987S Gear Ratios and Engine Protection Qs
Discussion
Hi -
Looking to be enlightened on 987S questions -
1. Gear Ratios: was the 987.2 (meaning the 3.4s), the first to get the much criticised long first and second gears? From what I can tell the 3.2S had the same ratios as the 986S. True or false? I guess the follow on is whether the gearing might make the 3.2S actually a sweeter car to drive as the hp/tq is not very different comparing 3.2 to 3.4. Particularly on steep Alpine roads where all road car gearing feels long even in the best of cars.
2. Reliability: I have struggled to find much at all on reported 3.2 engine failures - they are barely mentioned on Hartech's guide - whereas the 3.4 is lumped into the same risk category as 3.8 997 motors. Fair high level conclusion? IMS issues are likely similar, but bore scoring better in the 3.2 with it's thicker liners.
3. Prevention: Many posts touch on making the 87 and 97 engines reliable, but a conclusion is never really reached. I am wondering if a 3.2 987 with low temp thermostat, Hartech recommended Nanotech oil, deep sump and fresh coolant/fresh water pump becomes a pretty reliable and value for money car? Is there a sweet spot in terms of mileage or just the lower the better?
I am trying to get my head in order assessing the range of 987 and 997 era cars as a road trip/alpine type car. Not a track car per se. I come from a history of lighter, older cars, alongside some newer turbo machinery, but have long thought that "ideal" might be somewhat closer to the poverty pork end of the spectrum where balance, NA throttle response and relatively small size and somewhat LW come together to make more than the sum of the parts. Its a given I would modify with race seats, LW wheels and slightly stiffer coilovers to get closer to a tarmac rally type set up, but I don't think I would need to go crazy. Am I mad? Or inspired?
Thanks in advance.
Looking to be enlightened on 987S questions -
1. Gear Ratios: was the 987.2 (meaning the 3.4s), the first to get the much criticised long first and second gears? From what I can tell the 3.2S had the same ratios as the 986S. True or false? I guess the follow on is whether the gearing might make the 3.2S actually a sweeter car to drive as the hp/tq is not very different comparing 3.2 to 3.4. Particularly on steep Alpine roads where all road car gearing feels long even in the best of cars.
2. Reliability: I have struggled to find much at all on reported 3.2 engine failures - they are barely mentioned on Hartech's guide - whereas the 3.4 is lumped into the same risk category as 3.8 997 motors. Fair high level conclusion? IMS issues are likely similar, but bore scoring better in the 3.2 with it's thicker liners.
3. Prevention: Many posts touch on making the 87 and 97 engines reliable, but a conclusion is never really reached. I am wondering if a 3.2 987 with low temp thermostat, Hartech recommended Nanotech oil, deep sump and fresh coolant/fresh water pump becomes a pretty reliable and value for money car? Is there a sweet spot in terms of mileage or just the lower the better?
I am trying to get my head in order assessing the range of 987 and 997 era cars as a road trip/alpine type car. Not a track car per se. I come from a history of lighter, older cars, alongside some newer turbo machinery, but have long thought that "ideal" might be somewhat closer to the poverty pork end of the spectrum where balance, NA throttle response and relatively small size and somewhat LW come together to make more than the sum of the parts. Its a given I would modify with race seats, LW wheels and slightly stiffer coilovers to get closer to a tarmac rally type set up, but I don't think I would need to go crazy. Am I mad? Or inspired?
Thanks in advance.
911-32 said:
Hi -
Looking to be enlightened on 987S questions -
1. Gear Ratios: was the 987.2 (meaning the 3.4s), the first to get the much criticised long first and second gears? From what I can tell the 3.2S had the same ratios as the 986S. True or false? I guess the follow on is whether the gearing might make the 3.2S actually a sweeter car to drive as the hp/tq is not very different comparing 3.2 to 3.4. Particularly on steep Alpine roads where all road car gearing feels long even in the best of cars.
2. Reliability: I have struggled to find much at all on reported 3.2 engine failures - they are barely mentioned on Hartech's guide - whereas the 3.4 is lumped into the same risk category as 3.8 997 motors. Fair high level conclusion? IMS issues are likely similar, but bore scoring better in the 3.2 with it's thicker liners.
3. Prevention: Many posts touch on making the 87 and 97 engines reliable, but a conclusion is never really reached. I am wondering if a 3.2 987 with low temp thermostat, Hartech recommended Nanotech oil, deep sump and fresh coolant/fresh water pump becomes a pretty reliable and value for money car? Is there a sweet spot in terms of mileage or just the lower the better?
