12 captured repliesPartial discussion capture · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHBoxster 3.2S vs 3.4 - Page 1 - Porsche General - PistonHeads UK
Leading reported evidence
Replace using the ln ceramic bearing upgrade
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I bought the 3.2, then had the IMS bearing replaced using the LN ceramic bearing upgrade.
Boxster 3.2S vs 3.4 - Page 1 - Porsche General - PistonHeads UK
Read full discussion summary
Leading evidence: 'Replace using the ln ceramic bearing upgrade' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace using the ln ceramic bearing upgrade' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Boxster 3.2S vs 3.4 - Page 1 - Porsche General - PistonHeads UK
Coverage and how to read this overview
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
12 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
PistonHeads: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T130754Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Im looking at buying a Boxster in the next couple of months and wanted to know opinons on whether it is worth pushing myself (financially) to get the later 3.4 engine.
I have driven an old 3.2S and thought it was one the best cars I have ever driven. Im now looking at getting a facelift post 2002 model, but wanted to hear from people who have driven both models and whether the 3.4 is the better engine, and makes the car even better still.
The car will get driven in anger around track days and tours of europe, etc... It won`t be a car that gets polished every weekend :-)
Boxsters, like the 911s, are a product of continuous evolution and improvement. So, usually, the newer the model the better.
The differences between the 3.2 and 3.4 are fairly marginal, but certainly a bit more mid-range torque is evident. A lot depends on the overall spec. I've driven 3.2s that feel nicer than the 3.4 and vice versa.
Like you say, I will have to take the two out for a spin and decide.
I assume the 3.2 is the same lump as in the early models, and there are no performance gains on the later 3.2's ????
have owned a 2003(260bhp) boxster s and now have cayman 3.4(295bhp)(same engine as boxster3.4).not only is the engine a step forward but the gearbox is much sweeter and the interior is a better place to be. i would recomend at least go for the 987 3.2(280bhp) which was introduced in 2005 all depends on what you want to spend
Edited by mayes911 on Friday 13th November 20:35
robsartain said:
Like you say, I will have to take the two out for a spin and decide.
I assume the 3.2 is the same lump as in the early models, and there are no performance gains on the later 3.2's ????
IIRC, they went from 252 to 260bhp.
Whether that extra 8 horses makes any real difference I've no idea. Mine was a 252 and was quick enough on the road to be a lot of fun.
SRT Hellcat said:
Are there bore scoring issues on either the 3.2 or 3.4 litre engine that I need to worry about ?
3.2 - No bore scoring problems as it still has ferrous coated pistons, but most (not all) have the early type 'small' IMS bearing that's prone to failure
3.4 - Bore scoring is a problem, as this uses plastic coated pistons, where the coating will break down and damage the bores. But, has the larger IMS that's much less prone to failure.
I bought the 3.2, then had the IMS bearing replaced using the LN ceramic bearing upgrade. Best of both worlds now.
Magnum 475 said:
SRT Hellcat said:
Are there bore scoring issues on either the 3.2 or 3.4 litre engine that I need to worry about ?
3.2 - No bore scoring problems as it still has ferrous coated pistons, but most (not all) have the early type 'small' IMS bearing that's prone to failure
3.4 - Bore scoring is a problem, as this uses plastic coated pistons, where the coating will break down and damage the bores. But, has the larger IMS that's much less prone to failure.
I bought the 3.2, then had the IMS bearing replaced using the LN ceramic bearing upgrade. Best of both worlds now.
Much appreciated. So a late 3.2S should have the larger IMS bearing and might be the way forward
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
