 2 Author Report Share Posted March 2 59 minutes ago, Patt said: Shout if you get a date - I may be able to pop over and put my 3.4 on too. 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phazed Posted March 2 Author Report Share Posted March 2 1 hour ago, Bike Loon said: When we took my 987.1 3.4 to Surrey Rolling Road, it was 295.5bhp.... typical Germanic efficiency despite it having 110,000 miles on it at the time! I have been promising to do my 987 for three years now. Maybe I’ll get my wife to drive one of the cars and do them both together. I may come back depressed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phazed Posted March 2 Author Report Share Posted March 2 2 hours ago, edc said: I organised a few Porsche / BoXa rolling road days at Charlie's place and some early 3.2s would be as low as high 220s to mid 230s if not running well. Same with TVR’s. 5.0’s would be 210-270ish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TV8 Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 17 hours ago, Nobbie said: Had you thought about getting it some therapy? Needs a new autocorrect 😀 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menoporsche Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 Several have said that remaps are not to increase peak power figures but to get a smoother delivery curve with no flat spots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iborguk Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 1 minute ago, Menoporsche said: Several have said that remaps are not to increase peak power figures but to get a smoother delivery curve with no flat spots. Stick a turbo on it.....runs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cybot7 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 On 3/2/2024 at 8:47 AM, phazed said: I finally got the opportunity to drive my newly acquired 3.2 S yesterday. Over four months of project work on it. It is up and running very sweetly. Excellent brakes, gear change, and feels as tight as a drum, all positive. Regarding power, I’m feeling a little disappointed. The engine revs what feels like freely enough but seems flat in the mid range. I’m comparing this to my existing 987.1 with a 3.4 engine, which feels more powerful which of course it is by about 50 BHP. I had a 987, 3.2 tip as a project car a year ago and that engine felt very strong indeed. In fact, it almost felt on a par with my 3.4. I know this 02 car of mine is allegedly 250 BHP, the 987, 3.2 is 258 BHP and by RS60 is 303 BHP. My point is, is there a problem? My only thoughts are that I have a problem with the existing 22-year-old cats. I have Toyosports swept stainless manifolds and there less restrictive rear box. Could it be, (apart from being in my mind) that the cats are now restrictive due to age and mileage? The MOT tester struggled to get the emissions down to a passible figure, but in the end with a bit of octane booster and a very, very hot car it just squeezed through. Given that information, would it seem like the cats could be an issue? I took my 986.2s to Mapro in Portsmouth for a remap. Basically restored 18 bhp lost over the 20 years and 56k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phazed Posted March 4 Author Report Share Posted March 4 I will see what it is like later this week when the decay pipes are fitted...will report here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phazed Posted March 4 Author Report Share Posted March 4 Decat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GmanB Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 Not sure if you currently have pre and post cat O2 sensors on your 2022 car, but if you do it may well ping a bunch of codes as the ecu expects post cat readings to be different to pre readings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phazed Posted March 4 Author Report Share Posted March 4 Will look out for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edc Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 You could either get it mapped out or if memory is right if there is a sparenemoty boss out the lambda in and leave hanging in the air but tied out the way. I think this is what @Mark Shead did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phazed Posted March 4 Author Report Share Posted March 4 3 minutes ago, edc said: You could either get it mapped out or if memory is right if there is a sparenemoty boss out the lambda in and leave hanging in the air but tied out the way. I think this is what @Mark Shead did. Please explain that. It came out a bit gobbledy gook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edc Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 If the decat pipes have an empty lambda boss you could put your lambda in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.