Porsche model overview

[st-anger]

Porsche Traction Management

A New Generation of Four-Wheel Drive

Introducing the Cayenne model series, Porsche has succeeded in combining outstanding power and torque, sporting and agile handling as well as excellent driving dynamics with superior performance also off the beaten track. This is ensured to a large extent by Porsche Traction Management (PTM) featured as standard in the Cayenne, feeding 62 per cent of the engine's power to the rear and 38 per cent to the front wheels in the basic mode. Using a multiple-plate clutch operated by an electric motor and controlled electronically, the driver is able to vary the power split as required, if necessary even feeding 100 per cent of the engine's torque to the front or rear wheels. Porsche Traction Management can rightly be called an all-new generation of four-wheel drive with a significant influence on the dynamic performance of the Cayenne models. The map-controlled front-to-rear lock and the optionally available rear axle differential lock not only respond to lack of traction on the front or rear wheels, but also incorporate sensors within the PTM system measuring, say, the speed of the car, lateral acceleration, the steering angle and operation of the gas pedal, PTM thus determining the optimum lock on both axles and distributing the drive power actually required to the front and rear wheels. PTM may therefore be compared with an intelligently networked system providing superior driving stability and safe lane change behaviour both at high speeds and when driving on snow and ice at moderate speeds.

This innovation offers a whole range of outstanding results:

• Excellent driving stability and traction in all situations, regardless of the frictional coefficient

• Even more precise steering provided by the front-to-rear differential lock opening up to avoid any understeer effect

• Better control when driving to the limit ensured by the front-to-rear differential

• Enhanced directional stability and better road grip by operating the front-to-rear lock as required

• Maximum traction by increasing locking action before the wheels start to spin


Porsche Stability Management (PSM) featured as standard in the Cayenne models remains consistently in touch with PTM but only intervenes when the vehicle reaches its limits. Masterminding essential systems such as ABS, ASR and the ABD Automatic Brake Differential, PSM cuts in immediately under critical over- or understeer conditions and tells PTM to open up the locks in order to restabilise the vehicle by applying the brakes specifically on individual wheels.

A champion off the beaten track

The three versions of the Cayenne successfully combine outstanding performance on the road with equally outstanding offroad abilities. Indeed, they are already genuine masters off the beaten track in their “basic” configuration, intelligent four-wheel drive enabling the Cayennes to easily cross light terrain without any modification of the traction systems. On rough terrain the Porsche Traction System then uses the reduced-ratio gearbox featured as standard in the power divider. With its reduction ratio of 2.7:1, the reduction gearbox is ideal for even the most extreme offroad manoeuvres, easily handling steep gradients and, in particular, downhill passes. Activating the low-range mode by means of a toggle switch on the centre console, the driver can automatically prepare several control systems for offroad driving conditions: PTM switches over to the reduced ratio for offroad requirements and changes to a special offroad control map activating the differential locks, PSM responds by setting ABS and ABD to a special traction mode for offroad motoring, and the air suspension featured as standard in the Cayenne Turbo automatically lifts the entire vehicle up to its offroad level. Porsche is the first car maker to offer this combination of systems all controlled by one central offroad switch and thus significantly facilitating operation of these systems when driving under extreme conditions off the beaten track.

[st-anger]

PCM Operating at the Speed of Light


Data Transmission by Means of Lightwave Conductors

A new technology bearing the name MOST (Media-Oriented Systems Transport) was introduced in the 2003 model year for exchanging multi-media data in all Porsche models. The big advantage of this system using lightwave conductors is that data is exchanged between the various units without any loss of quality and at a very high speed. Particularly in the interest of high-quality audio transmissions, both the radio, CD changer and amplifier units as well as the telephone module are all masterminded through MOST lightwave conductors. The customer himself decides when choosing his car and its specfic level of equipment which units are to be integrated in the system. Networking Porsche Communication Management (PCM) with the instrument cluster via the CAN (Controller Area Network), the driver is able to present the radio station currently tuned in, music titles, incoming telephone calls and navigation pictograms in the display of the instrument cluster. Basic telephone functions such as receiving or ending telephone calls can be controlled straight from the on-board computer switch on the steering column or via the multifunction steering wheel on the Cayenne.

PCM: a highlight in electronic management offering supreme comfort and convenience

Featuring a double tuner, a CD player, dynamic route navigation, a trip computer and, as a further option, a GSM dual-band telephone, Porsche Communication Management (PCM) available as a new optional package comes in user-friendly design. Two of the main features catching your eye immediately are the 5.8-inch (Boxster, Carrera) and, respectively, 6.5-inch (Cayenne) colour screen providing crystal-clear pictures in 16:9 aspect ratio and the 12-digit keyboard for entering telephone numbers or the frequency of a certain radio station directly and with utmost simplicity. A small insert beneath the 12-digit keyboard accommodates the user's SIM card, dispensing with the need for an adapter when making Telefone calls with your mobile telephone SIM card. The PCM system also facilitates the process of inserting the small card, its exact position being shown on the display.
The buttons beneath the display provide direct access to the individual menus such as telephone operation (Tel button), trip computer (Trip button) or the navigation system (Navi button). Two buttons providing direct access to the Set (Set button) and Return (button with a bent arrow) functions avoid the need to “jump around” from one sub-menu to another and waste a lot of time in the process. Apart from interference-free radio reception ensured by a modern double tuner consistently looking for the best frequency and significantly improved voice reception quality in Telefone calls provided by full-duplex transmission, the navigation module in particular features the following outstanding highlights:

• Large choice of various navigation functions: Functions can also be presented on the map in the display, informing the driver of, say, car parks, restaurants or service stations.

• On-demand road junction zoom: This function automatically enlarges road junctions in the active guidance mode, providing helpful support above all at dangerous points where a road junction is unclear.

• Display presentation of traffic messages: The Traffic Message Channel (TMC) function presents traffic congestion on the map in the display (also showing the length and buildup of traffic jams) and allows the driver to follow a dynamic navigation process on the motorway. Pressing the Info main menu button, the driver is furthermore able to directly access text information. Using another separate button, he is also able to quickly determine and calculate another route avoiding local traffic congestion.

• Map scroll: Benefitting from the wider range of map options, the user is now able to shift the map display, scroll and position the map as required. This means he is able to navigate from his current location to his desired destination, checking out and memorising a destination by means of a reticule display, without having to enter the exact address.

• Offroad navigation in the Cayenne: This brand-new option on the Cayenne models is able to provide vital orientation in offroad motoring, allowing the driver not only to enter any destination required on the map by means of a hairpin finder, but also to apply a back-tracking function memorising the route covered and guiding the driver back to his starting point on the same route as before.

• Tour planning: The tour planning function allows the user to enter and memorise tours with up to 8 destinations in a row. When setting out, the system will automatically guide the driver to the individual destinations on the way, in precisely the order recorded in advance. Further processing options on such extended tours are also possible, such as adding information, removing destinations, changing the order of destinations on the way or skipping a certain point.

• Music played by the navigation CD ROM drive: Apart from the usual navigation function provided by a CD-ROM, the PCM system also allows memory-based navigation. In this case the user can remove the navigation CD after calculating his route or recording the route corridor, subsequently inserting an audio CD into the CD-ROM drive in order to enjoy music in first-class quality. And should it be necessary to reinsert the navigation CD, for example to calculate an all-new route, the system will automatically inform the driver by generating an optical and an acoustic signal.

New aerial systems

Apart from the proven radio aerial, the GPS aerial used for navigation purposes and the telephone aerial, Porsche Communication Management also comes with a diversity aerial system. This system is made up of four aerial wires also integrated in the windscreen and ensuring that FM signals are always received by the most appropriate aerial in the right position. The diversity aerial system controlled by a special aerial amplifier thus serves to further reduce any interference in radio reception.

[lakatu]

Originally Posted by st-anger Originally Posted by lakatu Originally Posted by st-anger pro racers´d like to have a car that has a tendency to oversteer, and no understeering at all Thanks st-anger your comments are insightful. I have heard that experienced drivers prefer oversteer to understeer, why is that? first the answer to your question toronto, yes, i´ve met WR hundreds of times, he´s present at the EZW quite some times, and also at the NS during testing mainly at industry pool sessions, you know, he´s an official Porsche test driver, so, he work´s for PAG... when you meet him and even work with him it´s beyond anything you could imagine, this guy is just supercool and extremely professional, he´s the most passionate Porsche employee i know... so, why oversteering better that understeering....??? the one and only reason: a car with oversteering characteristics is simply faster, even when it´s quite tricky at the limit you´re still faster than with a car that has a understeering tendency. as you know, understeering "happens" quite fast, you approach a corner at high speed and enter it hard, with a badly balanced car, the first thing what´ll happen is understeering and you´ll loose the line immediately, the car "runs wide", you´ll have to go off the accl, then stabilize the car, in the meantime you´re righ in front of the curbs and you even have to brake a bit not to end in the grass, at that time somewhere at the apex you´ll have to arrange the car again for the line with the better grip, again some time loss and you have to accelerate again, but the car has understeering so it run´s wide again at the exit and one can´t properly accelerate for the next straight... so i think it´s obvious that it´s really bad to have understeering... but as i said b4 there´re some tricks to force the car to oversteering... and that´s the point, forcing a understeering car to oversteering, so oversteering must be the best way... even with a badly balanced car you won´t have oversteering that fast like understeering, and when you finally have oversteering it´s very easy to stop it, just lift the accl a bit and the car has full grip again, of course, to say so you´ve to be a quite skilled driver. to understand better, just look at some F1 drivers, some of them want a car that oversteers a bit, you´re simply faster, it´s very controlable, when you know the car you also know when it´s enough, i´ve to say that i exactely know when e.g. a 996TT is at its limit, i can push it very very hard some spectators might think now he´ll loose it but it´s all under control... so, understeering is and just costs a lot of time, oversteering can be corrected within seconds and allows you to significantly go faster...

St Anger, I was wondering how would you characterize the 911 range from the 996, 993, 964 and the 3.2L in regards to a professional driver wanting the handling to be set up to "oversteer a bit". I’m wondering if, in your opinion (since you’re a skilled driver with various driving experience), a professional driver would consider the 911 range’s handling through the years as perfect or want less or more oversteering.

Watching videos of the current GT3 being tossed into turns, the car looks very controllable at the limit. I know that there were major changes to the handling characteristics between the 993 and the 964 models that may account for the newer models controllability while oversteering.

Older articles that I have read by Paul Frere discuss the oversteering character of the 911 3.2L as being desirable and an advantage to help the driver position the car on the road. For example, when discussing the 3.2L Club Sport model he said: "The stiffer shock absorbers also have reduced considerably the liftoff oversteering characteristic of the 911-behavior I personally approve of, as it helps the driver position the car."

An extremely skilled driver like Frere sounds like he might consider the early 3.2L handling as set up perfectly. Yet other writers discuss the handling characteristic of especially the older models such as the 3.2L as intimidating & beastly. I am confused by the different pictures painted about the controllability of the 911’s oversteering characteristics. Based on Frere’s description I get an image that represents something similar to videos described above were the back end of the car can be controllably slid and positioned without the fear of losing control. Yet other writers make it sound like once the back end starts sliding you better start praying, because chances are good that you won’t regain control.

I know your driving experience is mainly with 996 & 993 models but any insight you or anyone else might have would be appreciated.

[lakatu]

Originally Posted by st-anger Originally Posted by lakatu Originally Posted by st-anger pro racers´d like to have a car that has a tendency to oversteer, and no understeering at all Thanks st-anger your comments are insightful. I have heard that experienced drivers prefer oversteer to understeer, why is that? first the answer to your question toronto, yes, i´ve met WR hundreds of times, he´s present at the EZW quite some times, and also at the NS during testing mainly at industry pool sessions, you know, he´s an official Porsche test driver, so, he work´s for PAG... when you meet him and even work with him it´s beyond anything you could imagine, this guy is just supercool and extremely professional, he´s the most passionate Porsche employee i know... so, why oversteering better that understeering....??? the one and only reason: a car with oversteering characteristics is simply faster, even when it´s quite tricky at the limit you´re still faster than with a car that has a understeering tendency. as you know, understeering "happens" quite fast, you approach a corner at high speed and enter it hard, with a badly balanced car, the first thing what´ll happen is understeering and you´ll loose the line immediately, the car "runs wide", you´ll have to go off the accl, then stabilize the car, in the meantime you´re righ in front of the curbs and you even have to brake a bit not to end in the grass, at that time somewhere at the apex you´ll have to arrange the car again for the line with the better grip, again some time loss and you have to accelerate again, but the car has understeering so it run´s wide again at the exit and one can´t properly accelerate for the next straight... so i think it´s obvious that it´s really bad to have understeering... but as i said b4 there´re some tricks to force the car to oversteering... and that´s the point, forcing a understeering car to oversteering, so oversteering must be the best way... even with a badly balanced car you won´t have oversteering that fast like understeering, and when you finally have oversteering it´s very easy to stop it, just lift the accl a bit and the car has full grip again, of course, to say so you´ve to be a quite skilled driver. to understand better, just look at some F1 drivers, some of them want a car that oversteers a bit, you´re simply faster, it´s very controlable, when you know the car you also know when it´s enough, i´ve to say that i exactely know when e.g. a 996TT is at its limit, i can push it very very hard some spectators might think now he´ll loose it but it´s all under control... so, understeering is and just costs a lot of time, oversteering can be corrected within seconds and allows you to significantly go faster...

St Anger, I was wondering how would you characterize the 911 range from the 996, 993, 964 and the 3.2L in regards to a professional driver wanting the handling to be set up to "oversteer a bit". I’m wondering if, in your opinion (since you’re a skilled driver with various driving experience), a professional driver would consider the 911 range’s handling through the years as perfect or want less or more oversteering.

Watching videos of the current GT3 being tossed into turns, the car looks very controllable at the limit. I know that there were major changes to the handling characteristics between the 993 and the 964 models that may account for the newer models controllability while oversteering.

Older articles that I have read by Paul Frere discuss the oversteering character of the 911 3.2L as being desirable and an advantage to help the driver position the car on the road. For example, when discussing the 3.2L Club Sport model he said: "The stiffer shock absorbers also have reduced considerably the liftoff oversteering characteristic of the 911-behavior I personally approve of, as it helps the driver position the car."

An extremely skilled driver like Frere sounds like he might consider the early 3.2L handling as set up perfectly. Yet other writers discuss the handling characteristic of especially the older models such as the 3.2L as intimidating & beastly. I am confused by the different pictures painted about the controllability of the 911’s oversteering characteristics. Based on Frere’s description I get an image that represents something similar to videos described above were the back end of the car can be controllably slid and positioned without the fear of losing control. Yet other writers make it sound like once the back end starts sliding you better start praying, because chances are good that you won’t regain control.

I know your driving experience is mainly with 996 & 993 models but any insight you or anyone else might have would be appreciated.

[st-anger]

well, we can talk for hours on that topic, but i´ll try to keep it short and simple, first, and this is the main point: it depends…
i´d say that the skilled (Porsche) driver is kinda used to excessive oversteering at the limit ( and beyond ) and i´ve to admit, when i´m looking at the upstarts taking their Porsches out to NS or HHR or whatever…any e.g. Focus RS is faster, because they simply can´t handle their car, yes, a Porsche can be a bit beastly, especially at the limit, but I also have to say that most of the customers won´t ever explore the limit of their cars, be extra careful with some write-ups in mags or whatever, what you see on vids and what they´re talking…. many times I thought to myself: yeah, in the vid it seems that he can drive and “understands” the car, …looks fast, nice powerslide, some nice comments …. but in the end I often come to the conclusion that some editors/testers have no idea….but this is just my opinion, there are some who definitely know their business but sometimes…..well….who cares, my tipp: don´t pay too much attention to “mag opinions…”
it´s a very simple comparison, just read an article about a model and then search around a bit on owner forums or whatever what they think about this certain issue and talk about the “mag-opinion” and you´ll see that sometimes it´s completely different…
but back to your question…
second, it´s a bit of a myth that all 911´s have a tendency to oversteering, the modern 911 have understeering characteristics but are more or less completely neutral. The whole handling characteristics changed through the years very much, the first 911´s are definitely a bit tricky to drive at the limit, but nowadays the cars should be driveable for anyone, so through the years PAG decided to “soften” the cars, main reason: the strong US market… it´d be too difficult to explain all that in detail.
so the very last real oversteerers are IMO the ones up to MY ´89, especially the 3.0 SC and 3.2, these models are very nervous mainly at load-cycle changes, and one have to be a real driver to push it hard, there´s no hydraulic clutch, no powers steering and ABS… so this is maybe one point why some ppl ( the “not so skilled” one´s ) say they´re very trickey and sometimes even beastly, the skilled driver enjoys the oversteering characteristics and is definitely faster with that…
so the “how to…” is another good point, drivers with some Porsche experience´ll know what to do to be fast, IMO it´s useless to compare a nowadays sportscar with a e.g. 964RS, for sure the tester won´t like they way such “old driver´s car” handle, nowadays everything is just controlled by electronics, some ppl told me after a ride, that they were literally afraid to push the car, because they said it´s undriveable at the limit….they can´t handle it, that´s it…
such cars were designed for pure driving pleasure, if one just want to go fast from A to B plz buy a SL55….
so i´ve driven a 3.2 and the only thing I found “annoying” was the shifting…
i drove a pre ´87 model with the “915” gearbox where the synchronisation rings are coated with a rough molybdenum coating resulting in kinda tricky shifting behaviour, after ´87 they changed from the early Porsche synchronisation to the one from Getrag with the Borg-Warner patent, the G50 or 950 box, already with 964 technics, like much lower shifting forces, bigger clutch activated hydraulically instead of a linkage. all this required a new pedal layout, a new rear axle for the longer G50 box…
all this increased handling as well…
TIPP: if you want to show a bit off with your Porsche expertise when you´re sitting in a 3.2, here´s how it´s done: on a 3.2 with the newer G50 gearbox the reverse gear has a own lane on the left to the front, the older model with the 915 box, the rev.gear is in the same lane as the 5th gear, at the bottom to the right
to further improve handling a 40% diff lock´s available as an option…

what is to say about the 964, well, a good advise to start off, don´t buy a pre ´92 model so it should be one out of the N-series, Cup-wheels and side mirrors are standard and all the annoying teething troubles are fixed, like ignition distributor, dual-weighted flywheel, drive shaft, steering…
I can only speak for myself, but I don´t like the 964 model range, I don´t like the looks I don´t like the handling, a aftermarket suspension upgrade is definitely a must buy option on a 964, a very good decision is the one from Roock ( Bilstein dampers & H&R springs ) which converts handling from “undefined” to 993 like, and still comfortable too…
again something for the insiders: when the car handles like shit after refuelling in right hand corners with a high tendency to oversteer, it´s because of the fuel. when the fuel tank cap isn´t properly closed the fuel is running out through a overflow directly behind the left front wheel… i´ve never experienced something like that, but a colleague smashed a 964 because of that…
on the C4 models I won´t spend a single word, they´re just crap on the racetrack…
another thing about driveability worth to mention: from ´87 on the 964 models have a kinda tricky hydraulic clutch system…

so I needn´t loose to many words on the 993, it´s just perfect: it has the looks, the performance, the handling AND the sound…
even the AWD 993´s are handling really good, definitely not comparable with the 964, but unfortunately also not with the 996 models, and i´m just speaking of AWD models now…
just for the fun, I prefer a 993 4S or Turbo S, IMO also one of the best looking cars ever…

to sum it all up, go for ya 3.2 it´s a very good choice and starter into 911 world, maybe attend some Porsche driving schools and you ´ll love it...

so, hope this helps a bit, now i´m tired and off to bed

[lakatu]

Originally Posted by st-anger so i´ve driven a 3.2 and the only thing I found “annoying” was the shifting… i drove a pre ´87 model with the “915” gearbox where the synchronisation rings are coated with a rough molybdenum coating resulting in kinda tricky shifting behaviour, after ´87 they changed from the early Porsche synchronisation to the one from Getrag with the Borg-Warner patent, the G50 or 950 box, already with 964 technics, like much lower shifting forces, bigger clutch activated hydraulically instead of a linkage. all this required a new pedal layout, a new rear axle for the longer G50 box… all this increased handling as well…

St Anger you have mentioned the improved handling of the '87-89 911's compared to the pre '87 models before and I was wondering if you could elaborate on how the adaptation of the G50 transmission resulted in handling improvements.

I did a little research into this myself and found that the anti-roll bars and torsion bars were increased 1986-89 models relative to 1980-85 models. The 1980-85 anti-roll bars were increased from F 20 mm to F 22 mm and R 18 mm to R 21 mm. While the front torsion bars remained the same, the rear were increased from 24 mm to 25 mm.

Paul Frere in “Porsche 911 Story” indicates that the rear cross member carrying the rear suspension and the gearbox had to be changed but that the suspension pick-up points remained the same. Do you know if there were any other changes other than the ones I’ve listed that would have affected the handling of ’87 models verses pre ’87? Thanks.

[TwinTurbo]

Nice info, thanks a lot for sharing it.

[1zippo1]

Last time that I checked this thread, I only got till the 4S. So tonight I saved all your info on the cars after the 4S. And saved about 1/3th of the pics you posted Too be honest, I'm glad I finally got to the end, but that doesn't mean that it is a very very interesting topic!!

Very nice pic, thx again for this!!! I've seen them all, and saved the best (which were a lot )
Those porsche Cayenne S pics are from the best car pics that I've ever seen, no doubt!! I wanted to set the porsche logo on the Cayenne's dirty bonnet as my wallpaper, such a pitty it made the icons allmost invisble.

[speedyruca]

i believe porsche can be as good or even better than a Ferrari and even have no "electrical problems".... at least that's what i hope!!
Beautiful cars.... all of them!

[ChrisAW11]

One question on the Carrera GT's engine - given Porsche's history, the V10 configuration seems a bit odd - ok, it appears to be the latest and best configuration for performance cars, due to its V8-like compactness and its V12-like power and smoothness, but still - I'm wondering why they didn't create something like a Flat12 or 180° V12 (as in the 917) engine, where they could have used a lot of 911 technology?
The Carrera GT seems to be based around the lowest possible CG, so why not stick with the engine concept that concentrates its masses as low as possible? Would it have been impossible to fit such an engine into the chassis?

Don't get me wrong, I love the V10, but it's still a bit strange in my eyes...

[blinkmeat]

Seen the new 911? I hat the front slat-nose... it's a shame

[sads]

excelent but i wonder how many will make it down here i know that the V6 Cayenne is know chance

[st-anger]

Originally Posted by sads excelent but i wonder how many will make it down here i know that the V6 Cayenne is know chance

it´s only a BIG rumor, but guess what, PAG´ll probably remove the V6 version like it is now...
again, i can´t tell you too many details, but it seems to be that the the V6´ll be replaced by some other versions in the same power league ~300hp...

some´ll probably know...i won´t comment any further on that ´till i´m allowed to say more...

[lakatu]

Originally Posted by st-anger Originally Posted by lakatu St-Anger excellent write up on the 911 Carrera. I have a question about the relative performance of the current 996 to prior years 300hp 996 model. Sport Auto's Supertest shows the performance of the new 320 hp model recorded the same lap time on the NS (8'12") and was slower on the Hockenheim (1'17.1" verses 1'15.9"). All this despite all the improvements that you eloquently discussed including 20 more horsepower and larger tires and wheels; offset by 68kg more weight. What do you attribute this too? Could normal production variation account for such a difference? I was wondering if someone who may have read that article may know if Sport Auto discussed why the newer model didn't demonstrate greater performance on the track? The older car seems to outperform the newer version in the corners while slower on the straights. Obviously the greater weight of the newer 996 hurts it in the corners. Also, I don't know the answer to this but the Pirelli's P Zero's the old 996 rode on may be better than the newer 996's Michelin Pilot Sport. hmmm, you´re right, i´ve looked the lap times up myself again, i´ve both articles, but unfortunately not a single word from the editors why it´s, maybe not slower, but also not faster… BUT, from what I know about both cars, which i´ve already driven, the old Carrera is a bit more gentle to drive, maybe not because of the 68kg, but i´ll try to explain… first, we should mention that both cars had been equipped with the optional sport suspension, second, and now we´re talking about the latest Carrera only, the 320hp version not the 300 one, the dynamic vehicle behaviour at the limit has been pushed upwards a bit thus it´s now even more narrow than on the mk1 996 C2 and quite compareable with the handling of the 993… while drag throttle, the C2 has a strong tendency to understeer because of the special axle-geometry and the wide rear tyres, the mk2 C2 has 285, the mk1 “only” 265, both with 225 at the front, so to prevent understeering one´ll go off the accelerator to force the car into load-cycle change, and then again at full throttle, BUT this results in a quite undefined vehicle handling, because the car doesn´t really give the driver a notice when it´s near its limit, so one could easily loose it without some experience and practice… so i think it´s obvious that such a handling characteristic isn´t very helpful for a good lap time at a narrow and kinda slow track like HHR… hope this helps a bit….

St-anger sorry to drag up an old post but I have been thinking about a question related to this post for awhile and I am not sure of the answer I have come up with. The question that arose in my mind from your answer was why would Porsche deliberately narrow the dynamic vehicle behavior at the limit?

First let me explain what I think that means. It sounds like the MKI starts to progressively understeer or oversteer gradually as it approaches its handling limits. Whereas the MKII stays neutral without either end sliding and then when it reaches its cornering limits it suddenly transitions breaks traction into a more extreme understeer or oversteering condition.

Assuming I understood this correctly the MKII’s handling behavior seems like it would be less desirable since it would not communicate to the driver where the cornering limit is and thereby prevent approaching as close as possible that limit without exceeding it.

On the other hand I notice from the data that while the lateral acceleration is the same for both cars the slalom speeds and evasive course speeds are higher for the MKII. This would make sense since as long as the driver didn’t exceed the handling limits, the position of the car should not drift as wide allowing a tighter more precise line and therefore faster speeds. Here is where my lack of track driving makes it difficult to understand these concepts but it appears that if the driver instinctively knew the cars handling limits without the car signaling that to the driver, the MKII style handling would be faster and more desirable for a skilled driver. And if this is the case why wouldn’t the MKII be faster on the more narrow HHR track. It would seem to me that like the results of the slalom, the MKII should be better on tighter more narrow tracks than the MKI.

Sorry I am really confused by this and was hoping you could you possibly explain why Porsche would deliberately narrow the dynamic handling and why that is desirable? Also I thought that the 996 increased cornering speeds relative to the 993.

[st-anger]

Originally Posted by lakatu Originally Posted by st-anger Originally Posted by lakatu St-Anger excellent write up on the 911 Carrera. I have a question about the relative performance of the current 996 to prior years 300hp 996 model. Sport Auto's Supertest shows the performance of the new 320 hp model recorded the same lap time on the NS (8'12") and was slower on the Hockenheim (1'17.1" verses 1'15.9"). All this despite all the improvements that you eloquently discussed including 20 more horsepower and larger tires and wheels; offset by 68kg more weight. What do you attribute this too? Could normal production variation account for such a difference? I was wondering if someone who may have read that article may know if Sport Auto discussed why the newer model didn't demonstrate greater performance on the track? The older car seems to outperform the newer version in the corners while slower on the straights. Obviously the greater weight of the newer 996 hurts it in the corners. Also, I don't know the answer to this but the Pirelli's P Zero's the old 996 rode on may be better than the newer 996's Michelin Pilot Sport. hmmm, you´re right, i´ve looked the lap times up myself again, i´ve both articles, but unfortunately not a single word from the editors why it´s, maybe not slower, but also not faster… BUT, from what I know about both cars, which i´ve already driven, the old Carrera is a bit more gentle to drive, maybe not because of the 68kg, but i´ll try to explain… first, we should mention that both cars had been equipped with the optional sport suspension, second, and now we´re talking about the latest Carrera only, the 320hp version not the 300 one, the dynamic vehicle behaviour at the limit has been pushed upwards a bit thus it´s now even more narrow than on the mk1 996 C2 and quite compareable with the handling of the 993… while drag throttle, the C2 has a strong tendency to understeer because of the special axle-geometry and the wide rear tyres, the mk2 C2 has 285, the mk1 “only” 265, both with 225 at the front, so to prevent understeering one´ll go off the accelerator to force the car into load-cycle change, and then again at full throttle, BUT this results in a quite undefined vehicle handling, because the car doesn´t really give the driver a notice when it´s near its limit, so one could easily loose it without some experience and practice… so i think it´s obvious that such a handling characteristic isn´t very helpful for a good lap time at a narrow and kinda slow track like HHR… hope this helps a bit…. St-anger sorry to drag up an old post but I have been thinking about a question related to this post for awhile and I am not sure of the answer I have come up with. The question that arose in my mind from your answer was why would Porsche deliberately narrow the dynamic vehicle behavior at the limit? First let me explain what I think that means. It sounds like the MKI starts to progressively understeer or oversteer gradually as it approaches its handling limits. Whereas the MKII stays neutral without either end sliding and then when it reaches its cornering limits it suddenly transitions breaks traction into a more extreme understeer or oversteering condition. Assuming I understood this correctly the MKII’s handling behavior seems like it would be less desirable since it would not communicate to the driver where the cornering limit is and thereby prevent approaching as close as possible that limit without exceeding it. On the other hand I notice from the data that while the lateral acceleration is the same for both cars the slalom speeds and evasive course speeds are higher for the MKII. This would make sense since as long as the driver didn’t exceed the handling limits, the position of the car should not drift as wide allowing a tighter more precise line and therefore faster speeds. Here is where my lack of track driving makes it difficult to understand these concepts but it appears that if the driver instinctively knew the cars handling limits without the car signaling that to the driver, the MKII style handling would be faster and more desirable for a skilled driver. And if this is the case why wouldn’t the MKII be faster on the more narrow HHR track. It would seem to me that like the results of the slalom, the MKII should be better on tighter more narrow tracks than the MKI. Sorry I am really confused by this and was hoping you could you possibly explain why Porsche would deliberately narrow the dynamic handling and why that is desirable? Also I thought that the 996 increased cornering speeds relative to the 993.

…quite confusing for a german speaking guy, but I think I know what you´re meaning and´ll try to explain, plz let me know if I didn´t catch the point…
so, first, it wasn´t really wanted by Porsche to narrow the dynamic handling, it simply happened, but as you see, no one really recognised that, i´ve read many test back then, there where pros and cons the common bla bla bla but from what i´ve read, only SA mentioned that behaviour, we knew about it, but it´s really only at the limit and for an average skilled driver with quite some track experience, he wouldn´t notice all this that much, the whole handling mainly depends on the tyres, the MkI was equipped with Pirellis the MkII with wider Michelins, so through the years, maybe not today, but in the past Porsche models were faster with Pirellis, don´t know exactly why, it´s a matter of fact, just look at CGT times, 20!!!!!!! seconds faster with Pirellis round NS than with Pilot Sports…
another thing are the wider tyres on the MKII, the wider the tyres the faster you´ll loose it when at the limit, one can catch it back quite easy then because of the wide tyres = more grip, but you´ll loose time with all that…
we´ve tried it with other tyres, e.g. Conti Sport Contact and Pirellis but it´s been more or less the same, slightly better with the Pirellis, even worse with the Contis…
slalom speeds and evasive course speed can´t be directly compared with HHR lap time IMO…
so it´s not that surprising that the MkII is not significantly faster than the MkI, sad but true it´s not that perfectly balanced, but I can only say: only 10% of the C2 customers´ll experience that, it´s not the typical track car, mainly the lawyer, yuppie,… ride
for the track with a professional driver there´s only one Porsche: GT3(RS)…

let me know if that “helps” you further….