Q&A Porsche discussion

[st-anger]

...the name says it all, here you can post all your questions about Porsche in general as well as all the other things of interest in automotive industry and engineering...
as you know i´m kinda busy so plz be patient when i can´t answer everything immediately, but i´m sure that there are lot´s of ppl out there in JW land who know quite something, and everyone´s invited to contribute to the discussion... :P

[st-anger]

MOVED:

posted by Kangaroo Boy

Just Curious,What Porsche Models had the Pushrod Air Cool Flat 4 engine?Are they the same engine as the Vw Beetle?

answer by Schwalbe JG 44

For answer your question Kangaroo Boy, the 356 series of Porsche have the same engine than VW Beetle.

The displacement has evolved during the years at the level of the series 356

1948 Porsche 356/1: Air Cooled Flat 4, 1131 cc / 69 cubic inches, 35 hp @ 4000 rpm, Top speed 135 km/h / 84 mph.

1955 Porsche 356 Speedster: Air Cooled Flat 4, 1488 cc / 91 cubic inches, 55 hp @ 4400 rpm, Top speed 160 km/h / 99 mph.

1960 Porsche 356 B Roadster: Air Cooled Flat 4, 1582 cc / 97 cubic inches, 90 hp, Top speed 190 km/h.

[st-anger]

MOVED:

posted by Porsche_Cayenne

Uhm , I was thinking about the differences bitween Cayenne S and Cayenne V6 3.2... later all the engine differences, is the write on the back of the Cayenne V6 black as Carrera 2, or silver as Carrera 4?
I know Cayenne S has got silver write... but Cayenne V6?
I think that black write as "carrera" is horrible, in fact I'd go for the silver write "911" if I have a Carrera 2

:arrow: ...all Cayenne V6 models have that black "Cayenne" badge...
only "S" and "TT" have a silver one...

[st-anger]

MOVED:

posted by Apac102

I just watched the CGT video and Jerm was complaining about that the car is nimble and you always gotta be on your toes. When you drove it, did you find the same problem? Was it really that much...especially when the Stig went around the bend and he spun out a couple of times.

:arrow: ...first, the CGT is no VW Golf, it´s more or less a race car for the road, i think it´s clear that JC is more the Benz guy
you know i used to drive Porsche since i got my driving licence, so i´m quite used to the typical Porsche handling and manners, especially since i´m working for Porsche it´s also my job and daily life to push the Porsche cars to the limit, also on the race track...
so i had no problems with the handling of the CGT, i expected it to feel like it felt, only "problem" was the clutch, but it´s really not that bad, again the press cars for all the tests are pre-production cars, with the final production version one can drive off even without adding too much gas, just like in a std. Porsche...
to drive the CGT at the limit is quite a challenge, that´s for sure, so not a really surprise for me that the Stig spun it, although he seems to be a very skilled driver, but that´s not that bad, only when pushing too far you´ll discover the limit of the car so that´s not a problem neither of the car nor of the driver....


Why Carrera GT has such a knife-edge on limit handling? because of the sophiciated aero dynamic or suspension design/set-up with CGT? or just simply because this car is too quick for "average driver"(sounds like "normal driving condition" on PCCB to me)

answer by ChrisAW11

It all lies in the basics of quickness and grip.
Here you have a possible acceleration/slip angle diagram of a slow car:
http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/421514187/1.jpg

This again is a possible acceleration/slip angle diagram of a fast car:
http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/421514187/0.jpg

Now slip angle is related with the steering wheel position of the car - actually it means the amount of "sideways" that the tires are going.
The possible acceleration that the car can deliver is the grip that you have left.
Obviously, the grip curve of the racecar goes up very fast, which means that whenever you start turning the steering wheel, it will be able to follow and turn like a madman. The slower car needs more slip to do that, and even at it's optimum slip angle, it just hasn't got the same sort of grip that the racecar delivers, which means it can't take the corner as quickly as the grippier car.

But then, you'll notice that after optimum grip, the racecar very quickly loses all the grip, while the slow one still has a good amount - that means, when you ask too much from a racing car, there is just about nothing left to save you, and you'll spin out. In the slow car, you'll have a good percentage of grip left, and in most cases you'll make it back into the safe side of the acceleration peak without leaving the road.

A grippy tire slips less, that's the basic principle to remember. It is directly related to another principle, "the higher the limits, the less fault tolerancy".

The Carrera GT obviously has enormous amounts of grip, very high limits, and thus it just hasn't got the fault tolerancy of a slower car.

[st-anger]

MOVED

posted by jon_s:

Mr St-Anger, I was woundering if you could cast any light on a slightly sore point as far as the UK press is concerned.

It concerns the life of the ceramic brakes, which are supposed to have a service life of 186,000 miles ( -is that right!) but are lasting significantly less than that (In some limited cases) Cost of replacement is a whopping £27,000 (Enzo brake territory!).

Porsche are apparently claiming that track days are the problem! What exactly did Porsche expect their owners to do!

I sure hope there is a fix in the pipeline, as £27,000 to replce them is quite frankly taking the piss.

:arrow: … a good statement in that context: PCCB´s are a political hot potato within PAG�
now that´s a fact, that there´re some problems, or better, had been some problems…
to quickly answer your first question: yes, under “normal� driving conditions PCCB´s do have a service life of up to 300.000 km ( ~186.000mls )…
when they´re used on the track they sometimes have to be replaced after 10- to 15.000km ( ~8000mls )…
there´s been a huge discussion, some dealers changed the rotors under warranty, some not, especially in the USA....don´t ask me why???
so PAG added this disclaimer:

circuit racing or similar extreme driving conditions can significantly reduce the overall life expectancy of even the most durable pads and discs. It is therefore important – as with conventional steel high-performance brakes – to have all PCCB components properly checked and replaced, if necessary, after every track event.

therefore, anyone using the PCCB brakes on the track must be prepared to replace all components after each track event. cast iron rotors are cheap consumables but ceramic composite rotors are most certainly not! ergo, a track car is exactly the sort of car which should not have PCCB brakes. there are good reasons why you will not find these brakes on any of Porsche’s race cars…
there are three main problem areas with ceramic composite brakes:
first, the rotors overheat and fail.
second, the ABS system has not been modified for the PCCB rotors which causes less than optimal ABS performance and also damages the rotors. third, the pads are not able to handle the heat and are quickly destroyed once overheated. the lower unsprung weight that these brakes offer is noticeable as is the total lack of fade. and I do believe that ceramic-composite brakes offer tremendous potential, but Porsche introduced them too soon and they are just not ready for consumer use.

just read this:
DC introduced a ceramic brake pretty similar to the PCCB on a special limited production CL 55 AMG, called “F1 Edition� model. By that time, Mercedes had high hopes and big plans for introducing the ceramic compound brake on other models too, but they didn't.
and here's the question: why didn't they do it?
remember: we're talking about a multi-billion dollars super car manufacturer with billions of dollars of production/research budgets...

so, one major issue regarding PCCB development was cost, so they tried to adapt the current brake system with all components to the PCCB. same applies to tires.
a perfect and optimized PCCB system would require different components (incl. completely different electronics and mechanial parts) and of course optimized tires, not to speak about the pads which could be better but also much more expensive and no one would pay 1000 bucks for one set of pads which last 2500 mls.

PCCB works pretty well on the street, even if it needs some temperature to achieve best results. as far as replacement/maintenance cost is concerned, I think we can't blame a manufacturer if a brake isn't "track worthy", actually which brake is "track worthy"? even the beloved 380 mm steel discs need replacement after some tough track runs, so right now, the PCCB is at the beginning of development, it is a pretty new product and for the street at least as good as the steel brake, why??? PCCB does NOT provide a shorter braking distance because of the facts mentioned above.

so, PCCB is still in it's first generation but the new GT2 (MY 2004) already has an overworked PCCB system (incl. some of the hardware components and some aerodynamical changes to supply the brake swith more air) and it remains to see how good it performs on the track, so again: if you're into serious track racing, going for the regular steel brakes might be a better idea.

btw, the PCCB brake system on the Carrera GT is completely different to that of the 996 Models with the PCCB system installed:
the diameter of the disc is greater than that of the smaller system on the 996 models. (380mm vs 350mm), thereby increasing its efficiency. the cooling system of the brakes is much more advanced and channels significantly more cooling air to the brakes than on the 996 models and it has specially developed brake pads.

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v192/st-anger/VR-1.jpg
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v192/st-anger/VR-2.jpg
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v192/st-anger/VL-2.jpg
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v192/st-anger/VL-1.jpg
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v192/st-anger/HR-1.jpg
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v192/st-anger/HL-1.jpg

[yg60m]

It is hard to explain : i read several articles where it is written that the sound of the last 997 is the result of extensive work on exhaust, engine ... That leads to a personal reflection : When i hear the sound of a 996 on tv and even the CGT (only on TV) they doesn't sound very "natural", more synthesizes and even if it is awesome (the CGT is incredible) this "synthesize sound" is ... weird, as if computer-arranged.

It's not easy to explain, it's the difference between the air-cooled 993 and the water-cooled 996 which try to seems like air-cooled :?

My question is : how does it sound in real ?? (CGT and 997)

[lakatu]

Thanks st-anger for the new section. I really like the idea.

I have been trying to comprehend the impressiveness of the CGT lap time (7.28 8)) and the decline in lap times for 911s in general over the years on the NS. I started out thinking why is it so hard to make improvements to lap times. To answer my question I started thinking about the physics that are required to improve the performance to lower the lap times. I have a few ideas but in some instances they don’t seem to make as much sense as in other instances. I was wondering what other Porsche fanatics thought about these ideas and what everyone’s thoughts are as to what has been the single biggest contributor to lower these times i.e. power/ weight, improved braking, suspension refinement or tires. I think to some degree the answer is improved power/weight but that is just my opinion. However, I think the answer is much larger than that as I hope is obvious from my examples.

Here is what I have come up with. When you look at lap times and performance increases there obviously isn’t a linear relationship. For example, an increase of power/weight ratio that is 2x doesn’t result in a lap time that is ½ the original. After looking back through some old physics books I notice that circular motion, and acceleration formulas are all directly proportional to the square of velocity. My assumption is that during a lap of NS the driver is constantly accelerating, braking or cornering and that to improve the lap times the forces required to improve the times would have to increase as the square of the change in velocity.

Let me use an example. In a prior post I have shared that I have seen a posting of a 1987 911 by Auto Bild with a lap time of 9:22. I calculate this is an average speed of 132.5 km/hr. Porsche drivers in the MKII 996 posted a time of 8:20 which is 150.0 km/hr or a 13.2% increase. Based on my simplified assumptions, I figure to increase average lap speed by this amount would require 1.132^2 or a 28% increase in the forces of acceleration, braking and turning. That seems to check out because I calculate that the power/weight has improved 24% and the lateral acceleration 13% and I’m not sure about the braking. Obviously all these forces would not have to increase in the same proportion acceleration could increase more say that braking or lateral acceleration.

However, when I use an other example the GT3 RS vs the CGT I get average speeds of 160.6 km/hr and 167.4 km/hr respectively or a 4.2% improvement. I calculate this would require a 8.7% improvement in accelerative force. That doesn’t seem right because the power to weight ratio of the GT3 RS is 3.6 kg/hp while the CGT is 2.4 kg/hp or a 33% decrease. Based on this I would have expected to see a larger improvement in the CGT’s time relative to the time of the GT3 RS.

So maybe there is a breakdown in my assumptions that the driver is always in a state of changing the speed of the car or in other words is always accelerating. If this were the case and at times the NS driver maintains a constant velocity the physics laws governing acceleration wouldn’t apply and other factors maybe working to change lap times.

For example, while I haven’t seen the NS I have heard reports that the surface conditions are challenging and I figure that a suspensions ability to remain controllable while absorbing bumps and imperfections maybe a limiting factor. What I mean is that a driver may not be able to continue to accelerate because the cars suspension is not able to maintain stability at faster speeds and the car would be in a state of constant velocity. Therefore, some of the improvements in average lap speeds may not be due to an increase in the generating forces but the refinement of the suspension to deal with road irregularities allowing faster speed through those sections.

I might be alone here, but I find this discussion interesting and any feedback would be helpful. I figure it is possible that I am completely wrong in my application of physics or there maybe other factor occurring that I haven’t even thought about. Any thoughts?

Edit: An earlier post had power to weight ratios taken from various magazines. Later I noticed that these were different from the figures reported in Sport Auto and Auto Bild. The updated information shows a 33% decrease verses the 50% quoted earlier.

[lakatu]

Thanks st-anger for the 997 material. Reading the Autocar article I had a question and a thought. Since Porsche has realized that their cars are faster on NS with Pirelli tires why wouldn't they work with Pirelli to create special tires for the 997? I have heard that Michelin spends more R&D than other tire makers is that part of it. BTW wasn't the old Pirelli P7 a specially designed tire for the 930?

The other comment I had is I have noticed a reoccurring theme as the 911 has changed over the years. This is especially true from the 996 on...which is that the more refined and controlled Porsche makes the driving experience the less desirable and fun their cars become especially for the purist or skilled driver. Any thoughts on this. A similar comment was made in the article in GT Purely Porsche article that reviewed the GT3 RS compared to the Carrera RS. http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8947&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=180

[st-anger]

Thanks st-anger for the new section. I really like the idea.

I have been trying to comprehend the impressiveness of the CGT lap time (7.28 8)) and the decline in lap times for 911s in general over the years on the NS. I started out thinking why is it so hard to make improvements to lap times. To answer my question I started thinking about the physics that are required to improve the performance to lower the lap times. I have a few ideas but in some instances they don’t seem to make as much sense as in other instances. I was wondering what other Porsche fanatics thought about these ideas and what everyone’s thoughts are as to what has been the single biggest contributor to lower these times i.e. power/ weight, improved braking, suspension refinement or tires. I think to some degree the answer is improved power/weight but that is just my opinion. However, I think the answer is much larger than that as I hope is obvious from my examples.

Here is what I have come up with. When you look at lap times and performance increases there obviously isn’t a linear relationship. For example, an increase of power/weight ratio that is 2x doesn’t result in a lap time that is ½ the original. After looking back through some old physics books I notice that circular motion, and acceleration formulas are all directly proportional to the square of velocity. My assumption is that during a lap of NS the driver is constantly accelerating, braking or cornering and that to improve the lap times the forces required to improve the times would have to increase as the square of the change in velocity.

Let me use an example. In a prior post I have shared that I have seen a posting of a 1987 911 by Auto Bild with a lap time of 9:22. I calculate this is an average speed of 132.5 km/hr. Porsche drivers in the MKII 996 posted a time of 8:20 which is 150.0 km/hr or a 13.2% increase. Based on my simplified assumptions, I figure to increase average lap speed by this amount would require 1.132^2 or a 28% increase in the forces of acceleration, braking and turning. That seems to check out because I calculate that the power/weight has improved 24% and the lateral acceleration 13% and I’m not sure about the braking. Obviously all these forces would not have to increase in the same proportion acceleration could increase more say that braking or lateral acceleration.

However, when I use an other example the GT3 RS vs the CGT I get average speeds of 160.6 km/hr and 167.4 km/hr respectively or a 4.2% improvement. I calculate this would require a 8.7% improvement in accelerative force. That doesn’t seem right because the power to weight ratio of the GT3 RS is 4.65 kg/hp while the CGT is 2.29 kg/hp or a 50% decrease. Based on this I would have expected to see a larger improvement in the CGT’s time relative to the time of the GT3 RS.

So maybe there is a breakdown in my assumptions that the driver is always in a state of changing the speed of the car or in other words is always accelerating. If this were the case and at times the NS driver maintains a constant velocity the physics laws governing acceleration wouldn’t apply and other factors maybe working to change lap times.

For example, while I haven’t seen the NS I have heard reports that the surface conditions are challenging and I figure that a suspensions ability to remain controllable while absorbing bumps and imperfections maybe a limiting factor. What I mean is that a driver may not be able to continue to accelerate because the cars suspension is not able to maintain stability at faster speeds and the car would be in a state of constant velocity. Therefore, some of the improvements in average lap speeds may not be due to an increase in the generating forces but the refinement of the suspension to deal with road irregularities allowing faster speed through those sections.

I might be alone here, but I find this discussion interesting and any feedback would be helpful. I figure it is possible that I am completely wrong in my application of physics or there maybe other factor occurring that I haven’t even thought about. Any thoughts?

…well, really some nice thoughts, i´m especially glad that you´re dealing with all this already quite professional, i´ve gone through your calculations a bit, also through your thoughts and you are basically on the right way… i´d say on the chassis/suspension side there´s quite some scope left, definitely on the factory cars, on the other hand the tuners are quite near the limit, there´re special NS suspensions mainly from “Bilstein� undriveable anywhere else but bloody effective on NS but a good setup for NS is nearly an impossible task, quite some compromises have to be made, again we can´t compare NS with a regular race track like HHR…
so suspension is not the limit on NS these days, sure it´s at the limit, but EVERY single part is at it´s absolute limit on a fast lap on NS, IMO the main influencing factor are still the tryes…
so acceleration, grip lateral g´s are mainly limited because of the tyres, we tested that excessively with more or less three manufacturers for our Porsche models, Michelin, Pirelli and Conti, nowadays Michelin and Pirelli only, but now we could start an endless discussion, as you know Pirellis were significantly faster on NS but again we can´t equip a car with the tyre XY only because it´s 20sec faster on NS, it should be driveable, especially in the wet which is a key point for our sports cars, they should be driveable every day, for shopping, in the city, but also on the track, so it´s always a huge compromise.
again we have to talk about the tyres when we´re talking about increasing forces, for the suspension/chassis forces up to 2+ g´s are no problem, but the tyres have to deliver this performance as well, on all the different surfaces… and that´s the point again, sure with racing slicks we can drive whatever g´s but this is not the task of a Porsche or sportscar in general, as i said some time before only very very few ppl will ever explore the potential of their e.g. CGT or GT3RS, even i have to try hard after driving Porsches for ~ 20 years now…
personally i only know 2 guys who can really push any Porsche to its limit: WR and Roland Kussmaul…
in the end it´s a bit hard to characterize NS on theoretical physics, as well as CGT and GT3RS, they seem to be on quite the same performance level but the RS is not even close to the CGT…

[lakatu]

Thanks st-anger for the information. So it sound like the limiting factor that prevents the CGT from utilizing the 33% lower power/weight ratio over the GT3 RS to post an even lower time is the grip available from the tires. You can’t be faster than your weakest link :wink: . Makes sense since all of the acceleration/deceleration and lateral forces have to be transmitted through the tires.

It looks to me like the decrease in power/weight ratios over the years is the main factor decreasing NS times for the 911 from 9.22 (1987 911) to today’s 8.20. Do you agree and how much of a difference do you think the suspension improvements over the years make?

Porsche, for some reason not clear to me, has always tended to have smaller wheels than would fit under the car :? . For example, the 911 Club Sport which was aimed at track day enthusiast had 6� front and 7� back. While you could order a 7�/8� sport package on the base 911. Current 996 runs 8�/10� and I’m sure that these wider wheels along with improvement in tire technology has contributed to the big improvements in lateral acceleration.

I have wondered how much faster on the NS an older 911 with new technology tires and wider tire/rims would be :D . This is especially true for the 930 series that can handle 9�/12� verses the OEM 7�/9�.

There must be some reason for the smaller tire preference by Porsche. There are a few trade offs that I am aware of like potentially higher unsprung weight, increased rolling resistance and higher drag coefficients. But since the trend has been to wider wheels and tires over the years I wonder why Porsche didn’t do it earlier. Maybe there wasn’t enough money to develop wider Fuchs back then.

Any thoughts or comments on these issues :?:

[ahmedgiyab]

Hi! I have a question about the 911 series....

I heard that they are very reliable cars....I'm thinking of getting one (used model

1999-2000)....but since I live in Dubai, I'm afraid that the hot summers will kill the

car's engine....(note: most of the ppl who own a 911 here, they use them as a

secondary hobby car...but I would use it for everyday use.... :oops: )

I have a Merc and I didn't have any problems with it....so I didn't need to spend on

spare parts....I guess a 911's spare part cost more than a CL500... :shock:

Does it worth it for me to buy one....if yes which is the best buy (C2, C4, Conv....)?!

p.s. exclude the GTs and the Turbo.... :D

Thanx in Advance! :)

[lakatu]

Porsche has a reputation for testing cars in extreme climates in preproduction. Additionally, they have a lot of experience with racing in desert environments. Based on this, I don’t think that you should have a problem with the 911 in extreme hot weather. This is especially true, I would imagine, for the water cooled models you indicated you where interested in.

As far as which variation i.e. C2, C4, convertible. That is a personal preference issue. People who typically select the C4 do so because of the safety and traction advantages especially required in climates that have rain or snow. From what I know of Dubai that probably isn’t as much of a concern for your situation.

You still may enjoy a C4 for the added stability the 4 wheel drive gives at the limit. The C4 costs a little more and has more mechanical parts requiring potential repair and maintenance issues. Additionally, some indicate that there is more understeer associated with the C4 vs C2 and as a result prefer the sharper handling and lighter weight of the C2.

As far as a convertible, the soft top has les structural rigidity which affects handling somewhat and could result in squeaks and rattles as the car ages. Although Porsches are better than most in this regard. So if you like convertibles I wouldn’t be afraid to get a Porsche Cabriolet.

Overall if your interested in a sports car you can hardly go wrong with a 911 :D .

[ahmedgiyab]

I like the Carrera 4...(and the 4S...but its too expensive for me :) )....also what is very

attractive about the 911 that if you sell it later....you will get good money for it.... :wink:

Thanx for the info!!! :)

One more thing: Is the Boxter S is good as the 911?!

[lakatu]

Your right one of the attractive aspects of owning a 911 is the high resale value. As with any economic principle the price is determined by supply and demand. The 911 has always been in high demand and enjoyed a mystic partly because of Porsche basing so many extremely successful racing cars on the basic 911. Other factors that have affected demand include the appealing and timeless shape, performance, unique rear engine layout and air cooling along with the reputation of reliability and skill required to drive a 911 fast. It was kind of a badge of honor to drive a 911 because real car enthusiast knew it required skill to drive fast.

I personally think the historically high resale value may be somewhat different in the future. The reason why I feel that is due to the shorter life cycles of the various 911 model. For example, a 1978 911 SC looks almost identical to a 11 year older 1989 Carrera. At the time this kept demand high for the older 911s because well if it was clean people couldn’t tell it was an older car. Additionally, the newer car has lost some of the quirkiness that was part of the 911 charm and mystic. For sure the new 911 is a much better car and I think that they will always be in high demand and therefore have high resale values. I just think they may not be as high as in the past.

As for the Boxster S. It is a great car. The midengine design provides for a broader range of neutral handling. It isn’t quite as fast as the 911 due to the smaller engine and it is a smaller car overall. But basically they are similar especially their interiors. I don’t think they will have quite as high resale value as the 911. But they are cheaper and still a great car. I would look into the price of maintenance and repair for the Boxster verses the 911 if money is an issue. I could be wrong about this but I think that the engine may have to be removed to do tune-ups. Although the same may go for the 996. It might be something to look into.

Personally, I’m not a fan of convertibles so the Boxster hasn’t been a car that I have learned about as much as the 911. If you are interested in a Boxster I’m sure there are others at JW that could provide you with some additional information.

[ahmedgiyab]

I heard that most of the Boxter's spare parts are the same as in the 911. Yeah you're

right, the Boxster's price is 'falling ' faster than a 911. I like the 911 more....but a new

Boxster S costs the same as a 2001 911 C2....at least here in Dubai.... :)

I will see...it will be a "hard" issue... :)

[lakatu]

I believe your right about the parts issue because Porsche at the time was trying to decrease production costs by spreading development and manufacturing costs over a larger number of units. The labor portion of maintenance and repair may be higher as I said for a Boxster. Because it may require more hours to do the job due to the tight space of the midengine. Something to look into anyways.

Good luck! I'm sure you will be happy either way :)

[ahmedgiyab]

Thanx man! You are a REAL Porsche Expert!!! :o

[lakatu]

Thanx man! You are a REAL Porsche Expert!!! :o
:lol: Thanks for the compliment :D :oops: . But I think you have me confused with st-anger. He is the REAL expert 8) . I'm just a novice want-to-be.

[st-anger]

Thanx man! You are a REAL Porsche Expert!!! :o
:lol: Thanks for the compliment :D :oops: . But I think you have me confused with st-anger. He is the REAL expert 8) . I'm just a novice want-to-be.

NO NO NO, definitely NOT!!!
you definitely know quite much about Porsche and even better: you´re interested to learn more, and i´m always looking forward to a new discussion with you and some other JW members...

for ahmedgiyab, MAN wait ´till the 997"S" arrives at your dealer, it´s definitely the "best buy" for money right now, hands-down... :P

[ahmedgiyab]

Man....sadly I can't afford the 997 (for now... :D )....

I want to exchange my current CL for a 911....1999 or 2000...I can't afford any extra

payment....(I will be a family man next year.... :cry: )....

Was there a Targa version in 2000 already...?

The problem that the most attractive combination would be a 911 Carrera 4 combined

with the "Targa" roof... 8) ....but this model doesn't exist...

[lakatu]

Just came across this '05 911 Carrera review:
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/ly/05_911.htm
Great pix on the castle :shock:
But is this true? - "These days, Porsche is the most profitable car manufacturer in the world..."

that´s 101% true..... :wink:

What Porsche means when they say that they are the most profitable car manufacture is that they have the highest profit margins. So for every euro of sales they retain more euros in profit than there competitors. Porsche averages around 6% while the rest of the industry averages 2%. For comparison, BMW has ½ the profit margins of Porsche at 3%. Their net profit as measured in euros, as has been pointed out, is not the largest.

This didn’t use to be the case in the late 80’ & early 90’s. Porsche since has replaced handcrafting & implemented advanced manufacturing technology. They eliminated less successful models like the 928 & 968. Replaced those with the Boxster and 996 which at the time they introduced them shared 38% of their parts. They got out of Company sponsored motor racing which is extremely costly and not very profitable. They also benefited from the rising dollar.

I can’t say for certain but I would guess the falling dollar is going to hurt Porsche’s profitability since 50% of sales are in the U.S. Someone may be able to clarify this, but from what I have seen Porsche hasn’t increase the price of the cars to anywhere close to offset the 20% decline in dollar valuations with the euro over the past 2 years. Makes me wonder if Porsche will start a production plant in the U.S. so that their manufacturing costs will be denominated in the same currency as sales like BMW & Toyota.

[nthfinity]

hi, St. Anger...

i think its safe to say that Porsche has been in the Supercar market for quite some time, and have a pretty good figure denoted to only the highest of performance cars available (GT2,GT3, CGT?)..

when such amazing cars are built, are the powertrains built to last more then the industry supercar average of 46,000 miles/ 74,000km? (total, it seems)

this milage is generally beyond mfr warentees, and any damage to occure could require a massive overhaul and high cost.

i guess this could be extrapolated to asking if Porsche expects its costomers to drive thier supercars often.

thanks for your assistance :)

[lakatu]

hi, St. Anger...

i think its safe to say that Porsche has been in the Supercar market for quite some time, and have a pretty good figure denoted to only the highest of performance cars available (GT2,GT3, CGT?)..

when such amazing cars are built, are the powertrains built to last more then the industry supercar average of 46,000 miles/ 74,000km? (total, it seems)

this milage is generally beyond mfr warentees, and any damage to occure could require a massive overhaul and high cost.

i guess this could be extrapolated to asking if Porsche expects its costomers to drive thier supercars often.

thanks for your assistance :)

I know that st-anger has limited availability to answer questions right now, so I will attempt to provide a partial answer. I’m sure st-anger will follow up on your question when he has the time.

Certainly engines that are designed with high performance characteristics have higher demands and stress put on them. I believe that some of those extra reliability demands can be compensated for by engineering and materials selection utilized in building the powertrain. For instance, the use of exotic high strength alloys.

Because Porsche has some of the most extensive experience in endurance racing they have developed technology and expertise in the areas of reliability. In fact, using business language terms, you might say that reliability is one of Porsche’s core competencies. Meaning that this knowledge and expertise is not equally shared by other manufactures and provides Porsche with a competitive advantage.

I have read articles where during engine development Porsche has entered preproduction model engines in endurance races. At the completion of the race they just changed the oil and went onto the next race and the next until some problem surfaced that they could then analyze and correct.

It sounds like you have some specific knowledge of supercars engine lives in general that I personally am not familiar with :roll: . I don’t know about those issues but I do know that most racing engines are designed to survive for one race. I believe that is because the tradeoffs in increasing the engine life are opposed to speed and light weight. So maybe some of these characteristics are carried over into ultra high performance supercars.

But for Porsche, IMO, a car that isn’t designed to be driven is a museum piece and not a real sports car :wink: .

[st-anger]

hi, St. Anger...

i think its safe to say that Porsche has been in the Supercar market for quite some time, and have a pretty good figure denoted to only the highest of performance cars available (GT2,GT3, CGT?)..

when such amazing cars are built, are the powertrains built to last more then the industry supercar average of 46,000 miles/ 74,000km? (total, it seems)

this milage is generally beyond mfr warentees, and any damage to occure could require a massive overhaul and high cost.

i guess this could be extrapolated to asking if Porsche expects its costomers to drive thier supercars often.

thanks for your assistance :)

first, THX lakatu, on the one hand for understanding my situation right now, second for giving a very good an extensive answer :P
sorry nthfinity, i can only give you a short answer, but i think you´ll agree that our friend lakatu has named the most important things...
so, YES, PAG is definitely after reliability of their products, even under the worst conditions, so i´m in automotive engineering for quite some time now and honestly, Porsche definitely runs the hardest test programm for their sports cars, and i think we all agree that Porsche has the most reliable sports- and race cars in history and also nowadays, also some decent tuners take their performance parts from Porsche motorsports, because it´s no secret that e.g. engine kits from Gemballa or some other tuners are not that reliable...
and when you talk about the costs, sure every Porsche IS expensive, but as we already pointed out: you´ll get quite something for your money and one can be sure that his e.g. CGT outruns an Enzo on a endurance race, hands down i´d say...
so definitely YES, PAG expects that their cars are driven on track quite often, i mean e.g. here in middle europe, especially germany, a Porsche is simply THE track car, every driver who does some serious racing has a Porsche, the ppl with the Ferraris or other brands mainly want to enjoy a fast lap or two, but only a very very small percantage is after lap times or serious head to head racing, that´s definitely Porsche territory...
all Porsches are tested to death on reliability, sure there´ll always be some "problems" e.g. 1st gen. PCCB on 911 models, but that´s sorted out now...
so are these cars designed to last longer than industry standard...not really, as you know PAG also has to look at their finances, BUT be sure that all Porsche parts are among the best on the market, you already know the example with the tuner, and to give you another good example, after the latest quality upgrade, initiated by Dr.Wiedeking in 2003, 2nd gen. GT2´s achieved 500+hp on the dyno because of the better quality of the engine parts :wink: :shock: 8)

hope that this is an appropriate addition to lakatu´s answer... :P

[lakatu]

I have noticed that JW members have been overlooking what I think is a potential jewel at JW :? . A while back before the creation of “Porsche Central� (PC), members who loved Porsches would click on “Car Chat� when they first logged on to JW because within car chat was “Porsche News�. Porsche News used to be a place were people gathered to share and discuss their thoughts about anything and everything related to Porsches.

Since Jabba in his wisdom created St-angers Porsche Central :D it is hard to tell but I think the sharing of thoughts and opinions concerning Porsches has slowed. Maybe it is summer and everyone is out on vacation or maybe it is because those comments are now distributed over many different sections that it seems that way. Anyways, I think st-anger did a great job of trying to recreate that type of atmosphere when he added the “Q&A Porsche discussion� section but I have noticed that it doesn’t receive the attention that I think it deserves. So to draw some more attention to this section and maybe get the ball rolling so to speak, I thought that I would write a series of posts about a topic I have been interested in for a while which is…why did Porsche make the 911 a rear engine car? What are the advantages to that design and why doesn’t anyone else follow the design nowadays?

Why a series? Well if you are like me you have probably amassed a large collection of material from JW that you are back logged in either watching or reading. I figured most people would be put off by an extremely long post and it would give me more time to write it. But mainly, I was hoping to spark interest and comments by others about the topic that I could build off and to accomplish the building of interest in this section of PC.

Why a Rear Engine Design?
I have been looking forever for someone to really explain this in detail. I’m sure most of you could give the basic pat answers but I wanted to know more about it in greater detail. But strangely I haven’t been able to find anything more than a few sentences about the topic. Porsche itself doesn’t even highlight or explain this in brochures.

What sparked my interest in writing about this topic is a comment in an article posted by TT ( http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13925 ) that started off stating that the rear engine design is a fundamentally flawed design. Frequently I read in articles about how Porsche though it's great technological know-how has been able to tame this horribly conceived design and somehow make it work. You would think by the way they write this that it has required Porsche gaining access to alien technology to overcome the laws of physics :P . To be honest I really hate people taking shots at the rear engine design because I don’t think that it would have been in production for so long and so successful in racing if it was a bad design.

Also I recently saw a post ( http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13204 ) concerning what was the most difficult car to drive. One of the suggestions was the 1978 930 Turbo. Just as a point of reference since I am rather fond of older 911s and the newer 911’s handling are considered to be less tricky so I thought I would begin with the 1970s-80s 911s in mind. I think this is a good starting point for another reason this was the era where Porsche spent a lot of effort developing and supporting racing derivatives of the 911.

So why were earlier Porsches rear engine cars? In part to answer that question you have to look at the Porsche philosophy. Porsches have always been small, light sports cars that tried and incorporate as much practicality as a sports car can. To be practical Dr. Ferry Porsche wanted room inside the 356 and 911. The rear engine incorporated these factors because incorporating the engine and transaxle together makes for a lighter system compared to a front engine rear drive which requires a drive line. Another benefit of placing the engine either in the rear or in the middle is it allows a more compact design and a smaller frontal area because it decreases the space normally taken to house a front engine. This lower frontal area reduces aerodynamic resistance allowing for faster high speed acceleration and higher top speeds.

In order to demonstrate the compactness of the 911 I compare it to competitors in the 1970’-80’s. The 930 weighed depending on options between 2850-3000 lbs, was 168.9 inches long and had a wheelbase of 89.4 inches. Compare this to a Ferrari 365 GTB/4 Daytona which is an awesome front engine car that weighed 3600 lbs, was 174� long and had a wheel base of 94.5�. The Ferrari 308 GTB QV that weighed 3320 lbs, was 174.2� long and had a wheel base of 92.1�.

A rear engine design also means the engine doesn’t need to sit right behind the driver so there is room for small seats or storage space. Additional advantages are the ones that are more frequently cited such as greater weight over the rear wheels provides greater traction in acceleration or braking. These may sound trite or insignificant but I think that they are the keys to the 911s success.

So do I think that the 930 is one of the hardest cars to drive? Well in a word Yes. Here is something to collaborate that, in an article by Car & Driver in 1979 Danny Ongais (A Porsche driver for the 935) tested a 930. In the article they cited a West Coast Porsche dealership reporting that 40% of the 930’s they had sold had been crashed backwards.

Danny had the following to say about the car.
“The Porsche is a compromise between what you need to run on a race car and a street car, I suppose. If you don’t allow it to take a set before you attempt to drive it hard, it’s very sensitive and it unloads. It wants to go from an immediate understeer into an oversteer, which is almost uncontrollable because you only have three wheels on the ground. You need to get the weight transferred very smoothly; then it will set and bite very nicely. It’s very sensitive to the throttle on slow and intermediate comers. It does very well in the high speed situations…you turn in gently and apply the power and it works, it’s pretty neutral.�

“I wouldn’t say that changes directions very well. You have to be very much on your tiptoes, but it’s more stable in fast corners. It may be that the aerodynamic influence of the rear spoiler helps considerably.�

Danny Ongais personally owned a 930 and he related that after his first drive in the car he decided to only drive it fast in a straight line.

So wait doesn’t that prove that the rear engine design is flawed :? ? Well I don’t think so. Let me give some examples of rear weight biased cars that were excellent handling cars. First the 917 carried 70% of its weight on the rear axle and yet it was considered one of the best handling race cars of its time. Secondly, the 911 2.7 Carrera RS is still considered one the best handling cars.

So what’s going on? Why is the 911 known to have a reputation for being one of the hardest cars to drive? Well to start off certainly having a disproportionate amount of weight on one axle verses another creates challenges. Part of the answer lies in the design compromises :( on the 911 at its conception.

Well in the next post, assuming there is some interest, I plan on going into some detail using a tiny bit of physics to talk about handling dynamics as they relate to a rear engine car specifically. I sure some will see the word physics and lose interest but I plan on keeping the physics minimal and focusing on some real basic concepts but in some detail. Specifically, I plan on talking about 911’s early dominance in group 4 and group 5 racing and more detail about acceleration and braking advantages along with lateral acceleration dynamics as they relate to rear engine cars.

In conclusion, I am by far NOT an expert :wink: and I may make mistakes in writing these posts. I am definitely interested in a discussion so please feel free to comment both positive or negatively on what I’ve said and provide your thoughts on whether the rear engine design is fundamentally flawed. It would be helpful I think if people included their thinking as to the advantages and disadvantages of the rear engine design.

[sentra_dude]

I'm interested to hear what else you have to say, you seem very knowledgeable about 911's and Porsche in general. So, please continue!

[nthfinity]

lakatu, you are correct in assuming im dealing with some direct information, and reliability data quite available to me... which is what lead me to ask this question towared the porsche aspect. :)

i was previously unaware of powerpalnt testing in endurance races in pre-production largely, but makes sence to what i already knew when it comes to motorsport parts easily swapping to the road car.

i appreciate the information, as i know the question asked is a rather broad one at that. i ask basically for comparison... and possibly, however unlikely, an effective means to influence change while there is still time; if possible.

Ford is quite new and unexperienced in this road car market. :wink: :?

[mindgam3]

Are rear engine designs fundamentally flawed

The answer to that question is yes they are. An ideal sports car has perfect weight distribution and minimum overhang fornt and rear. Overhang being the part of the car in front of the front wheels and behind the rear wheels. Porsche does not have this as the engine is situated on the rear axle which should upset the balance of the car.

Its not just the rear engined cars though, in exactly the same way front engined cars are flawed as they have most of their weight over the front axle. However front engined cars can minimize this by having the gearbox placed at the rear.

The reason porsches are so well balanced are.... well thats porsches secret and the reason why you don't see many other rear engined cars.

What does help the rear engined porshce though is the fact that they use flat configurated engines. This means that the pistons are placed horizontally. The two big advantages of this are that 1. it reduces the centre of gravity - the lower the centre of gravity of a car, the better it will corner. And 2. flat configurated engines produce next to no vibrations which means that it will not affect any other components around the rear, for example suspension which also helps the handling.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/engine-flat-4.jpg

Rear engined cars also have good traction as they accelerate. This is because as cars accelerate, most of the weight is transferred to the rear. The more weight you have their in the first place, the more grip you're going to get when accelrating.

This has the opposite effect when braking - the front has most of the weight transferred to it and the back will go light. As most of the weights at the back, the car becomes naturally unstable.

With cornering, as the weight distribution is not perfect, as the fron wants to go around the corner, the back end will want to go sideways.

These are the physics of a rear engined car and you cannot change the,. What porsche have done is minimise the disadvantages of a rear engined car and maximised the advantages. This is why porshces handle so good and not many people attempt to make rear engined cars.[/img]

[lakatu]

Are rear engine designs fundamentally flawed

The answer to that question is yes they are. An ideal sports car has perfect weight distribution and minimum overhang fornt and rear. Overhang being the part of the car in front of the front wheels and behind the rear wheels. Porsche does not have this as the engine is situated on the rear axle which should upset the balance of the car.

Its not just the rear engined cars though, in exactly the same way front engined cars are flawed as they have most of their weight over the front axle. However front engined cars can minimize this by having the gearbox placed at the rear.

The reason porsches are so well balanced are.... well thats porsches secret and the reason why you don't see many other rear engined cars.

What does help the rear engined porshce though is the fact that they use flat configurated engines. This means that the pistons are placed horizontally. The two big advantages of this are that 1. it reduces the centre of gravity - the lower the centre of gravity of a car, the better it will corner. And 2. flat configurated engines produce next to no vibrations which means that it will not affect any other components around the rear, for example suspension which also helps the handling.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/engine-flat-4.jpg

Rear engined cars also have good traction as they accelerate. This is because as cars accelerate, most of the weight is transferred to the rear. The more weight you have their in the first place, the more grip you're going to get when accelrating.

This has the opposite effect when braking - the front has most of the weight transferred to it and the back will go light. As most of the weights at the back, the car becomes naturally unstable.

With cornering, as the weight distribution is not perfect, as the fron wants to go around the corner, the back end will want to go sideways.

These are the physics of a rear engined car and you cannot change the,. What porsche have done is minimise the disadvantages of a rear engined car and maximised the advantages. This is why porshces handle so good and not many people attempt to make rear engined cars.[/img]

Excellent post 8) . I really appreciate your thoughts and feedback. I have been patiently awaiting some discussion about the post and appreciate your contribution. I was kind of hoping that others would posts their thoughts about the subject in a similar manner as you’ve done. It is obvious that you are knowledgeable about the handling characteristics of cars. Especially as it applies to weight distribution.

BTW, I notice that you are relatively new to JW and I wanted to extend a welcome. It is great to have members that provide intelligent contributions 8) to our discussion here at “Porsche Central�.

You make some good points. Several of which I was planning on covering in later posts. Specifically, the points about lower center of gravity with the boxer engine design and the higher polar moment of inertia of having mass located farther from the center of gravity in a rear engine verses a mid engine design. To be honest I have never considered the smoothness of the boxer design and any effects this would have on stabilizing handling verses a more vibrating design.

My point of the posts is that the design isn’t fundamentally flawed :roll: . To be honest I have some basic concepts in mind and I have been doing research to pursue these thoughts. At this point I don’t know if I can make the case that the rear engine design is the preferred design. Maybe somebody else can help me make that point :wink: . At this point, I think that if the rear engine design was the best solution that it would be utilized more in racing designs which are almost exclusively mid engine as far as I know. Another point that seems to indicate that the rear engine design may not be the preferred design is that even Porsche’s own two latest designs, the CGT and Boxster, have been mid engine designs.

My point is that the rear engine design works well and provides advantages to its drivers. With most things in life there are tradeoffs and the rear engine design does have them but I believe that racing experience has shown that they can be utilized to more than offset its disadvantages.

BTW, another way front engine cars shift weight towards the rear, other than a transaxle, is to locate the engine behind the front axle. This is used on the Corvette and M3. Another benefit to locating the engine behind the front axle is it also lowers the center of gravity as it doesn’t have to clear front suspension structures.

To anyone else who is thinking of contributing, please feel free to add your comments 8) . I’m not worried that some of the discussion will get ahead of points that I was planning to make in later posts. As I’ve stated before, I am interested in the subject and am trying to work through the issues, so additional points of view would be helpful :wink: .

[crasherror]

To anyone who thinks that the 911’s rear engine layout is fundamentally flawed think about this. The Porsche 911 is the most successful racing car of all time. It has dominated the GT class of racing for almost 40 years. It is not only successful on the road courses but also in rallying. The 911 won the Monty Carlo rally three years in a row, 1968, 1969, and 1970.Back when it was real racing with no computer controlled anything. Only the driver’s right foot had control over the car. Also the rear layout help Porsche take a victory at the Paris Dakar in the 959 where it placed 1st, 2nd, and 6th (Was driven by an engineer). The only sports car to every win the grueling challenge. In the same month the 959 racing car the 961 won it class in the GTX class at lemans.

The rear layout has been reinterpreted in many ways throughout the years. Porsche created not only superior racing cars but, Icons of racing. When someone mentions group 5 racing of the 70s. I immediately think of the 500+ horsepower 935 that dominated its class. Also with its smaller brother the 934 in group 4 racing. These cars defined their era.

In 1973 the 911RS won the 24 hours of Daytona out right betting the prototypes and setting a new record in racing history. 30 years later that feet was accomplished with the 911 GT3rs of Kevin Buckler. The “flawed� 911 did the impossible not only beating out their competitors but also betting out the prototypes and the GTS class for the overall win.

This small glimpse of the 911s-racing heritage. As you can see, if the 911 is flawed it is the most successful flaw in racing history.

[mindgam3]

To be honest crasherror, I think the 911 is the most succesfull flawed racing car in history. According to physics, it jus shouldn't be that good of a racer - all credit to porsche. But the fact is it IS physically flawed. If you took a engineer that say wasn't into racing, say he designed houses. If you told him to design a car, he would never put the engine where porsche have put their 911's.Just about every modern racer has a mid engined layout where possible - and thats for a reason.

Lakatu: in reply to your point about me being new, i am really interested in this kind of discussion and will contribute as much as possible. I'm hopefully going to start a motorsport engineering degree in september (which is basically a automotive engineering degree, which is basciacally a mechanical engineering degree but with greater emphasis on performance cars) so I will be able to contribute a lot more in detail as time goes by ;)

Im not sure if this may interest you: http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14171

[lakatu]

Is the Rear Engine Design Fundementally Flawed Part 2
In part two I am going to briefly touch on the design compromises that contributed to snap oversteer in the 911. To begin with I wanted to provide evidence that the rear engine design was a successful racing design. I believe that the competitive nature of auto racing would prevent a design that was fundamentally flawed, as so many people say, from being moderately successful not to mention the extreme success that 911 racing derivatives had. I think there has not been a more dominate car in auto racing than the 934 and 935 :wink: .

Some of domination of the 934 & 935 can be explained by better reliability and acceleration verses their competitors. It is hard to win a race especially an endurance race if you can’t finish. However, this doesn’t account for the majority of these cars success.

As I see it, there are four major aspects to a successful race. The first I already touch on which is a cars reliability. The next three have to deal with the forces that a car transitions through in completing a lap around any track. These forces are acceleration, deceleration (braking) and lateral acceleration (turning forces). The key is to turn in the fastest average speed around the track this will also equate to the fastest time. Deficiencies in one area can be made up for in others. So that if cornering speeds are your weak point you can potentially compensate for that by another advantage that you may have let’s say in braking or acceleration.

A little background about racing in this era might be helpful. I will touch on it really briefly but I think there are a lot of people here who could add more color and specifics to these cars along with 911 derivative racing models :P . So I will leave that issue to be discussed by others. Additionally, there is a nice historical summary of the 935 racing history at http://www.911handbook.com/articles/pw_garretson935.html and another article about the 934 http://www.911handbook.com/articles/article_pwdavem934.html . Porsche also has historical information of their website under motorsports.

The model numbers were based on the groups they raced in, Porsche raced 934s in Group 4 and 935s in Group 5. Both Group 4 & 5 racing were based on homologated cars. Group 4 allowed a few but very few modifications. For instance tire width was extremely restricted and no additional aerodynamic modifications were allowed. Weight restriction in the Group 4 was 1120 kg (2469 lbs) and the 934s produced between 500-600 hp. Group 5 on the other hand allowed more extensive modifications. Weight limits were also lower with 1025 kg (2260 lbs) and produced between 600-900 hp.

The 935 was raced for 9 years after it was developed. That is pretty amazing when you think of it that a race car design was successful for nine years after its conception. The reason that it stop racing wasn’t because it was no longer effective but because of rule changes. During that nine year winning history the 935 became the most successful GT racing car.

I have gathered some quotes from drivers of the 934 and 935 because I think they provide insight into the cars they drove and the rear engine design. I highlighted points that I think are interesting and will further discuss. Beside their names are some of their accomplishments in these cars.
Here are some quotes from drivers of the 935 and 934.

David Hobbs: (Back to back IMSA GT wins in 1982) “I drove for BMW against the Porsches for a long time. When I finally got into a 935, my first impression was, ‘No wonder it used to beat us.’ It wasn’t the dog I thought it was going to be. After all, it was derived from the 911, which was a design disaster. But the 935 was quite nice, and of course it had massive power. Even before the compressor came on, it had plenty of grunt.�

John Paul, Jr.: (1982 IMSA GT champion) “The power of the 935 was awesome, but what blew me away were the brakes. When I first tested one at Road Alanta, my braking points were exactly the same as the ones I’d been using in my Formula Ford-except that I was going twice as fast. I firmly believe to this day that, if they’d let them run, the 935s would still be winning races. I have a lot of good memories of those cars. Beating Redman at Daytona on the final turn of the final lap. Setting the all-time lap record at Sebring, faster than the 917. Winning Daytona and Sebring back to back in ’82. at Daytona, we led twenty-three straight hours and set an all-time mileage record for a twenty-four hour race.�

Hurley Haywood: (1970 Daytona 24 Hours and 1981 Sebring 12 Hours winner) “Of all the cars I’ve driven, the 935 was the most spectacular to watch. And it was probably the most difficult to drive quickly. You had a lot of power in a short wheelbase car with all the weight hanging off the ass end. There weren’t a lot of people who were really able to get all there was out of it.�
“One of my most memorable races in a 935 was Sebring in 1981. I was racing with Al Holbert and Bruce Leven , and the car was diabolical. We weren’t ever able to get comfortable in the car, even in practice. And a race car is only good for the first lap; everything goes down hill from there. Well, we won the race. And it wasn’t that all the fast cars broke. We had to really fight, and that’s not much fun when you’re not comfortable in the car. After the race, Al looked at me and said, ‘You can drive a bad car faster than anybody I know.’�

George Follmer: 1976 Trans-AM champion “The 934 was a typical 911-a lot of oversteer, very twitchy, especially in high speed corners. The tires weren’t big enough, and it had a lot of throttle lag. You had to tippy-toe around until you were pointed in the right direction.�

Tony Dron: 1982 Le Mans class winner in 934 “The basic quality of that 934 was magnificent. It did all those miles and kept running like a train. By the time we stopped racing it, it had done six years of endurance racing. The floor pan was gone. The next time in the shop, we should have stripped out the floor and welded in a new one! It had gotten to the point where there was no ‘wood’ left. You know I actually did work out once in an idle moment of insomnia, that I’d spent about four hours out of my life on opposite lock at over 150 mph. Most all of it with that 934.� He goes on to say that critics of the 934 had either a lack of experience with the car or with one as well sorted out as his.

Some of these comments seem to be contradictory. You have to remember that different cars were massaged to handle and perform differently by their racing teams. Additionally, over the nine years the cars as a whole evolved and became better suited to their racing niches.

Problem Areas that Contributed to Snap Oversteer in 911 Design
Some of the aspects of early 911s exacerbated it’s tendency for snap oversteer. I highlighted these issues because they are separate factors that were addressed by Porsche, and yet they were in part responsible for creating the 911's reputation for treacherous handling :roll: . In my opinion people fail to recognize and separate these aspects contributions to the 911’s oversteering characteristics but instead negatively attribute them to the rear engine design :wink: . All of these issues have been changed or addressed as the 911 model has progressed to the current 997 version. As a result of these changes the 911 has lost much of its reputation for being a difficult handling car and has instead gain a reputation as being very neutral and driver friendly. Some have suggested the 911 is one of, if not the best handling sports car currently available 8) .

Wheelbase: The 911 because of its compact size has a small wheelbase. This has several affects on the dynamics of the car. A smaller wheelbase results in quicker turn-in response. This can be a problem if the quick rotation into a corner upsets the weight transfer so that it is sudden and upsetting to wheel grip. A short wheelbase also results in greater transfer of weight during acceleration and deceleration. Finally, if or when the 911 transitions into oversteer a shorter wheelbase means that the rear end rotates faster around the car and therefore requires quick response in order to catch the slide with opposite lock. The wheelbase was lengthened in 1969 and again with the development of the 996.

Aerodynamics result in rear lift: The early 911 design was created during a time where very little if anything was known about the aerodynamic affects of lift at high speeds. As a result, the design resulted in lift to the rear end of the car and therefore lower levels of grip as speed increases. This was especially noticeable in 911s with out aerodynamic spoilers at high speeds on long sweeping turns. This has latter been reduced through the changes in the rear portion of the 911 as it has transitioned into the latest version of the 997. It is obvious that the rear end has been raised and has a sharper drop off compared to the original design. This along with the extendable rear spoiler has eliminated rear lift.

Rear semi trailing arms: Semi trailing arms have a tendency to toe out under lateral braking or drop throttle conditions. This toeing out of the rear suspension creates oversteering properties. The issue was partially addressed with the 964 when new coil springs allowed changes to the rear suspension so that they weren’t completely fixed by the torsion bar. The new design allowed movement that actually creates toe in under trailing throttle and decreased tendency to oversteer. This issue was completely addressed by the multilink suspension of the 993.

Turbo lag: For turbo charged cars the effect of turbo lag and then the sudden explosive nature of acceleration was also a potential problem that worked to disturb the weight transfer between wheels. A lack of power due to turbo lag could prevent the driver from transferring sufficient weight to the rear wheels. The sudden explosiveness of the turbo charged engine could also cause too much transfer to the rear wheels or exceed the adhesive ability of the tires. The result causes the rear tires to break free in power oversteer when the driver did not want it.

Small Tires: My personal belief is that Porsche for a reason that is not completely clear to me, has used tires that were inadequate in size :? . I believe that the width of the tires presented tradeoffs and that Porsche maximized the tires size to achieve a combination of goals. However, I believe that strictly viewed as it relates to handling, the tires are too small. Over the years, as Porsche has moved to the 997, the tires have become wider. I believe this has contributed to the handling performance improvements. Certainly, this might be an area of debate that others may wish to comment on :P . Obviously, there are other negative affects of wider tires that factor into the decision. A partial list includes increased rolling resistance, increased unsprung weight and decreased aerodynamic efficiencies.

In my next, and I think final post, I will examine in more detail the 3 of the 4 factors that I discussed at the beginning of this post required to win a race. The three that I will discuss in more detail are acceleration, braking and handling as they relate to the dynamics of rear engine designs. I plan on throwing in a little physics to provide a more detailed insight into the advantages and disadvantages of rear engine cars.

[crasherror]

Great Post :roll:

[mindgam3]

"There are some issues that are related to the earlier 911 models specifically that contributed to its reputation for treacherous handling that had nothing to do with the positioning of the engine in the rear"

I don't think you can make all these contributions to snap oversteer without considering the engine was placed at the rear - of course that is going to prove a big factor in almost all the factors you made. If the engine wasn't at the back, the car would be a totally different machine

[lakatu]

"There are some issues that are related to the earlier 911 models specifically that contributed to its reputation for treacherous handling that had nothing to do with the positioning of the engine in the rear"

I don't think you can make all these contributions to snap oversteer without considering the engine was placed at the rear - of course that is going to prove a big factor in almost all the factors you made. If the engine wasn't at the back, the car would be a totally different machine
I want to thank you for your comments :wink: . Sincerely, I value dissenting points of view more than confirming views since they challenge people to truly examine and refine their viewpoints 8) . So I would like to encourage you to continue to voice what I believe is an opposing view that the rear engine design provides a great platform for a sports car.

Based on what you pointed out I have refined what I said to try and clarify what I intended to say. Hopefully it is clearer. I think your input is really beneficial. Thanks :wink:

[mindgam3]

hehe no problem ;) I look forward to your next part, good job ;)

[st-anger]

MOVED:

posted by BADMIHAI


Is Porsche worth the money?

http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14635&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 After reading this thread (and others) I've come to the conclusion that many people think Porsches aren't worth the money, and you're only paying for the badge. They say the Corvette is better or at least just as good. I personally think the GT3 is a far better machine than the Z06 and the new C6. I'm waiting for st-anger to tell me why Porsches are really worth the money.

answer by mindgam3:

two words

German Engineering

[DMbaseball1604]

yeah I have been waiting for st-anger to jump in on the Corvette C6 discussion too...I know that the GT3 is far better than anything made by GM..and it seems obvious to me I mean after riding in a corvette...then if you look inside an S10 pickup the inside looks the exact same..(Z06 model included) ...but other than being cheaply built..I dont think you get close to half of what you get when you buy a GT3...or any Porsche, for that matter...its not just the engineering though, even though that is a lot of it...

St-anger--if you have the time please take a look in the car chat section and check out the Top Gear - new corvette C6 discussion..

[mindgam3]

Plus, that only tells half the story - what its like on a track.

The other half is what its like on a road, and this is where a 911 (especially GT3, not RS) kills all the competition, even much more expensive cars because of its nimbleness, and also 4WD for those variants who have it

[st-anger]

MOVED:

posted by BADMIHAI


Is Porsche worth the money?

http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14635&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 After reading this thread (and others) I've come to the conclusion that many people think Porsches aren't worth the money, and you're only paying for the badge. They say the Corvette is better or at least just as good. I personally think the GT3 is a far better machine than the Z06 and the new C6. I'm waiting for st-anger to tell me why Porsches are really worth the money.

answer by mindgam3:

two words

German Engineering

well, already quite a good point from mindgam3...that summs it all up really good because i think we don´t need a discussion about german cars in general, they´re definitely amon the best...

so, Porsches ARE expensive that´s for sure, BUT the buyers get a car that is definitely quite unique among its competitors...

only some key facts...
Porsches are designed for sports car drivers, not for the garage like other manufacturers do, a Porsche is extremely reliable and only the best parts will be installed, PAG has one of the hardest test programs of all sports car manufacturers this goes together with the whole Porsche racing programm, PAG is the most successful brand in racing, won nearly everything what´s possible and among with BWM PAG has always been on top with some very new technologies for their road cars, mainly directely from racing cars...
so we can list here an endless list, and in the end a Porsche is IMO definitely NOT overpriced, and when talking about money, just think of the extremely good resale value, no other cars keep their prices as Porsches...
and last but not least what one needn´t buy but what´s a no cost option on every Porsche: the heritage, the history, the passion and everyone will agree that´s what no other manufacturer or brand has in that specific unique style... :P

so although i´ve heared some good things about the new Vette, and also the older one, even if it´s half the price and same performance like a Porsche, my choice´d be clear... :wink:

i think some others ( yeah my friend, it´s your turn again :wink: ) may point all this out a bit more extensive, sorry i don´t have more time, but promise that i´ll have a look at the GT3 vs. C6 topic... :wink:

[lakatu]

I thought that I would post some thing a little lighter and not so serious for a change today :wink: . I recently rewatched the movie “No Man’s Land�. For those that haven’t seen it is about stealing Porsches. It has two scenes that feature high speed Porsche driving. One where they drive a 911 Cabriolet at high speeds down a canyon and then later there is a chase scene with a 930 8) .

I was wondering what are some other favorite movies that feature high speed Porsche driving scenes. I can think of two more. The first is “Against All Odds�. Where a Ferrari 308 GTS races a 911 SC Cabriolet in traffic. The second is “Bad Boys� with Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. They chase after a Cobra in a 965 3.6L.

Any other favorites?

[DMbaseball1604]

Gone in 60 seconds!

In the very begining they steal a Porsche 911 and race this guy in a rice rocket, haha...its pretty funny...there are a ton of sweet cars in that movie..not only that, without the cars it is still a really good movie, its something that people who arent really into cars can watch too!

[mindgam3]

plus its not rice n cheesy like fast n furious

[sameerrao]

Le Mans (Porsche 917s)
Getaway from Stockholm - I dont recall which episode - had a pre-964 Porsche Turbo
Did one of James Dean's movies have his 550 speedster in it?

I thought that I would post some thing a little lighter and not so serious for a change today :wink: . I recently rewatched the movie “No Man’s Land�. For those that haven’t seen it is about stealing Porsches. It has two scenes that feature high speed Porsche driving. One where they drive a 911 Cabriolet at high speeds down a canyon and then later there is a chase scene with a 930 8) .

I was wondering what are some other favorite movies that feature high speed Porsche driving scenes. I can think of two more. The first is “Against All Odds�. Where a Ferrari 308 GTS races a 911 SC Cabriolet in traffic. The second is “Bad Boys� with Will Smith and Martin Lawrence. They chase after a Cobra in a 965 3.6L.

Any other favorites?

[lakatu]

I had forgotten about LeMans with Steve McQueen. The Getaway in Stockholm you are referring to is the first one. You couldn't tell other than the sound of the engine :wink: (no turbocharger) but the 911 used in the first Getaway was actually a normally aspirated 3.2L with Ruf exhaust. You can find the information about the car they used on their website. http://www.getawayinstockholm.com/main.html under FAQ. Nice video too.

[st-anger]

...btw, very nice new avatar lakatu, congrats for this one :D

[lakatu]

Thanks st-anger for noticing the avatar. I think it spices up my posts. Can you believe that this guy, whom I won't name but he knows who he is, at JW offered to turn my clip into a gif for me. There are a lot of great people at JW 8) .

I got the clip off a Best Motoring video. Unfortunately that was all there was from that car. Interestingly though it was at the NS and I think their top driver Kurosawa (Gan-san) was driving. I love the drifting of the rear as he rounds the corner. It is kind of hard to see it in the avatar but in the larger clip it looks like the rear suspension was unsettled by a bump in the road. Is that as difficult and as “on the edge� :shock: as it looks? Since I have no experience to draw on, I have always wondered about the ability of the driver to control slides like that when I see them. I'm guessing it would require some real talent at those speeds to control that slide.

At the beginning of the clip it says it was a 1991 911 Turbo and that the NS time was 8:09. That sounds too fast to me. I have been keeping a record of NS times that I have found on 911s and Sport Auto in 1992 ran a 365hp 964 Turbo (I’m guess the 1992 was a Turbo S) in 8:32. If I am not mistaken the 1991 911 Turbo had the same horsepower everywhere across the world and had 320hp. Doesn’t 8:09 sound too fast?

[mindgam3]

Indeed, if the slide was caused by a bump then quick reactions are really important, second to judging just how much opposite lock to put on. Either way im sure it takes alot of skill and experience to catch it at that sort of speed

[st-anger]

MOVED:

posted by Porsche_Cayenne

Hi !

I haven't written here for a looong time because I was on Holiday and I had a lot of problem with my pc. Now I'm here ;)

Anyway, 2 week ago I tried by Porsche Verona here in Italy a Cayenne S Tiptronic... wonderful ! I can't say in english everything I'd like to say about the ride... too diffucult... anyway I was at 150 km/h and the car was perfectly silenced... ... and it has got a lot of torque always!
Question for Stanger... is Porsche going to restyle Cayenne? When? Should I wait for buy Cayenne S?

PS= Today my friend ordered a 911 Turbo S cabrio 450hp, dark grey, full optional ... PCCB and so on... ;)

thx

[st-anger]

MOVED:

posted by Porsche_Cayenne

Hi !

I haven't written here for a looong time because I was on Holiday and I had a lot of problem with my pc. Now I'm here ;)

Anyway, 2 week ago I tried by Porsche Verona here in Italy a Cayenne S Tiptronic... wonderful ! I can't say in english everything I'd like to say about the ride... too diffucult... anyway I was at 150 km/h and the car was perfectly silenced... ... and it has got a lot of torque always!
Question for Stanger... is Porsche going to restyle Cayenne? When? Should I wait for buy Cayenne S?

PS= Today my friend ordered a 911 Turbo S cabrio 450hp, dark grey, full optional ... PCCB and so on... ;)

thx

...i´m glad you liked the "S", definitely a fine car...
a restyling is planned for MY05 with quite some new options for interior and exterior...
i don´t know your preferences but i think it´d be a smart step to get in contact with your dealer, he´ll have all the information for you as a prospective customer and i´m sure he´ll be glad to make up the perfect package for you :P

[st-anger]

Thanks st-anger for noticing the avatar. I think it spices up my posts. Can you believe that this guy, whom I won't name but he knows who he is, at JW offered to turn my clip into a gif for me. There are a lot of great people at JW 8) .

I got the clip off a Best Motoring video. Unfortunately that was all there was from that car. Interestingly though it was at the NS and I think their top driver Kurosawa (Gan-san) was driving. I love the drifting of the rear as he rounds the corner. It is kind of hard to see it in the avatar but in the larger clip it looks like the rear suspension was unsettled by a bump in the road. Is that as difficult and as “on the edge� :shock: as it looks? Since I have no experience to draw on, I have always wondered about the ability of the driver to control slides like that when I see them. I'm guessing it would require some real talent at those speeds to control that slide.

At the beginning of the clip it says it was a 1991 911 Turbo and that the NS time was 8:09. That sounds too fast to me. I have been keeping a record of NS times that I have found on 911s and Sport Auto in 1992 ran a 365hp 964 Turbo (I’m guess the 1992 was a Turbo S) in 8:32. If I am not mistaken the 1991 911 Turbo had the same horsepower everywhere across the world and had 320hp. Doesn’t 8:09 sound too fast?

Thanks st-anger for noticing the avatar. I think it spices up my posts. Can you believe that this guy, whom I won't name but he knows who he is, at JW offered to turn my clip into a gif for me. There are a lot of great people at JW .