I am trying to get my head in order assessing the range of 987 and 997 era cars as a road trip/alpine type car. Not a track car per se. I come from a history of lighter, older cars, alongside some newer turbo machinery, but have long thought that "ideal" might be somewhat closer to the poverty pork end of the spectrum where balance, NA throttle response and relatively small size and somewhat LW come together to make more than the sum of the parts. Its a given I would modify with race seats, LW wheels and slightly stiffer coilovers to get closer to a tarmac rally type set up, but I don't think I would need to go crazy. Am I mad? Or inspired?
Thanks in advance.
My 986S has done several Alps/Pyrennees trips. No problems there apart from breathlessness at the highest altitude but that afflicts all cars.Looking to be enlightened on 987S questions -
1. Gear Ratios: was the 987.2 (meaning the 3.4s), the first to get the much criticised long first and second gears? From what I can tell the 3.2S had the same ratios as the 986S. True or false? I guess the follow on is whether the gearing might make the 3.2S actually a sweeter car to drive as the hp/tq is not very different comparing 3.2 to 3.4. Particularly on steep Alpine roads where all road car gearing feels long even in the best of cars.
2. Reliability: I have struggled to find much at all on reported 3.2 engine failures - they are barely mentioned on Hartech's guide - whereas the 3.4 is lumped into the same risk category as 3.8 997 motors. Fair high level conclusion? IMS issues are likely similar, but bore scoring better in the 3.2 with it's thicker liners.
3. Prevention: Many posts touch on making the 87 and 97 engines reliable, but a conclusion is never really reached. I am wondering if a 3.2 987 with low temp thermostat, Hartech recommended Nanotech oil, deep sump and fresh coolant/fresh water pump becomes a pretty reliable and value for money car? Is there a sweet spot in terms of mileage or just the lower the better?
I am trying to get my head in order assessing the range of 987 and 997 era cars as a road trip/alpine type car. Not a track car per se. I come from a history of lighter, older cars, alongside some newer turbo machinery, but have long thought that "ideal" might be somewhat closer to the poverty pork end of the spectrum where balance, NA throttle response and relatively small size and somewhat LW come together to make more than the sum of the parts. Its a given I would modify with race seats, LW wheels and slightly stiffer coilovers to get closer to a tarmac rally type set up, but I don't think I would need to go crazy. Am I mad? Or inspired?
Thanks in advance.
Bore scoring is not an issue to worry about on a Boxster 3.2. The IMS is a minor concern but changeable. I don't see why you would need a deep sump unless you were regularly going to track it with sticky tyres.
You can do some mild mods to up the power for relatively low cost.
Thank you for the reply 
Maybe a fair point on the deep sump, though they are not expensive and if you are doing an oil change, then it feels like a sensible while you are in there kind of mission creep. Having extra oil in the system cannot be a bad thing and while I wouldn't specifically build a track day car (no roof for a start), that doesn't mean the odd track day is out of the question.
Maybe a fair point on the deep sump, though they are not expensive and if you are doing an oil change, then it feels like a sensible while you are in there kind of mission creep. Having extra oil in the system cannot be a bad thing and while I wouldn't specifically build a track day car (no roof for a start), that doesn't mean the odd track day is out of the question.
That's incredibly helpful thanks.
Playing around with a Westfield gear ratio calculator (no connection, just found it on line), I conclude that there really isn't a lot of difference in the 9873.2 vs 3.4 ratios and both are lower (slightly) than a G50 3.2, for example. They are also very close to 996 and 997 max in gear speeds. The formatting may be lost when I paste but fingers crossed.
3.2 G50 987S 3.2 987S 3.4
225/50x16 255/40x18 255/40x18
7000rpm 7000rpm 7000rpm
43.0 38.2 42.3
73.0 68.2 71.7
106.8 99.4 99.4
133.2 123.5 123.5
169.1 143.9 143.9
Playing around with a Westfield gear ratio calculator (no connection, just found it on line), I conclude that there really isn't a lot of difference in the 9873.2 vs 3.4 ratios and both are lower (slightly) than a G50 3.2, for example. They are also very close to 996 and 997 max in gear speeds. The formatting may be lost when I paste but fingers crossed.
3.2 G50 987S 3.2 987S 3.4
225/50x16 255/40x18 255/40x18
7000rpm 7000rpm 7000rpm
43.0 38.2 42.3
73.0 68.2 71.7
106.8 99.4 99.4
133.2 123.5 123.5
169.1 143.9 143.9
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff