Ohlins supposedly available for 986 / 987 in May
Discussion
Porsche911R said:
the GT4 ones are twice the price on the TXX shock, but at least available now.
What's TXX shocks?I consider these for my 981. As it only has the passive dampers my plan was always to go a bit stiffer. I know the Porsche stiffer kit is well liked but I'm tempted to stray away from porsche for dampers.
How much adjustment do they give?
Are we talking tricky adjustable top mounts or standard fixed rubber - edit I've read the thread now!
Edited by ATM on Thursday 4th May 17:58
https://www.ohlins.com/product/road-track/porsche-...
Having read the blurb it appears their pitch is the quick adjustment of all settings with one knob. I guess this makes sense.
Having read the blurb it appears their pitch is the quick adjustment of all settings with one knob. I guess this makes sense.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Guess that depends on just what the standard components allow when maxed out.Taking files/die grinders/drills to top strut mounting holes isn't for me (but then neither is using Powerflex products.....)
If I was really wanting the extra camber I'd put the £160 the Powerflex bushes costs towards a pair of Rennline's original spring compatible adjustable top mounts, still £300 more than the PF bushes, but considerably cheaper than the 997 GT3 spilt coffin arms. Added to which there's the bonus the topmounts would be saleable in the event you should ever sell the car, and there'd be no trace of metalwork "surgery" once they've been removed from the car either ......
I've got some -ve camber via adjustable top mounts on the 996. The thing is the top of the wheel / tyre now looks quite far inboard. It got me thinking that if you adjusted the camber via a fancy bottom arm then the top of the wheel would stay put [almost] and the bottom would move outward. This got me thinking about what effects these 2 would have on the arc in which the wheel moves with the suspension. Am I making any sense here?
ATM]I've got some -ve camber via adjustable top mounts on the 996. The thing is the top of the wheel / tyre now looks quite far inboard. It got me thinking that if you adjusted the camber via a fancy bottom arm then the top of the wheel would stay put [almost said:
and the bottom would move outward. This got me thinking about what effects these 2 would have on the arc in which the wheel moves with the suspension. Am I making any sense here?
I am guessing a bit here but using lower arms to give more negative camber would also have the positive effect of increasing the track width of the front wheels as you are in effect pushing the lower part of the wheel further out whilst keeping the top the same, whilst moving the top in would have the opposite effect, differences might be small but are lower arms are probably a better way to achieve it ? If money is no object do both...As always there is the proper way to do things which net better results or a cheaper way to do things which gets you 80% of the results with side effects.
Doing all the adjustment on the top mounts does effect Caster and bump steer, I am not saying it will enough but it does and if you cannot adjust anything else that's that. ALso you are bringing the top of the wheel in, which can rub and looks a bit daft. A poster above noted this other issue.
IF you fit lower control arms then you can adjust the camber as much as you like, bring the caster back into check as it will be out, and you get some good net effects of doing it this way also, more front track which will aid turn in (I gained about 25mm more) and it will add more rake if you don't have height adjustment. (I have to run front spacers on the R to get the track wider and again it's a 80% fix with side effects.)
My Spyder has all the proper parts and it brakes well, handles well and turns in amazing it did cost £8k in parts), My R I have done on the cheap and it's not as good but better than oem and easy to get back to stock in a few hours.
Bit like the MC mask, it does not fix the brakes just like drilling top mounts does not give you the real adjustments, but both have a good effect if not the best ones.
I think if you really lean on the car then drilling the top mounts will still not get you to -2 upfront any way, and imo you need that for a very focused road set up. You might get to -1.5 which I have on the R but I am still wearing the outter at the front more than the inner. If you did drill the top mounts even a bit then you can bet your caster is out.
I did think about these for my R, but I am selling that car now so did not go ahead. That adds 0.4 and pulls the bottom of the wheel out a bit.
Doing all the adjustment on the top mounts does effect Caster and bump steer, I am not saying it will enough but it does and if you cannot adjust anything else that's that. ALso you are bringing the top of the wheel in, which can rub and looks a bit daft. A poster above noted this other issue.
IF you fit lower control arms then you can adjust the camber as much as you like, bring the caster back into check as it will be out, and you get some good net effects of doing it this way also, more front track which will aid turn in (I gained about 25mm more) and it will add more rake if you don't have height adjustment. (I have to run front spacers on the R to get the track wider and again it's a 80% fix with side effects.)
My Spyder has all the proper parts and it brakes well, handles well and turns in amazing it did cost £8k in parts), My R I have done on the cheap and it's not as good but better than oem and easy to get back to stock in a few hours.
Bit like the MC mask, it does not fix the brakes just like drilling top mounts does not give you the real adjustments, but both have a good effect if not the best ones.
I think if you really lean on the car then drilling the top mounts will still not get you to -2 upfront any way, and imo you need that for a very focused road set up. You might get to -1.5 which I have on the R but I am still wearing the outter at the front more than the inner. If you did drill the top mounts even a bit then you can bet your caster is out.
I did think about these for my R, but I am selling that car now so did not go ahead. That adds 0.4 and pulls the bottom of the wheel out a bit.
Edited by Porsche911R on Friday 5th May 09:18
ATM]I've got some -ve camber via adjustable top mounts on the 996. The thing is the top of the wheel / tyre now looks quite far inboard. It got me thinking that if you adjusted the camber via a fancy bottom arm then the top of the wheel would stay put [almost said:
and the bottom would move outward. This got me thinking about what effects these 2 would have on the arc in which the wheel moves with the suspension. Am I making any sense here?
Yes a lot of sense, what caster did you end up with ? see my post above why there is a better right way to go about it, or a ok ish cheaper fix.
I am not sure of base 996 setting or 911 tuning, but that's a lot of rear camber vs the front.
I have always gone for 0.5 degree more on the front than the back, but I do drive/own mid engine Porkers.
I also go for zero front toe in as well, while the track boys might go a tad toe out, but it's a pain on the road.
That must be wearing rear inners more ? an issue I had with my 996 GT3 to start with.
I will not comment that much, as I say I know more about geo's on Caymans and not 911's, but a quick check people seem to be running more front camber on 911's also.
caster seems to be right for a 911 at 8, I know caster will reduce if you add camber and this figure drops you get less grip, more understeer etc
so you add camber and it can feel worse if you caster drops too much.
I am not a caster expert at all so you need to phone up C of G and ask if 8 is spot on for your model, or some one here will know a bit more than me and post, it's in the green which must be a good thing :-)
I have always gone for 0.5 degree more on the front than the back, but I do drive/own mid engine Porkers.
I also go for zero front toe in as well, while the track boys might go a tad toe out, but it's a pain on the road.
That must be wearing rear inners more ? an issue I had with my 996 GT3 to start with.
I will not comment that much, as I say I know more about geo's on Caymans and not 911's, but a quick check people seem to be running more front camber on 911's also.
caster seems to be right for a 911 at 8, I know caster will reduce if you add camber and this figure drops you get less grip, more understeer etc
so you add camber and it can feel worse if you caster drops too much.
I am not a caster expert at all so you need to phone up C of G and ask if 8 is spot on for your model, or some one here will know a bit more than me and post, it's in the green which must be a good thing :-)
Porsche911R said:
I am not sure of base 996 setting or 911 tuning, but that's a lot of rear camber vs the front.
I have always gone for 0.5 degree more on the front than the back, but I do drive/own mid engine Porkers.
I also go for zero front toe in as well, while the track boys might go a tad toe out, but it's a pain on the road.
That must be wearing rear inners more ? an issue I had with my 996 GT3 to start with.
I will not comment that much, as I say I know more about geo's on Caymans and not 911's, but a quick check people seem to be running more front camber on 911's also.
caster seems to be right for a 911 at 8, I know caster will reduce if you add camber and this figure drops you get less grip, more understeer etc
so you add camber and it can feel worse if you caster drops too much.
I am not a caster expert at all so you need to phone up C of G and ask if 8 is spot on for your model, or some one here will know a bit more than me and post, it's in the green which must be a good thing :-)
I think I remember the GEO machine was set to GT3 spec which was on the print out but not in that pic. My 996 is not a GT3 its just a vanilla early 996 C2 but with KW Clubsport dampers and some stiffer bushes and roll bars.I have always gone for 0.5 degree more on the front than the back, but I do drive/own mid engine Porkers.
I also go for zero front toe in as well, while the track boys might go a tad toe out, but it's a pain on the road.
That must be wearing rear inners more ? an issue I had with my 996 GT3 to start with.
I will not comment that much, as I say I know more about geo's on Caymans and not 911's, but a quick check people seem to be running more front camber on 911's also.
caster seems to be right for a 911 at 8, I know caster will reduce if you add camber and this figure drops you get less grip, more understeer etc
so you add camber and it can feel worse if you caster drops too much.
I am not a caster expert at all so you need to phone up C of G and ask if 8 is spot on for your model, or some one here will know a bit more than me and post, it's in the green which must be a good thing :-)
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Is it !look at geo's anywhere on any forum from "drivers" and no one runs more rear neg camber than front, I also never have, tending to always go for -0.5 up front more over the rear.
They may come out the factory like that but every single factory Porker I have driven is an understeering dog. They play it VERY safe, but even Ave Joe is killing outers, you only have to look at 2nd hand stock to see front outer tyre wear is too much in OPC showrooms.
I run -2.2 front, only -1.8 rear, pyro tested, people are killing outer front and inner rears, and I guess the 996 geo posted would do the same and feel understeery and muller the inner of the rear tyre.
So it's far from normal in a modded car where driver focus is more key. I doubt Parr, JZM, CofG etc would ever do it either.
