CandD Boxster S Review
08-08-2012, 07:44 AM
#21
I really love the looks of the new Boxster. They just keep making it better and better. If I didn't not need a suggestion of a rear seat (for small dog), I would've bought a Boxster, Cayman or Z4 M.
08-08-2012, 07:52 AM
#22
Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k' timestamp='1344436934' post='21921615
As to S2000 tires, a set of Dunlop Star Specs runs around $800 installed off Tire Rack and my rears last 20k easy. So any comparison there is just silly.
S2k rear tire wear is driven by toe-in. Unfortunately, a lot of people have subscribed to the "more is better" approach regarding rear toe...
In my experience, the AP1 handles better and more predictably with LESS rear toe, and tire life is HUGELY improved.
You will literally double rear tire life or *better* going from the max end of the spec AP1 rear toe (aka, "UK recommended" toe) of 0.67degrees total to the minimum end of the US-spec of 0.33 degrees total or less.
I'm at 19k miles on my rear RS-3s, running 0.2 degrees total rear toe-in.
When I ran 0.67degrees total, I only got ~8k or less. Once, the adjusters weren't adequately tightened and the toe adjusted itself to well over 1 degree total, and I killed a pair of rear tires (Dunlop SportMaxx TTs) in 3k miles! Handling was *atrocious* with that much toe, nearly undriveable in the wet.
08-08-2012, 08:18 AM
#23
Originally Posted by JonBoy' timestamp='1344439486' post='21921722
[quote name='WolfpackS2k' timestamp='1344436934' post='21921615']
As to S2000 tires, a set of Dunlop Star Specs runs around $800 installed off Tire Rack and my rears last 20k easy. So any comparison there is just silly.
As to S2000 tires, a set of Dunlop Star Specs runs around $800 installed off Tire Rack and my rears last 20k easy. So any comparison there is just silly.
S2k rear tire wear is driven by toe-in. Unfortunately, a lot of people have subscribed to the "more is better" approach regarding rear toe...
In my experience, the AP1 handles better and more predictably with LESS rear toe, and tire life is HUGELY improved.
You will literally double rear tire life or *better* going from the max end of the spec AP1 rear toe (aka, "UK recommended" toe) of 0.67degrees total to the minimum end of the US-spec of 0.33 degrees total or less.
I'm at 19k miles on my rear RS-3s, running 0.2 degrees total rear toe-in.
When I ran 0.67degrees total, I only got ~8k or less. Once, the adjusters weren't adequately tightened and the toe adjusted itself to well over 1 degree total, and I killed a pair of rear tires (Dunlop SportMaxx TTs) in 3k miles! Handling was *atrocious* with that much toe, nearly undriveable in the wet.
[/quote]
I don't know about later cars but my 00 with 02 suspension was a bear with not much rear toe in. I added a good bit more and it settled the rear down and you could get on the gas MUCH earlier on corner exit with that setup (this is for autocross only). I was getting 8-10K miles out of a pair of rear RE-01R's back in the day with that setup and won a few season series with the local s2000 club.
08-08-2012, 08:31 AM
#24
I've never had any issues whatsoever putting the s2k's meager power down from the apex in 2nd gear corners either with minimal rear or with a ton of rear toe.
08-08-2012, 08:35 AM
#25
JonBoy, what's your rear toe?
S2k rear tire wear is driven by toe-in. Unfortunately, a lot of people have subscribed to the "more is better" approach regarding rear toe...
In my experience, the AP1 handles better and more predictably with LESS rear toe, and tire life is HUGELY improved.
You will literally double rear tire life or *better* going from the max end of the spec AP1 rear toe (aka, "UK recommended" toe) of 0.67degrees total to the minimum end of the US-spec of 0.33 degrees total or less.
I'm at 19k miles on my rear RS-3s, running 0.2 degrees total rear toe-in.
When I ran 0.67degrees total, I only got ~8k or less. Once, the adjusters weren't adequately tightened and the toe adjusted itself to well over 1 degree total, and I killed a pair of rear tires (Dunlop SportMaxx TTs) in 3k miles! Handling was *atrocious* with that much toe, nearly undriveable in the wet.
S2k rear tire wear is driven by toe-in. Unfortunately, a lot of people have subscribed to the "more is better" approach regarding rear toe...
In my experience, the AP1 handles better and more predictably with LESS rear toe, and tire life is HUGELY improved.
You will literally double rear tire life or *better* going from the max end of the spec AP1 rear toe (aka, "UK recommended" toe) of 0.67degrees total to the minimum end of the US-spec of 0.33 degrees total or less.
I'm at 19k miles on my rear RS-3s, running 0.2 degrees total rear toe-in.
When I ran 0.67degrees total, I only got ~8k or less. Once, the adjusters weren't adequately tightened and the toe adjusted itself to well over 1 degree total, and I killed a pair of rear tires (Dunlop SportMaxx TTs) in 3k miles! Handling was *atrocious* with that much toe, nearly undriveable in the wet.
My current car is at about 14K with the standard US spec alignment but very lightly driven in comparison (was female owned, mostly highway miles, etc, etc). The tires are also less grippy (OEM Bridgestones) compared to what I'd normally run.
08-08-2012, 08:43 AM
#26
They came out with their "recommended" spec of 0.67 to remain within their original *erroneous* range.
For me, 0.67 degrees total is still WAY on the high side. Anything more than that is just ridiculous.
A ton of rear toe-in is only "aggressive" in the sense that it it grinds the rear tires to death prematurely. In my experience, the car doesn't feel more "aggressive" set up that way, it just feels weird, and the car will dart around a lot more over undulations and in traction-challenged conditions.
The rear tires are constantly pushing against each other, so when one loses grip for an instant, the other pushes the back end of the car over.
It was an AP2, though, so the general handling is less twitchy overall.
My current car is at about 14K with the standard US spec alignment but very lightly driven in comparison (was female owned, mostly highway miles, etc, etc). The tires are also less grippy (OEM Bridgestones) compared to what I'd normally run.
My current car is at about 14K with the standard US spec alignment but very lightly driven in comparison (was female owned, mostly highway miles, etc, etc). The tires are also less grippy (OEM Bridgestones) compared to what I'd normally run.
08-08-2012, 08:46 AM
#27
Originally Posted by CosmosMpower' timestamp='1344442739' post='21921916
I don't know about later cars but my 00 with 02 suspension was a bear with not much rear toe in. I added a good bit more and it settled the rear down and you could get on the gas MUCH earlier on corner exit with that setup (this is for autocross only).
I've never had any issues whatsoever putting the s2k's meager power down from the apex in 2nd gear corners either with minimal rear or with a ton of rear toe.
08-08-2012, 08:50 AM
#28
Originally Posted by JonBoy' timestamp='1344443751' post='21921978
On that car, rear toe was set within the UK recommended spec and camber was also at max for the spec - definitely a fairly aggressive alignment.
They came out with their "recommended" spec of 0.67 to remain within their original *erroneous* range.
For me, 0.67 degrees total is still WAY on the high side. Anything more than that is just ridiculous.
A ton of rear toe-in is only "aggressive" in the sense that it it grinds the rear tires to death prematurely. In my experience, the car doesn't feel more "aggressive" set up that way, it just feels weird, and the car will dart around a lot more over undulations and in traction-challenged conditions.
The rear tires are constantly pushing against each other, so when one loses grip for an instant, the other pushes the back end of the car over.
It was an AP2, though, so the general handling is less twitchy overall.
My current car is at about 14K with the standard US spec alignment but very lightly driven in comparison (was female owned, mostly highway miles, etc, etc). The tires are also less grippy (OEM Bridgestones) compared to what I'd normally run.
My current car is at about 14K with the standard US spec alignment but very lightly driven in comparison (was female owned, mostly highway miles, etc, etc). The tires are also less grippy (OEM Bridgestones) compared to what I'd normally run.
08-08-2012, 09:23 AM
#29
Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k' timestamp='1344436934' post='21921615
As to S2000 tires, a set of Dunlop Star Specs runs around $800 installed off Tire Rack and my rears last 20k easy. So any comparison there is just silly.
Beats me. I leave the VDC on when I'm driving on public streets but I still drive aggressively when safe and I attack on/exit ramps whenever given the chance. My Star Specs have just over 20,000 miles at the moment (which includes 4 track days driving near the limit of my ability) and the rears are worn more than the fronts (been on the wear indicators for over a month now). My AP2 is a 2007 model and I run stock suspension settings. So if my tire life is longer than usual I don't know how to explain it.
Back to the OT...new Boxster looks sexy
