Boxster S vs M030 Setups
01-30-2013, 05:04 PM
#1
6th Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boxster S vs M030 Setups
Can anyone tell what the differences are between the '01 Boxster S suspension and the M030 suspension?
How much lower?
How much higher spring rates?
How much difference in shocks?
I have the option of this or a new set of Bilstein or Koni Sport shocks.
Thanks!
How much lower?
How much higher spring rates?
How much difference in shocks?
I have the option of this or a new set of Bilstein or Koni Sport shocks.
Thanks!
01-31-2013, 08:28 AM
#2
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ran across this old thread. It doesn't answer your questions directly but the information might help.
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...ferrerid=98377
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...ferrerid=98377
02-03-2013, 04:44 PM
#3
M030
First, do you mean M030 or ROW030?
I just put the ROW030 in my 2004 2.7 5-sp.
the spec is -15mmF -10mm R. I got less drop than that.
they dont spec the damping nor the spring rates, but it is MUCH stuffer than stock and consequently MUCH harsher. It will be great on the track, which is why i bought it, but for the road - i advise not to do it. Unless you have billiard-table smooth roads or like abusive rides.
That said, i would do it again, but this car gets a lot of AutoX and track use.
Bilstein HD is very close to OEM.
Grant
I just put the ROW030 in my 2004 2.7 5-sp.
the spec is -15mmF -10mm R. I got less drop than that.
they dont spec the damping nor the spring rates, but it is MUCH stuffer than stock and consequently MUCH harsher. It will be great on the track, which is why i bought it, but for the road - i advise not to do it. Unless you have billiard-table smooth roads or like abusive rides.
That said, i would do it again, but this car gets a lot of AutoX and track use.
Bilstein HD is very close to OEM.
Grant
02-04-2013, 10:29 AM
#4
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lesa, Italy & Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
wow, gfl! you're the first person i've ever heard call the M030 abusive. i very much disagree.
it's definitely stiffer overall, but i think the street ride is great. it's a little stiffer overall, but the biggest difference is the neutralization of understeer. the standard setup, S or base, is designed to understeer like crazy. the M030 bars are much more neutral & allow you to rotate the car easily. the tendancy to plow into corners (absent very aggressive turn-in) is greatly reduced. the M030 is a wonderful compromise setup: great street ride, but plenty fun at the track.
it's definitely stiffer overall, but i think the street ride is great. it's a little stiffer overall, but the biggest difference is the neutralization of understeer. the standard setup, S or base, is designed to understeer like crazy. the M030 bars are much more neutral & allow you to rotate the car easily. the tendancy to plow into corners (absent very aggressive turn-in) is greatly reduced. the M030 is a wonderful compromise setup: great street ride, but plenty fun at the track.
02-04-2013, 10:59 AM
#5
Well, i surmise you live in a land of smooth roads..
Here in the northeast, we have lots of pot-holes and very badly patched roads where plows simply pull chunks out of the surface, leaving vertical edges. Everywhere. That's where the problem is.
As to me being the first, all I know is i just wrote a lengthy review on Pedrosboard, and pretty much everyone said "yep, spot on".
So i stand by my advice to people considering it. Its a super setup for performance (also consider 225/45-17 fronts top dial out most understeer) but it is NOT friendly for rough pavement. Or small curbs. etc.
I would estimate 40% plus stiffer if i were to take an unsubstantiated, but educated guess. Compared to the Coil-overs i put in another car, the ride is night and day harsher.
Grant
As to me being the first, all I know is i just wrote a lengthy review on Pedrosboard, and pretty much everyone said "yep, spot on".
So i stand by my advice to people considering it. Its a super setup for performance (also consider 225/45-17 fronts top dial out most understeer) but it is NOT friendly for rough pavement. Or small curbs. etc.
I would estimate 40% plus stiffer if i were to take an unsubstantiated, but educated guess. Compared to the Coil-overs i put in another car, the ride is night and day harsher.
Grant
wow, gfl! you're the first person i've ever heard call the M030 abusive. i very much disagree.
it's definitely stiffer overall, but i think the street ride is great. it's a little stiffer overall, but the biggest difference is the neutralization of understeer. the standard setup, S or base, is designed to understeer like crazy. the M030 bars are much more neutral & allow you to rotate the car easily. the tendancy to plow into corners (absent very aggressive turn-in) is greatly reduced. the M030 is a wonderful compromise setup: great street ride, but plenty fun at the track.
it's definitely stiffer overall, but i think the street ride is great. it's a little stiffer overall, but the biggest difference is the neutralization of understeer. the standard setup, S or base, is designed to understeer like crazy. the M030 bars are much more neutral & allow you to rotate the car easily. the tendancy to plow into corners (absent very aggressive turn-in) is greatly reduced. the M030 is a wonderful compromise setup: great street ride, but plenty fun at the track.
02-04-2013, 03:46 PM
#6
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lesa, Italy & Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
you are right about smoother roads; ours are only nasty in town.
at any rate, the M030 struts & springs are actually not much stiffer than stock. they are maybe 5%. most of the extra stiffness comes from the sway bars. for the '01S, here are your numbers:
S:
Front: 23.6mm x 3.5mm
Rear: 18.5mm x 2.5mm
M030 S:
Front: 24.0mm x 3.8mm
Rear: 19.0mm x 2.7mm
the front M030 S is 10.7% stiffer and the rear is 14.5% stiffer.
if you do go the M030 route, i recommend you use the rear bar from the 2.7L M030 cars. It's 19.6mm x 2.6mm which is about 24.6% stiffer than your factory rear bar. it's a bit more neutral IMO.
at any rate, the M030 struts & springs are actually not much stiffer than stock. they are maybe 5%. most of the extra stiffness comes from the sway bars. for the '01S, here are your numbers:
S:
Front: 23.6mm x 3.5mm
Rear: 18.5mm x 2.5mm
M030 S:
Front: 24.0mm x 3.8mm
Rear: 19.0mm x 2.7mm
the front M030 S is 10.7% stiffer and the rear is 14.5% stiffer.
if you do go the M030 route, i recommend you use the rear bar from the 2.7L M030 cars. It's 19.6mm x 2.6mm which is about 24.6% stiffer than your factory rear bar. it's a bit more neutral IMO.
02-04-2013, 09:11 PM
#7
Those numbers are.....?
For the swaybars, not the springs. You are guessing at the springs? Knda unclear. I think the 5% number is wildly off from my experience. I've changed a lot of springs.
Note you have not addressed the dampers, which have a huge impact on, well, impact.
And i am referring to the ROW M030 which is not the same as the M030. You don't specify. Which is it? And if its the USA, not ROW, how does the ROW compare to the US/ We know they are different.
Grant
Note you have not addressed the dampers, which have a huge impact on, well, impact.
And i am referring to the ROW M030 which is not the same as the M030. You don't specify. Which is it? And if its the USA, not ROW, how does the ROW compare to the US/ We know they are different.
Grant
you are right about smoother roads; ours are only nasty in town.
at any rate, the M030 struts & springs are actually not much stiffer than stock. they are maybe 5%. most of the extra stiffness comes from the sway bars. for the '01S, here are your numbers:
S:
Front: 23.6mm x 3.5mm
Rear: 18.5mm x 2.5mm
M030 S:
Front: 24.0mm x 3.8mm
Rear: 19.0mm x 2.7mm
the front M030 S is 10.7% stiffer and the rear is 14.5% stiffer.
if you do go the M030 route, i recommend you use the rear bar from the 2.7L M030 cars. It's 19.6mm x 2.6mm which is about 24.6% stiffer than your factory rear bar. it's a bit more neutral IMO.
at any rate, the M030 struts & springs are actually not much stiffer than stock. they are maybe 5%. most of the extra stiffness comes from the sway bars. for the '01S, here are your numbers:
S:
Front: 23.6mm x 3.5mm
Rear: 18.5mm x 2.5mm
M030 S:
Front: 24.0mm x 3.8mm
Rear: 19.0mm x 2.7mm
the front M030 S is 10.7% stiffer and the rear is 14.5% stiffer.
if you do go the M030 route, i recommend you use the rear bar from the 2.7L M030 cars. It's 19.6mm x 2.6mm which is about 24.6% stiffer than your factory rear bar. it's a bit more neutral IMO.
Trending Topics
02-05-2013, 11:03 AM
#8
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lesa, Italy & Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
the RoW M030 dampers & the US M030 dampers have the same valving. the only difference is the piston length of the RoW; it is slightly shorter to avoid unseating the (shorter) RoW springs at full droop. the high speed compression /rebound valving (the 'knee' in the curve is ~1.75"/sec for both non and M030) on the M030 is nearly identical to the base suspension. this is the parameter that one would generally associate with harshness over bumps. the low speed curves are a bit steeper on the M030 for sure. this sharpens up handling considerably.
the 5% number for the springs was a guess based on experience with a number of different setups in the boxster. i put the M030 spring rates about half way between the OEM & PSS9. since all of the aforementioned springs have progressive rates, it is difficult to compare them numerically. for those inclined, the PSS9 rates IIRC are 260/370 F/R and the OEM are roughly 180/250. by the numbers, if M030 fell squarely between the two, we'd be talking about M030 at 15% stiffer than stock. it doesn't feel that way to me, but those are the numbers. keep in mind again that PSS9 uses progressive springs PLUS 145lb tenders, and M030 and stock setups are both progressive. this really does make it difficult to compare the two in static terms.
i have installed various components of M030, one at a time & mix/match between S & non S components in my quest to determine the best possible setup using OEM components. in my experience, the dampers made almost zero difference at all. the RoW springs were great for the lower ride height, but they didn't seem much stiffer. the sways, and in particular the rear sway, seemed to make the biggest difference in handling (AND harsher ride). in the end, the thing that made the most economical sense in my mind for a great sporty street / track setup was to use the 'S' M030 front sway, the base M030 rear sway, the RoW M030 springs, and skip the M030 dampers. in my opinion, this setup is comfortable on the street with MUCH sharper driving attributes.
much of this is obviously my opinion. much of this is backed up w/ lots of drive time (street & track) and in some cases, data acquisition & shock dyno time.
the 5% number for the springs was a guess based on experience with a number of different setups in the boxster. i put the M030 spring rates about half way between the OEM & PSS9. since all of the aforementioned springs have progressive rates, it is difficult to compare them numerically. for those inclined, the PSS9 rates IIRC are 260/370 F/R and the OEM are roughly 180/250. by the numbers, if M030 fell squarely between the two, we'd be talking about M030 at 15% stiffer than stock. it doesn't feel that way to me, but those are the numbers. keep in mind again that PSS9 uses progressive springs PLUS 145lb tenders, and M030 and stock setups are both progressive. this really does make it difficult to compare the two in static terms.
i have installed various components of M030, one at a time & mix/match between S & non S components in my quest to determine the best possible setup using OEM components. in my experience, the dampers made almost zero difference at all. the RoW springs were great for the lower ride height, but they didn't seem much stiffer. the sways, and in particular the rear sway, seemed to make the biggest difference in handling (AND harsher ride). in the end, the thing that made the most economical sense in my mind for a great sporty street / track setup was to use the 'S' M030 front sway, the base M030 rear sway, the RoW M030 springs, and skip the M030 dampers. in my opinion, this setup is comfortable on the street with MUCH sharper driving attributes.
much of this is obviously my opinion. much of this is backed up w/ lots of drive time (street & track) and in some cases, data acquisition & shock dyno time.
02-05-2013, 09:14 PM
#9
Thanks for the clarifications
Its great input. Not 100% matching my experience, but hey, maybe its the cold weather...thick oil....
Agree about the difficulty in specifying numbers both for springs and especially dampers. Dampers have curves on two different axes (velocity and excursion), so its a bit of an integration effort to reduce to a figure!
Grant
Agree about the difficulty in specifying numbers both for springs and especially dampers. Dampers have curves on two different axes (velocity and excursion), so its a bit of an integration effort to reduce to a figure!
Grant
the RoW M030 dampers & the US M030 dampers have the same valving. the only difference is the piston length of the RoW; it is slightly shorter to avoid unseating the (shorter) RoW springs at full droop. the high speed compression /rebound valving (the 'knee' in the curve is ~1.75"/sec for both non and M030) on the M030 is nearly identical to the base suspension. this is the parameter that one would generally associate with harshness over bumps. the low speed curves are a bit steeper on the M030 for sure. this sharpens up handling considerably.
the 5% number for the springs was a guess based on experience with a number of different setups in the boxster. i put the M030 spring rates about half way between the OEM & PSS9. since all of the aforementioned springs have progressive rates, it is difficult to compare them numerically. for those inclined, the PSS9 rates IIRC are 260/370 F/R and the OEM are roughly 180/250. by the numbers, if M030 fell squarely between the two, we'd be talking about M030 at 15% stiffer than stock. it doesn't feel that way to me, but those are the numbers. keep in mind again that PSS9 uses progressive springs PLUS 145lb tenders, and M030 and stock setups are both progressive. this really does make it difficult to compare the two in static terms.
i have installed various components of M030, one at a time & mix/match between S & non S components in my quest to determine the best possible setup using OEM components. in my experience, the dampers made almost zero difference at all. the RoW springs were great for the lower ride height, but they didn't seem much stiffer. the sways, and in particular the rear sway, seemed to make the biggest difference in handling (AND harsher ride). in the end, the thing that made the most economical sense in my mind for a great sporty street / track setup was to use the 'S' M030 front sway, the base M030 rear sway, the RoW M030 springs, and skip the M030 dampers. in my opinion, this setup is comfortable on the street with MUCH sharper driving attributes.
much of this is obviously my opinion. much of this is backed up w/ lots of drive time (street & track) and in some cases, data acquisition & shock dyno time.
the 5% number for the springs was a guess based on experience with a number of different setups in the boxster. i put the M030 spring rates about half way between the OEM & PSS9. since all of the aforementioned springs have progressive rates, it is difficult to compare them numerically. for those inclined, the PSS9 rates IIRC are 260/370 F/R and the OEM are roughly 180/250. by the numbers, if M030 fell squarely between the two, we'd be talking about M030 at 15% stiffer than stock. it doesn't feel that way to me, but those are the numbers. keep in mind again that PSS9 uses progressive springs PLUS 145lb tenders, and M030 and stock setups are both progressive. this really does make it difficult to compare the two in static terms.
i have installed various components of M030, one at a time & mix/match between S & non S components in my quest to determine the best possible setup using OEM components. in my experience, the dampers made almost zero difference at all. the RoW springs were great for the lower ride height, but they didn't seem much stiffer. the sways, and in particular the rear sway, seemed to make the biggest difference in handling (AND harsher ride). in the end, the thing that made the most economical sense in my mind for a great sporty street / track setup was to use the 'S' M030 front sway, the base M030 rear sway, the RoW M030 springs, and skip the M030 dampers. in my opinion, this setup is comfortable on the street with MUCH sharper driving attributes.
much of this is obviously my opinion. much of this is backed up w/ lots of drive time (street & track) and in some cases, data acquisition & shock dyno time.
02-14-2013, 02:43 AM
#10
6th Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. Great thread. While I'm new to the 986, I'm not new to shocks and springs. On progressives, they are as much art as science. My extensively modded Audi A3 had H&Rs which I hated. Then I switched to Vogtlands which were fabulous - not stiffer. Rather, they transitioned from soft to hard way better than the H&Rs.
Thanks - you've given me some really good ideas for moving forward.
Thanks - you've given me some really good ideas for moving forward.