Porsche911R said:
As always there is the proper way to do things which net better results or a cheaper way to do things which gets you 80% of the results with side effects.
Doing all the adjustment on the top mounts does effect Caster and bump steer, I am not saying it will enough but it does and if you cannot adjust anything else that's that. ALso you are bringing the top of the wheel in, which can rub and looks a bit daft. A poster above noted this other issue.
IF you fit lower control arms then you can adjust the camber as much as you like, bring the caster back into check as it will be out, and you get some good net effects of doing it this way also, more front track which will aid turn in (I gained about 25mm more) and it will add more rake if you don't have height adjustment. (I have to run front spacers on the R to get the track wider and again it's a 80% fix with side effects.)
My Spyder has all the proper parts and it brakes well, handles well and turns in amazing it did cost £8k in parts), My R I have done on the cheap and it's not as good but better than oem and easy to get back to stock in a few hours.
Bit like the MC mask, it does not fix the brakes just like drilling top mounts does not give you the real adjustments, but both have a good effect if not the best ones.
I think if you really lean on the car then drilling the top mounts will still not get you to -2 upfront any way, and imo you need that for a very focused road set up. You might get to -1.5 which I have on the R but I am still wearing the outter at the front more than the inner. If you did drill the top mounts even a bit then you can bet your caster is out.
I did think about these for my R, but I am selling that car now so did not go ahead. That adds 0.4 and pulls the bottom of the wheel out a bit.
25mm total ? as in 12.5mm per side ? IIRC that's about all you can add shim wise to the split arms, without using longer studs. The rest (ie above 2,5 degrees) comes from rotating the top mounts to get big camber numbers.Doing all the adjustment on the top mounts does effect Caster and bump steer, I am not saying it will enough but it does and if you cannot adjust anything else that's that. ALso you are bringing the top of the wheel in, which can rub and looks a bit daft. A poster above noted this other issue.
IF you fit lower control arms then you can adjust the camber as much as you like, bring the caster back into check as it will be out, and you get some good net effects of doing it this way also, more front track which will aid turn in (I gained about 25mm more) and it will add more rake if you don't have height adjustment. (I have to run front spacers on the R to get the track wider and again it's a 80% fix with side effects.)
My Spyder has all the proper parts and it brakes well, handles well and turns in amazing it did cost £8k in parts), My R I have done on the cheap and it's not as good but better than oem and easy to get back to stock in a few hours.
Bit like the MC mask, it does not fix the brakes just like drilling top mounts does not give you the real adjustments, but both have a good effect if not the best ones.
I think if you really lean on the car then drilling the top mounts will still not get you to -2 upfront any way, and imo you need that for a very focused road set up. You might get to -1.5 which I have on the R but I am still wearing the outter at the front more than the inner. If you did drill the top mounts even a bit then you can bet your caster is out.
I did think about these for my R, but I am selling that car now so did not go ahead. That adds 0.4 and pulls the bottom of the wheel out a bit.
Selling the R AND the GT4 to make way for the Gen 2 991 GT3 ?
Every track biased/fast road GT2/3/RS geo set up I've seen has had more camber on the front (normally half a degree extra).
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Its very relevant, it's not Mums net where some one wants a geo for an SUV, the guy has a 996 has fitted KW shocks and wants a GT3 type of geo.Yes you may need additional parts, but as I stated there is a right way to do it or a cheap way with side effects.
Your post is misleading because I bet the 996 pushes with that set up. And as Harris always states and me ;-) the front end on a Porsche is hard enough to get working anyway.
Slippydiff said:
25mm total ? as in 12.5mm per side ? IIRC that's about all you can add shim wise to the split arms, without using longer studs. The rest (ie above 2,5 degrees) comes from rotating the top mounts to get big camber numbers.
Selling the R AND the GT4 to make way for the Gen 2 991 GT3 ?
Every track biased/fast road GT2/3/RS geo set up I've seen has had more camber on the front (normally half a degree extra).
Total yes, in the R I run 7mm spacers each side, but on the Spyder I got 25mm total for free with RSS LCA ;-)Selling the R AND the GT4 to make way for the Gen 2 991 GT3 ?
Every track biased/fast road GT2/3/RS geo set up I've seen has had more camber on the front (normally half a degree extra).
yes R and GT4 swap for the new GT3, at the overs it will fetch if I don't love it, I could buy back both and have change !
And we agree more camber in the front , it's a given ;-) and yes we agree by about 1/2 a degree.
Remember I am keeping my lovey 987.2 Spyder and all the honing tweaks I have do to that. and my GT3 will be at lease manual :-)
be a nice pairing.
I love my R more than any car ever, as you know, but I have a Spyder so one has to go, and it's the R
If I could only have one £50k car I would have a R and spend £8k on it like I have with the Spyder.
But having a choice and more Cars the R has to go :-(
Edited by Porsche911R on Saturday 6th May 10:55
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff