|
Q&A Porsche discussion
...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 |
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. |
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... |
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. |
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/...anger/VR-1.jpg http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/...anger/VR-2.jpg http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/...anger/VL-2.jpg http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/...anger/VL-1.jpg http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/...anger/HR-1.jpg http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/...anger/HL-1.jpg |
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) |
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. |
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/show...=asc&start=180 |
Quote:
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… |
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 :?: |
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! :) |
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 . |
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?! |
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. |
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... :) |
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 :) |
Thanx man! You are a REAL Porsche Expert!!! :o
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
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... |
Quote:
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. |
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 :) |
Quote:
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: . |
Quote:
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 |
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. |
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!
|
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: :? |
Quote:
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] |
Quote:
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: . |
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. |
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 |
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/...retson935.html and another article about the 934 http://www.911handbook.com/articles/...wdavem934.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. |
Great Post :roll:
|
"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 |
Quote:
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: |
hehe no problem ;) I look forward to your next part, good job ;)
|
MOVED:
posted by BADMIHAI Is Porsche worth the money? http://www.motorworld.net/forum/show...er=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 |
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.. |
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 |
Quote:
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: |
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? |
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! |
plus its not rice n cheesy like fast n furious
|
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? Quote:
|
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.
|
...btw, very nice new avatar lakatu, congrats for this one :D
|
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? |
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
|
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 |
Quote:
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 |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.