^that´s for sure :wink:

…to answer your question: “is it easy?� well, yes and no, i mean with the older Porsche models it´s quite easy to powerslide and to control it, again for a skilled driver!
i mean i´m quite often at NS and nearly every two or three days you hear or see about a guy who crashed his car, and kinda often it´s a owner of a older Porsche model who wanted to discover the limit of his car, BUT nordschleife is definitely the wrong place for that, when you enter a bend with 160kmh and you don´t know what´ll happen due to lack of experience...well, then you had a Porsche...
again, a Porsche at the limit is one of the few remaining drivers cars, the older models more than the "younger" but also a 996 can be kinda trickey, i know many many ppl who´re saying that a 996 isn´t a true Porsche or sportscar any more, even their wife can push it to its limit...well, that´s definitely not the case, and those ppl haven´t even discovered the limit of their car themselves...
in the end, it´s and endless discussion, so one needn´t be an expert to powerslide with a Porsche, but in that vid at that speed i´d say this driver knows what he´s doing so “yes� he looks like quite skilled, because it´s the speed that counts when driving at the limit…
of course it also depends on the car, as you already told us, this is a 1991 911 Turbo, a very special car in the Turbo history, and one of the few REAL driver´s cars…
but also IMO 8:09 sounds too fast, I think there´s a mix up with the 993 GT2 lap time…

…as you mentioned NS, and I know you ( …and hopefully some others :wink: ) are interested into NS driving, the vid shows a very important and famous section of NS: “Pflanzgarten�
in short, a kinda brave driver is required there because one has to fight with a prancing car through the whole section, and all this in 4th at ~170 to 180kmh…

the section is a key point for a good lap time but also one of the most difficult…
after the “Eiskurve� the track is getting narrower (1) and when there´s traffic, do not drive side by side, this is nearly impossible when you´re after a good lap time, because the driver has to position the car minutious for the first left, stay to the left at (1), touching the curbs there is no problem but only slightely because they´re quite high there and right before there´s a little bump so the car unsettles very easily, after corner one be sure that the car can run in a straight line through the next two bends, a left right combination, do not touch the curbs anywhere. as our reference car i´ll take a Porsche GT3, so we´re in 4th at that point, although we quickly have to downshift after the jump stay in 4th, be careful right in front of the jump is a little dip, as we can see in lakatus avatar, that unsettles the car again with a vertical movement and reduces load surprisingly, why surprisingly, speed here is ~ 175kmh, (2) and this little dip is just some meters before the first braking point, main problem with most of the drivers: they brake at the wrong spot, get hectic at the wheel and can´t take the crest straight which is very important here, next mistake: most of the cars have ABS system and they miss the braking point, because as we know now that we shouldn´t brake to early, but braking too late is even worse, because then you can get in some real trouble when the weight has been transferred away from the wheels when the car is getting light right on the crest and after “landing� you won´t have enough braking power to get through the next corner.
so it´s necessary to brake in two stages, a very short but as hard as possible right after the dip and before the crest, and a longer after the jump with less braking power…
after “landing� ( the car is flying some meters in Pflanzgarten I – see pic ) the driver quickly has to downshift into 3rd, when entring the right hand bend understeering is a bit of a problem, kinda slippery pavement there and don´t underestimate the speed, so it´s very important for the upcoming left hand corner (4) that the right hand one, which has a double apex, is driven through with a fixed steering angle, no corrections in the corner should be made and no lifting of the accl, keep the car under load so that it can stabilise - so keep close to the curb of the first right bend, then move away from the inside edge so as to be able to work your way along the curbs on the far right at the exit. all this in 3rd at full throttle, watch out at exit of the second right hand bend when the car hits the rev-maximum, oversteering may occur easily, through the left hand corner (4) also with 3rd after lifting the throttle and braking only slightely, one can take the curbs there, no problem, upshift into 4th, the “Keke Rosberg� jump (5) is not a big problem, full throttle in 4th, some braking in front of the next right hand corner – the remaining corners all at full throttle and we passed “Pflanzgarten� and approach “Schwalbenschwanz� …

pics:

approaching "Schlalbenschwanz I", comming from "Eiskurve"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v192/st-anger/runde153.jpg


unfortunately we can´t see it that good from that pic, but this is right before the dip and the first big jump...
you can clearly see the rubber on the pavement where you should brake, right before the crest, and NOT on the crest...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v192/st-anger/runde154.jpg

yep...cars CAN fly: :shock:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v192/st-anger/deutgen_800.jpg

"Keke Rosberg jumphill" at the exit of "Pflanzgarten"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v192/st-anger/runde156.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v192/st-anger/runde157.jpg

overview of the section:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v192/st-anger/pflantzgarten.jpg


so track driving isn´t that easy, especially at NS... :wink:

[lakatu]

Oh my :shock: :shock: That has got to be one of the best post I have read :D . When I asked the question I had no idea that it would generate such a response. Thank you :D :wink: . I felt like I was sitting beside you the whole way and I truly failed to appreciate how difficult it is to drive on the NS at such speeds 8) .

Let me ask four follow up questions I had while reading the post.

“is it easy?� well, yes and no, i mean with the older Porsche models it´s quite easy to powerslide and to control it, again for a skilled driver!

1) By older models I am guessing that refers to pre-993 so obviously 964 & 965 but would you include the 3.2L and 930 3.3L in that category also or are they outrageously difficult to control in such situations? Certainly 993 and up are a different car as it relates to handling.

1991 911 Turbo, a very special car in the Turbo history, and one of the few REAL driver´s cars…

2) As you know I am a huge fan and so would agree with you here. I was wondering if you have had a chance to drive one? Could you possibly elaborate on why in your opinion the 965 was such a special car. I have visited other websites with 911 Turbo owners and a few have owned both 930s and 965s and they indicated that the 965 understeered and felt heavier and less nimble than the 930s. I think part of the experience they had with the understeer as a result of the special locking differential that the 965 used with 100% lock on over run. Anything you could add here would make my day :wink: .

most of the cars have ABS system

3) Based on the description you gave of the speed and terrain, it sounds like ABS is almost a must to drive fast on a bumpy surface like NS. However, Porsches have always been known for their excellent braking feel. How important would you say having ABS is to a good lap time on NS in a 911. Let me ask it a different way: How much time theoretically could be shaved off a mid 80s model 911 if it had ABS? Is this a big factor in Porsche’s improvement in 911 model lap times or not really?

Last question

IMO 8:09 sounds too fast, I think there´s a mix up with the 993 GT2 lap time…

4) On the lap time issue they also had a clip that proceeded the 911 Turbo of a 1990 NSX lapping in 8:16. I think that a 1991 965 should be faster than a 1990 NSX. I agree with you that is too fast. I find it both strange that the time is comparable to 993 TT :? & lower than a 964 RS at 8:28. I think the video segment was originally published in 1991 prior to the 993 GT2 but your right I looked up Sport Autos test of the 993 GT2 and it was 8:09.3. I also found a listing for Sport Auto driving a 965 with 365hp in 1992 with a time of 8:32.

Could the driver account for such a time difference? I personally don't think so. I am pretty sure that the track lengths were the same in the early 90s to today but sometimes people use different timing points. However, I would think that professional journalists would be aware of and use the same timing points. Any thoughts on a possible timing difference explanation?

[st-anger]

MOVED:

posted by Ford Capri 2.8i

Although its not profitable....otherwise porsche would have launched a 3 door cayenne.....regardless the profit of it(a 3 door cayenne based in the current cayenne, which will get a bit shorter wheelbase, which will be a bit lighter, which the back shape would approach more to a 911, but it would be less spacious though).......would a 3 door porsche cayenne be welcome for members of this forum?

For me ..yes...and indeed...once it will improve every aspect of the porsche...the handling of it, the performances, the shape of it(it would approach its shape to a coupe car....) except the space

Ill be waiting to your answers

[st-anger]

MOVED:

posted by Ford Capri 2.8i

Although its not profitable....otherwise porsche would have launched a 3 door cayenne.....regardless the profit of it(a 3 door cayenne based in the current cayenne, which will get a bit shorter wheelbase, which will be a bit lighter, which the back shape would approach more to a 911, but it would be less spacious though).......would a 3 door porsche cayenne be welcome for members of this forum?

For me ..yes...and indeed...once it will improve every aspect of the porsche...the handling of it, the performances, the shape of it(it would approach its shape to a coupe car....) except the space

Ill be waiting to your answers

i don´t see any sense for a 3 door Cayenne that is significantly shorter and smaller...
the 955 should be a full 4 door Porsche for the whole family, when someone wants a more sportier Porsche....go for a 911...
so i´m quite happy with the 955 as it is now, personally i´d never buy a smaller 3 door version, even if it´s a better performer that the current 955s...
...but that´s just my opinion, would be nice to hear some others, quite an interesting question IMO...

[st-anger]

most of the cars have ABS system

3) Based on the description you gave of the speed and terrain, it sounds like ABS is almost a must to drive fast on a bumpy surface like NS. However, Porsches have always been known for their excellent braking feel. How important would you say having ABS is to a good lap time on NS in a 911. Let me ask it a different way: How much time theoretically could be shaved off a mid 80s model 911 if it had ABS? Is this a big factor in Porsche’s improvement in 911 model lap times or not really?



a must…well, yes and no…
any road car without ABS is more or less unimaginable nowadays, it´s not because of performance, it´s all about safety…
on the track, well this is a double-edged sword, again it all comes down to the “skilled level� for an average driver i´d say ABS is definitely a must, kinda quick it can get very very embarrassing when one approaches a fast bend with 170 and the driver misses the braking point, without ABS you can be sure that he´ll end up in the crash barrier, but with an ABS vehicle the driver can brake as hard as he can AND he also can steer, so even for an unskilled driver when he´s way too fast there´s a good chance that he´ll catch the car…
only very skilled drivers can brake with ABS, but then better than with ABS !!!
on the track ABS might be more obstructive that helpful, because like ESP it activates when it shouldn´t, believe it or not, but some crashs happend during testing because the ABS system started to regularise… nevertheless a sport-ABS is a kinda good option because then you have 10 or more percentage of slip, but also all the advantages of the system…

to come back to Porsche, as you mentioned the Porsche Brembo brakes are probably the best brakes available, so good drivers won´t even come into ABS regularise range they simply know what to do on the brakes, I have a very good example for this but it´s not ready yet, I think u know what i´m talking about :wink: , just to give you an example for now, I think we all know about the PCCB issue and it´s race track abilities, to be honest the first gen PCCBs aren´t a good choice for the racetrack, why ??? well, it´s a bit difficult, as we know not everyone had problems with PCCB on track, but most of the drivers, note we´re now talking about track driving only, this is very important and goes together with what i´ve mentioned before, so as you know PAG is very well known for their extremely reliable performance parts, so the PCCB issue had been quite an issue inside PAG, own workgroups were implemented into development to find out the reasons, and this is what is most likely: ( note you´re the first to know that :wink: ) we found out with the help of the drivers who had the problems and those who had no problems that a large amount of the “unskilled� drivers had the most problems, among the better drivers there were hardly any problems in relation to their track use, which had been of course definitely more, so what the team came up with, the PCCB is destroyed by non-uniform heat impacts because of massive regularisation of the ABS system under hard track driving, so during development our testers, who have to be very skilled, haven´t been that much in ABS regularisation, because then they simply were faster round the track as we know know from reading the stuff above, and in the end the PCCBs were not designed for that much use insinde the ABS regularise range…

when you ask how much time could be shaved off…well that´s only a theoretical question and no one can really give you an answer, I mean in comparison to nowadays braking systems we really can´t compare them to mid 80s braking systems, there´s been so much development on the components and also on the regulation systems, so I think I can´t name you any figures…

[st-anger]

Last question

IMO 8:09 sounds too fast, I think there´s a mix up with the 993 GT2 lap time…

4) On the lap time issue they also had a clip that proceeded the 911 Turbo of a 1990 NSX lapping in 8:16. I think that a 1991 965 should be faster than a 1990 NSX. I agree with you that is too fast. I find it both strange that the time is comparable to 993 TT :? & lower than a 964 RS at 8:28. I think the video segment was originally published in 1991 prior to the 993 GT2 but your right I looked up Sport Autos test of the 993 GT2 and it was 8:09.3. I also found a listing for Sport Auto driving a 965 with 365hp in 1992 with a time of 8:32.

Could the driver account for such a time difference? I personally don't think so. I am pretty sure that the track lengths were the same in the early 90s to today but sometimes people use different timing points. However, I would think that professional journalists would be aware of and use the same timing points. Any thoughts on a possible timing difference explanation?

yep, track length had been same like today, as far as timing points is concerned I only know two types of lap timing on NS, we can only take the so called “BtG� times, as u know we can´t race down the “Döttinger Höhe� completely because somewhere in the middle of it there´s “pit lane� of the tourist drivers the start/finish point and the famous “Green Hell� restaurant – oh boy what an blond waitress they have there :wink: :shock: -, so what´s BtG, that simply means “bridge to gantry�, the lap is clocked from the first bridge right after the start to the gantry at “Döttinger Höhe� some meters before exit… to a full lap, depending on the car one have to add 30+ seconds, but all the tourist drivers only compare their BtG times and do not add the time for the full lap, nobody can really say how much time it´ll take him to race down Döttinger Höhe completely…
mags like SA are allowed to clock the full lap off tourist driving…

NOTE: whenever you´re at NS plz DO NOT clock lap times, this is too dangerous either for you and all the others, i definitely don´t want to misguide members to clock lap times on NS !!!

but i don´t think that all this is the case with the 965 lap time…
when we talk about the driver, i´d say “yes� a good lap definitely depends on the driver, one should have at least 200 laps of experience to clock a good lap time, NS is different u know, so many corners, much of them blind, so after just some dozens of laps you don´t know nothing on NS …

and when we´re talking about lap times, personally i ONLY trust HvS & Jochen Übler from Sport Auto, NO ONE else from any other mags or tv shows! a close friend of mine knows HvS quite good and i mean everyone who´s quite often at NS knows him and so we have some good insight and it´s all very transparent, and i´ve to repeat it again, SA is the one and only mag for me and i don´t pay too much attention to times of other mags or TV shows, for us only the SA time counts…it´s quite interesting here in germany/austria i just have to look around, everyone tells you: �well, wait for the SA Supertest…�

in the end, i don´t know how they came up with such a time, and as you know now…i don´t care that much :wink:



will try to answer the remaining questions asap...

[lakatu]

Thanks st-anger for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. You know that I really appreciate it :wink: . Your right and I couldn’t agree more about SA and the Supertest. It defiantly is the best source for comparing historical NS times since HvS has done, as far as I know, all the tests. Are you aware of a website that lists more historical SA lap times other than http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp which has only the more recent cars. I have come across a few SA times scattered in different places but I sometimes wonder about their correctness. So a lap time of greater than 8:32 sounds right to you for a 965? I guess I am just disappointed that the 965 can’t post a quicker lap time. That lap time is about as fast as a 993 and yet it has a better power to weight ratio and a firmer suspension. I guess it just shows you how much of an improvement the 993 was over the 964.

I wonder if lap times have increased at NS due to changes that have been made to the surface of the track. I have heard that to reduce accidents some of the jumps have been either decrease or eliminated. Do you have any idea when these major changes have been put in place or when the last change to the surface was?

Since we are talking about drivers what is your opinion of Stefan Roser? From what I have read he is a controversial driver. Most respected drivers I think have a low opinion of and his driving. Yet I have heard some say he has the talent to be one of the better drivers.

Certainly he drives for show and not set lap records :lol: . I was just wondering if your paths have crossed and what your opinion is on his driving skills.

For anyone interested here are some other NS lap time sites
http://www.nurburgring.de/?rubrik=rekorde&lang=eng
http://www.bmwdeler.no/
http://www.planet-walter.de/rekorde.htm

[st-anger]

Thanks st-anger for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. You know that I really appreciate it :wink: . Your right and I couldn’t agree more about SA and the Supertest. It defiantly is the best source for comparing historical NS times since HvS has done, as far as I know, all the tests. Are you aware of a website that lists more historical SA lap times other than http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp which has only the more recent cars. I have come across a few SA times scattered in different places but I sometimes wonder about their correctness. So a lap time of greater than 8:32 sounds right to you for a 965? I guess I am just disappointed that the 965 can’t post a quicker lap time. That lap time is about as fast as a 993 and yet it has a better power to weight ratio and a firmer suspension. I guess it just shows you how much of an improvement the 993 was over the 964.

I wonder if lap times have increased at NS due to changes that have been made to the surface of the track. I have heard that to reduce accidents some of the jumps have been either decrease or eliminated. Do you have any idea when these major changes have been put in place or when the last change to the surface was?

Since we are talking about drivers what is your opinion of Stefan Roser? From what I have read he is a controversial driver. Most respected drivers I think have a low opinion of and his driving. Yet I have heard some say he has the talent to be one of the better drivers.

Certainly he drives for show and not set lap records :lol: . I was just wondering if your paths have crossed and what your opinion is on his driving skills.

For anyone interested here are some other NS lap time sites
http://www.nurburgring.de/?rubrik=rekorde&lang=eng
http://www.bmwdeler.no/
http://www.planet-walter.de/rekorde.htm

yep, i´ve a confirmed 8:33 for the 320hp 1991 Porsche Turbo, it´s a SA time…

pheeew…you can ask questions :wink:
well, there´ve been some, this is what I came up with:
in 1927 when NS was built, there were 88 left hand, and 84 right hand corners, after the big reworks in the 70s only 40 right hand and 33 left hand corners remained…
so, most important changes had been chnges to bends, crash barriers and definitely jumps, most important ones were jump at “Flugplatz� which remained but was eased, also eased were a jump right after the “Breitscheid� bridge, a very tricky jump in a left hand bend, a very spectacular jump had been the one at “Kesselchen� exit were the cars actually took off the road with all four wheels. probably the most challenging jump back then, the jump “into� the “Brünnchen�, for those of you who know the section “Fuchsröhre� nowadays, this is nothing against the “Brünnchen� back then, it was a flat straight, then all of a sudden a extremely steep downhill, and then a very steep uphill, so definitely no comparison to the section nowadays…
the drivers approached this section absolutely blind there were many accidents so they changed it. Some other “bad� jumps were removed at “Schwalbenschwanz� at first left hand corner, also one at “Galgenkopf�, also some works from “Bergwerk� to “Klostertal� at that time to improve safety, at famous “km13� the big jump hill was eased, here the cars approached at a very high speed to the jump and right in the jump the track made a slight left hand bend, the cars took off again with all wheels and sometimes landed just in fromt of the bushes to the very right, so extremely dangerous, again quite some accidents there and one of the spots for visitors and photographers…
in 1963 “Karussell� was reworked due to safety reasons, the “Hohenrain� section was added in ´67 which adds ~25m to the old track, in 1974 some changes at “Döttinger Höhe�, since then some minor works had been done to the surface, would be waaaaay to much to list everything here…
as far as I know last changes were done in winter 2003, again changes to the surface and new FIA safety fences…

…never met “Sideways Stefan� as we call him here, from what I know, he´s very very talented ( as you can see in his world famous vid ) not only with going sideways but he should also be a serious track driver, I think he´s been in the AMS test crew, but again, i´ve no detailed knowledge of him…

[mindgam3]

great picture of that M3 st anger ;) love it

[st-anger]

great picture of that M3 st anger ;) love it

...have some more pics like that one, hopefully there´ll soon be a own NS topic in "PC" so keep an eye open...

here´s a another one ///M5 :twisted:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v192/st-anger/franz_fabian_1024.jpg

[st-anger]

How many factories does Porsche have and what models are manufactured where? I'm curious, because I know Valmet is making Boxsters in Uusikaupunki, but do they make Boxsters also somewhere else and where are the other models made?

…“made in germany is our sales argument“ is what you hear when someone asks this question, especially for the US market this is probably the main point when buying a Porsche, approx. 90% of the parts are made in germany, the percentage of handwork is way above the average in automotive industry, and what they ( US, Asian, Arabic, … customers ) especially like is the addition: “tested on german autobahn…� :wink:

so, basically the 911 modells as well as all the engines including V8 from 955´s are made in Zuffenhausen, near Stuttgart, the engines for the Cayenne are then transported to Leipzig, located in east germany, where the Cayenne is assembled as well as the Carrera GT…
also the 4th model will be produced there when the CGT line will be free ~2006, 2007…

due to the high demand for Boxster models and the fact that the Zuffenhausen plant had been running at 100%, PAG outsourced the Boxster production in 1997 to Valmet Automotive in Uusikaupunki, Finland. again the engine and subassemblies are comming from Zuffenhausen, other main parts from suppliers from germany, Valmet is responsible for assembling, bodyshell work, painting and finish…

there´re also some other enterprises like PES and PEG, based in Bietigheim (germany), Troy (USA) and Prague (Czech Republic) all controlled by EZW, with a overall capacity of over 1000 engineers inside whole PEG…

Porsche engineering (http://www2.porsche-engineering.de/english/services/default.htm)

Porsche in Zuffenhausen (http://www3.us.porsche.com/english/usa/company/zuffenhausen/default.htm)

Porsche Leipzig (http://www.porsche-leipzig.com/en/default.htm)

[st-anger]

Thank you for the info. I'm happy to see that this China phenomenon has not stepped in the automotive area, like it has done in so many other ares.

...i´m afraid i´ve to dissapoint you on that, countries like china are nowadays on top of every manufacturer´s list, the economic growth in regions like china is simply too tantalisingly...
i´m not that familiar with the details, but i know all the big german manufacturers have them on their watch list...

[possessed_beaver]

great picture of that M3 st anger ;) love it

...have some more pics like that one, hopefully there´ll soon be a own NS topic in "PC" so keep an eye open...

here´s a another one ///M5 :twisted:


i use to have that as my wallpaper, i got that off the nurunburg (spelling) website, but i havent seen one without the watermark on it :(

[DJF1]

Regarding the ABS issue I just wanted to offer one little detail here... While on racing/track situations the ABS is really good as it keeps the car more or less stable and most importantly does not upset the given weight transfer load. It is true 911's need another type of driving, for the average driver a slow in fast out approach works best for sure, having said that it is possible to trailbrake a 911 especially using left foot braking and throttle at the same time. I use that technik often on slow corners to reduce the inherent understeer which is amplified by my Porsche Motorsports LSD, but have not developed the balls so to speak to use that on fast swepers yet :lol: It is for sure a different beast, when your brain says lift you have to add throttle and such bizarre things! Back to the ABS though, the ONLY time you will benefit from a non ABS braking system is when you spin! :P Ideally you want to lock the brakes there to minimize a dangerous phenomenon which is coming back ON the track.. Let me explain... When you loose the car ( especially on snap oversteer) you want to put "both feet in" , in other words brake and clutch. A lot of cars after spinning will go to one side and then start sliding back on the track. That is very dangerous as if you follows they can side hit you ( trust me I have been close to one) . Cars with ABS due to non locking have more tendency to do that if that makes sence to all where without ABS by locking the brakes your trajectory is more defined and the chances of coming back on track are less...

[lakatu]

Regarding the ABS issue I just wanted to offer one little detail here... While on racing/track situations the ABS is really good as it keeps the car more or less stable and most importantly does not upset the given weight transfer load. It is true 911's need another type of driving, for the average driver a slow in fast out approach works best for sure, having said that it is possible to trailbrake a 911 especially using left foot braking and throttle at the same time. I use that technik often on slow corners to reduce the inherent understeer which is amplified by my Porsche Motorsports LSD, but have not developed the balls so to speak to use that on fast swepers yet :lol: It is for sure a different beast, when your brain says lift you have to add throttle and such bizarre things! Back to the ABS though, the ONLY time you will benefit from a non ABS braking system is when you spin! :P Ideally you want to lock the brakes there to minimize a dangerous phenomenon which is coming back ON the track.. Let me explain... When you loose the car ( especially on snap oversteer) you want to put "both feet in" , in other words brake and clutch. A lot of cars after spinning will go to one side and then start sliding back on the track. That is very dangerous as if you follows they can side hit you ( trust me I have been close to one) . Cars with ABS due to non locking have more tendency to do that if that makes sence to all where without ABS by locking the brakes your trajectory is more defined and the chances of coming back on track are less...
Great contribution. DJF1 it is nice to see you posting more frequently again :) . I always especially enjoy hearing from people who have track experience in a 911. Interesting technique to apply the brake and throttle together to reduce understeer. I am guessing the way it work is it causes the back wheels to rotate faster than the front.

[ae86_16v]

St-Anger: I remember reading somewhere saying that you didn't really like the 986 Boxster S. And I was wondering why?

Other members feel free to contribute.

Also how much more money could I expect to spend on maintenance over an E36 M3?

[st-anger]

St-Anger: I remember reading somewhere saying that you didn't really like the 986 Boxster S. And I was wondering why?

Other members feel free to contribute.

Also how much more money could I expect to spend on maintenance over an E36 M3?

don´t get me wrong, the Boxster IS a nice car, and in it´s class definitely among the best when it comes down to pure performance, and this´ll get even better with the new 987series - there´ll be some nice suurprises inside 987 model range :wink: , as i said some days before, the Boxster is also very very important for PAG as it´s a draught horse for business, BUT...till now i couldn´t familiarize with the Boxster as a Porsche, it´s always afflicted with "poor man´s Porsche" - don´t get me wrong with that said, but personally, before buying a Boxster - just to have a Porsche - i´d buy a e.g. Z4 or whatever, regardless which age...
for me the Porsche world starts with a 911... :P
so how much more...hmmmm, to be honest can´t really comment on that in detail, but as u know....it´s a Porsche :wink: and everywhere where´s a Porsche badge on it....it´ll be a bit more expensive..... :|
but no problem, just go to your local Porsche dealer - they´ll be able to tell you everything :wink:

[lakatu]

Does anyone know if Porsche uses venturi duct aerodynamics to reduce rear end lift on either the 996 or 997? This technology is used on the Ferrari 360 CS, Ford GT and Carrera GT but I don’t believe that the technology is used on the 911 yet. If not venturi ducts, then is their any other undercarriage aerodynamic effects used on the 911? Assuming that the venturi technology isn’t used, is the rear engine design incompatible with venturi aerodynamics?

I have wondered for years why the Porsche didn’t eliminate the pop up air spoiler and incorporate the spoiler underneath the car or at least supplement the pop up spoiler with an aerodynamic device underneath as well. The only undercarriage aerodynamics that I can recall on any Porsche other than the Carrera GT is the 944 turbo underbody spoiler. Does anyone have any possible explanations or information concerning these issue?

[nthfinity]

with cars like the CS, and Ford GT, a rear wing would affect the asethetic flow of the car greatly. further, it would not reduce drag, so other means of getting the applied forces were persued.
i made a shitty diagram to help...
http://img2.exs.cx/img2/5822/airflow.jpg
one can reduce lift on a car by creating 'ground effect' which is induced by the front air splitter reducing the volume, and therefor, velocity of air under the chassis. this vacuume literally pulls the car down. to increase this effect, the underside is made flat.

the air that passes through the front also has some ducting to cool the front brakes, and an efficiant pass-through design to cool the radiator efficiantly causing less drag.

as the air passes towared the rear of the car, the venturis direct the air by causing them to vortex. this gets a larger mass of air to move predictably. as directed, the air fills in the vacuume behind the car, and literally forces the air up, and pulling the car down.

as air passes over the car, there is a high pressure zone on the windscreen, and allows less air to pass over the rear of the car, but rather deflected. the air that idoes pass over the roofline, is drawn down across the rear window, to the duck tail and then forced up before receding back to the vacuume.

ive only seen a carrera 4 997, so im unsure of the higher models; but the c4 doesnt appear to have any under side areo. the long tail design would produce less of a vacuume that the CS, or GT would, and underside areo wouldnt benefit the car much. im sure, however, that much thought went into designing the front air splitter for great ground effect to pull the front tires to the pavement.

with a retractable tail, or otherwise, drag is increased to stabalize the car at higher velocities by reducing the lift. without a ductailed spoiler on that lid, im unsure if any d/f is increased over the rear. im sure Stutgart doesnt want to have any flying porsches ;)

if the underside of a 911 were flattened to increase ground effect, then perhaps the engine would be much more dificult to access, being that porsche boxer 6's really are quite cramped in the bootlid.

with the CGT, the rear spoiler raises at speed to create extra d/f by elevating itself from the vacuume behind the car, and reducing its tendency to revert back to it so quickly, im sure it would almost negate its effect.

im sure porshe has quite a few reasons why they havent used ground effect much yet in their production vehicles...

[zmydust823]

porsche =number 1...nuff said...dont need to go into detail lol

[lakatu]

Thanks nthfinity for providing some information about aerodynamics. I can tell that you are knowledgeable concerning automotive aerodynamics. Since I last asked the question I have been reading to try and understand the concepts better. Maybe you can provide some critic and see if understand the venturi tunnel concepts.

Lately I have been really interested in aerodynamic down force as an aid to increasing cornering speeds. It started when I learned that the main difference between prototype classes and others based on street cars is their aerodynamic down force which allows them to corner much faster. As a result, I have noticed that many of the newer car designs incorporate the venturi tunnel as a way to increase down force.

From what little I understand about the subject it sounds like it is based on principles similar to those used to create lift on airplane wings. Many of you are most likely familiar with these principles but for those that aren’t the way an airplane creates lift is through a relative air pressure imbalance between the low pressure on top and higher pressure on the under portion of the wing. This results due to the shape of the wing which flat on the bottom and curved on top.

http://img46.exs.cx/img46/5695/aircraftlift2.gif

The curvatures on top is longer than the flat under portion. As a result the top portion of air has to travel faster than the lower portion since the distance is greater. This higher velocity of air on the top is associated with lower pressure due to some physics that I can’t explain here.

The ventrui tunnels used on CGT, Ford GT and Ferrari’s 360 CS uses the same principles. St-anger provided some incredible pictures of the CGT to help me demonstrate these aerodynamic features. The first picture is the bottom view of the underneath side of the CGT. This is the undertray and I labeled the front portion and the area of the rear diffuser. The rest of the pictures are a view of the undertray attached to the CGT from behind and again shows the rear diffuser. It is the rear diffuser that acts like the curved portion of the airplane.

http://img69.exs.cx/img69/6099/LabeledUndertray.th.jpg (http://img69.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img69&image=LabeledUndertray.jpg) http://img59.exs.cx/img59/584/9016.th.jpg (http://img59.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img59&image=9016.jpg) http://img59.exs.cx/img59/8029/Cgt_1.th.jpg (http://img59.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img59&image=Cgt_1.jpg) http://img3.exs.cx/img3/866/Cgt_6.th.jpg (http://img3.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img3&image=Cgt_6.jpg)

As air flows underneath the car, as it comes upon the rear diffuser where the cross section of the undertray increases and the distance the air has to travel also increases. To see this imagine taking the undertray off and pounding it flat, although this isn’t possible because the undertray is made of carbon fiber and while strong isn’t malleable. The curvature of the undertray up towards the bumper is longer than if the undertray were flat and ran straight across to the bumper as normally would occur. Because the distance of the undertray increases the distance the air has to travel increases, the velocity of the air increase and the associated air pressure decreases. As a result, the air pressure above the car is greater than beneath the car and this creates a net downward pressure, increasing down force and lateral grip. Pretty ingenious. It is also sometimes referred to as an inverted wing.

IMO the 911 shape is one of the most beautiful in automotive design. I especially like the shape of the G-series or the 1974-89 shape, if you couldn’t tell from my earlier posts. Sadly these aerodynamic aides don’t appear to be compatible with 911’s as it appears to me that the placement of the engine low at the extreme rear of the car prevents creation of a rear diffuser. Additionally, the overall shape of the 911 resembles the shape of an airplane wing more than any other car. The end result is that the shape of the car creates lift especially over the rear axle at high speeds.

If you follow the changes that have been made to the design over the past 10 years you will notice that the rear portion of the car use to drop from the roof line to all the way to the bottom of the rear bumper. This long line relative to underneath the car meant air traveling over this section of the car was traveling at a higher velocity and therefore had less pressure associated with it, creating the lift over the rear axle.

Tea tray spoilers help by shortening the distance the air has to travel and therefore the speed, reducing the pressure differential and lift associated with it. Spoilers also created down force, so they accomplished two objective to decrease rear lift. The changes that have been made to the shape of the 911 have been to decrease the long drop off from the roofline to the bumper by raising the bumper line and to add popup spoilers to further shorten this line and create more down force.

So unfortunately the 911 not only has the challenges associated with the rear engine weight bias but a shape that creates lift at high speeds. The end result is that the 911 is even more prone to spin in high speed turns. But regardless of its faults there is something that evokes passion in the 911. Maybe it is its reputation and the challenge of driving it. Maybe it is the pure simplicity of its design. But what ever it is for the Porschephiles there is nothing else like it :P .

I know this post was a little technical so I hope that it was helpful and interesting. I really enjoy this type of stuff and hopefully there are others out there that enjoy it as well :wink: .

[Tomerville]

St-Anger, do you have any information and pictures of the 993 GT2? I know the road version was quite limited, and of course not imported to the states, but since Need For Speed: Porsche Unleashed (a computer game) came out, I have had an obsession with that car.

Also, why are there some 997 Carreras in magazines with the 993 style headlights, and some with more 996ish style? Both are circles rather than ovals, but some have a chrome ring around the headlight unit, and then a little extension that goes toward the trunk, where the foglights are on the 996 models. It seems like keeping that little extension was an earlier design or something because in the later magazines, they all have the strict 993 style.

[nthfinity]

which is induced by the front air splitter reducing the volume, and therefor, velocity of air under the chassis

i feel kinda stupid for saying this... i meant 'therefore, the velocity of the air under the chassis is accellerated (less volume, greater distance)

thanks for the pictures, as now it makes a bit more sence when looking more keenly at these pictures.

i must note that special things happen near the ground with air, inverted lift, and a normal air foil, so basic principals dont always apply.

1: at ground level, there is inherently more air pressure. with an aircraft, this causes it to seemingly glide effortlessly as it makes an approach vector.
with a car, this is almost negated, as the pressure difference is almost undetectable.

2: air can be almost entirely be re-routed, rather then having to flow both above, and below the car... although, i think there was a flying Mercedes that this didnt work so well with a while back :P

in any condition, obviously the leading edge takes the brunt force applied to it, and little more then drag is created at that cross section... lukily, bernuli was wrong. (imagine 2 air molecules are next to each other, and one hits one side of a leading edge, and the other follows the other path. bernulli suggested that both air molecules [imagine a ball rather then a wing] would meet each other on the back side fo the object as if undisturbed. ) sorry for rambling, i dont recall what my point was going to be... :oops: mabey something relating to friction/thermal loads. there are always sacrifices

anyway, i must say im suprised there arent at least 2 more venturi wings in the tunnel, and the decaying angle makes more sence then an increasing angle for cirtain.

I especially like the shape of the G-series or the 1974-89 shape, if you couldn’t tell from my earlier posts

i 100% agree... well, mostly anyway. :wink:

[lakatu]

Thanks nthfinity for your comments :wink: . You make a really good point that air movement is restricted by the ground and that this generates complications to the simplistic physics principles.

I should also mention that this down force usually isn’t “free� it comes with the price of increased drag. In the case of the CGT I am not sure what the drag coefficient is but the car generates approximately 700 lbs. of down force verses 200-300 on a GT2 or GT3. To be honest I don't know if or how much the venturi tunnel "costs" the CGT in drag. Racing cars are able to generate several thousands of pounds of down force but the drag coefficients are around twice those of a modern sports car.
anyway, i must say im suprised there arent at least 2 more venturi wings in the tunnel, and the decaying angle makes more sence then an increasing angle for cirtain.

I was wondering if you might explain what you meant by this a little bit more. I think you might be referring to the second picture. I noticed that picture has two attachments inside the tunnel while all the other pictures exclude those. Is that what you are referring to as ventrui wings?

[nthfinity]

Is that what you are referring to as ventrui wings?

yes, although i may note them incorrectly.
it would make sence to have fewer... say... to reach the 200mph mark to reduce drag vs. the cost of controlled d/f.
what happens at these fins is basically this; the air accellerates along a side, following the path of least resistance (leading towared the outside of the car in this case) and begins to create a vortex of air behind the fin. the vortex created by the fin always travels from inside--->out. aerodynamicists would often have as much upswing of this vortex as possible before leaving the path of the car, which is why i would've expected a few more fins... i.e. more d/f.

i do have a question relating

I am not sure what the drag coefficient is but the car generates approximately 700 lbs. of down force verses 200-300 on a GT2 or GT3

the coefficient of drag, Cd is quite affected by the frontal area^2, so id imagine its possible that the CGT my have greater negetive effect from this... but not much different from the GT2, or GT3. i do have one question, do you know what speed those numbers are generated at? often mfr. claims are mentioned at both 100mph, and 160mph.

[lakatu]

Nthfinity, thank you again for responding. I appreciate your insight and comments. It has been helpful sharing ideas back and forth on this subject.

It makes sense that the fins would cause a vortex and that would be beneficial in increasing down force by facilitating the exit of airflow out the back of the car.

I’m not sure about the details or conditions on how the down force figures for the GT2, GT3 & CGT were calculated. But I believe that they were under the same conditions or velocity.

[nthfinity]

perhaps this has already been covered, but if it has, i think ill incorperate some of whats been said recently concerning the 911 aero...

quite obviously, the 911 has been one of the most successfuly track day cars for the enthusiast boy racer, but the question is how good is it... so good/bad, only a skilled professional can 'safely' touch the cars limits, while retaining control? or a car a great learning curve is invovled?

i ask this because of the cars dynamics; both weight bias of the rear, and lack of adiquate d/f of the rear. ill break this down to low speed, and high speed corners with the latter discussed first. I have read that the car, when driven near the limit exibhits under-steer on a corners' entrence, and over-steer on the exit. this makes sence, as the lack of pressure on the front wheels limits the turn-in of the vehicle, especially considering the lack of cornering loads on the rear. however, once the load is built up, the rear would like to swing wide.
quite obviously, this would be a safe way to incrementally improve one's ability.

high speed turns are another story altogether, and have a wider possibility of uncirtainty, i think. As speed is built up much higher, aero becomes increasingly important. i would think that one could brake somewhat deeper (later) in the corners to reduce lap times, as additional forces are forcing the front wheels to girp, and have more turn-in capability, and sustain more of lateral g's adequatily... perhaps almost evoking nuetral steer initially with a good front lip design. the problem herin arises to change the 911's cornering dynamics. due to the fact the car is rear engined, the design becomes flawed in my mind for high speed corners. to some degree lift could reduce the friction of the rear tires, under lateral loads, which in turn allow the rear to get away much more quickly, and almost unexpectedly once grip is lost... perhaps oversteer before the exit of the corner, or mabey even still in the entrence.

i would think to compensate for this danger, a driver would end up braking earlier, rather then pile the loads on the front, rather then the letting the rear get away while braking... then accellerating again to load up the rear, and evoke understeer at the entrence to make the car handle more like that of a low speed turn... i am unsure.

to me this would make the 911 the ideal car for low speed turns, but almost bordering on dagerous on high speed turns.

[st-anger]

MOVED:

posted by revvv_pshhh

What would you have to do to get a GT2 Wing on a 996 TT ? Price, process. Also where would you get a GT2 front bumper to put on a 996 TT? just curious

AND

so what exactly are most of the biggest differences between the two cars besides the AWD in the turbo. I really appreciate it, i hope this hasn't been a thread before

[netwolf232]

Auto-Cross Weight Reduction Question:


This is my first season of auto-cross racing and I am currently in a very competitive class. I race a 1985 944 and am allowed to strip up to 100lbs from the car without any point deductions. Would it be advisable to do so seeing that the car supposedly has a 50/50 weight distribution and the bulk of the weight reduction would be on the rear of the car? I guess to summarize my question, is removing weight from my car going to unsettle it if more is removed from the rear than the front? Thank you for the help and let me know if this post should be made in another forum.

-Andrew

[novass]

Sadly, our resident Porsche expert, ST-Anger wont be around for a few months. I would suggest trying to remove stuff that you can easily put back in just to see if its worth your time. You could always offset the removal by taking away the same amount from the front as you do in the back, i.e. lexan rear window and fiberglass hood. My roomate has a 83 944 (I know its the worst model year for that car) just sitting in our garage, I keep tellin him to take autocrossing or something, but he is too damn lazy.

Keep us posted cause I for one would like to know how it turns out, hopefully I can use the info to convince him to race his car :D

[lakatu]

Auto-Cross Weight Reduction Question:


This is my first season of auto-cross racing and I am currently in a very competitive class. I race a 1985 944 and am allowed to strip up to 100lbs from the car without any point deductions. Would it be advisable to do so seeing that the car supposedly has a 50/50 weight distribution and the bulk of the weight reduction would be on the rear of the car? I guess to summarize my question, is removing weight from my car going to unsettle it if more is removed from the rear than the front? Thank you for the help and let me know if this post should be made in another forum.

-Andrew
Definitely the right section for this topic :wink: .

Based on my knowledge and conversations with st-anger I would have to say that shaving the weight should benefit the car and not dramatically change the balance of the car. A lighter car should be a net positive as far as handling and acceleration. Any change in handling balance I believe could be adjusted for by adjustable sway bars and changing the relative sizes of the contact patches between front and back.

For example, I am guessing that less weight on the rear might have the slight affect of increasing understeer as the rear may have more grip than the front after shedding the weight. If this was a problem you should be able to use adjustable sway bars to balance this out or use slightly larger front tires to increase front grip.

St-anger has indicated that tires are the biggest factor in increasing lap times see http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?p=185697#185697 . So you might want to look first at upgrading tire size and tire compound for autocrossing applications. You might also look at the weight distribution and changes that Porsche made to tire sizes or sway bars sizes of the normal verses the Clubsport version of the 944/968.

[netwolf232]

Another issue I have is that I am currently running Falken Ziex 512 in 225/50/15's all around. This is the most rubber I can get in without any points deductions. I am not at all impressed with these tires, they get extremely greasy when hot and have a very sloppy feel to them. I have heard nothing but good things about the Azenis tires but the problem is they only come in a 205/50/15. Since I would be mounting these on an 8in wide back and 7in front rim would this stretch the tire out a little giving it some increased tread width? I figure for $50 a tire it couldn't hurt to try them and the Azenis are what most of my competiton is using.

-Andrew

[nthfinity]

Since I would be mounting these on an 8in wide back and 7in front rim would this stretch the tire out a little giving it some increased tread width

i think not... cirtainly, it would weaken the sidewalls abilityt o cope with high g cornering.

one thing to concider may be to have un-equal between the front and rear; very few serious sports cars have the same width up front, and in back.

if the same tires compound is up front, as in the rear, and same width, i would tend to think this would lead to oversteer at the limit.
but you must remember that the rear contact patch in this case is also supplying the power to the pavement, which would balance the car out earlier in the exits of the turn. sometimes the most rubber upsets the cars dynamics while turning then assisting it.

as far as your weight reduction question; i would tend to think that in auto-cross situations, the low speed turns would have negligable effect on the delecate balence... and its cirtainly helpful to improve bushings, sway bars etc. as lakatu recomended.

[st-anger]

MOVED:

posted by XxTwstedMethodxX

Hey everybody, I'm 17 and anout to upgrade from my Civic to either a Boxster, or and M Roadster. I deffinately have a thing for overall quality and looks, but I'm torn between the two. Would you guys suggest going with the slower Boxster, or should I get the BMW. Which is more refined? And which one is more acceptable to mods? Thanks, Aaron

Are there any other sport cars, better than these two, out there that i can get for 23-25K ?

[TransAm]

Boxster - slightly more refined, slightly better build quality and probably handles a bit better.

You'll find a better M Roadster (less miles, newer) for the same amount of cash.

I had a 3.0i Z3 (225hp), I just preferred it over the Boxster - I didn't think there was that much in it, although I nearly went the way of VTEC before I actually bought the Z3. I was more torn between either of the Germans or an S2000 than between the Porsche and the BMW.

[revvv_pshhh]

what exactly are the differences between a 996 Turbo, Turbo S, Turbo X50. i know these are very quite similar but what are the exact difference in these 3. Im sure they all have the same turbo but how high is each one boosted? Does anyone know how much boost you can run on these turbo's when modified?
thanks
Mike

[nthfinity]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/112_0310_frst_porsche/index1.html
some interesting info on the X50, and 955TT.
straight from 'porsche news'

[lakatu]

Over the past year I have had a few interesting PM’s with st-anger. Some of them led to postings in PC and others didn’t. Since st-anger isn’t currently available to provide insight and information I thought, with st-angers permission of course, I would share some of our discussions with others by posting them in PC.

I debated as the best way to present this and finally just decided to present them in chronological order since they somewhat build on each other. Some are more interesting than others but I will try and edit them so that the interesting stuff is highlighted.

This PM was concerning a lap time of 8:32 for a 965 turbo on the NS and related to a previous post by st-anger in "Porsche Discussion"
I have been working on a response to your response concerning the 965 8:32 time. But as I was writing it, it started to contradict the direction I was planning on heading with the Fundamentally Flawed article.

The 8:33 time for a 320 hp 965 compared an almost identical time of 8:32 for a 1992 365PS also tested by SA. I am guessing here that the 365PS car is a 965 Turbo S however, I thought they had 376bhp. I know there is a difference between PS rating and bhp and maybe that is what accounts for the difference in engine ratings. The point though that I thought was interesting was that the times are almost identical while the power to weight ratios are very different. Assuming that it is the 965 Turbo S then I believed it weighed around 2850 lbs giving it a 7.6 lbs/hp while the 1991 965 weighed 3275 lbs giving it 10.2 lbs/hp.

While there were surely differences in track conditions that make a comparison from 1991 & 1992 difficult I personally think that the times would be fairly comparable if run on the same day. Combine this point with the fact that newer 911 models are faster on the NS (993=8:28 & 996=8:17) just confirms that what you had said is true that the limiting factor for NS runs is tire adhesion see http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?p=185697&highlight=tyres#185697 . Certainly, Porsche with the 993 & 996 have been able to increase tire adhesion through suspension refinement and the results are obvious.�

Okay here is where I get confussed I was planning on saying in “Fundamentally Flawed� that the rear engine design of the 934 & 935 is superior in braking and acceleration and slightly at a disadvantage in cornering. I have arrived at that conclusion based on reading the opinions of racing car drivers that drove the cars during that era. However, I have seen a few comments that indicated that the 934s and 935 weren’t at a disadvantage but they never indicate that handling was a area of superiority.

Okay, so my thought for “Fundamentally Flawed� was that maybe only 20% of the time around a course the car was experiencing lateral acceleration and that maybe it was slower in the turns but that the physics equation for lateral acceleration [a=(v^2/r)] meant that the speed differences between taking a turn with a 50ft radius at 1g and 1.25g is 27.3 and 30.5 mph. So you lose 3mph through 20% of the track but you gain more than that in braking and accelerating advantages. As a result, your average speed verse competitors is higher, and a 934 or 935 lapped faster.

So the clash is that I planned on saying that lower cornering speeds were of little consequence and that seems to be completely opposite to the comparison of the 965 NS lap time difference verses newer 911 models.

So any thoughts? Where have my theories gone wrong? I'm not looking for you to reply to all of the questions in this post other than why the two points are opposed to each other. Especially as it relates to different 911 models on the NS and suspension improvements increasing times.

yep, right a 1992 Turbo “S� has 380hp, I calculated 3.4kg/hp ( 7.5lbs ) and 4.5kg/hp ( 9.9lbs ) so what´s your source on the Turbo S lap time, I never dealt with all this, but find it quite interesting, cause I know of a 8:15 from WR in a ´91 964RS coming with 260hp and ~1230kg, so more or less same power/weight ratio as 965, sure WR is good for quite some bonus time on NS, but that the Turbo S isn´t significantly faster than the 965 AND the RS ... kinda strange…
I only have to think of the tyres, sepecially dimensions, and just because of them the “S� should be faster…
well, can´t figure out what´s wrong here i´m afraid…
just one thing: i´d say without having 500hp you gain ALL the time with higher cornering speed, so lower cornering speed is always bad…

More to follow on this discussion. I will save that for a later post.

[TT]

Originally posted by pzgren:

I found this article today on http://elfer-club.jafc.de/showthread.php?postid=4937

There's is mentioned that there are several reproaches against porsche tuner gemballa. if believing to this reproaches it could happen that it could come to a spontaneously fire in your engine compartment. i read in another forum that they had another accident like this with another gemballa porsche.
what do you think, something wrong with this tuned cars or could that happen - bad luck for the owner?

http://www.gemballa.com/Images1/996/Kfz/TGTR650/gelb/big/G96_GELB_TGTR650_big_3.jpg

http://www.evolution911.com/images/gemballa/gemb3.jpg

hope you'll understand my english :?:

[nthfinity]

well, i think there are several things, most of which i can only stipulate.

for one, high performance engines already generate massive amounts of heat... one reason, i think that porsche moved to a traditional water cooled engine. also, with a Turbo, or a GT2, the turbos themselves generate even more heat to the intake. and a third point is the porximity of space, and cooling around the engine is quite minimal... particularly the cramped space from the exhaust headers, to the tips is fairly confined.

when it comes to being a tuner of these cars, generally, the power is upgraded quite segnificantly via turbos, ECU... etc. so higher boost levels inherently mean increased frictional forces on the air being drawn in, and charged. this is where intercoolers come in... cooling the air has several effects, one the volume of the oxygen is lessened, and more bar. can can be mixed with more fuel for more power.

in maintaining intercooler design, perhaps the device isnt designed to those tolerences, and 'heat soak' begins happening in less fluid areas of the intercooler... and the excess heat may cause damage to other parts.

running at higher power/boost, exahaust velocities could put more of a strain on the exhaust headers under load could build up heat as well, and cause possible fractures, or vaporized seals...

just some speculation, but i think the problem could have been helped with a redisign of various parts needing cooling specifically.

[Schwalbe]

^^^^ I think in the same direction as you nthfinity. I believe that you determined very well the problem. I read several similar report caused by high performance turbocharged engines who generate a lot of heat in engine bay. In spite of that, for a Gemballa of this price, I believe that it's normal to have a little more reliability.

[lakatu]

Thanks st-anger for your reply. I don’t know about you but these PM we share back and forth are the best part of JW. I sometimes feel a little guilty though that everyone else is missing out on them .

The data that I got for the 965 365hp was from http://www.bmwdeler.no/ 20,600 km 8,32 = 145 km/h Porsche 964 Turbo 365 ps, Sport Auto 1992. Do you think that this test for a 365hp 964 Turbo is the 911 Turbo “S� which you indicated was 380hp? Maybe this isn’t the Turbo “S� but a modified 965?

I noticed that SA also tested the 964 RS but their time was slower 20,600 km 8,28 = 146 km/h Porsche 964 RS 260 ps, Sport Auto 1992 along with the WR time 20,832 km 8,15 = 151 km/h Porsche 964 RS 260 ps. Is WR that better of a driver or more familiar with NS than HvS to be able to post a 13s time advantage. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t 13s a huge difference?

On the cornering speed issue, I don’t doubt what you said, that less than 500 hp doesn’t make a difference on a track. (I am assuming that what you said applies to all tracks and not just to NS). Certainly, what you said that ALL time gains were due to higher cornering speeds fits the results of posted lap times. However, I still don’t understand why that is :? ?

Maybe the way I am thinking about racing on a track is wrong. I figure the lap time is a function of average speed. As I have mentioned before it seems like the longest portion of the track is spent accelerating and the difference between taking a turn at 1g verses 1.25g’s is minimal (3mph at 50 ft radius for a car pulling 1.25g verses 1g). Certainly the speed is dependant on the radius of the corner but I think a 50 ft radius corner is a good approximation for a tight turn. The speed differential would obviously be greater for a higher radius curve for the car that had a 1.25g cornering ability verses 1g. However, at least as far as street cars go, the difference in cornering power is rather small. For example, comparing a 965 to a 996. The 965 Turbo “S� might corner at .9g (maybe higher I’m guessing it is at least .9g) and a 996 of .95g. Yet the NS times are huge, 8:32 for the 965 Turbo “S� and 8:17 for a 300hp 996. That .05g difference shouldn’t translate into that much faster of a cornering speed should it? Now I know that I am basing the cornering power measurement on steady state radius corner and that it will be different for different radius turns but I think the lateral g differential should approximately be the same.

Now compare that small mph cornering difference to the mph difference due to acceleration. If you look at trap speeds at the end of a quarter mile they should be significantly higher for the 965 Turbo “S� than a 996. It looks like to me there is more time spent accelerating and the speed difference due to acceleration is higher. So a higher speed differential of acceleration over a longer period should translate into a higher average lap speed and time for the car with the most horsepower to weight ratio and that cornering speeds should be approximately equal if there is only a .05g difference. Certainly, aerodynamic resistance has to be a factor also at higher speeds for the much more aerodynamic 996.

So again I don’t doubt what you said about power to weight ratios not being a factor until they are really extreme. I feel like I am missing something here but I don’t understand what it is :wink: .

What i wnated to tell you is that cornering is that important because as you totally said right that most of the time the car is accelerating and stuff - you know it - BUT if you don´t have a 500hp car where you can gain from it´s engine power on the straights cornering speed is the most important factor, just see the GT3RS, only 380hp, very good power to weight ratio, very fast cornering speeds, so why is it among other things faster than a 500hp car, because you can enter corners earlier due to less weight, AND you can accelerate way earlier, so cornering speed goes together with speed on the straights and that´s why cornering speed is that important...

and again, on the older tests i can´t provide an educated comment, since id on´t know circumstances - i know 13sec is VERY much on NS, with such drivers and such cars even 3 to 4 sec is quite a lot, but again, NS times are different, from what i know, i´d say "yes" WR is an outstanding driver, on NS i´m sure no one in a Porsche is faster than Walter, but again, conditions are the main factor on NS, it´s not unusual that parts of the track are completely damp, temperatures, maybe the one test took place in spring at 15°C the other one in Aug at 33°C ... to really compare cars on NS the same day, same time, same driver is required, and even then there might be huge differences, you simply can´t clock exactely the same lap times on NS, too long, too difficult and even drivers like HvS and WR make minor mistakes on a fast lap....NS is different, that´s the main point you should know and learn, so NO maths, no comparisons, no figures from other mags, etc ... :wink:

After I received this PM from st-anger I came up with a thought experiment that helped me better understand these concepts.

Imagine two identical cars with one expectation, car A is able to corner 2.4 km/hr or 1.5 mph faster in any corner than car B. Now imagine that you are timing these two cars on an unique race track which is essentially a high speed banked oval with one sharp corner.

The cars begin by accelerating from a standing start.

At the beginning the cars are side by side until they reach the corner. Car A then is able to negotiate the corner and emerge at the end of the corner traveling 2.4 km/hr faster than car B. The cars then accelerate around the track. Assume that the cars are able to continuously accelerate thought out this track at a constant rate i.e. they are not able to reach a speed where aerodynamic drag significantly affects the acceleration nor do they reach a top speed.

If this is the case then car B will still be traveling 2.4 km/hr slower as the cars complete a lap and will never be able make up that difference. So in effect the slower cornering speed is the determining factor in the average lap speed.

While 2.4 km/hr doesn’t sound like much it is the difference between the average lap time of GT3 RS 7.47 on the NS and the standard GT3’s 7.54 :wink:

[lakatu]

Here is another series of PM between st-anger and myself these deal with the handling characteristics of the older verses new 911 models.

St-anger had written this in a previous message in repsonse to a question about the car control in my avatar:


st-anger wrote:
…to answer your question: “is it easy?� well, yes and no, i mean with the older Porsche models it´s quite easy to powerslide and to control it, again for a skilled driver!
i mean i´m quite often at NS and nearly every two or three days you hear or see about a guy who crashed his car, and kinda often it´s a owner of a older Porsche model who wanted to discover the limit of his car, BUT nordschleife is definitely the wrong place for that, when you enter a bend with 160kmh and you don´t know what´ll happen due to lack of experience...well, then you had a Porsche...
again, a Porsche at the limit is one of the few remaining drivers cars, the older models more than the "younger" but also a 996 can be kinda trickey, i know many many ppl who´re saying that a 996 isn´t a true Porsche or sportscar any more, even their wife can push it to its limit...well, that´s definitely not the case, and those ppl haven´t even discovered the limit of their car themselves...
in the end, it´s and endless discussion, so one needn´t be an expert to powerslide with a Porsche, but in that vid at that speed i´d say this driver knows what he´s doing so “yes� he looks like quite skilled, because it´s the speed that counts when driving at the limit…

I then responded by writing this message:

The original question related to the 964 model and the ability to control a powerslide but in the answer you gave you indicated it was easy to powerslide in the "older models" and I was wondering if by "older" you where including the g series ( specifically 1984-89 911 3.2L & 930 models). Is it easy to induce and then control a slide like that in these models as well? The only visual powerslide like that I have seen with these models is in Fazsination with Roser at the wheel and he makes it look easy yet when you see the hand work involved I wonder how easy is it really?

Also the frequent crashes you referred to on the NS of “older� models? What models are you referring to specifically? 964? G series?

to answer your questions, well, again whatever you´re working on - btw sounds interesting - you can´t really say this or that model is easy to control, i know it´s maybe a bit hard for you to understand, i don´t know how much or if you ever had some track experience, but when it comes down to really sportive driving, and powersliding with that kinds of speed IS really sportive driving it´s all about the driver and his experience, period!
that´s why i always say "yes and no..."
sideways steff IS a pro behind the wheel, again i do not know him myself, but i know enough and SAW enough to know - you mentioned it: in "faszination" it looks all very easy and smooth - sure, he´s a pro driver, i mean .... pheeewwww....man it´s so hard to explain u know, ´specially in english, let take it from another point of view - the older models, yep, we can include G-series here, are quite easy to powerslide due to many factors, especially technically related ( suspension, tyres, balance, no electronic aids.. ) they´re just old fashion and not like modern, race car like suspension setup like on 996, 997.... so it´s quite easy to initiate a drift, and IMO it´s also quite easy to control it in such old cars - but again, some have the feeling for a car some not, so many´ll loose it even in low speed rage and only a very very small percentage of ppl will be able to control a slide to the limit of the car, it´s definitely like this, that the ppl are at first at their limit and not the car...
on the other hand the newer models like 996 are more difficult to initiate powersliding but are then easier to control...

...

in the end this is a endless discussion, I uploaded a vid feat. a GT2 driven by a good friend of mine, Mr. Vökl, he´s in the same test crew as i am here at EZW, AMS TV had been one of the first to show the new MKII GT2 so they got a GT2 and driver ( so no editor from AMS ) directly from EZW, in it you´ll see quite some driving skills, a ~500hp GT2 on wet pavement with lot´s of sliding....you´ll see when it appears in PC - but what i want to say: look at this vid and again we could discuss...looks easy - ??? - hmmmm maybe for some , but i bet 99% of JW members won´t be able to drive like shown in the vid - for most of them it would end in a 200k € disaster...

so sorry m8 when i can´t help you on that, i really can´t - sure i could tell you but what´s legal for me won´t be legal for others and to say in general...well, on a certain level, i´d say for most of the ppl NO, to control a Porsche on a certain level isn´t easy...

to quickly answer your NS question....
hmmm, i´d say mainly 964 and 993...

[lakatu]

Here is a exert from two PM’s between st-anger and myself. I think this is one of the more interesting and informative exchanges. Some of the others that I have posted were background to get to these. The second set is long but I think is the most interesting and is about the suspension and handling differences of the 964/965 models and the G-series(1974-1989) 911. I hope you enjoy these as much as I did :wink: .

Thanks st-anger for the information. It is really helpful. So it sounds like it takes a lot of skill to control a powerslide or oversteer condition with a G-series car but can quickly become uncontrollable for the older G series models much more than the 996 models. I’m guessing quick reflexes and a feel for the car’s tires contact patches is the difference. But it sounds like for a skilled driver, a G-series 911 is controllable so that an oversteering slide is something a skilled driver can use to position the car or have fun without the fear of losing control of the car. Do I understand this correctly?



Do I understand this correctly?

yep, u do :wink:

[If you look at the video I mentioned before,] it shows a MKII GT2 driven by Mr. Klaus, some very nice drifting and some on board action what we´re doing "at work" - goes quite nice together with "reflexes" and "feel for the car" u mentioned...

so, as u can see in this vid it´s not only the older models which require quite some skills at the limit, sure when ppl are watching the vid - some might say: "yeah spectacular driving, but it´s not that good, with some practice i can manage that too..." one word for them: BS....
to control such drifting and to manage such quick and precise steering corrections it requires a shitload full of practice practice practice...


Thanks again st-anger for sharing that video with me. I can see what you mean by the skilled required and the difficulty of controlling even the GT2 at the limit. However, the wet conditions I think reduce the impact of the suspension and tire development of newer cars to improve stability but in the dry it should be easier to control.

I know that it may seem like we just rehash the same thing over and over again. But each time we talk I get a little bit of a new prospective. Kind of like a jigsaw puzzle and each time I get a new piece :wink: . Each answer you give really helps because to me each question is slightly different and is directed at expanding my understanding in a particular area.

So this leads me to my next question which concerns suspension improvements over different 911 models. I have been doing some research on the 930 verses the 965 by following your suggestion to check with Porsche owner chat forums and I have found that the majority of comments indicated a preference for the 930 over the 965 which I thought was rather strange. Some of the comments came from individuals that had owned both and they indicated that they preferred the 930 because it was lighter and seemed to understeer less than the 965. I wonder if their perception of greater understeer for the 965 was due to the 965 rear differential that provides 100% lock on trailing throttle. I have read that the 917 and the 934 & 935 had a similar 100% lock on over run so I would have thought that this shouldn't have been too detrimental to handling.

To answer the question for myself I looked at the NS and HHR lap times: 1989 930 (300hp) NS=8:44 HHR=1:20.0 and for the 965 NS=8:33 HHR=? (I couldn’t find a HHR time for the 965). I think most 1989 930s weighed 2975 lbs (9.9 lbs/hp) and a 965 was about 3275 lbs (10.2 lbs/hp). So the slight power to weight advantage went to the 930 and the braking advantage with ABS and bigger brakes to the 965. As we have discussed before, any real lap time difference should be due to the handling advantages. Based on the times it would appear that the 965 was a better handling car and that seems to agree with commentary from car magazines that I have read.

However, I have read some different things that have created some confusion in my mind concerning the suspension improvements of the G-series verses the 964 series for both turbo and normally aspirated. First, I’ve read that Dr. Porsche thought torsion bars where superior to coil springs and I’m not sure why, maybe this was before progressive rate springs? The racing derivatives of the 911 seemed to prefer the coil springs. The 934 used torsion bars and coil overs and 935’s used only coil overs. Also, I have read that for the 964/965 models, Porsche engineers tried to incorporate a Weissach effect, like in the 928 rear suspension, by building in rear suspension bushing compliance to create stabilizing toe-in under trailing throttle. However, Peter Falk (headed racing car development and head of production car chassis development at Porsche) said “It really didn’t work too well!� & August Achleitner (joined Porsche in 1983 as a chassis engineer) agreed that it was a compromise especially concerning noise intrusion.

Finally I have read Paul Frere say that while others indicated that the 964 suspension improved the handling he couldn’t tell a noticeable difference. (I am not sure if he was referring to the 964 only and that he had a different opinion of the 965.) Yet in an article where Frere compared a Ruf CTR, which is based on the G-series, to a 965 he seemed to indicate that the CTR was a much more difficult car to drive although it wasn’t clear if this was due in part to the tremendous power of the CTR (see last paragraph on this page http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/625/965vsCTR7.jpg and the last two paragraphs of the article at http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9031/965vsCTR8.jpg )

So my question is, based on your knowledge and experience driving 964s and G-series was the 964/965 truely an improvement to the suspension and handling?

You indicated that the 965 was a special car and one of the few REAL drivers cars. Could you possibly explain what you meant by that? I have also heard that the 965 suspension was improved over the 964’s but I have no specific knowledge concerning any differences other than the typical turbo verse normally aspriated suspension upgrades.

Maybe another way to ask the question is if someone offered you as a gift your choice of a pristine condition 930 or a 965 which would you personally choose? In a previous discussion we had about 964s you suggested not getting a 964 and going with a 3.2L instead http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?p=154811𥲻 . In that response you indicated a personal dislike for the look and the handling of the 964 so that is why I thought I would ask you all these different questions. Do you feel the same way about the 965 as you do about the 964 because I realize it has a reworked version of the 930’s 3.3L and probably didn't have the inital engine problems of the 964?

maybe I took the wrong words or maybe it´s a missunderstanding, it´s definitely not a “dislike� I have about the 964 series, not at all, there´re some great rides in the 964 series, including the 965 , which is as I said one of the last few “men´s cars� nothing for the “boys�, don´t take that too serious, this doesn´t mean that the 965 is a nearly undriveable beast, definitely not, but compared to some “soft boiled� models it´s just a stunning machine…
which one to take…3.2L or 965…!??? hmmm, kinda hard…but being a passionate driver I think i´d choose the Turbo

…so why´s the 965 a special car, well back then it divided the men from the boyz…
it´s been a Turbo with some old school behaviour, rear wheel drive only, rock-hard suspension - a car that only made sense once speed was picked up and what´s the most important thing: only the drivers foot stood between you and and a unscheduled one-to-one visit into the landscape, unfortunately though it missed the Carrera´s four cam – four valve technique, so it wasn´t really a refined engine as one´d have expect a “Turbo engine� to be – it was rather the well known “drive quickly� engine, demanding some massive k ´s to jolly along the car not to fall back into the kinda massive turbo lag, so unfortunately all this wasn´t the best partner for the brilliant new chassis, suspension and brake system that has been a major improvement to handling abilities because of better brake feel due to power assistance – that´s why some ppl are still sad that the circumstances prevented a better ( new ) engine, with that the 965´d have been a memorable car in history, not even in Porsche Turbo history…

that sums it all up quite good IMO and goes together with the “skills� issue we´ve been talking about…
besides that….just look at it, I mean just looking at that car and everyone´ll immediately know: this car means business…

also her history is quite unique, as u know in the 80s a Fuchs wheeled, tea-tray like spoilered, brick sized mobile phoned 911 had been the must have car for any yuppie and when production of the 930 stopped in 89 it´s been clear that a new model won´t be far away…
well, when stock market crashed at the end of 80s CEO Branitzki deep freezed a promising project named 969 http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?p=183967#183967 ( and codenamed 965 ) the 969 should have been a all new model replacing the Turbo and rivalling the other supercars from Ferrari, AM, Jag… so after a 16 prototype disaster, what´s interesting, it featured a 3.5ltr. watercooled twin turbocharged flat six, looking very similar to the bigger brother 959…
to fill that gap, and to keep PAG at the top, a new car was needed, the 964Turbo…
it had be be done really quick so that´s the explanation why there´s some trouble with the 964Turbo – u know the details ( engine, interior,…)
in 89 the 969 project was cancelled by CEO Bez because by then costs for the model had been way above the Turbo, so it´s been a more or less unjustifiable option…
so, to come back to the problems, due to lack of time to develop a very new engine PAG decided to use the 3.3 930 engine with the sportkit producing 320hp with modified cylinder heads, overworked induction and exhaust system and a catalytic converter. It´s wrong that it got a new Turbo, only the bigger, but lighter, turbine wheel in combination with the ~30% bigger intercooler boosted power…
well, the result …well, the engine did little below 3000rpm, besides the car was something like 120kg heavier that the std. 3.6 C2 & 4, nevertheless it outran them easily as well as supercars like Lambo Countach or Ferrari 512 and it´s been known as the “most accelerative production car�
it was also the first 911 Turbo with power assisted steering, it had ABS with new brakes from the 928 ( front discs and callipers ) and the 944 Turbo ( rear discs and callipers from the 944 front brake system )
well, most likely you know the details, so to answer your question:

“YES�…

…don´t know anything about the Frere test, but when he really compared G to 964 and realized no difference at all – well, then I have to worry what´s been wrong with mr. Frere back then
keeping the answer short and easy is quite a challenge, because there´re many sub-questions in your main question i´d also like to answer – on the other hand I ´ll try to keep it as clean as possible to prevent information overkill

well, as far as the diff-lock is concerned, it was definitely an improvement…
the cars with the G50/52 tranny had stronger differentials and the 20/100 LSD, so 20%lock under load and even 100% on overrun… so the moment the driver lifts the accl, so without actuating the brake, the car provides 100% lock to prevent lift-off-tail-wag which is a major problem on cars with kinda massive turbo lag, it simply unsettles the car … imagine you´re in a mid or fast corner at certain revs and you have to lift the accl – without the diff-lock the car´ll get very unstable ( oversteering ) due to the lag effect, so not very helpful for a good lap time… back on the accl the rear end can be controlled quite easy… understeering in the 965 is caused by several issues, as u know the 930´s heavy duty differential “forced� the car to simply go straight under power, so it´s not like that, that the 930 is superiour in terms of not understeering that much, nevertheless, due to lack of time not everything was sorted out at the 964series, so understeering on C2, Turbo and especially C4 had been quite an issue, when talking about the Turbo some of this understeering may come from the new diff-lock, don´t ask for details, i´m afraid i´m not that familiar with both, the car and the tech stuff, to answer everything in detail, some more comes from a lift off tendency of the front inside wheel, this is a phenomenon we can see on quite some old Porsches, we apply threash-hold braking to compensate understeering then, a strut brace is also a kinda good solution for preventing understeering…


…well, torsion bars had their advantages, no doubt about that, but soon they got replaced by springs, TBs were mainly used by Chrysler and Porsche back in the 60-70s because of their durability, compact, simple and light build, but on the other hand they were able to transfer loads very good, main disadvantage has been the absence of progressive spring rates resulting in a very undefined handling, especially on track, so PAG decided not to develop it further, there has been a attempt for the 934, it used some kind of experimental torsion bar system, but i´m not familiar with the details…

so, 964 went away from torsion bars because of better handling with coil springs, also because of some construction changes like other diffs, drive shafts ( especially for C4 ) and mainly tranny, PAG left old Porsche syncromesh/915 behind and went to the Getrag/Borg-Warner syncromeshed G50 tranny which is bigger than the tranny in the G´s. with the use of coil springs one major handling advantage could be achived: fore and aft movement of the front suspension arms, resulting in a smoother ride when driving on track, e.g. over hard bumps. as u mentioned, the rear suspension had some kind of “passive rear-wheel steering� also known as “Weissach axle� because of toe-correcting rear suspension arm bushings. unfortunately all attempts to eliminate “toe out� whenever lateral braking forces were applied failed, this is a trailing arms phenomenon, and it couldn´t be sorted out till 993 series… it also featured improved control arms, reinforced chassis plates locating the trailing arms and reducing deflection of the suspension under load the rear suspension was also equipped with a special 22mm rear stabilizer bar operating with stiffer progressively wound coil springs, strongly degressive twin-tube gas shocks to improve handling. at the front the coil springs were good for a slight backwards movement of the weels, resulting in a more stabilized handling when hitting a hard bump, at the same time, negative scrub radius was incorporated in the front suspension geometry (the 3.2 had positive scrub). together with the assistance of the ABS, this gave a degree of steering correction when the front wheels began to slip. the 965 front suspension uses alloy lower control arms and MacPherson strut gas-filled shocks. the 21mm front stabilizer bar that ties the suspension arms together is augmented by a massive front strut tower brace. the upper shock tower mounts are reinforced to withstand the additional loads transferred to them by this brace.
well, all in all, most ppl will say the 964/965 is simply the better car…

[lakatu]

The reason I ask you to compare the 930 to the 965 is I have learned that usually the lighter car is the better performer. Take the 911 2.7 RS. Porsche is still struggling to erase the memory of that extremely light weight car as the best Porsche of all time. So I figured that the 930 being 300 lbs lighter might be a better choice than the 965 in its sporting performance. Certainly there are some obvious advantages to the 965 over the 930. I know I don’t have to go into detail about those but basically it benefited from the 15 years between their designs. So it sounds like the 965 is a much better handling car and doesn’t understeer more than the 930? Also, the revised 965 suspension then was improved enough to offset any performance penalty due to the added weight?

In regaurds to the 965 engine, I knew that there had been some compromises with the engine and that they went back to the 930’s 3.3L but where there any reliability problems with the 965’s engine? I was aware of engine problems with the 964’s 3.6L engine but I didn’t know that there were any problems with the 965’s 3.3L. Also, I wasn’t aware of any interior issues. Could you go into more detail about interior issues as well.

Did the 965 have less turbo lag than the 930 due to the K27 turbocharger and less restrictive intercooler?

Finally, concerning the engine what is your opinion of the 3.6L? I’m guessing you’d say “better but still not quite what the 911 turbo deserved as far as an engine� and that didn’t happen until the 993 TT.

This may sound rather strange but for some reason I find rear differentials really fascinating. I didn’t quite make the connection to turbo lag and lift throttle oversteer though? If I understand correctly, the 100% overrun lock prevents oversteer by forcing both of the rear wheels to rotate at the same speed. And in a turn, due to the different radiuses between the inside and outside wheels it causes the car to want to plow straight ahead and not rotate into the turn. So doesn’t this reduce cornering speeds? I have always wondered if the 100% locking differential was a band aid that Porsche used to prevent it’s inexperienced drivers from getting into trouble but based on Porsche’s racing cars use of 100% overrun lock I am guessing that it benefits both the inexperienced and pro drivers. Does the 100% lock create massive understeer and if so why would the pro driver want it? If I remember correctly current 911s use 40/60 differentials. Why not 40/100% unless the 100% does cause too much understeer and the newer suspensions don’t require the full 100% lock to stabilize the car?

Also I don’t know too many details about he 930’s limited slip differential other than it was optional at least in the US and that the brochure indicates that the self-locking properties have been limited to 40%. I assume this is under power but don’t have any idea what if any lock is on overrun. Do you know what 930 differentials lock on overrun was?



well….another kinda hard point…NA or turbo…
I mean with the modern cars like GT2, although it´s twin turbo charged there´s literally no turbo lag at all, it´s nearly like a NA car but with way more punch and power over the whole rpm band, they have their full power at 5700/3500rpm (hp/lb-ft) while e.g. a RS has it at 7400/5000rpm so a NA needs revvs – good example is again NS driving, there´re some sections u would love to have more power from a turbo at lower revvs in a e.g. NA - GT3, especially uphill when 2nd is too short, but 3rd already way too long, so u´ll loose some seconds because the engine needs much more time to revv up where the power is, with a GT2 u simply put in 3rd floor it and e.g. in a GT2 u have to watch out that u won´t loose it – uphill …
lol, best car´d be GT3 RS with GT2 engine
on the other hand – with turbo engines one has to deal with compromises all the time, so again, for me… i´d go for a NA car for track driving…

..well, the lightest car is nothing without the best suspension and definitely tyres, don´t forget to think about tyres as well, they´re the most important factor…
so the 965 is hands down the better performer when compared to the 930, the 930 is definitely way too old when it comes down to chassis/suspension tyres – just everything…

pheeew, i´m not that familiar with all this, but I haven´t heared of any major problems with the M 30/69 engine… well, interior…due to financial constrains little was changed over the previous 911 models, so ergonomics remained … well… kinda bad
also quality level and overall looks isn´t up to 911 Turbo standard, non adjustable steering, horrible gear lever, …bla bla bla…

…I believe yes, the 965 has less lag than the 930, opinion of 3.6- well, just hand me over a 993 when it´s a M64 engine , no seriously, definitely an improvement because of the M64 engine type instead of the M 30 type…

the 100% diffs ruined the tranny, that´s why Porsche went to lower locking rates, don´t know every single detail, but over the years something around 40/60 seems to be perfect for both, handling and reliability…

as far as I know 80% on overrun for the 930…

[DJF1]

The reason I ask you to compare the 930 to the 965 is I have learned that usually the lighter car is the better performer. Take the 911 2.7 RS. Porsche is still struggling to erase the memory of that extremely light weight car as the best Porsche of all time. So I figured that the 930 being 300 lbs lighter might be a better choice than the 965 in its sporting performance. Certainly there are some obvious advantages to the 965 over the 930. I know I don’t have to go into detail about those but basically it benefited from the 15 years between their designs. So it sounds like the 965 is a much better handling car and doesn’t understeer more than the 930? Also, the revised 965 suspension then was improved enough to offset any performance penalty due to the added weight?

In regaurds to the 965 engine, I knew that there had been some compromises with the engine and that they went back to the 930’s 3.3L but where there any reliability problems with the 965’s engine? I was aware of engine problems with the 964’s 3.6L engine but I didn’t know that there were any problems with the 965’s 3.3L. Also, I wasn’t aware of any interior issues. Could you go into more detail about interior issues as well.

Did the 965 have less turbo lag than the 930 due to the K27 turbocharger and less restrictive intercooler?

Finally, concerning the engine what is your opinion of the 3.6L? I’m guessing you’d say “better but still not quite what the 911 turbo deserved as far as an engine� and that didn’t happen until the 993 TT.

This may sound rather strange but for some reason I find rear differentials really fascinating. I didn’t quite make the connection to turbo lag and lift throttle oversteer though? If I understand correctly, the 100% overrun lock prevents oversteer by forcing both of the rear wheels to rotate at the same speed. And in a turn, due to the different radiuses between the inside and outside wheels it causes the car to want to plow straight ahead and not rotate into the turn. So doesn’t this reduce cornering speeds? I have always wondered if the 100% locking differential was a band aid that Porsche used to prevent it’s inexperienced drivers from getting into trouble but based on Porsche’s racing cars use of 100% overrun lock I am guessing that it benefits both the inexperienced and pro drivers. Does the 100% lock create massive understeer and if so why would the pro driver want it? If I remember correctly current 911s use 40/60 differentials. Why not 40/100% unless the 100% does cause too much understeer and the newer suspensions don’t require the full 100% lock to stabilize the car?

Also I don’t know too many details about he 930’s limited slip differential other than it was optional at least in the US and that the brochure indicates that the self-locking properties have been limited to 40%. I assume this is under power but don’t have any idea what if any lock is on overrun. Do you know what 930 differentials lock on overrun was?



well….another kinda hard point…NA or turbo…
I mean with the modern cars like GT2, although it´s twin turbo charged there´s literally no turbo lag at all, it´s nearly like a NA car but with way more punch and power over the whole rpm band, they have their full power at 5700/3500rpm (hp/lb-ft) while e.g. a RS has it at 7400/5000rpm so a NA needs revvs – good example is again NS driving, there´re some sections u would love to have more power from a turbo at lower revvs in a e.g. NA - GT3, especially uphill when 2nd is too short, but 3rd already way too long, so u´ll loose some seconds because the engine needs much more time to revv up where the power is, with a GT2 u simply put in 3rd floor it and e.g. in a GT2 u have to watch out that u won´t loose it – uphill …
lol, best car´d be GT3 RS with GT2 engine
on the other hand – with turbo engines one has to deal with compromises all the time, so again, for me… i´d go for a NA car for track driving…

..well, the lightest car is nothing without the best suspension and definitely tyres, don´t forget to think about tyres as well, they´re the most important factor…
so the 965 is hands down the better performer when compared to the 930, the 930 is definitely way too old when it comes down to chassis/suspension tyres – just everything…

pheeew, i´m not that familiar with all this, but I haven´t heared of any major problems with the M 30/69 engine… well, interior…due to financial constrains little was changed over the previous 911 models, so ergonomics remained … well… kinda bad
also quality level and overall looks isn´t up to 911 Turbo standard, non adjustable steering, horrible gear lever, …bla bla bla…

…I believe yes, the 965 has less lag than the 930, opinion of 3.6- well, just hand me over a 993 when it´s a M64 engine , no seriously, definitely an improvement because of the M64 engine type instead of the M 30 type…

the 100% diffs ruined the tranny, that´s why Porsche went to lower locking rates, don´t know every single detail, but over the years something around 40/60 seems to be perfect for both, handling and reliability…

as far as I know 80% on overrun for the 930…

From my experience running a Porsche Motorsports diff at 40/80 lock rates on my race car yes the car has picked up understeer. But the importance here is trailbraking and exit speeds. What a lot of people fail to realize is that while the suspension technology on 911's is light years ahead from the original, the fact remains that a 911 is always going to be a 911. Driving a modern 911 with its real high limits can give you the false impression that 911's do not snap oversteer anymore... The difference here is that driving up to 9/10's for sure will give you that impression but when you explore that last 10th that is where the true 911 comes forward. The facts about any 911 driven SAFELY on the limit are:
1. NEVER LIFT! If you are in the middle of a corner on limit and you lift ,you will spin so fast that you will not have time to even wonder about it. Always be on throttle , sometimes if you feel the 911 sliding and you are on light throttle you will need to ADD throttle to stabilize the rear and exit almost powersliding...
2. ALWAYS BRAKE ON A STRAIGHT LINE. 911's have the weight in the back. When you brake naturally that weight wants to move forward. That is where a good locking diff comes into play. It stabilizes the rear as it gets light and you dont swap ends.
3. SLOW IN FAST OUT. Throttle stabilizes the rear. Again its all about weight transfer. After you are done with braking you need traction to negotiate the turn. By applying throttle you transfer the weight to the back of the car and you gain traction as if you leave the rear light that weight again will result to snap oversteer which will happen awfully fast ( ask me how I know :D )

By taking the above facts then you can realize why a proper differencial is so crucial to a 911 race car. In short a 911 on the limit will always understeer at the entry, stabilize by mid corner and oversteer by exit. While this may puzzle some people when you master is ( I still have a long way to go) its the most rewarding experience you can have! That is why 911's are so special...
Finally managing the oversteer is very relative to the tires you use as well. WIth the modern technology the limits are very high and some will let go really fast at really high speeds. The wonderfull thing about a 911 is that the chassis talks to you. So when the rear starts to get light you feel it immediately. If you follow the 3 "golden rules"" above and learn to throttle steer the experience will be a very fast, very safe and you will be able to anticipate most of the oversteer that will come your way.
If you are ludicrus with the brakes and throttle , dont pay attention to the rules then any 911 will bite back.....
Just my 02 cents!

[st-anger]

...nice to see ya back here DJF1 :P

THX for ya lines :D

[DJF1]

...nice to see ya back here DJF1 :P

THX for ya lines :D

Heh..Its nice to be back!!! In a few weeks I will have another track video for you from the 48 Hours of Sebring which takes place on February 11-14! I have a test day on the 22nd of January and I can't wait!!!! :lol:

Thx for the GREAT forum!!! :cheers:

[st-anger]

...nice to see ya back here DJF1 :P

THX for ya lines :D

Heh..Its nice to be back!!! In a few weeks I will have another track video for you from the 48 Hours of Sebring which takes place on February 11-14! I have a test day on the 22nd of January and I can't wait!!!! :lol:

Thx for the GREAT forum!!! :cheers:

...all this is only possible because of GREAT members like u my friend... :P

...DEFINITELY looking forward to some more vids, reports, ..., whatever :lol: from u...

good to have ya m8, see u.... :P

[lakatu]

Thanks DJF1 for adding your 2 cents. It is always nice to hear from you and get your prospective :) . Great comments and insight.

It sounded like the reason you went to the higher locking differential was to delay braking points and increase corner exit speeds. I can see how a higher lock rate would allow you to brake deeper into the corner without spinning but how has it helped exit speeds since the 40% lock is the same as stock under power?

Also with the increased understeer how has this affected actual cornering speeds did they increase after installing the higher locking differential or has it only allowed you to brake later?

Finally, I’m curious is the oversteer excessive and have you tried to correct it by increasing the front tires contact patch or through sway bars? Maybe it isn’t really an issue under track conditions as it sounds like you added the differential to allow you to brake later when entering into turn and I’d imagine that the understeer tendency is offset to some extent by the rotational momentum of the rear engine wanting to rotate around the corner.

[detltu6]

Wow I feel dumb asking this with some of the discussions going on here but: I know there were some changes during the production of the GT1 racecars and I know street versions were made but what were the production numbers and horsepower figures of each strassenversion. I can't find this info anywhere. I have found some approximate production numbers.

[DJF1]

Thanks DJF1 for adding your 2 cents. It is always nice to hear from you and get your prospective :) . Great comments and insight.

It sounded like the reason you went to the higher locking differential was to delay braking points and increase corner exit speeds. I can see how a higher lock rate would allow you to brake deeper into the corner without spinning but how has it helped exit speeds since the 40% lock is the same as stock under power?

Also with the increased understeer how has this affected actual cornering speeds did they increase after installing the higher locking differential or has it only allowed you to brake later?

Finally, I’m curious is the oversteer excessive and have you tried to correct it by increasing the front tires contact patch or through sway bars? Maybe it isn’t really an issue under track conditions as it sounds like you added the differential to allow you to brake later when entering into turn and I’d imagine that the understeer tendency is offset to some extent by the rotational momentum of the rear engine wanting to rotate around the corner.

Upi are correct on your assumption regarding the entry and exit speeds. The diff helps stabilize the car under braking so I can break more last minute so to speak. The by product of more understeer makes things worse at entry, again think of the weight transfer...After you are done with braking pretty much at the entry of the corner, then you are back on gas so that lightens the front. Now you do not have the engine up front like on ""normal"" cars so the front now is light and washes out initially. That is until the weight is stabilized and your chassis setup comes into play after the initial ""shock"" of a rear weight transfer. Then if you are setup correctly ( sway bars, spring rates, corner weights) the front regains some weight and the tires grab so to speak therefore by apex you should be in a nice state of a neutral car. As you realize now you have transferred some of the initial rear assigned weight to the front so the rear is at maximum adhesion as well. After the Apex you are looking at max exit speed, so you apply more power to accelerate. That is where the kind of stock rate ( which by the way on normal street cars is 20%) comes into play. Now you want the front to stick as well and as you realize by applying more throttle you bring some weight to the back again. SO now you kiss your nice and neutral state and again your setup comes into big play...but with less locking under acceleration the impact is not that great , instead you avoid some wheel spin which could be detrimental to your exit and usually that little bit extra weight you transferred back to the rear makes for a nice almost powersliding exit. If you overdo it you can end up swapping ends, if you apply as needed ( throttle steer) its very sweet and very controlled , looking most of the time like a 4 wheel drift. So that is pretty much why a motorsports diff is suitable for track use...

To your last paraghraph... Given the above desirable results and effects from the diff as I mentioned setup is very very critical. The benefits of the diff are felt on really fast sweepers and medium speed corners. On the slow stuff I understeer like a dog, there is no way to overcome the initial wash out and only left foot braking mid corner helps to rotate a bit the rear end and help add some weight upfront for better traction... Again the generaL setup is very crucial. There is not one perfect setup for all corners. You win some you loose some and you pay attention to have a beautiful setup on the fast stuff and on corners before straights where exit speed is crucial... In the grand scheme of things what also comes into play is how you like your car to behave. Understeer is "safer" some love it some hate it and want an oversteering car. I like things in the middle so to speak towards more understeer especially on the fast stuff where you could be in a corner doing 100mph+ and things move awfully fast at these speeds... So general setup is accomplished by corner weights, spring rates, shock rebound, tire sizes and pressures, sways etc.. The corner weighting I thing is where everyone agrees... You want to have as much as possible at the center of the car a figure as close to 50% as possible. This will provide you with a neutral platform to start with. Then camber, toe-in etc are anyones game and it gets really confusing after that. By moving to a larger contact patch up front is generally accepted helping to balance the car more towards neutral as all 993's come from factory with understeer as the main characteristic. However like one racing legend said , � will stuff as much tire on the car as possible". So using the tires to balance the car is secondary, you want the fattest tires you can stuff under the fender wells and while that leads to increased contact patch ( read higher limits) it may or may not bring you close to your desired setup. That is where the rest come into play...So on my setup I strive for neutral setup. Therefore I'm usually almost full stiff up front and middle stiff in the rear. Then as I run a few laps I will adjust it to my liking and usually I soften the front to try and get rid of too much understeer in the corners that I want. Besides that you can play with the tire pressures which have an effect on handling... Lately I have also started to play with the triple adjustable suspension of mine and I'm still highly confused :D

I hope that explains a bit the madness :D My advise to all who have a 911 is that they should go out themselves and try these stuff, keeping in mind the golden rules. Only each individual and at a track envinronment can really understand by the seat of their pants how things work... I would also advise to keep things simple. In other words at first forget multi adjustable suspensions etc... Run what you brung , learn the character of the car and then make one chance at a time. For example..suspension...keep it simple at first and learn it. Then move into a diff. learn it, then add sways, learn it, then add fatter tires, learn it etc etc... This way every change you make have a profound effect on the way the car handles but because you know exactly what it was before you can make a baseline comparison now and figure it out better.. I see many people doing everything at once...that is wrong and very confusing as your baseline has gone bye bye and adjusting variables is just too much.... To be honest I'm guilty as well on not following my advise.. That is why I'm paying the price now with big time confusion when it comes to adjusting the suspension :D
Hope it helps!!

[TT]

I have a question about this car:

http://img127.exs.cx/img127/1491/porsche996gt3rs044ux.th.jpg (http://img127.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img127&image=porsche996gt3rs044ux.jpg) http://img218.exs.cx/img218/4048/porsche996gt3rs031wy.th.jpg (http://img218.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img218&image=porsche996gt3rs031wy.jpg)

Spotted it today in Lausanne, coming directly from Monte Carlo...

I am just trying to figure out if it is a GT3 made "RS like" or a GT3 RS made less flashy!

No RS sticker whatsoever on the bumpers or sides, only "GT3 RS" on the back. No RS colored wheels, but it has the wing obviously, the Porsche logo on the bonnet is a sticker and not the metal one like in the normal GT3, it has the air intakes in the front bumper...

The only thing I am not sure about: on the back, inside, where the rear seats should be, there was a "GT3" trimmed, and I never paid attention to that detail in the RS..

Anybody has a final answer you Porsche gurus?

[lakatu]

I was hoping that someone that had more knowledge about he interior would have responded by now TT. I looked through all of my magazine scans, but there weren’t any of the rear portion of the interior. Based on your description, I think that may be the key as to whether it was a genuine RS.

When you think of it from a logical prospective I think it is probably an RS. It is kind of hard to imagine though that someone would pay all that money to convert a regular GT3 to an RS and then leave out the least costly item, the decals and painted rims. Also, purchased separately I would think that it would cost at a minimum $10k which is half the difference between a RS verses regular model. I think it is more likely that someone stripped the decals and paint off the wheels. IMO it looks a lot better that way :) and I am guessing that the owner thinks so also.

Thanks for sharing the pictures. Hope this helps. It has been rather quite in PC lately :roll: .

[dingo]

The only thing I am not sure about: on the back, inside, where the rear seats should be, there was a "GT3" trimmed, and I never paid attention to that detail in the RS..

Anybody has a final answer you Porsche gurus?

After looking for some interior pics I had a brainwave - why not have a look at my 1:18 Autoart model of the GT3 RS (and I know you have one also) :D
Mine just has 'GT3' trimmed in the rear, so if we can trust Autoart then it seems this is what the RS's have :wink:
I hope that helps in some way :D

[TT]

My fuck, either you are a genius either I am dumb :D I have the GT3 RS in 1:18 and 1:43 and I didn't think I could check it out HAHAHA!

Both have just "GT3", so yes I think we can conclude that one could really be a real RS

[st-anger]

...looking at the front i say it´s a RS, yes... :wink:

i know, i know - rather quiet in here lately, again sorry guys but i´m more "out in the field" than at home right now have to arrange and organize many many things but as i said - i PROMISE to be back again with some >very nice< stuff, just be patient plz...

hope to see all of ya soon... :)

[dingo]

My fuck, either you are a genius either I am dumb......

I think its a bit of both:P


...looking at the front i say it´s a RS, yes... :wink:

i know, i know - rather quiet in here lately, again sorry guys but i´m more "out in the field" than at home right now have to arrange and organize many many things but as i said - i PROMISE to be back again with some >very nice< stuff, just be patient plz...

hope to see all of ya soon... :)

look forward to it.....have fun out in the field :D

[sentra_dude]

Well, this is more of a general question, not just Porsche related, but there's lots of knowledge here in Porsche central, so here it goes.

I was wondering about fuel consumption in engines. Maybe kind of an odd question, here in a forum where we all enjoy burning lots of gasoline, but I am still interested in the subject. I know its pretty hard to make a generalization on something like this, I'm sure every engine is different, but maybe use the example of the standard 3.6L F6 engine in the 996. Its my understanding Porsche is at least somewhat worried about mpg, so if you drive conservatively you can obtain good mpg.

Let's say you did want to get good mpg, what would be the best way to go about this, only use very low rpms (say, below 2800rpm) and very light throttle? I have heard it is sometimes better to get right up to speed, using a little more throttle so you can quickly get to a constant rpm (where presumably fuel consumption will be less than a varying rpm). Is there a large penalty in fuel consumption for going into the power zone, like say 4500rpm and above?

I know that's a pretty complicated question(s)...so just answer whatever.

Thanks! :D

[st-anger]

...maybe i can add some inside thoughts from PAG - YES, you´re right Porsche is taking the whole economy thing quite serious - i think we can say, although no one really speaks about that - that Porsches always had a very good fuel milage for sports cars and the F6 is kinda penuriously with the expensive Super Plus fuel...
one can easily drive a modern 911 with something around 10ltr - but especially here in germany this is kinda hard to reach... :twisted:
...personally i ride the 955 with everything between 14 and 20 ltr with lot´s of autobahn parts but i have to admitt that i´m not very keen on a good fuel milage - just want to cross my distances as safe and fast as possible...

in general we can say that the more u depress the accelerator the more fuel consumption u have, regardeless at which speed u´re driving, this is all controlled by the ECU and present accl. pedal position...
so i´d say when u want to safe some fuel be gentle on the accl and do not revv to high - with a gasoline engine u can upshift at 2000rpm on a diesel at 1500rpm - of course depending on the power of the engine, because too low rpm is actually increasing the fuel consumption due to inner friction of engine parts - in the end it is - as u said - very much dependent on the individual car, so better check it out yourself with the car computer...
and yes, there is quite a large penalty when going over 4500+ rpm fuel consumption may double then...

but again im not the expert in here for saving fuel - more for burning it kinda fast :wink:

[SamuraiGti]

The chief editor of Best Motoring (a famous japanese video show about cars), Motoharu Kurosawa, best known as "Gan-San", a 65-years old ex-pilot and racing legend in Japan, has recently bought a Carrera GT.

In a recent Best Motoring International issue, he drove the Carrera GT for the first time, in Suzuka circuit, and he seemed somewhat disappointed. He said things like:

"The car feels a bit heavy"
"The tires aren't responsive to weight transfer"
"The dampers on the car are too soft, not stiff enough for performance driving"
"Because the suspension is soft, the front feels heavy at corner entry"
"There is a lot of weight transfer"
"I wish the front turned into corners better, the tires need to be more performance oriented"
"The car doesn't feel like it really has 612 horsepower under the hood"
"Comparing to the high cornering capabilities of the NSX-R [his car before he got the Carrera GT], you can definitely feel the heavy weight of this car"
"It feels heavier than the catalogue 1300 kg"
"I can tell you for sure that the overall performance is excellent, but my first impression is that the car is very conservative"

Since you've already driven the CGT by yourself too, I would like you to comment the affirmations of Mr. Kurosawa.

[sentra_dude]

...maybe i can add some inside thoughts from PAG - YES, you´re right Porsche is taking the whole economy thing quite serious - i think we can say, although no one really speaks about that - that Porsches always had a very good fuel milage for sports cars and the F6 is kinda penuriously with the expensive Super Plus fuel...
one can easily drive a modern 911 with something around 10ltr - but especially here in germany this is kinda hard to reach... :twisted:
...personally i ride the 955 with everything between 14 and 20 ltr with lot´s of autobahn parts but i have to admitt that i´m not very keen on a good fuel milage - just want to cross my distances as safe and fast as possible...

in general we can say that the more u depress the accelerator the more fuel consumption u have, regardeless at which speed u´re driving, this is all controlled by the ECU and present accl. pedal position...
so i´d say when u want to safe some fuel be gentle on the accl and do not revv to high - with a gasoline engine u can upshift at 2000rpm on a diesel at 1500rpm - of course depending on the power of the engine, because too low rpm is actually increasing the fuel consumption due to inner friction of engine parts - in the end it is - as u said - very much dependent on the individual car, so better check it out yourself with the car computer...
and yes, there is quite a large penalty when going over 4500+ rpm fuel consumption may double then...

but again im not the expert in here for saving fuel - more for burning it kinda fast :wink:

Thanks for the response st-anger, I appreciate it. 8)

[lakatu]

I saw this post late last night and had some thoughts on the subject. I’m not really sure if my thoughts are correct so maybe st-anger or the other members with engineering back grounds can correct me if I make a mistake here.

To answer your question I think it is easiest to think about a single cylinder. An engine takes gas which is a long chain hydrocarbon and burns it in the presence of oxygen to form hopefully, CO2 and H20. Now confining the discussion to normally aspirated engines, when you step on the accelerator you aren’t increasing the volume of fuel mixture nor are you increasing the compression ratio all you are doing in enriching the mixture. Since the level of oxygen in the atmosphere is about 21% it seems to me that there maybe a point where there isn’t enough oxygen in the fuel mixture to completely burn the fuel. As a result, if you accelerate quickly the extra rich mixture of gas to oxygen may not allow for a complete extraction of all the chemical energy and as a result wasted fuel and lower gas mileage.

I would also tend to think that the higher the engine revs the greater the internal friction and energy loss required to over come that internal friction. However, it sounds like from st-angers comments that this maybe the case for lower revs not higher, which doesn’t make much sense intuitively to me.

I have heard people say that the best way to increase gas mileage it to accelerate slowly and smoothly and to shift the engine around the peak of the torque curve. Again based on st-angers comments that may not be true.

Interesting question though.

[st-anger]

The chief editor of Best Motoring (a famous japanese video show about cars), Motoharu Kurosawa, best known as "Gan-San", a 65-years old ex-pilot and racing legend in Japan, has recently bought a Carrera GT.

In a recent Best Motoring International issue, he drove the Carrera GT for the first time, in Suzuka circuit, and he seemed somewhat disappointed. He said things like:

"The car feels a bit heavy"
"The tires aren't responsive to weight transfer"
"The dampers on the car are too soft, not stiff enough for performance driving"
"Because the suspension is soft, the front feels heavy at corner entry"
"There is a lot of weight transfer"
"I wish the front turned into corners better, the tires need to be more performance oriented"
"The car doesn't feel like it really has 612 horsepower under the hood"
"Comparing to the high cornering capabilities of the NSX-R [his car before he got the Carrera GT], you can definitely feel the heavy weight of this car"
"It feels heavier than the catalogue 1300 kg"
"I can tell you for sure that the overall performance is excellent, but my first impression is that the car is very conservative"

Since you've already driven the CGT by yourself too, I would like you to comment the affirmations of Mr. Kurosawa.

...i was waiting for someone asking these questions since i´ve seen the vid - and i´ve seen it many many many times as i´ve studied it after he droped the lines u listed above...
i don´t know that much about BM and i can only speak about the Porsche comparisons as i´ve only seen them and the one thing - and many here agreed with that opinion - i noticed is a very very strong patriotism on japanese cars like NSX or Skyline - can´t remember exactely but there´re some comparisons where japanese cars are actually faster than other one´s comming from europe and many times i found it hard to believe - but well.... :?
it didn´t really bother me untill i saw the GT test drive with this Gan-San guy - to be honest i don´t know nothing about his motorsport background or how good he really is behind the wheel - to drive a modern car ( even when it has 500+hp ) fast around a F1-style race track for the camera is nothing special for me personally as most of the BM drivers are showcar drivers - again, maybe they can do better but looking at the vids, seeing accl. points, braking points, different lines and the concentration they´re driving with - well, in the end i think it´s more about entertainment than to really look inside the performance, better said lap times - but that´s just my personal opinion although i have to add that i´m not the "worst" driver myself and i think i can judge that kinda good if someone really knows what he´s doing behind the wheel...

so all the points of criticism are wiped off with three digit numbers: 7:32

and this is just the HvS time and we already know that WR can do a 7:2xmin...
a car that is capable to clock such a time on the most demanding track, the Nürburgring Nordschleife, can´t be that bad, because when u have a car as described by Gan-San u´ll end up dead trying to clock such times...
this time is only a number and many many of u who haven´t been at NS themselves will think that this is nothing really special - clocking such times with a 600+ hp car - but regardeless how good the driver is - for times below 7:30 u simply need a PERFECT car and the GT is a perfect car...

"the car feels a bit heavy"

- don´t know any situation where i thought that the GT felt heavy, more the other way round handling is very much comparable with a GT3 Cup car...

"The tires aren't responsive to weight transfer"

the N0 designated Michelin´s with the two rubber type compound are providing an amazing grip level and are IMHO the best tires besides the new N1 from the 997...
can´t really follow him with that comment...

"The dampers on the car are too soft, not stiff enough for performance driving"

...well........i think i have absolutely NO words for this one - he´s probably the first person complaining about the GT´s suspension beeing too soft and this after waaaaaay more than 100.000km of testing on the NS - and he´s complaining that it´s too soft on his F1 track......sorry.... :roll:
the suspension is useable for daily driving but definitely NOT a softie - besides there´s a race setup available at the EZW but not for sale right now...
with this suspension the lap time at NS will decrease by quite some seconds but setup wouldn´t be driveable for everyone - and this has been one of the main intentions of the testing team, a supercar with supercar handling but also drivable for every day...

"Because the suspension is soft, the front feels heavy at corner entry"

"There is a lot of weight transfer"

"I wish the front turned into corners better, the tires need to be more performance oriented"

...again i don´t know if he´s speaking about a Carrera GT or a VW Phaeton....

"The car doesn't feel like it really has 612 horsepower under the hood"

"Comparing to the high cornering capabilities of the NSX-R [his car before he got the Carrera GT], you can definitely feel the heavy weight of this car"

....does it...??? hope he knows that the accl is on the right... :wink:
naaa, seriously - without any question - this 5.7ltr V10 is definitely the BEST engine i´ve ever driven - i could fill books on it - and i have driven lot´s of 500+hp cars in my life - i mean hey...it was designed to win LeMans and i think Porsches always did "quite well" there... :wink:

funny that he´s comparing the GT with a NSX-R - what a pitty that he can´t add a REAL supercar comming from "his" region...
AGAIN, this is NOT NOT NOT about blaming japaneese engineering, i´m among the first to honor them and especially asian car engineers are among the best worldwide due to their mentality to aspire the best, but a NSX - regardeless if -R or -RS or -RRSS (whatever), can´t be compared with a car like the GT - i tend to say that this is maybe a bit too populistic... :|

"I can tell you for sure that the overall performance is excellent, but my first impression is that the car is very conservative"

...in the end i´m glad that he added this comment as well - i´m quite sure that i have clocked way more km´s than he did with the GT when he said that - the GT is 101% a car that needs getting used to, especially the PCCC and the "problem" is only the driving off, after that it´s just perfect and i´m sure he´ll realize that as well after some hundreds of km´s....

last thing i want to add here is that IMHO ppl shouldn´t "believe" that much into such TV presentations and especially the times driven there - maybe it´s nice to watch them drift around the track with their exotic cars and it´s surly nice and interesting too watch these cars that many of us won´t ever see for real but for me this is more show(business) than real concentration on true performance and lap times like e.g. "Sport Auto" does...

[lakatu]

Excellent, excellent response st-anger. I don’t know how you could have answered all those questions any better. I too was surprised it took so long for some to ask these questions.

What is your opinion of the NSX. I remember when it first came out everyone thought it was the greatest handling car ever. Since then I have seen several videos of the NSX being pushed hard and I can’t see what people where referring to. It seems to have too much body roll and the car doesn’t seem that well balance. I’ve never driven one so can’t really comment for sure but I am not that impressed from what I have seen.

[J-San]

The chief editor of Best Motoring (a famous japanese video show about cars), Motoharu Kurosawa, best known as "Gan-San", a 65-years old ex-pilot and racing legend in Japan, has recently bought a Carrera GT.

In a recent Best Motoring International issue, he drove the Carrera GT for the first time, in Suzuka circuit, and he seemed somewhat disappointed. He said things like:

"The car feels a bit heavy"
"The tires aren't responsive to weight transfer"
"The dampers on the car are too soft, not stiff enough for performance driving"
"Because the suspension is soft, the front feels heavy at corner entry"
"There is a lot of weight transfer"
"I wish the front turned into corners better, the tires need to be more performance oriented"
"The car doesn't feel like it really has 612 horsepower under the hood"
"Comparing to the high cornering capabilities of the NSX-R [his car before he got the Carrera GT], you can definitely feel the heavy weight of this car"
"It feels heavier than the catalogue 1300 kg"
"I can tell you for sure that the overall performance is excellent, but my first impression is that the car is very conservative"

Since you've already driven the CGT by yourself too, I would like you to comment the affirmations of Mr. Kurosawa.

...i was waiting for someone asking these questions since i´ve seen the vid - and i´ve seen it many many many times as i´ve studied it after he droped the lines u listed above...
i don´t know that much about BM and i can only speak about the Porsche comparisons as i´ve only seen them and the one thing - and many here agreed with that opinion - i noticed is a very very strong patriotism on japanese cars like NSX or Skyline - can´t remember exactely but there´re some comparisons where japanese cars are actually faster than other one´s comming from europe and many times i found it hard to believe - but well.... :?
it didn´t really bother me untill i saw the GT test drive with this Gan-San guy - to be honest i don´t know nothing about his motorsport background or how good he really is behind the wheel - to drive a modern car ( even when it has 500+hp ) fast around a F1-style race track for the camera is nothing special for me personally as most of the BM drivers are showcar drivers - again, maybe they can do better but looking at the vids, seeing accl. points, braking points, different lines and the concentration they´re driving with - well, in the end i think it´s more about entertainment than to really look inside the performance, better said lap times - but that´s just my personal opinion although i have to add that i´m not the "worst" driver myself and i think i can judge that kinda good if someone really knows what he´s doing behind the wheel...

so all the points of criticism are wiped off with three digit numbers: 7:32

and this is just the HvS time and we already know that WR can do a 7:2xmin...
a car that is capable to clock such a time on the most demanding track, the Nürburgring Nordschleife, can´t be that bad, because when u have a car as described by Gan-San u´ll end up dead trying to clock such times...
this time is only a number and many many of u who haven´t been at NS themselves will think that this is nothing really special - clocking such times with a 600+ hp car - but regardeless how good the driver is - for times below 7:30 u simply need a PERFECT car and the GT is a perfect car...

"the car feels a bit heavy"

- don´t know any situation where i thought that the GT felt heavy, more the other way round handling is very much comparable with a GT3 Cup car...

"The tires aren't responsive to weight transfer"

the N0 designated Michelin´s with the two rubber type compound are providing an amazing grip level and are IMHO the best tires besides the new N1 from the 997...
can´t really follow him with that comment...

"The dampers on the car are too soft, not stiff enough for performance driving"

...well........i think i have absolutely NO words for this one - he´s probably the first person complaining about the GT´s suspension beeing too soft and this after waaaaaay more than 100.000km of testing on the NS - and he´s complaining that it´s too soft on his F1 track......sorry.... :roll:
the suspension is useable for daily driving but definitely NOT a softie - besides there´s a race setup available at the EZW but not for sale right now...
with this suspension the lap time at NS will decrease by quite some seconds but setup wouldn´t be driveable for everyone - and this has been one of the main intentions of the testing team, a supercar with supercar handling but also drivable for every day...

"Because the suspension is soft, the front feels heavy at corner entry"

"There is a lot of weight transfer"

"I wish the front turned into corners better, the tires need to be more performance oriented"

...again i don´t know if he´s speaking about a Carrera GT or a VW Phaeton....

"The car doesn't feel like it really has 612 horsepower under the hood"

"Comparing to the high cornering capabilities of the NSX-R [his car before he got the Carrera GT], you can definitely feel the heavy weight of this car"

....does it...??? hope he knows that the accl is on the right... :wink:
naaa, seriously - without any question - this 5.7ltr V10 is definitely the BEST engine i´ve ever driven - i could fill books on it - and i have driven lot´s of 500+hp cars in my life - i mean hey...it was designed to win LeMans and i think Porsches always did "quite well" there... :wink:

funny that he´s comparing the GT with a NSX-R - what a pitty that he can´t add a REAL supercar comming from "his" region...
AGAIN, this is NOT NOT NOT about blaming japaneese engineering, i´m among the first to honor them and especially asian car engineers are among the best worldwide due to their mentality to aspire the best, but a NSX - regardeless if -R or -RS or -RRSS (whatever), can´t be compared with a car like the GT - i tend to say that this is maybe a bit too populistic... :|

"I can tell you for sure that the overall performance is excellent, but my first impression is that the car is very conservative"

...in the end i´m glad that he added this comment as well - i´m quite sure that i have clocked way more km´s than he did with the GT when he said that - the GT is 101% a car that needs getting used to, especially the PCCC and the "problem" is only the driving off, after that it´s just perfect and i´m sure he´ll realize that as well after some hundreds of km´s....

last thing i want to add here is that IMHO ppl shouldn´t "believe" that much into such TV presentations and especially the times driven there - maybe it´s nice to watch them drift around the track with their exotic cars and it´s surly nice and interesting too watch these cars that many of us won´t ever see for real but for me this is more show(business) than real concentration on true performance and lap times like e.g. "Sport Auto" does...


I saw that video too and I was going to ask the same. About Mr. Kurosawa, I know he is one of the best pilots that ever appeared on Japan, he was champion in both GT cars, Formula 3000 and even bikes. He was also a test driver for Michelin. He is a long time fan of Porsche, he even clocked a 8:10 min lap in a Porsche 964 turbo some years ago.

About his oppinion on the CGT, it's a bit surprising, but perhaps we should see his oppinion as the oppinion of someone used to racing cars more than road cars. I'm sure he won't trash for no reason a car himself has bought. Remember that the car he drove was a press car and probably wasn't in great condition (mostly tires and dampers), and that can explain much.

In what concerns to the comparison to the NSX-R (lakatu, an NSX-R is very different from a standard NSX, a standard NSX is too soft for the track and doesn't handle that good), it's understandable and I really believe his NSX-R is more agile and corners faster than the CGT, for one reason: his NSX-R uses the optional semi-slick "S tires" that make a HUGE difference on the track.

[mindgam3]

"The dampers on the car are too soft, not stiff enough for performance driving"

"Because the suspension is soft, the front feels heavy at corner entry"

"There is a lot of weight transfer"

"I wish the front turned into corners better, the tires need to be more performance oriented"

Generally if the front end is set up soft, the car will turn in a lot better as it'll have more grip.

I think the differences between "basic" fast car suspension and supercar suspension is huge. There is a difference between a car being set up soft and its ability to ride bumps and transitions.

Generally "lower budget" supercars seem superstiff and handle well but do not actually ride very well. So they could have super stiff damping yet soft suspension so roll alot, or vice versa so flabby and bouncy when riding bumps but feel stiff.

Supercar/race car suspension will be set up stiff yet, but its dampers will work in a way to iron out the bumps so the car, although feeling soft from within the car will actually be gripping the road alot better.

Dont know if i've explained myself very well; I dont doubt the NSX's ability but I refuse to believe that it rides and handles better than a CGT.... or any of the porker range for tht matter... IMHO i think the reviewer needs a kick up the arse ;)

[st-anger]

Excellent, excellent response st-anger. I don’t know how you could have answered all those questions any better. I too was surprised it took so long for some to ask these questions.

What is your opinion of the NSX. I remember when it first came out everyone thought it was the greatest handling car ever. Since then I have seen several videos of the NSX being pushed hard and I can’t see what people where referring to. It seems to have too much body roll and the car doesn’t seem that well balance. I’ve never driven one so can’t really comment for sure but I am not that impressed from what I have seen.

...well just added some thoughts from the driver´s side in general but as u know the GT is my "one and only" and i kinda know it by heart so for me personally it´s always been clear that these comments couldn´t be right but i´m not the one saying right after seeing it: "...what he (gan-san) said is BS and simply not true...bla bla bla..."

...everyone´s free to judge on his own but i think gan san and myself are till now the only one´s who´ve driven the GT in here at JW and i thought i could take some more time than usual to put some facts into the right light because the GT isn´t that bad...

...hmmm when he´s used to drive racecars he should be very very familiar with the GT as it´s more a racecar than many many of the other so called supercars, as mentioned before i also know how a racecar handles and drives and there´s not a that big gap between them...
and i agree with u j-san that the press cars do not handle as good as the production version and that the press pool cars are carrying yround quite some more weight !

...can´t comment on the NSX or -R in detail but when the -R is equipped with semi slicks it is definitely within reach that it´s equally good in some conering conditions on smooth pavement - last weekend i drove a prepared GT3 CS with a slightely tuned engine, P Zero Corsas, short shift, Porsche Motorsport steering and a specially developed suspension setup for over 20.000€ !!! and it handled definitely as good as a GT which is also designed with a bit of remaining comfort...

a genius car this CS - hope that i´ll be able to share a bit more information with u guys in PC some time... :wink:

http://img83.echo.cx/img83/263/dsc008097ov.th.jpg (http://img83.echo.cx/my.php?image=dsc008097ov.jpg)

:P :P :P

[J-San]

Another strange fact that makes me believe that the CGT driven by Gan-San wasn't in great shape is that the CGT was only 1 second faster than the Ferrari F50 when Gan-San drove it for the first time in 1998, and 2 seconds slower than a F50 driven by Gan-San in Best Motoring's Super Battle 2000 (though the course layout is slightly different).

Also, Mr. Gan had very good impression of other Porsche cars, like the 996 GT3 (mk2), 997 Carrera S, 964 RS and 993 GT2 (strangely or maybe not, he didn't like the 996 Turbo, he said it was way too soft compared to the old, air-cooled Porsches), and he loved some other cars conceptually similar to the CGT, as the F50 and F40. He likes light, race-bred cars, and the CGT fits that category. I don't think Gan-San or Best Motoring is biased towards japanese cars, much on the contrary. Sometimes BM videos leave that impression because there are a few details we don't notice.

I'm looking forward for his next review on the CGT. I'm sure his oppinion will be more positive when he has drove more Km on his own car.

[lakatu]

J-San I agree with you the NSX-R is a much better handling car than the NSX with it’s lower weight and track tuned suspension. I wasn’t referring to Gan-san’s comments comparing the CGT to the NSX-R.

My comments or question really was about the standard NSX because when the NSX came out in the early 90’s magazine articles seemed to indicate that it was much better handling a car than either the 964 Turbo or the Ferrari 348. Even after the 993 and 355 came out many people still felt the NSX was the better handling car, and well I just don’t see it.

The NSX appears way to soft especially up front, has too much roll and the low polar moment of inertia combined with the soft suspension and heavy steering means that once the rear starts to break lose it is difficult to catch the slide. In short I am not really that impressed with the standard NSX but was wondering what others thought of it. To me the NSX was over hyped and never the treat that the automotive press made it out to be for either Porsche or Ferrari.

Really interesting about the GT3 CS. I can’t wait to hear more st-anger. So was the balance and turn in as good as the mid engined CGT? Love the look of the RS spoiler on a non white car. I really prefer the RS spoiler to any of the other versions of GT3 spoilers that Porsche has put on the 996 GT3. I keep hoping that Porsche will put that spoiler on the 997 GT3 but based on spy photos it doesn’t look like I will get my wish.

Really interested in the car as the RS isn’t available in the U.S. and it would be nice to know that there are other alternatives. What suspension pieces do you get for that kind of money and how is it different than the standard GT3 suspension? Did you prefer the car to the GT3 RS? I would guess so since it handled as well as a CGT? Last question did you drive the CS on the street and if so how did the car perform on street roads? I can’t imagine a 911 set up to handle as well as a CGT would handle the imperfections of a normal road.

[J-San]

J-San I agree with you the NSX-R is a much better handling car than the NSX with it’s lower weight and track tuned suspension. I wasn’t referring to Gan-san’s comments comparing the CGT to the NSX-R.

My comments or question really was about the standard NSX because when the NSX came out in the early 90’s magazine articles seemed to indicate that it was much better handling a car than either the 964 Turbo or the Ferrari 348. Even after the 993 and 355 came out many people still felt the NSX was the better handling car, and well I just don’t see it.

The NSX appears way to soft especially up front, has too much roll and the low polar moment of inertia combined with the soft suspension and heavy steering means that once the rear starts to break lose it is difficult to catch the slide. In short I am not really that impressed with the standard NSX but was wondering what others thought of it. To me the NSX was over hyped and never the treat that the automotive press made it out to be for either Porsche or Ferrari.

Really interesting about the GT3 CS. I can’t wait to hear more st-anger. So was the balance and turn in as good as the mid engined CGT? Love the look of the RS spoiler on a non white car. I really prefer the RS spoiler to any of the other versions of GT3 spoilers that Porsche has put on the 996 GT3. I keep hoping that Porsche will put that spoiler on the 997 GT3 but based on spy photos it doesn’t look like I will get my wish.

Really interested in the car as the RS isn’t available in the U.S. and it would be nice to know that there are other alternatives. What suspension pieces do you get for that kind of money and how is it different than the standard GT3 suspension? Did you prefer the car to the GT3 RS? I would guess so since it handled as well as a CGT? Last question did you drive the CS on the street and if so how did the car perform on street roads? I can’t imagine a 911 set up to handle as well as a CGT would handle the imperfections of a normal road.


Yes, I agree, I'm not impressed with the regular, original 3.0 litre NSX. It was too soft, it rolled a lot and wasn't that fast, but it was better than the Ferrari 348 and Porsche 964 Carrera. However, when the 993 Carrera and the F355 came out, it was completely overshadowed, only the special versions (type S-Zero and type-R) could keep up on the track.

The original NSX was better for the road than for the track. However, it wasn't ever a very fast car, because the reason that led Honda to make the Type-S and Type-R versions was precisely because the NSX was completely overshadowed by the less expensive Skyline GT-R.

[st-anger]

Really interesting about the GT3 CS. I can’t wait to hear more st-anger. So was the balance and turn in as good as the mid engined CGT? Love the look of the RS spoiler on a non white car. I really prefer the RS spoiler to any of the other versions of GT3 spoilers that Porsche has put on the 996 GT3. I keep hoping that Porsche will put that spoiler on the 997 GT3 but based on spy photos it doesn’t look like I will get my wish.

Really interested in the car as the RS isn’t available in the U.S. and it would be nice to know that there are other alternatives. What suspension pieces do you get for that kind of money and how is it different than the standard GT3 suspension? Did you prefer the car to the GT3 RS? I would guess so since it handled as well as a CGT? Last question did you drive the CS on the street and if so how did the car perform on street roads? I can’t imagine a 911 set up to handle as well as a CGT would handle the imperfections of a normal road.

...this CS is the car from a good friend of mine living in switzerland, it´s a "normal" 2004 GT3 Club Sport but with nearly all the GT3 RS stuff as he wanted to keep the car dark blue, therefore painted the RS wheels and even the power amplifier from the sound system located in the trunk in his midnight blue, in the end this is one of the most beautiful GT3´s i´ve ever seen, the finish is just perfect - well my friend is a die-hard perfectionist so it´s been more or less obvious, i could fill a whole book with his projects :wink:
this car is a (in)official project car from Porsche as it´ll get Porsche Motorsport parts and as a leadoff innovation a special PM steering system with only 1.5 turns from left to right, so race car like, but without loosing the comfort on e.g. autobahn or normal street roads. right now it already has a reworked steering and without any question this is one of the most precise steering i´ve ever hat the pleasure with, i tend to say even more responsive and agressive than on the GT - of course with some "downsides" e.g. on the autobahn at 250+ the car requires all the concentration from the driver as it´s kinda nervous with lane grooves but this is all about getting used to he said, of course ppl are "oversteering" the car way too much as they´re used to from their cars even if it´s a Porsche or whatever, but on the track and country roads it´s just perfect from the start and what impressed me most is the outstanding combination steering - suspension - shifting - tires, again i tend to say that i never ever had the pleasure with such a perfect car from a tuner, the suspension is especially set up for his driving style, he spent many many days at the tuner and the guys from the company where he tuned his car looked at his driving style and then adapted the car to the new owner, so every car has a unique suspension setup - of course this will probably double the $$$ but hte result is...(repeating myself) perfect! he´s a semi-pro at GoKart driving as a hobby and u can imagine his GT3 as a GoKart with 400+ hp... :D

...the whole engine has been reworked, same for the exhaust resulting in ~430hp output, he ordered the shortshift option and a different gearing, he has to shift 3 times to reach 100kmh but u can imagine how this thing goes off from the start, unbelievable, but beeing able to drive 300 has also been a must and it can do exactely 305 - before he was able to do 320 he said...
as he´ll track day the car a lot he now has P Zero Corsas on the car providing an enourmous grip level and are - when warm - also good in the wet...

i drove the car on autobahn at nearly full speed - and of course on country roads around my house here and as siad before, the car is definitely up to GT and GT3 RS handling but just different in a very positive way - it has a distinctive race car feeling and doesn´t feel like a normal sports car any more... 8)

i will have the pleasure again this summer, maybe next month as he´ll get the PM steering then, and he said that the car will be some kind of show car too as it´s the first road car from this tuner as he´s specialised on "race cars only" till then...

right now he´s on business in south america but he promised that he´ll fetch some more infos for me as i´m also VERY VERY much interested into that project...
will keep u up to date... :wink:

[lakatu]

Thanks st-anger for providing the additional information. I really love the look of the car. Nice to hear that the car’s suspension is streetable. Would you say it is more like the GT3, the GT3 RS or firmer than the RS like a GT3 RSC?

Please be sure to share more details when they become available. I think the car is extremely fascinating :P .

[st-anger]

Thanks st-anger for providing the additional information. I really love the look of the car. Nice to hear that the car’s suspension is streetable. Would you say it is more like the GT3, the GT3 RS or firmer than the RS like a GT3 RSC?

Please be sure to share more details when they become available. I think the car is extremely fascinating :P .

...the owner is a very sporty driver who doesn´t really care about comfort and stuff - he attends ~ 8 to 10 track days per year, incl. NS, - so it´s definitely "RSC like" - well, haven´t had the pleasure with a RSC yet but of course with a RS and the CS from Daniel is definitely more revised than the std. RS, not much because the RS is already nearly perfect but as said before maybe a bit too much of a compromise with some rest comfort left ( unfortunately IMHO :roll: ) and Daniel´s CS is something for the purist which we both are... :P
in the end the fact that it is especially adapted to his driving style makes the huge difference... :)

[dingo]

These are some pics of a 993 I saw last year and it created some debate over what it really was. I saw it again this week so it got me thinking again – is it really a genuine 993 Carrera RS??

The debate last year was that it didn’t have the RS spoiler, instead it had the GT2 item and therefore doubts were raised if it was the real thing. Looking at it now I doubt its actually a GT2 spoiler since it doesn’t have the ‘GT’ on the sides of it :wink:
However I now remember reading not too long ago that on the RS the ducktail spoiler was standard but an optional bi-plane Clubsport rear spoiler (like the one in my pics) was available.
So what do you guys say? Any other hints on the pics which can tell me either way what exactly it is?

http://img53.echo.cx/img53/5605/porsche993carrerars13ca.th.jpg (http://img53.echo.cx/my.php?image=porsche993carrerars13ca.jpg)http://img53.echo.cx/img53/4248/porsche993carrerars28lj.th.jpg (http://img53.echo.cx/my.php?image=porsche993carrerars28lj.jpg)

[J-San]

st-anger, is the Porsche 964 Carrera RS faster than the 993 Carrera RS? From all the Best Motoring videos I've seen featuring these two cars, the 964 RS has always performed best, both in straigh line (0-400m, drag races and so) and on the track. I know the 964 is lighter and the power is almost the same, but shouldn't the 993 be faster?

[J-San]

These are some pics of a 993 I saw last year and it created some debate over what it really was. I saw it again this week so it got me thinking again – is it really a genuine 993 Carrera RS??

The debate last year was that it didn’t have the RS spoiler, instead it had the GT2 item and therefore doubts were raised if it was the real thing. Looking at it now I doubt its actually a GT2 spoiler since it doesn’t have the ‘GT’ on the sides of it :wink:
However I now remember reading not too long ago that on the RS the ducktail spoiler was standard but an optional bi-plane Clubsport rear spoiler (like the one in my pics) was available.
So what do you guys say? Any other hints on the pics which can tell me either way what exactly it is?

http://img53.echo.cx/img53/5605/porsche993carrerars13ca.th.jpg (http://img53.echo.cx/my.php?image=porsche993carrerars13ca.jpg)http://img53.echo.cx/img53/4248/porsche993carrerars28lj.th.jpg (http://img53.echo.cx/my.php?image=porsche993carrerars28lj.jpg)

Dingo, i think it's a fake. That looks like a Porsche 993 Carrera RS with Clubsports package and aftermarket rims, but if you look closer you will notice:

1- the seats aren't the Clubsport buckets, and not even the standard RS seats. They are the regular Carrera seats.
2 - the steering wheel is also the same used on the Carrera/Turbo, not the RS CS steering wheel
3- the interior doesn't have a roll cage, so it can't be a RS Clubsport

My bet is: it's a regular Carrera with a RS Clubsport aero kit. Or, less likely, a Carrera RS with Clubsport aero pack, but normal steering wheel and different seats.

[dingo]

Thanks J-San, very keen eyes you have - great info :D

st-anger, is the Porsche 964 Carrera RS faster than the 993 Carrera RS? From all the Best Motoring videos I've seen featuring these two cars, the 964 RS has always performed best, both in straigh line (0-400m, drag races and so) and on the track. I know the 964 is lighter and the power is almost the same, but shouldn't the 993 be faster?

well the 993 does have 40hp more than the 964, so that would offset the extra weight (75kg) it has :wink: The numbers I saw showed the 964 being 0.1s quicker to 100kmh....so not much difference :D

[HoboPie]

I'd just like to make a comment on the Gan/CGT issue.

When Best Motoring is actually racing the cars they are fairly flamboyant it often seems the Japanese cars are a little too quick.(Stock r34 was keeping with with a 996 turbo and pulling away from a 360?).

However in either the Japanese or International version of that video the whole point of the video was European cars and they stated quite simply that the Japanese cars still had a ways to go before matching the mid level super sports cars(GT3, CS, CSL, Gallardo).

Gan-san is a very accomplished driver(was offered an F1 test). I can't be sure of his overall skill at his current age, but you don't get to the level he did without knowing how to handle a car sufficiently well to give it a review. He still seems to be the best driver of the current BM team and they all are quite accomplished themselves. His only real rival was Tsuchiya who is definitely a skilled driver(Mclaren F1 and NSX at Lemans).

Anyway I'm not sure if it was a crappy test car(his hadn't arrived at the time of the video) or what, but I don't think his comments came from patriotism or lack of skill. Considering he bought the car I doubt very much he would make stuff up.

Hopefully we will see some CGT in BM in the near future because his should have arrived in late 2004.

[st-anger]

...hi m8

...well, first, the spoiler is definitely an RS spoiler and NO GT2 one, as u said the "GT" emblem is missing but the GT wing is definitely flater, longer and more integrated into the engine lid...
J-san already mentioned some details that it´s NO 993RS - may i add some more:

on a real RS u have no sunroof, rear window wiper, Turbo side skirts, Turbo S indicator/fog light design, no washing spray for the head lights, no rear window spoiler and all the other things i forgot to mention... :wink:

[dingo]

thanks mate, its a shame as a 993 RS would have been a nice thing to see :( I will have to go on the hunt for the real thing now :D
Thanks again to st-anger and J-San for clearing that up for me :wink:

[J-San]

I'd just like to make a comment on the Gan/CGT issue.

When Best Motoring is actually racing the cars they are fairly flamboyant it often seems the Japanese cars are a little too quick.(Stock r34 was keeping with with a 996 turbo and pulling away from a 360?).

However in either the Japanese or International version of that video the whole point of the video was European cars and they stated quite simply that the Japanese cars still had a ways to go before matching the mid level super sports cars(GT3, CS, CSL, Gallardo).

Gan-san is a very accomplished driver(was offered an F1 test). I can't be sure of his overall skill at his current age, but you don't get to the level he did without knowing how to handle a car sufficiently well to give it a review. He still seems to be the best driver of the current BM team and they all are quite accomplished themselves. His only real rival was Tsuchiya who is definitely a skilled driver(Mclaren F1 and NSX at Lemans).

Anyway I'm not sure if it was a crappy test car(his hadn't arrived at the time of the video) or what, but I don't think his comments came from patriotism or lack of skill. Considering he bought the car I doubt very much he would make stuff up.

Hopefully we will see some CGT in BM in the near future because his should have arrived in late 2004.

I fully agree with you, with two minor comments: that R34 Skyline that was keeping up with the Porsche because it had semi-slick tires. Other is that Nakaya is at least as skillfull as both Gan-San and Tsuchiya, and we can't forget Gan-San's son, Takuya Kurosawa (former F3000 champion and still holds the record of the Fuji circuit) and Naoki Hattori (Formula Nippon Champion), both of them very accomplished and skilled drivers.

[lakatu]

It is great to see you back posting regularly in Porsche Central J-San :wink:

[Wutputt]

I've a little question: does anyone know how many 959 Sport (sometimes also called the 959 S) were built? I've heard something around 30. But I want to know the exact amount :)

[J-San]

Thanks, lakatu! ;)

Wutputt, Porsche built 6 units of the 959 Sport.

[st-anger]

I've a little question: does anyone know how many 959 Sport (sometimes also called the 959 S) were built? I've heard something around 30. But I want to know the exact amount :)

...in ´87 113 959´s where built and in ´88 again 179 and all in all PAG built 29 959 "S" - today one can buy a "as good as new" one with only some hundreds of km´s on the clock for ~350k €

[HoboPie]

I'd just like to make a comment on the Gan/CGT issue.

When Best Motoring is actually racing the cars they are fairly flamboyant it often seems the Japanese cars are a little too quick.(Stock r34 was keeping with with a 996 turbo and pulling away from a 360?).

However in either the Japanese or International version of that video the whole point of the video was European cars and they stated quite simply that the Japanese cars still had a ways to go before matching the mid level super sports cars(GT3, CS, CSL, Gallardo).

Gan-san is a very accomplished driver(was offered an F1 test). I can't be sure of his overall skill at his current age, but you don't get to the level he did without knowing how to handle a car sufficiently well to give it a review. He still seems to be the best driver of the current BM team and they all are quite accomplished themselves. His only real rival was Tsuchiya who is definitely a skilled driver(Mclaren F1 and NSX at Lemans).

Anyway I'm not sure if it was a crappy test car(his hadn't arrived at the time of the video) or what, but I don't think his comments came from patriotism or lack of skill. Considering he bought the car I doubt very much he would make stuff up.

Hopefully we will see some CGT in BM in the near future because his should have arrived in late 2004.

I fully agree with you, with two minor comments: that R34 Skyline that was keeping up with the Porsche because it had semi-slick tires. Other is that Nakaya is at least as skillfull as both Gan-San and Tsuchiya, and we can't forget Gan-San's son, Takuya Kurosawa (former F3000 champion and still holds the record of the Fuji circuit) and Naoki Hattori (Formula Nippon Champion), both of them very accomplished and skilled drivers.

Naoki and Takuya are certainly very skillful, but in most of the tests that I've seen(many more of the older ones where it was always an nsx/r34/rx7 of some kind) they weren't the featured drivers, but I guess that has something to do with the cars they were put in. Nakaya I somehow completely forgot about, he is awesome.

I didn't realize the r34 was on slicks, but why would they do that? I understand it makes sense to provide a cool race, but the feature that came up next was the lightly modded r34 that while track setup wasn't much more competitive than the stock r34.

[J-San]

I guess my source was wrong about the 959 Sports, I've read Porsche produced only 6 cars.

Hobopie, the Skyline didn't have slick tires, but those "cup" tires, also known as "semi-slicks", just like those in the M3 CSL and the NSX-R. It's an optional equipment for the Skyline V-Spec II. They make a lot of difference, as you see that stock R34 with those tires wasn't much slower than the other R34 R-Tune with 450hp but normal tires.

[Wutputt]

I've a little question: does anyone know how many 959 Sport (sometimes also called the 959 S) were built? I've heard something around 30. But I want to know the exact amount :)

...in ´87 113 959´s where built and in ´88 again 179 and all in all PAG built 29 959 "S" - today one can buy a "as good as new" one with only some hundreds of km´s on the clock for ~350k €

Thanks for the info, st-anger! I saw a 959 S last weekend, at least that's what the 'owner' claimed it was. But I really don't know the differences between the normal 959 and the 959 S just by looking at the car (I was too young in 1987 to really experience the full 959 hype :)) I know the 959 S is a stripped down version, but is there a way to be sure it is a 959 S just by looking at the car?

[dingo]

If you saw the interior you could probably tell, as the 'S' didn't feature air-con, central locking, electric windows or mirrors and had cloth-trim seats instead of the leather ones found in the normal 959 :wink: I also recall reading that the 'S' didn't have a passenger side mirror - so that would be an obvious way to tell :wink: This will have to be confirmed by one of the 'guru's' here as I am not 100% sure :)

[st-anger]

If you saw the interior you could probably tell, as the 'S' didn't feature air-con, central locking, electric windows or mirrors and had cloth-trim seats instead of the leather ones found in the normal 959 :wink: I also recall reading that the 'S' didn't have a passenger side mirror - so that would be an obvious way to tell :wink: This will have to be confirmed by one of the 'guru's' here as I am not 100% sure :)

right.... :)
main thing to look is the missing passenger side mirror... :!:

[Wutputt]

Ok, then I'm pretty sure it was an 'S'. It didn't have a passenger side mirror, it did have a roll cage and pretty basic interior. But I can't remember if it had airco, electric mirrors and stuff.

[TT]

A quick one, can't find an answer: What "model code" does the Cayman have in the Porsche lineup?

[nthfinity]

i seemed to have looked mostly throughout PC in search of a question i just recently began thinking about...
many Porsche models vary in characteristic...
C2, and C2 S
911 Turbo, and Turbo S

some have carried the RS badging beyond standard sport settings through the years

my question is this
the CGT is unoquivically the greatest porsche ever... but, might there be option of buying a sport model, not unlike the great 959??
Production continued until June 1988 when it was discontinued after 283 had been completed. 246 were Comfort versions and the remaining 37, Sport's.
might the fact that only 13% of buyers have influenced PAG to abandon marketing a sport model in the future.

[Cigarette1]

Hi,

I'd like to know how many 993 Turbo S were made exactly :?: I've "googled" for half an hour but came up with nothing official :?

I always thought there were 150 world wide.

Someone else is highly convinced there are 64 world wide, 32 for USA, he also says every model has different exterior/interior colour.

Thanks :wink:

[dingo]

I am positive there was more than 64 made - and from what I can find the actual number is 199. :wink:

[gucom]

A quick one, can't find an answer: What "model code" does the Cayman have in the Porsche lineup?

987 C7S

[gucom]

i seemed to have looked mostly throughout PC in search of a question i just recently began thinking about...
many Porsche models vary in characteristic...
C2, and C2 S
911 Turbo, and Turbo S

some have carried the RS badging beyond standard sport settings through the years

my question is this
the CGT is unoquivically the greatest porsche ever... but, might there be option of buying a sport model, not unlike the great 959??
Production continued until June 1988 when it was discontinued after 283 had been completed. 246 were Comfort versions and the remaining 37, Sport's.
might the fact that only 13% of buyers have influenced PAG to abandon marketing a sport model in the future.

do u really want a car sportier than a CGT? (is that possible? :P )
the 959 was a technologica lshowpiece, it wasn't a super lightweight razorsharp sportscar. It had alot of luxury. The CGT is very lightweight, very little luxury(and the luxury parts that it does have are very lightweight). if you're gonna strip that of all luxury parts, ur gonna be left with bare carbon fibre seats and a racing steering wheel, nothing else.

[Cigarette1]

I am positive there was more than 64 made - and from what I can find the actual number is 199. :wink:

and where did you find that info :) ? i need to have proof i can show him, like a scan from a magazine that knows what they're talking about :D Flat6, GT purely,...

BTW, couple of months ago there was a magazine that featured a yellow 993 turbo s, i believe i saw scans of the article on jw, but can't seem to find them anymore

[dingo]

I am positive there was more than 64 made - and from what I can find the actual number is 199. :wink:

and where did you find that info :) ? i need to have proof i can show him, like a scan from a magazine that knows what they're talking about :D Flat6, GT purely,...



http://www.flat-6.net/forum/showcar.php?do=view_specs&car_model_id=164



BTW, couple of months ago there was a magazine that featured a yellow 993 turbo s, i believe i saw scans of the article on jw, but can't seem to find them anymore

here you go, originally posted by st-anger :wink:

http://img107.exs.cx/img107/5602/file00227ti.th.jpg (http://img107.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img107&image=file00227ti.jpg)http://img107.exs.cx/img107/4049/file00233rt.th.jpg (http://img107.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img107&image=file00233rt.jpg)http://img107.exs.cx/img107/871/file00244ge.th.jpg (http://img107.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img107&image=file00244ge.jpg)http://img107.exs.cx/img107/6427/file00253ln.th.jpg (http://img107.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img107&image=file00253ln.jpg)
http://img107.exs.cx/img107/8883/file00266ps.th.jpg (http://img107.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img107&image=file00266ps.jpg)http://img107.exs.cx/img107/606/file00276qs.th.jpg (http://img107.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img107&image=file00276qs.jpg)http://img107.exs.cx/img107/634/file00288sm.th.jpg (http://img107.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img107&image=file00288sm.jpg)http://img107.exs.cx/img107/3412/file00291fa.th.jpg (http://img107.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img107&image=file00291fa.jpg)

[TT]

:arrow: http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12578

[TT]

A quick one, can't find an answer: What "model code" does the Cayman have in the Porsche lineup?

987 C7S

Ah ok, I was sure it would be something like 988 :D but afterall it is a Boxster with a roof :D

[Cigarette1]

St-anger, I've got a question about porsche's dsg system.

We have an 997 GT3 on order, will be one of the first cars in Belgium, dealer expects it to arrive beginning of 2006. He told us porsche is working on a DSG system that will be avaliable on the 997 GT3, but he couldn't tell when it'll be introduced.

My dad really wants it, he's willing to wait till it comes out. But I don't :( Can't wait to have that car in the garage. The wait is getting harder and harder everytime new spypics appear on the net.

Maybe you could comfort me by telling porsche DSG system is nearly complete and we'll be able to have it on our GT3 in the beginning of 2006 :D ?

Thanks

[ViperASR]

I am positive there was more than 64 made - and from what I can find the actual number is 199. :wink:

I think that you are right

[ViperASR]

http://www.flat-6.net/forum/showcar.php?do=view_articles&car_model_id=164&type=Article

I thought that the 1990s 911 Turbos were rear wheel drive, and the new Turbo was the first one to have all-wheel drive...

[dingo]

I am positive there was more than 64 made - and from what I can find the actual number is 199. :wink:

I think that you are right

yes I am, already posted the 'evidence' above :wink:

http://www.flat-6.net/forum/showcar.php?do=view_articles&car_model_id=164&type=Article

I thought that the 1990s 911 Turbos were rear wheel drive, and the new Turbo was the first one to have all-wheel drive...

The 993 and 996 Turbo's were AWD (and the upcoming 997), while the 964 and previous Turbo's were RWD. :wink:

[st-anger]

St-anger, I've got a question about porsche's dsg system.

We have an 997 GT3 on order, will be one of the first cars in Belgium, dealer expects it to arrive beginning of 2006. He told us porsche is working on a DSG system that will be avaliable on the 997 GT3, but he couldn't tell when it'll be introduced.

My dad really wants it, he's willing to wait till it comes out. But I don't :( Can't wait to have that car in the garage. The wait is getting harder and harder everytime new spypics appear on the net.

Maybe you could comfort me by telling porsche DSG system is nearly complete and we'll be able to have it on our GT3 in the beginning of 2006 :D ?

Thanks

...as u know i can´t give out details on ANY upcomming models or systems on them - only thing i can tell is that it´s NOT very likely that we´ll see a DSG style tranny on a GT modell, MORE likely on the Turbo...

but already said too much, sorry... :wink:

[Cigarette1]

St-anger, I've got a question about porsche's dsg system.

We have an 997 GT3 on order, will be one of the first cars in Belgium, dealer expects it to arrive beginning of 2006. He told us porsche is working on a DSG system that will be avaliable on the 997 GT3, but he couldn't tell when it'll be introduced.

My dad really wants it, he's willing to wait till it comes out. But I don't :( Can't wait to have that car in the garage. The wait is getting harder and harder everytime new spypics appear on the net.

Maybe you could comfort me by telling porsche DSG system is nearly complete and we'll be able to have it on our GT3 in the beginning of 2006 :D ?

Thanks

...as u know i can´t give out details on ANY upcomming models or systems on them - only thing i can tell is that it´s NOT very likely that we´ll see a DSG style tranny on a GT modell, MORE likely on the Turbo...

but already said too much, sorry... :wink:


thank you,

i'm sure you're much more realiable source :D dealer doesn't know a thing, when i sent him the pictures of that speedyellow gt3 prototype with those black 19" mk2 look a like wheels, carrera gt like seats,...

he said i shouldn't count on it'll look any like that :o pleasee :roll: aerokit cup = gt3 look, and that looks 90% like it


actually it makes complete sense, porsche says automated tranny takes away huge part of the driving experience, i remember that being one of the reason's not to have DSG/Sequential gearbox in the Carrera GT,

and the GT3 is ultimate /affordable/ driving experience 911 so...



actually i don't really understand my dad, why he'd want an automated gearbox, he hated SMG2 so we went for a 6speed manual in the M


i sure wouldn't want to lose the joy i get from playing with the cluth

:D

[Toronto]

I think the new cayman has better lines the new 997?
it just looks more muscular around the rear end.
am I the only one?

[yg60m]

I would to know if some street versions of this version (1998) of the Porsche GT1 were produced ?

http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/1044/mst20081mw.th.jpg (http://img282.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mst20081mw.jpg)http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/9967/gt19825dz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/9284/mst20080035gs.th.jpg (http://img282.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mst20080035gs.jpg)

I read in a magazine that 2 street versions were made but I have a doubt ... :?:

[bmagni]

if im not wrong they produced 30, but certainly more than 2, they have to produce mora than 2 in order for it to race

[yg60m]

Sorry, you misunderstood my question :wink: I know they produced more than 2, and probably 30 but there was 3 versions of the GT1 and most are MK II versions like this one :
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/425/5790911gt162id.th.jpg (http://img263.imageshack.us/my.php?image=5790911gt162id.jpg)
But I wanted to know how much of the MK III version were produced :wink:

[Darkel]

After a little research I found that : 6 GT1 Evo '98 (2 Porsche team, 2 Zakspeed team and 2 in reserve)

Link : http://forums.motorlegend.com/cgi-local/ubbcgi//ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000381;p=0

[Lotus340R]

I may be wrong, but I am pretty much sure, that Porsche only made one road version of 1998 GT1 model. It was made for homologation and was displayed at 1998 Le Mans race. The colour of it is white. You can find one picture of it in Porsche GT1 Ultimate topic with high-res pictures. The licence plate on this car is BB GT 198. Funny, becouse Porsche used BB GT 196 for 1996 road car and BB GT 197 for 1997 road car.

[Darkel]

Here's the street version (spotted at Dijon-Prenois racetrack, 1999)
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/9193/8b-gt1.th.jpg (http://img103.imageshack.us/my.php?image=8b-gt1.jpg)

[yg60m]

Thanks mates :D
I hope that some Porsche experts like st-anger or lakatu will be able to confirm that :wink:
I saw this street version on the Paris 1998 Motorshow and it was stunning !!! Too bad they didn't produced it but I think that the new carbon fibre structure would have implicate new crash tests ... :?:

[bmagni]

i found this about a 1998 GT1, though thw pic does not match it has a chassis number so it might help
http://www.sportscarmarket.com/profiles/2003/October/German/

[TT]

Merged the Gt1 discussion in the proper topic ;)

[lakatu]

Thanks mates :D
I hope that some Porsche experts like st-anger or lakatu will be able to confirm that :wink:
I saw this street version on the Paris 1998 Motorshow and it was stunning !!! Too bad they didn't produced it but I think that the new carbon fibre structure would have implicate new crash tests ... :?:

Sorry Yann but I really have little to no expertise in limited production racing homologation. Maybe st-anger will know. I wish I could be of more help :roll: .

[yg60m]

No problem mate, I know it is a weird and delicate question :wink:

[astonmartinandy]

Got to disagree with that one - I like the look of the Cayman from some angles, but I don't think it can touch the classic lines and 'hips' on a 911 - especially when in wide body C4S/Turbo form

[st-anger]

...sorry for beeing late with my response but i think i can help here quite good - the white GT1 in the pic we´re talking about is a PAG car and there´s only ONE in existence, it´s a 996GT1 - if u like - "pre-production" model with a metal-sheet structure, unlike the at least 20 1998 GT1´s with a full carbon fibre body for the homologation, nevertheless the white car has a EG-registration ( no individual reg. ) just like the 1998 GT1s so a regular car - i think i have a video of it around, will post it when i found it...

hope that helps a bit... :P

[yg60m]

Thanks a lot st-anger, I was sure you would help me on this one :wink:
So there was only one street car with this particular body and it is a PAG car, correct ? :P
And I am waiting for the video :D

[st-anger]

Thanks a lot st-anger, I was sure you would help me on this one :wink:
So there was only one street car with this particular body and it is a PAG car, correct ? :P
And I am waiting for the video :D

well no problem my friend :P

for the video, i 90% think it was a "AMS TV" one, i think u know the tv-show on german channel "VOX" - maybe u´ve taped that one as well...
well, i´ll see what i can do your u guys...

[yg60m]

well no problem my friend :P

for the video, i 90% think it was a "AMS TV" one, i think u know the tv-show on german channel "VOX" - maybe u´ve taped that one as well...
well, i´ll see what i can do your u guys...

Yes I know the show but I don't receive it here :wink: I have a video of the MK II GT1 body alongside with a GT2 and a GT3 but I've never see a vid with the white GT1 :wink:

[st-anger]

well no problem my friend :P

for the video, i 90% think it was a "AMS TV" one, i think u know the tv-show on german channel "VOX" - maybe u´ve taped that one as well...
well, i´ll see what i can do your u guys...

Yes I know the show but I don't receive it here :wink: I have a video of the MK II GT1 body alongside with a GT2 and a GT3 but I've never see a vid with the white GT1 :wink:

ahhh, i see - mhm, i also know the one with the GT1,2,3 comparison but the one with the white GT1 is MUCH older than this one...well, we´ll see (hopefully :wink: )

[DJF1]

I like the Cayman. If they make a CS version it will be an awesome track car!

[jorge]

Not for me, IMO the 997 looks really good... on the other side, the Cayman looks weird :?

[cho_888]

I think the Cayman is a nice change, i mean the 997 looks great but the 911 has looked good for decades

[MIHALS]

ehm, sorry? what was that? my opinion is: ONE PIECE OF FUGLY CAR.... but the 997 and even the new Boxster looks great (and I never liked Boxsters before...).... howgh, that's just my opinion :wink:

[dingo]

I was discussing the turbo setup of the 996 GT2 with the owner of this car which I spent 4 days in last weekend ( http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29844&start=0 ).

He wasn't certain of whether the turbo's were 'sequential' (as in a smaller one for low revs and then the larger turbo kicking in...) or if it was just two identical turbo's both working from the start. :)

If that makes sense, whats the answer? :D

BTW, I have to say the GT2 is the most brutal accelerating car I have ever been in - just phenominal. :shock:

[st-anger]

I was discussing the turbo setup of the 996 GT2 with the owner of this car which I spent 4 days in last weekend ( http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29844&start=0 ).

He wasn't certain of whether the turbo's were 'sequential' (as in a smaller one for low revs and then the larger turbo kicking in...) or if it was just two identical turbo's both working from the start. :)

If that makes sense, whats the answer? :D

BTW, I have to say the GT2 is the most brutal accelerating car I have ever been in - just phenominal. :shock:

....first, i´m more than glad that u were able to experience one of the top products PAG ever released, the GT2 is indeed a masterpiece and not only well-known for its brutal acceleration, now that u know just imagine such a machine on a decent race track :wink:
....automotive heaven :P

to quickly answer your question, the GT2´s two K24 turbos are working parallel but are that good trimmed that there´s hardly any brutal turbo kick and absolutely NO lag, so i can only agree here the GT2s overall engine performance is definitely among the best of all turbocharged engines available...

[dingo]

I was discussing the turbo setup of the 996 GT2 with the owner of this car which I spent 4 days in last weekend ( http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29844&start=0 ).

He wasn't certain of whether the turbo's were 'sequential' (as in a smaller one for low revs and then the larger turbo kicking in...) or if it was just two identical turbo's both working from the start. :)

If that makes sense, whats the answer? :D

BTW, I have to say the GT2 is the most brutal accelerating car I have ever been in - just phenominal. :shock:

....first, i´m more than glad that u were able to experience one of the top products PAG ever released, the GT2 is indeed a masterpiece and not only well-known for its brutal acceleration, now that u know just imagine such a machine on a decent race track :wink:
....automotive heaven :P

to quickly answer your question, the GT2´s two K24 turbos are working parallel but are that good trimmed that there´s hardly any brutal turbo kick and absolutely NO lag, so i can only agree here the GT2s overall engine performance is definitely among the best of all turbocharged engines available...

Thanks alot for the answer..... :wink:

Although we did get the GT2 up to an indicated 330kmh (I know its official top speed is only ~319kmh) on public roads it would also have been nice to experience how it handled on a track instead of a straight line all day. :D

[pzgren]

BTW, I have to say the GT2 is the most brutal accelerating car I have ever been in - just phenominal. :shock:

I fully agree. i had the chance for a quick ride with a gt2 3 years ago and it was absolutely brutal - it took my breathe away, i was really impressed of this car. i should have some pics of the car somewhere.... i'll search it when i'm back home.

[T M O]

Does anyone has informations ( pics etc.) about private cars of Porsche family members ? (Wolfgang , Peter, Gerd, Ferdinand , Olivier etc.)

[gucom]

this 928 Estate was built for Ferry porsche, as a gift for his 80th? birthday
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/9936/estate9289rg.th.jpg (http://img411.imageshack.us/my.php?image=estate9289rg.jpg)

[Conan997]

I took the following pics at a 2006 introductory car show. On display were all the 2006 vehicles that are being release. While I was walking inbetween buildings I saw this little honey parked outside. I don't think its a real GT3 because its been registered in California since August. It also didn't have a GT3 emblem in the back. Maybe it could be a real one, or it could just be a body kit. But here are some pics.

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/104/img02672da.th.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img02672da.jpg)http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/4190/img02688pp.th.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img02688pp.jpg)http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/6721/img02694wr.th.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img02694wr.jpg)http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/2184/img02704je.th.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img02704je.jpg)
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/7103/img02713kk.th.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img02713kk.jpg)http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/6470/img02729do.th.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img02729do.jpg)http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/8329/img02744lh.th.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img02744lh.jpg)http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/6522/img02753zx.th.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img02753zx.jpg)

I was thinking this could be a GT3 because it looks really close to the spy photo that CAR AND DRIVER took here http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3288/10212005141953ve.th.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=10212005141953ve.jpg)


Pics taken with the beautiful Canon Digital Rebel XT
Great camera.


Inputs??

Edit: Actually I can see the rubber line missing from the bottom of the hood on the white car. :(

[TT]

Great camera sure (hell, I have one ;)), but not when used at night with a flash ;)

And this is just a 997 with the aerokit by Porsche. I doubt we will see a GT3 with a sunroof ;)

Still difficult to judge, use a tripod next time ;)

[MIHALS]

as I already posted weeks (months) ago, I've seen basically the same kit, but in black. this time, CarreraS :wink:

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/2964/porsche997cs065di.th.jpg (http://img170.imageshack.us/my.php?image=porsche997cs065di.jpg)*http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/5537/porsche997cs077dd.th.jpg (http://img170.imageshack.us/my.php?image=porsche997cs077dd.jpg)
http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/3889/porsche997cs087bl.th.jpg (http://img170.imageshack.us/my.php?image=porsche997cs087bl.jpg)*http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2630/porsche997cs095db.th.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=porsche997cs095db.jpg)

[Evo]

I think the 997 GT3 has it exhaust in the middle rather than 2 on each side..

[Ford Capri 2.8i]

A-W-E-S-O-M-E.....specially the black model, actually very few more beautiful 911 have i seen in the pics....on the other hand, i prefer the previous model of the withe 911 RS......however, the 911 still remains something special for me

[DJF1]

Yeap that's the aerokit from Porsche on the 997. It looks awesome I must say...

[ae86_16v]

Ugly front bumper. . . thanks for the pics.

[raphaelws]

aweome pics MIHALS and Conan997!!!

I'm so anxious to see the new turbo!!! thanks 8) 8)

[RC45]

From the Z06 Forum...
My other car is a 02 996 TT with 20k miles on it. I bought the car used this year. I took the car in for warrenty service, and I was told the car has a aftermarket chip that if not removed will fry the turbos. I've never heard of such a thing, besides the car has always run great.
The dealer wants to sell me back a stock chip for $1400.

Anybody hear have any experance with 996 TT with chips?
Thanks for the help.

Is this guy being fed a bunch of BS by the dealer, I mean stealer who wnat's to make some coin off him - ?? Or are Porkers really this sensitive to tuning changes that they will "fry the turbos" at the drop of a hat?

I am suspecting it's not really the way the dealer is making it out to be - but I could be wrong... ;)

[nthfinity]

hmm...
well, the ECU would control Fuel/Air ratios, and control the wastegate

and being chipped, im assuming that it would run a more rich mixutre, and allow for higher turbo RPM's higher in the rev range, which would cause more friction; and potentially more dangerous under top speed runs for prolonged use.

but as we know, Porsche ALWAYS leaves some room in its powerplants... but say the chip-tuning is off, and the mixture is too lean; thats where the damage would be more realistic...

basically, i think that if he's 50 or so more hp with the stock turbos, he ought to be fine; and the dealer is just out to push parts.... not to mention, most ecu's are made that they can be re-tuned on the spot, rather then have a replacement chip... im not perfectly sure on the 911 tho

[Wutputt]

RUF CTR 'Yellowbird'

I've some questions about this amazing car regarding a discussion in the WYST section.
Was there a regular CTR and a Yellowbird version? And if so, what's the difference.
How many of these cars were built?
Some CTR's have air ducts on the rear 'shoulders'. What's the reason behind this, and why don't all CTR's have this feature?

[st-anger]

RUF CTR 'Yellowbird'

I've some questions about this amazing car regarding a discussion in the WYST section.
Was there a regular CTR and a Yellowbird version? And if so, what's the difference.
How many of these cars were built?
Some CTR's have air ducts on the rear 'shoulders'. What's the reason behind this, and why don't all CTR's have this feature?


i think lakatu can name u endless details on anything RUF :wink:

[Wutputt]

Than I'll wait until he comes online.

Happy new year ;)

[Cigarette1]

Is it possible to import a 996GT3RS and drive it on public roads? I thought they weren't able to get them because homologation rules (same with the mk1) ?

[nthfinity]

Is it possible to import a 996GT3RS and drive it on public roads? I thought they weren't able to get them because homologation rules (same with the mk1) ?

are you speaking of the GT3 RSR, and GT3 cup cars?

the 996 GT3 mk I was a road car, as was the GT3 RS... plates and all. not to mention something about Clubsport models...

its all in PC index... just look up the model.

[Cigarette1]

Is it possible to import a 996GT3RS and drive it on public roads? I thought they weren't able to get them because homologation rules (same with the mk1) ?

are you speaking of the GT3 RSR, and GT3 cup cars?

the 996 GT3 mk I was a road car, as was the GT3 RS... plates and all. not to mention something about Clubsport models...

its all in PC index... just look up the model.

I'm talking about the 996 GT3RS streetcar (carrra white + guardsred/riviera blue), Porsche didn't sell them in the US. I'd like to know why, I think it's got something to do with homologation rules for streetcar in the US ? Same with the 996 mk1GT3,they couldn't have that one either. And the mk2 GT3 Clubsport models, they also aren't allowed I think ? They all have order the rollcage and recaro clubsport seats seperatly, which still doesn't make it a real Clubsport...

I checked the central index and modeloverview but didn't find an explenation :oops: ?

[nthfinity]

I'm talking about the 996 GT3RS streetcar (carrra white + guardsred/riviera blue), Porsche didn't sell them in the US. I'd like to know why, I think it's got something to do with homologation rules for streetcar in the US ? Same with the 996 mk1GT3,they couldn't have that one either. And the mk2 GT3 Clubsport models, they also aren't allowed I think ? They all have order the rollcage and recaro clubsport seats seperatly, which still doesn't make it a real Clubsport...

I checked the central index and modeloverview but didn't find an explenation ?

ah, the US question... there are often several reasons...
1rst being marketing... its not as profitable to sell a low volume car in some marketsl. 2nd, crash and emssions regulations in the US are different then across the high seas.... and developemental costs to bring the product to standards across the boards when its only on the drawing board in one location can be deemed too high.

my guess is that a roll cage is not suitable for a crumple structure, and further engine tuning may not have flown for all 50 states at those points for those cars.

as far as marketing... well, it wouldn't be the first mistake a marketing devision has made ;)

[lakatu]

I'm talking about the 996 GT3RS streetcar (carrra white + guardsred/riviera blue), Porsche didn't sell them in the US. I'd like to know why, I think it's got something to do with homologation rules for streetcar in the US ? Same with the 996 mk1GT3,they couldn't have that one either. And the mk2 GT3 Clubsport models, they also aren't allowed I think ? They all have order the rollcage and recaro clubsport seats seperatly, which still doesn't make it a real Clubsport...

I checked the central index and modeloverview but didn't find an explenation ?

ah, the US question... there are often several reasons...
1rst being marketing... its not as profitable to sell a low volume car in some marketsl. 2nd, crash and emssions regulations in the US are different then across the high seas.... and developemental costs to bring the product to standards across the boards when its only on the drawing board in one location can be deemed too high.

my guess is that a roll cage is not suitable for a crumple structure, and further engine tuning may not have flown for all 50 states at those points for those cars.

as far as marketing... well, it wouldn't be the first mistake a marketing devision has made ;)
I agree with what you said nthfinity but would like to add a little to it.

Obviously the U.S. is Porsche's most important market. In the past they have sold half of all their cars in the U.S. and I'm sure that is the current situation. Since Porsche made the standard GT3 MKII available to the U.S. market it makes me wonder why they didn't do so for the GT3 RS. Certainly they could have found enough U.S. buyers that would have paid a premium to purchase the GT3 RS. So I don’t think that it is a matter of a perceived lack of market demand in the U.S. for such a car.

There really isn't too much difference between the engine and suspension setups on the GT3 vs. the GT3 RS. Therefore, I think that Porsche could have met U.S. emission standards and other requirements with the RS. The biggest difference as I see it is in the use of carbon fiber in the various structural body panels. The U.S. has some of the strictest crash safety requirements and it is therefore very costly to certify a car for the U.S.

My guess is that Porsche felt that due to their desire to keep the RS very low volume that they would not have been able to recoup the additional crash certification cost of the RS to allow it's sale in the U.S. and that the GT3 MKII would satisfy most U.S. Porsche owners. Remember that the 996 C4 is the highest volume 911 sold in the U.S. which to me indicates that the typical U.S. Porsche customer is not as interested in pure performance as other customers worldwide.

It’s too bad the 996 GT3 RS isn’t available in the U.S. as it currently has to be one of the most desirable Porsches to own. :(

[yg60m]

Just a question for st-anger : do you think that the X51 option (engine "tuned" to 381 bhp on the Carrera S ) is worth the buy ?? On several magazines I read that it is too expensive for what it brings :?

[st-anger]

Just a question for st-anger : do you think that the X51 option (engine "tuned" to 381 bhp on the Carrera S ) is worth the buy ?? On several magazines I read that it is too expensive for what it brings :?

the 997S X51 is - when speaking of lap times and pure performance - as fast as a 996TT :)
imho a MUST HAVE for the "S" when u´re a sporty driver, of course also because of the PSE :twisted:
and i think i can tell - ALL X51 engines are running at +/- 400hp and not 381 :wink:

[Cigarette1]

I'm talking about the 996 GT3RS streetcar (carrra white + guardsred/riviera blue), Porsche didn't sell them in the US. I'd like to know why, I think it's got something to do with homologation rules for streetcar in the US ? Same with the 996 mk1GT3,they couldn't have that one either. And the mk2 GT3 Clubsport models, they also aren't allowed I think ? They all have order the rollcage and recaro clubsport seats seperatly, which still doesn't make it a real Clubsport...

I checked the central index and modeloverview but didn't find an explenation ?

ah, the US question... there are often several reasons...
1rst being marketing... its not as profitable to sell a low volume car in some marketsl. 2nd, crash and emssions regulations in the US are different then across the high seas.... and developemental costs to bring the product to standards across the boards when its only on the drawing board in one location can be deemed too high.

my guess is that a roll cage is not suitable for a crumple structure, and further engine tuning may not have flown for all 50 states at those points for those cars.

as far as marketing... well, it wouldn't be the first mistake a marketing devision has made ;)
I agree with what you said nthfinity but would like to add a little to it.

Obviously the U.S. is Porsche's most important market. In the past they have sold half of all their cars in the U.S. and I'm sure that is the current situation. Since Porsche made the standard GT3 MKII available to the U.S. market it makes me wonder why they didn't do so for the GT3 RS. Certainly they could have found enough U.S. buyers that would have paid a premium to purchase the GT3 RS. So I don’t think that it is a matter of a perceived lack of market demand in the U.S. for such a car.

There really isn't too much difference between the engine and suspension setups on the GT3 vs. the GT3 RS. Therefore, I think that Porsche could have met U.S. emission standards and other requirements with the RS. The biggest difference as I see it is in the use of carbon fiber in the various structural body panels. The U.S. has some of the strictest crash safety requirements and it is therefore very costly to certify a car for the U.S.

My guess is that Porsche felt that due to their desire to keep the RS very low volume that they would not have been able to recoup the additional crash certification cost of the RS to allow it's sale in the U.S. and that the GT3 MKII would satisfy most U.S. Porsche owners. Remember that the 996 C4 is the highest volume 911 sold in the U.S. which to me indicates that the typical U.S. Porsche customer is not as interested in pure performance as other customers worldwide.

It’s too bad the 996 GT3 RS isn’t available in the U.S. as it currently has to be one of the most desirable Porsches to own. :(

So someone telling he has a GT3RS imported in the US and driving it on public roads = bullshit ?

[lakatu]

RUF CTR 'Yellowbird'

I've some questions about this amazing car regarding a discussion in the WYST section.
Was there a regular CTR and a Yellowbird version? And if so, what's the difference.
How many of these cars were built?
Some CTR's have air ducts on the rear 'shoulders'. What's the reason behind this, and why don't all CTR's have this feature?


i think lakatu can name u endless details on anything RUF :wink:
I think you are giving me too much credit here st-anger but I’ll try and address most of these issues.

First I went and reviewed the discussion in the WYST and most of it is correct as I understand it but let me add a little detail.

Was there a regular CTR and a Yellowbird version? And if so, what's the difference. Well the term Yellowbird was given at the infamous R&T test by Paul Frere and the name just kind of stuck. The term is used in two ways, which makes it kind of confusing. First it refers to the original Ruf that Alois brought to the R&T test. That car is a one of a kind and is still occasionally brought out to show. The second way it is used is to refer to the G-series bodied CTR. I guess if you were to ask Alois he might say that the original is the Yellowbird and all others are CTR's.

Both the Yellowbird and the CTR are twin-turbo and they used the 4 valve heads used in Porsche's racing versions of the 911. I have heard that the production models of the CTR were different than the Yellowbird but I couldn't tell you exactly how that is. I have also heard differing accounts as to the extent of the lighting of the Yellowbird. Some reports say the bonnet and doors were made of aluminum and that the interior was stripped out. Others have indicated that the quarter panels were also made of aluminum and that the fit and finish on these panels was not very good…and so when production CTR’s were made they didn’t have aluminum quarter panels.

