Whats the difference between the M030 and ROW030? - 986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners

What was different on the stock suspension vs. the M030? Now whats the difference between the M030 and ROW030?

As far as the difference between the standard suspension and the M030, the M030 has stiffer springs, struts, and sway bars than the stock suspension. The cars also rode a tad lower, but not much, not even an inch I believe. It was an option at the factory in '97 and '98, and you could get it as part of the P38 Sport Technik package which also came with the 17" wheels. I don't believe Porsche made it available any other year. Don't know much about the ROW30 tho.....

US M030 is not lower than the standard suspension. The springs are, however, an unknown amount stiffer. Hopefully I'll get my hands on a set soon and make some calculations based on the coil thickness. The shocks assuredly are valved differently as well, but who knows what the difference is. The front US 030 springs are the same for all Boxster, S, Tip / 5-speed / 6-speed. There are three sets of factory Boxster springs. US Standard, US 030, and ROW 030. Simple. ROW 030 does lower the car slightly. Again, US 030 does not. The rear US 030 springs are different depending on if you have a Boxster, Boxster S, Tiptronic or non-tiptronic. They sway bars are as follows, and all the bars for US 030 are the same as ROW 030. Front bar: Standard suspension 2.5/2.7L Boxster: 23.1mm diameter, 3.4mm thick. Standard Suspension 3.2L Boxster S: 23.5mm diameter, 3.5mm thick. M030 2.5/2.7L Boxster: 23.5mm diameter, 3.5mm thick (same as standard 3.2L) M030 3.2L Boxster S: 24.0mm diameter, 3.8mm thick Rear bar: Standard suspension 2.5/2.7L Boxster: 18.5mm diameter, 2.5mm thick. Standard Suspension 3.2L Boxster S: 18.5mm diameter, 2.5mm thick. M030 2.5/2.7L Boxster: 19.6mm diameter, 2.6mm thick M030 3.2L Boxster S: 19.0mm diameter, 2.7mm thick (yes the 3.2L M030 rear bar is SOFTER than the 2.5L / 2.5L M030 rear bar - strange). Hope this helps clear up (!) some of the confusion.

Is it useful to replace the sway bars without upgrading the endlinks. Given the length and diameter is seems the weak leak would be the end links.

Not sure what you mean by this, could you elaborate?

THe end links are what attach the swaybar to the suspension. In the rear they're pretty thin and long. If you have a thick bar that acts a spring... you're going to get more flexing through the end links where you don't want them. On my sti it's a fairly common mod to replace end links. But on the boxster you would thing more so given the length of them.

If I recall correctly, the endlinks on the STi have to bend around either an axle or a control arm in a C-shape so they have to be strong to endure those forces. The Boxster's endlinks are straight, and they have a ball and socket on each end. Therefore unless the endlinks managed to bind up, there could not be any torsional loads on them, only axial loads. There would be no reason to make the endlinks fatter - they're plenty thick for the loads that they see. You'd never see any performance benefit from going to a fatter endlink. But to clarify, the M030 endlinks for the US and RoW are the same as those used on the non-M030 cars.

On the the sti they're straight and about 2 inches long, where on the boxer they're about 6 inches long and similarly have ball and sockets. People still upgrade the endlinks. But I see your point.