How many of these cars were built? Sorry but I just don't have the time to research that but I had read it somewhere and 20 full CTR's sounds about right. Surprisingly to me since the Yellowbird has received so much attention.


Some CTR's have air ducts on the rear 'shoulders'. What's the reason behind this, and why don't all CTR's have this feature?These ducts are referred to as NACA ducts. The original Yellowbird had them to increase cooling to the oil and intercoolers. However, they actually didn't work. :oops: It was later discovered that the air from inside the engine bay actually was forced out through those ducts and so they didn't feed any air into the engine compartment. Therefore, customer models where created without the ducts. Instead on the customers CTR the angle of the intercoolers was changed and the slots in the rear bumper were added. I believe that the air flows in through the rear spoiler vents to the new angled intercoolers and out the rear bumper slots. If you have a copy of the old R&T test you will notice that the Yellowbird doesn't have all those slots but has a few slots under the license plate. IMO the CTR looks better without the NACA ducts. The same is true for the 996 Ruf you can order the car with or without rear panel NACA ducts. For me the simpler the look the better, I don’t like ducts, wings ect.

If you are interested in more details st-anger posted an excellent article from GT Purely Porsche on the Yellowbird. The title is Absolute Power and can be found at this link http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?p=261025#261025

Also check out this wonderful index that st-anger has spent so much time creating and maintaining. 8) There are a lot of other articles about the CTR there.
http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16472

[st-anger]

I think you are giving me too much credit here st-anger


....no i don´t, definitely not, i think we all know - at least I KNOW - that ur general knowledge on Porsche is up to mine :P

[lakatu]

I'm talking about the 996 GT3RS streetcar (carrra white + guardsred/riviera blue), Porsche didn't sell them in the US. I'd like to know why, I think it's got something to do with homologation rules for streetcar in the US ? Same with the 996 mk1GT3,they couldn't have that one either. And the mk2 GT3 Clubsport models, they also aren't allowed I think ? They all have order the rollcage and recaro clubsport seats seperatly, which still doesn't make it a real Clubsport...

I checked the central index and modeloverview but didn't find an explenation ?

ah, the US question... there are often several reasons...
1rst being marketing... its not as profitable to sell a low volume car in some marketsl. 2nd, crash and emssions regulations in the US are different then across the high seas.... and developemental costs to bring the product to standards across the boards when its only on the drawing board in one location can be deemed too high.

my guess is that a roll cage is not suitable for a crumple structure, and further engine tuning may not have flown for all 50 states at those points for those cars.

as far as marketing... well, it wouldn't be the first mistake a marketing devision has made ;)
I agree with what you said nthfinity but would like to add a little to it.

Obviously the U.S. is Porsche's most important market. In the past they have sold half of all their cars in the U.S. and I'm sure that is the current situation. Since Porsche made the standard GT3 MKII available to the U.S. market it makes me wonder why they didn't do so for the GT3 RS. Certainly they could have found enough U.S. buyers that would have paid a premium to purchase the GT3 RS. So I don’t think that it is a matter of a perceived lack of market demand in the U.S. for such a car.

There really isn't too much difference between the engine and suspension setups on the GT3 vs. the GT3 RS. Therefore, I think that Porsche could have met U.S. emission standards and other requirements with the RS. The biggest difference as I see it is in the use of carbon fiber in the various structural body panels. The U.S. has some of the strictest crash safety requirements and it is therefore very costly to certify a car for the U.S.

My guess is that Porsche felt that due to their desire to keep the RS very low volume that they would not have been able to recoup the additional crash certification cost of the RS to allow it's sale in the U.S. and that the GT3 MKII would satisfy most U.S. Porsche owners. Remember that the 996 C4 is the highest volume 911 sold in the U.S. which to me indicates that the typical U.S. Porsche customer is not as interested in pure performance as other customers worldwide.

It’s too bad the 996 GT3 RS isn’t available in the U.S. as it currently has to be one of the most desirable Porsches to own. :(

So someone telling he has a GT3RS imported in the US and driving it on public roads = bullshit ?Anything is possible if you have enough money. :lol: I know the 959 wasn't sold in the U.S. for similar reasons as it wasn't crash certified. Bill Gates I believe owns a 959 that is here in the U.S. but I don't know if it is street legal.

It is possible to import "grey market" cars and get them certified to drive on the streets. So I guess I don't know enough to say either way. Sorry.

[lakatu]

I think you are giving me too much credit here st-anger


....no i don´t, definitely not, i think we all know - at least I KNOW - that ur general knowledge on Porsche is up to mine :PSorry to tell you this but I'm just a good bluffer. :lol: Your the real deal. :P

Glad to see you back safe and sound and I hope you had a great time.

Edit: I just learned that there was an X51 option on the 997S. Had no idea...see what I mean. :lol:

[nthfinity]

o someone telling he has a GT3RS imported in the US and driving it on public roads = bullshit ?

i am fairly sure that Ruf imported the 'gt3 rs' but not in name... slight interior modifications likely add some weight... but they called it the RGT. its more complicated then that; but this is the closest you'll see to a GT3 RS in the us.
http://www.rufautocentre.com/newcars/RUF_RGT.asp

also, there are a few MKII gt3's around the US that have every GT3 RS option installed visually, except one... the porsche crest is still a badge.

hope that helps

good to hear from you lakatu, and st-anger :-)

i really havent read much on the CTR, do you happen to know if the 4 valve heads were from the 959, or the 956? both obviously have huge potential, with the 959 heads having greater reliability with 2 heads vs. 6 individual heads.

[Wutputt]

First I went and reviewed the discussion in the WYST and most of it is correct as I understand it but let me add a little detail.

Was there a regular CTR and a Yellowbird version? And if so, what's the difference. Well the term Yellowbird was given at the infamous R&T test by Paul Frere and the name just kind of stuck. The term is used in two ways, which makes it kind of confusing. First it refers to the original Ruf that Alois brought to the R&T test. That car is a one of a kind and is still occasionally brought out to show. The second way it is used is to refer to the G-series bodied CTR. I guess if you were to ask Alois he might say that the original is the Yellowbird and all others are CTR's.

Both the Yellowbird and the CTR are twin-turbo and they used the 4 valve heads used in Porsche's racing versions of the 911. I have heard that the production models of the CTR were different than the Yellowbird but I couldn't tell you exactly how that is. I have also heard differing accounts as to the extent of the lighting of the Yellowbird. Some reports say the bonnet and doors were made of aluminum and that the interior was stripped out. Others have indicated that the quarter panels were also made of aluminum and that the fit and finish on these panels was not very good…and so when production CTR’s were made they didn’t have aluminum quarter panels.

How many of these cars were built? Sorry but I just don't have the time to research that but I had read it somewhere and 20 full CTR's sounds about right. Surprisingly to me since the Yellowbird has received so much attention.


Some CTR's have air ducts on the rear 'shoulders'. What's the reason behind this, and why don't all CTR's have this feature?These ducts are referred to as NACA ducts. The original Yellowbird had them to increase cooling to the oil and intercoolers. However, they actually didn't work. :oops: It was later discovered that the air from inside the engine bay actually was forced out through those ducts and so they didn't feed any air into the engine compartment. Therefore, customer models where created without the ducts. Instead on the customers CTR the angle of the intercoolers was changed and the slots in the rear bumper were added. I believe that the air flows in through the rear spoiler vents to the new angled intercoolers and out the rear bumper slots. If you have a copy of the old R&T test you will notice that the Yellowbird doesn't have all those slots but has a few slots under the license plate. IMO the CTR looks better without the NACA ducts. The same is true for the 996 Ruf you can order the car with or without rear panel NACA ducts. For me the simpler the look the better, I don’t like ducts, wings ect.

If you are interested in more details st-anger posted an excellent article from GT Purely Porsche on the Yellowbird. The title is Absolute Power and can be found at this link http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?p=261025#261025

Also check out this wonderful index that st-anger has spent so much time creating and maintaining. 8) There are a lot of other articles about the CTR there.
http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16472

Thanks a lot for the reply. That's about the info I needed, I learned some new stuff today ;) And st-anger, that's a wonderful Porsche index you made there!

[st-anger]

^u´re welcome - unfortunately due to lack of time it´s MORE than uncomplete i´m afraid :(

[yg60m]

Just a question for st-anger : do you think that the X51 option (engine "tuned" to 381 bhp on the Carrera S ) is worth the buy ?? On several magazines I read that it is too expensive for what it brings :?

the 997S X51 is - when speaking of lap times and pure performance - as fast as a 996TT :)
imho a MUST HAVE for the "S" when u´re a sporty driver, of course also because of the PSE :twisted:
and i think i can tell - ALL X51 engines are running at +/- 400hp and not 381 :wink:

Thanks for your answer :wink:

[lakatu]

i really havent read much on the CTR, do you happen to know if the 4 valve heads were from the 959, or the 956? both obviously have huge potential, with the 959 heads having greater reliability with 2 heads vs. 6 individual heads.
To be honest I don't know the answer to that. To be really honest when I was writing what I said I thought that it didn't have 4 vavles but rather twin plug ignition but the R&T article listed it with 4 valves. I can tell you this for sure the heads were lifted off a Porsche racing model.

St-anger can correct me if I'm wrong but I think that many aftermarket tuners will try and use Porsche's racing parts to improve the perfromance of their tuned cars. So my guess though would be that Ruf pulled them off from the 935 parts bin. I believe that the 935 was 4 value but if I recall they also used water cooled heads so maybe that isn't it either. :?

The more I think about it the more I think that R&T is incorrect and that it is a SOHC with twin plug ignition. Sorry about the confusion...it is hard to answer questions about cars that where made by a tuner almost 20 year ago. :lol:

[nthfinity]

i really havent read much on the CTR, do you happen to know if the 4 valve heads were from the 959, or the 956? both obviously have huge potential, with the 959 heads having greater reliability with 2 heads vs. 6 individual heads.
To be honest I don't know the answer to that. To be really honest when I was writing what I said I thought that it didn't have 4 vavles but rather twin plug ignition but the R&T article listed it with 4 valves. I can tell you this for sure the heads were lifted off a Porsche racing model.

St-anger can correct me if I'm wrong but I think that many aftermarket tuners will try and use Porsche's racing parts to improve the perfromance of their tuned cars. So my guess though would be that Ruf pulled them off from the 935 parts bin. I believe that the 935 was 4 value but if I recall they also used water cooled heads so maybe that isn't it either. :?

The more I think about it the more I think that R&T is incorrect and that it is a SOHC with twin plug ignition. Sorry about the confusion...it is hard to answer questions about cars that where made by a tuner almost 20 year ago. :lol:
it would make more sense that the 2 valve 935 heads IMO... they were hugely powerful... 49mm inatke/41.5 mm exhaust, twin plug... same as the 2.8 RSR head, except in gasket design, which is a nieresist head gasket. it was definately air cooled, but oil cooled valve guides on the exhaust side.

again, that was a individual head per cylinder... im pretty sure you're right about tuned porshes running racing equipment.

also, it wouldn't be the first time that a magazine article quated tech incorreclty :lol:
edit:
http://www.supercarworld.com/cgi-bin/showgeneral.cgi?265 says that 25 were built... but it also says that it was a 6 speed... when all 964's were 5 speed, only the 959 had a 6 speed...
i cant seem to find any info on the heads :lol:

[Wutputt]

^^^
I was searching for further info as well. But came to the same conclusing: no reliable info about the heads :)

[lakatu]

http://www.supercarworld.com/cgi-bin/showgeneral.cgi?265 says that 25 were built... but it also says that it was a 6 speed... when all 964's were 5 speed, only the 959 had a 6 speed...
i cant seem to find any info on the heads :lol:
Well you are right nthfinity the Yellowbird only had a 5 sp transmission, which was rather amazing at the time as Porsche was only selling a 4 sp transmission with the 911 Turbo. However, the CTR was produced past Porsche’s change to the 964 model. CTR models past then carried a 6 sp transmission. So depending on the year that the CTR was made it could have a 5 sp or a 6 sp transmission. There is an article that compares the 965 to Alois’ personal CTR that I posted and it has the 6 sp transmission. The link is here http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?p=176924#176924 again sorry about the last page but it was the best I could do.

[nthfinity]

Well you are right nthfinity the Yellowbird only had a 5 sp transmission, which was rather amazing at the time as Porsche was only selling a 4 sp transmission with the 911 Turbo. However, the CTR was produced past Porsche’s change to the 964 model. CTR models past then carried a 6 sp transmission. So depending on the year that the CTR was made it could have a 5 sp or a 6 sp transmission.

hmm....
well, im not an expert on porsche transmissions... but i wasnt aware that a 4 speed was all that was available through (most?) of the 964 time period... i ran into a '84 964 Carerra that was running a 5 speed, so i figured that since the 964 series was simply all 5 speeds? i guess not.
i for some reason havent ever looked closely at 964 turbos interiors to notices a 4 speed... definately tall gearing would be nessisary for such immense torque levels for the single turbo design.

nice chatting with you lakatu 8) im learning some definately relevant infos here

[lakatu]

^^^ Not sure but I think that I might have generated some confusion so let me make an attempt to clarify. Almost all Porsche 911's from the beginning have had at least a 5-speed transmission. There are some strange exceptions having to do with a clutchless manual transmission but we'll ignore those.

In 1976 Porsche introduced the 930 or 911 Turbo. Because of the immense torque the gears had to be stronger and the transmission casing would only allow enough space to fit 4 gears. So from 1976-1988 the 911 Turbo had a 4-speed transmission. Even the 934 the racing version of the 930 used a 4 speed transmission. Porsche claimed that due to the immense torque that acceleration times were very similar for the 4 speed vs. a 5 speed on the 930. The problem was the 930 had a lot of turbo lag and the longer gear ratios of a 4-speed transmission meant that the car took longer to come into the boost, which happened at roughly 3,800-4,000 rpm.

Ruf decided that to improve the drivability of their 930 variants that they needed a 5-speed transmission so they introduced a specialty 5-speed transmission in the early 80's around 1981. I think they sold it at the time as a separate part for around $9,000. You also have to remember that a lot of things were going on at Porsche at this time. The 911 had been slated to die and was to be replaced by the 928 and 944 so R&D dollars weren't spent on the 911. They 930 was initially a special homologation car and wasn't intended to be a permanent model and Porsche was struggling financially in part due to the energy crisis.

Well everyone knows that the 911 didn't die and ended up being the model that kept the company alive. The CEO at Porsche was replaced and refocused R&D on the 911 hence the 959 was born. In 1987 Porsche outsourced their transmissions to Borg&Warner and they created a much improved 5 speed for the 1987 911 which btw is referred to as either a G-series because of the body with the front and rear bumpers or it is also referred to as a Carrera or by its engine size 3.2L. I use engine size because the Carrera name was used by Porsche several times before as far back as the 356.

This new Borg&Warner transmission was much stronger and had better defined gates. Anyone that has driven an older 911 prior to 1987 can't tell you what a difference that made. The stronger transmission was able to support the hp and torque of the 911 Turbo or 930, so in 1989 Porsche finally introduced a 5 speed, this was also the last year of the 930/911 Turbo model to be replaced in 1991 by the 911 Turbo/964 Turbo/965 (they all refer to the same car). :lol:

The next 911 model was the 964 which was also available starting in 1989 and had the 3.6L engine. A few years later in 1991 the 964 Turbo or some refer to it as the 965 was introduced and again Porsche had a 5 speed on that car. The 993 saw the introduction of the 6-speed transmission for both naturally aspirated and turbocharged engines.

So I hope that clears up the confusion I created. So to recap in 1984 if you bought a 3.2L Carrera it came with Porsche's less than ideal 5 speed :roll: but if you bought the 911 Turbo in 1984 it came with a 4 speed.

[nthfinity]

So I hope that clears up the confusion I created. So to recap in 1984 if you bought a 3.2L Carrera it came with Porsche's less than ideal 5 speed but if you bought the 911 Turbo in 1984 it came with a 4 speed.

naw, not too much confusion :lol: just reminding me of stuff i ought to know :lol: ... what years of model designation ought to have been near the front of my thoughts regarding porsche :oops:

anyway, i was unaware that Alois had a costom 5 speed tranny as a separate part :) fairly pricy... but it would seem an ideal component for somebody who would track their 930 turbo.

thanks again lakatu

[st-anger]

...nice and enjoyable to follow your conversation guys, appreciate both of your efforts :P

[lakatu]

anyway, i was unaware that Alois had a costom 5 speed tranny as a separate part fairly pricy... but it would seem an ideal component for somebody who would track their 930 turbo.
Yes it was a definite must have item but those prices are/were 1980 prices when you could by the 930 for $45k so the Ruf transmission was about 20% of the cost of a new 930.

BTW in the end Porsche was right the 1989 930 with the 5-speed transmission had basically the same acceleration times as the previous years 4-speed. Also another side note...the 4 speed transmission was the off the racing division parts so it could handle huge increases in hp. Many 930 owners ended up having their engines modified and were running 400-600 hp and opted to stay with the 4-speed transmission because it was so bulletproof. Imagine a car weighing 2850 lbs or less if stripped and having 500 hp. :lol:

[nthfinity]

Many 930 owners ended up having their engines modified and were running 400-600 hp and opted to stay with the 4-speed transmission because it was so bulletproof. Imagine a car weighing 2850 lbs or less if stripped and having 500 hp.

ive read similar accounts... and im not sure if a :lol: fully encompasses it... mabey its better to put it this way: the dead pedal is no longer an unmovable foot rest on the left :twisted:

400-600 is a massive range, and i cannot imagine what the lag would be on the 600 range under single turbo conditions...

i suppose i havent been checking, but for the last 4 months, ive been lacking my monthly reads of GT, and Excellence... often they carry some great articles on some of these wonderful one-off highly tuned machines.

[frodefe]

Found a picture of an old poster that shows the gear ratio.
I also believed that the CTR only had 5 gears - but this proves me wrong.

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/2253/yellowbirdposter6bh.th.jpg (http://img354.imageshack.us/my.php?image=yellowbirdposter6bh.jpg)

With a rpm max at 7750 the maximum, theoretical speed in each gear:
1st: 80-85 km/h
2nd: 145 km/h
3rd: 205 km/h
4th: 260 km/h
5th: 295 km/h
6th: 365-370

To me this looks strange. The ratio between each gear decreases, but it looks like the 5th gear are awfully short, and that 6th are really long.
But then again, it's primarily geared for maximum velocity

[nthfinity]

Found a picture of an old poster that shows the gear ratio.
I also believed that the CTR only had 5 gears - but this proves me wrong.

With a rpm max at 7750 the maximum, theoretical speed in each gear:
1st: 80-85 km/h
2nd: 145 km/h
3rd: 205 km/h
4th: 260 km/h
5th: 295 km/h
6th: 365-370

To me this looks strange. The ratio between each gear decreases, but it looks like the 5th gear are awfully short, and that 6th are really long.
But then again, it's primarily geared for maximum velocity

well, the gear ratios almost definately dont look 959 ish... so im thinking that it may be another Ruf costom job...

you definately have a point that 5th gear looks stupidly short... it would, however make sence if the first 5 ratios were close for ideal track use, with a tall 6th for those amazing records.

thanks for the pic +info...
im going to look for the R+T article from this past summer with the 1 mile shootout... that may have some more info.
edit:
no new info; but if you missed the read; CTR specific
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/1037/scan00108bw.th.jpg (http://img375.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scan00108bw.jpg)

[sentra_dude]

I read this on a Porsche forum: [discussing the 997]
This is a perfect example of how much abuse you put on the syncro's when shifting from neutral into first gear when the car is not moving forward. For those of you who are in the practice of taking the the car out of gear at a stop light, better think again. It is not only unsafe and unnecessary, but can prematurely wear out the syncro's, causing grinding and gear pop out. Keep the car in gear.

Now, this goes in opposition to most of what I have heard/been taught...is it true? :o

It was in response to this post:
Has anyone had a problem shifting into first gear when coming to a stop? A couple of times I was at a complete standstill waiting for the light to turn green and when I pushed in the clutch so I can put the car into 1st, it didn't want to go in. Almost like something was blocking it.

I put it into 3rd and then back into 1st and it went in. First time it happened I thought maybe I didn't push the clutch in all the way, but it has happened a couple of times already and it concerns me.

Anyone else?...


The guy also said:
The arguement that many people make as to why they put the car in neutral when at a stop light is to save the throwout bearing from wearing out. No other part of the clutch system is engaged when you clutch pedal is pressed to the floor. The throwout bearing was designed to last far longer than even the most quality clutch disc will last. They are as durable as your wheel bearings which spin continuously as you drive. It is EXTREMELY rare that the throwout bearing would have problems before you needed to replace your clutch.

So, rather than take a chance on wearing out a $20 bearing that would cost $1500 to replace INCLUDING the cost of a new clutch kit), they prefer to take a chance on wearing out the synco's in the transmission. Makes no sense to me especially with the price of a new tranny being what it is. It isn't even safe to be in neutral when you are at a light or anywhere else on the street. Most of these people have never driven a car without syncro's where, if you weren't in first gear before the car stopped moving, you had to turn the car off to get it into gear.


What do you Porsche experts think about this...? :?:

[dingo]

I'd be interested in knowing the answer to that aswell, it is something I've thought about. I usually leave it in 1st gear unless I can tell its going to be red for awhile, then i put it in nuetral.

[Wutputt]

I always leave it in 1st gear at a stop. When holding the clutch completely open there isn't that much strain on the diaphragm spring, cause it is in a second state of rest. There is almost no wear in this case.

When shifting to neutral and back to first at a red light you're using more components, and those components are more vital and expensive. Hence I always leave it in first with the clutch disengaged of course ;). The only time when I would put it in neutral is if I would have a lot of pain in the muscles of my leg and I would have to keep the car to a halt for a long time.

[nthfinity]

Interesting question - especially since I always put it in neutral :?
i never thought about it either...
but even on my own (at least) 180k mile 5 speed bronco... the tranny never suffered...

oh my Saab, my 2nd gear sincromesh had broken... somehow causing me to loose 1rst and 3rd, and later, to get stuck in 2nd... confusing

[sentra_dude]

Hmm, I wonder about this, if it was such a big deal wouldn't car manufactures tell us more (maybe they do, but I've sure missed it). And if it is so bad, how come more transmissions are dieing...most of the time I sit at a light in neutral and then put it in 1st, and my 1st gear is fine, its my 2nd & 3rd gears that have worn syncros... :?: :fadein:

[nthfinity]

Hmm, I wonder about this, if it was such a big deal wouldn't car manufactures tell us more (maybe they do, but I've sure missed it). And if it is so bad, how come more transmissions are dieing...most of the time I sit at a light in neutral and then put it in 1st, and my 1st gear is fine, its my 2nd & 3rd gears that have worn syncros... :?: :fadein:
shifting at higher revs, and hard transitions offers more damage to the individual syncros... i know they bolster usually 1rst, 2nd, and 3rd on proper sports cars (the STi, the 04 Cobra both have tripple cone syncros on 1-3rd) the Ford GT has then through 4th gear, and dubble cone on 5th/6th i believe...

cars like a sentra (if your driving one) im guessing 2nd and 3rd arent nearly as beefed up as 1rst... and im guessing you usually ease out of neutral at low revs, but shift progresively higher?

i have no real idea where i shifted my bronco at... as i didn't have a tach... however, i shifted where i felt i was loosing power, and was ideal to take the next gear... but that engine was very tired, so im guessing i never shifted higher then 3500 lol

this is definately a question for somebody who knows transmissions a bit better, however. :wink:

[ae86_16v]

Okay, this is going to be a stupid question judging by all the informative comments and post made here, but here it is. . .

What is going to happen to the 911 Model Designation after 999? I would expect after the 997, would be the 998, then the 999. What happens after that?


And here is the better question, Lakatu, are you going to continue with your "Is the Rear Engine Design Fundementally Flawed?" discussion?

Thank you all for contributing.

[lakatu]

Thanks ae86_16v for reading the article and liking it enough to request more. :lol:

I actually started out writing the final article with some concepts in mind and while doing additional research, discovered that I was wrong about some of those ideas. That combined with what appeared to be relatively little interest in the subject by others caused me to abandon the final article. Besides I struggled to find the time to write the article.

At this point I would say I don't think that there will be a final article. But you never know. :lol:

In regards to your question about model designation, st-anger addressed that question here http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?p=32232&highlight=999#32232 There also may have been another discussion about that topic. You might be able to find that using the search feature. It certainly is an interesting situation.

[sentra_dude]

Hmm, I wonder about this, if it was such a big deal wouldn't car manufactures tell us more (maybe they do, but I've sure missed it). And if it is so bad, how come more transmissions are dieing...most of the time I sit at a light in neutral and then put it in 1st, and my 1st gear is fine, its my 2nd & 3rd gears that have worn syncros... :?: :fadein:
shifting at higher revs, and hard transitions offers more damage to the individual syncros... i know they bolster usually 1rst, 2nd, and 3rd on proper sports cars (the STi, the 04 Cobra both have tripple cone syncros on 1-3rd) the Ford GT has then through 4th gear, and dubble cone on 5th/6th i believe...

cars like a sentra (if your driving one) im guessing 2nd and 3rd arent nearly as beefed up as 1rst... and im guessing you usually ease out of neutral at low revs, but shift progresively higher?

i have no real idea where i shifted my bronco at... as i didn't have a tach... however, i shifted where i felt i was loosing power, and was ideal to take the next gear... but that engine was very tired, so im guessing i never shifted higher then 3500 lol

this is definately a question for somebody who knows transmissions a bit better, however. :wink:

Interesting points, and I am actually driving a Celica, not a Sentra as my name would suggest. That is pretty much how it goes, very easy on 1st gear, and occasionally hard on 2nd and 3rd, but for the most part I try and be very nice to my trannie, I want it to last. :P

I would guess since my car isn't a sports car, it doesnt have beefed up syncros on 2nd or 3rd, but I could be wrong.

[ae86_16v]

Thanks ae86_16v for reading the article and liking it enough to request more. :lol:

I actually started out writing the final article with some concepts in mind and while doing additional research, discovered that I was wrong about some of those ideas. That combined with what appeared to be relatively little interest in the subject by others caused me to abandon the final article. Besides I struggled to find the time to write the article.

At this point I would say I don't think that there will be a final article. But you never know. :lol:

In regards to your question about model designation, st-anger addressed that question here http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?p=32232&highlight=999#32232 There also may have been another discussion about that topic. You might be able to find that using the search feature. It certainly is an interesting situation.

Lakatu - Yeah, I enjoyed reading about your thoughts. But it felt like you were just giving the introduction into your piece and it did not feel like you really express or presented the entire arguement.

So, I for one, am looking forward to continueing the series :) .

And let us know what you thought was wrong and how you came about it. It should definitely be an interesting piece.

In regards to the Model Designation, St. Anger said it is mostly marketing anyways. But we still have at least 2 more models to go, which makes it another 11 years.

Which brings me to another question, Porsche doesn't have designated new model cycles do they? It looks like a quick search on Google shows arbitrary ranges of model cycles. Although both the 993 and the 996 lasted 6 years each. But the 964 lasted only 5 years, and so on and so forth.

Is there a reason why?

[JoeHahn]

Thanks ae86_16v for reading the article and liking it enough to request more. :lol:

I actually started out writing the final article with some concepts in mind and while doing additional research, discovered that I was wrong about some of those ideas. That combined with what appeared to be relatively little interest in the subject by others caused me to abandon the final article. Besides I struggled to find the time to write the article.

At this point I would say I don't think that there will be a final article. But you never know. :lol:

In regards to your question about model designation, st-anger addressed that question here http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?p=32232&highlight=999#32232 There also may have been another discussion about that topic. You might be able to find that using the search feature. It certainly is an interesting situation.

Lakatu - Yeah, I enjoyed reading about your thoughts. But it felt like you were just giving the introduction into your piece and it did not feel like you really express or presented the entire arguement.

So, I for one, am looking forward to continueing the series :) .

And let us know what you thought was wrong and how you came about it. It should definitely be an interesting piece.

In regards to the Model Designation, St. Anger said it is mostly marketing anyways. But we still have at least 2 more models to go, which makes it another 11 years.

Which brings me to another question, Porsche doesn't have designated new model cycles do they? It looks like a quick search on Google shows arbitrary ranges of model cycles. Although both the 993 and the 996 lasted 6 years each. But the 964 lasted only 5 years, and so on and so forth.

Is there a reason why?

I'm guessing it comes down to market demand. If everyone built a 3200lb 450bhp+ car then the 997 would probably have to be developed within 5 years. It also depends if they can actually match the 911 - even with those kinds of figures.

[dingo]

A question to any of the Porsche experts, or maybe just an opinion is more what I want.

What are your thoughts on PASM being a standard feature on the 997 GT3? I have no first hand experience, but from what I've read/heard it isn't necassary for the best laptimes.....so why make it standard on a track-oriented car?

I realise alot of people thought the ride in the 996 GT3 was too harsh, so maybe this is in response to those complaints? :?

Another thing, isn't it difficult to remove the shocks/springs etc and replace them with aftermarket items without creating havoc with the onboard electronics/computers? Where does this leave customers who want an even more track-inspired suspension setup?

Hope that rambling made sense and isn't full of too much BS... :)

[luwalira]

I think that installing PASM in the 997 GT3 is an excellent idea. Come on, we all ahve seen GT3s rolling on the road and I do think that those owners wouldn't mind some comfort when they aren't driving on a track.

[DJF1]

For the majority of the owners and the track day crowd PASM if absolutely fine. If you want to race, its another story but then again if you had the money for a street GT3 you should buy a Cup car instead of converting a street car.

[nthfinity]

^^^
a cup car isnt titled, right?

[1zippo1]

I was wondering something. I know the 996Turbo and 997Turbo are all wheel drive. But I suppose not every 911 Turbo was AWD, was it? My guess is that the 930 (the first turbo right?) and the 964 were not AWD, but was the 993?


PS: I did a search for AWD but I didn't encouter anything in this topic so I hope this question isn't a repost.

[dingo]

The 993 Turbo was AWD, but the 930 and 964 were both only RWD. ;)

[Pipelion]

Hi folks,

I'm new here, this is one massive website wow.

Some day I'd like to own a Carrera GT. I just found an article saying Porsche had estimated the C GTs clutch lasting 187,000 miles, yes. So what's with the Texas Gt inso kindly posted losing it's clutch so early. That's not all, two weeks ago a yellow GT sold on ebay with 5000 miles and it's clutch had been replaced. I've read all I could on the GT and many say the clutch starting problem was OVER STATED, but that doesn't explain these others losing theirs.

Is this clutch under desiged? To fagile?

Does anyone here know the real story. Please let me know if your posts are guesses or fact. It's great to hear opinions but I want to find out whats going on here. :shock:

Appreciate imput,

Allan

[nthfinity]

not to be mean... st-anger likes questions like this in the porsche Q+A section... just keeps porsche central a wee bit cleaner; and easier to browse +learn.

that said
i would think its tempting to drump the clutch in a sportscar, supercar, or hypercar like the CGT... and letting the clutch engage from high rpm like 8000 cant be good for any clutch, even a uber strong super small carbon clutch...

under normal usage, my guess is the CGT clutch would outlast the 187,000 mile (300,000 km) distance... but who wants to drive like the old lady in the 5 speed civic?

that said... porsche expects thier costomers to take thier cars to tracks... and while things like pads and roters may be used in a single outting... you have Endurance winning technology all over the CGT, as well as other P cars...

under testing @ NS... i know they did quite a few miles there :wink: and its said that every 1 mile there, is like 20 miles in the real world worth of wear and tear... and i think that WR tested one CGT somewhere about 30,000 km... but i dont know what kind of parts needed to be replaced besides tires/pads/rotors/fluids.

mostly, i would expect such a clutch to fail from repeted hard launches, and overextending launch attempts...

[T-Bird]

well I've heard of 2 CGT's getting clutches already from our neighbors next door (Porsche Exchange)

[black_magician]

if you want to see some pics of it, there is a clutch job install posted here.

http://members.cox.net/alang1/carrera_gt/index.htm

[RC45]

They should just install a Turbo 400 and call it a day ;) :P hehe

[1zippo1]

This is just a remark I had when I was looking at the specs from the new GT3. They say it's EC weight is 1470kg. It struck me that that wasn't really so light, so I looked at the EC weight of the standard Carrera 3.6 and it's exactly the same.

Ok I image the GT3 has got some extra weight because of bigger brakes and stuff like that but isn't it supposed to be a stripped out lightweigt version?

One more thing, you can download the GT3 video from the site!! Which is excellent but the 911 turbo flash video is also very nice but you can't download that... or can you?