Prospective 981 GT4 Owners Discussion Forum.

[Sierra Mike]

sJs said:

Picked up my voodoo blue gt4 on Monday.
Another one up on Northumberland.

Fantastic! Congratulations! I was going for Voodoo but decided against it at the last minute.

On a side note, I believe we were at university together

[Phooey]

cymario said:

Looks mega!

[miskalachi]

How are people (who've got them) experiencing the Dunlops?

[rk123]

IREvans said:

That looks stunning..! I hadn't considered dark metallic blue, but it does look good.

You mention that you find the car low - I have actually found mine to be ok, as I was worried the lack of a front axle lift was going to be a problem, but not at all. I've just come out of a 991 GT3 which had chassis lift, and would still scrape the splitter getting into my garage, and into a local petrol station. GT4 hasn't scraped anywhere yet

Yes, i have found that on my drive and my parents drive when driving out, the front splitter scrapes along the ground. My R8 was ok if driven slowly, but this isn't. Not looking forward to driving in any multi storey car parks! I will have to see if my OPC will do a deal on half a dozen of them as i can see me getting through quite a few!

[rk123]

Monkey nut said:

Colour is perfect. I am biased as well having ordered the same. Very happy.

You wont be disappointed, looks even better in person!

[Robograd]

Hi IREvans,

Me thinks, the reason you're experiencing grounding problems with the GT4 cf R8 isn't due to the actual height of the front splitter from the floor but more because of the shallower angle subtended by the contact point of the front tyre & the splitter tip. The further out the splitter end point from the tyre contact point the less the angle of attack at the slope you're attempting to mount. Which is why off-roaders have very short front & rear overhangs.

I had the same difficulties with GT3s, as all sporting Porsche's have very long front overhangs by design: hence front lifter should be an option, in my humble opinion.

[IREvans]

Robograd said:

Hi IREvans,

Me thinks, the reason you're experiencing grounding problems with the GT4 cf R8 isn't due to the actual height of the front splitter from the floor but more because of the shallower angle subtended by the contact point of the front tyre & the splitter tip. The further out the splitter end point from the tyre contact point the less the angle of attack at the slope you're attempting to mount. Which is why off-roaders have very short front & rear overhangs.

I had the same difficulties with GT3s, as all sporting Porsche's have very long front overhangs by design: hence front lifter should be an option, in my humble opinion.

Hi Rob

I don't have grounding problems with my GT4, thats the previous poster, but I did have problems with grounding my 991 GT3, even with a chassis lifter. But I agree, a chassis lift option would have been a good idea on the GT4

[av185]

mdianuk said:

FYI, standard geometry on the front and negative 2.4 on the back is the sweet spot according to a very good track driver in the Spyder...maybe similar in the GT4?

I would suggest extremely unlikely bearing in mind they have totally different mainly front also rear chassis suspension and factory set up.

[mdianuk]

av185 said:

I would suggest extremely unlikely bearing in mind they have totally different mainly front also rear chassis suspension and factory set up.

Yeah, it was Spyder specific, but may help some.

[jackwood]

mdianuk said:

av185 said:

I would suggest extremely unlikely bearing in mind they have totally different mainly front also rear chassis suspension and factory set up.

Yeah, it was Spyder specific, but may help some.

It does sound like a very strange setup, to be honest.

[mdianuk]

jackwood said:

It does sound like a very strange setup, to be honest.

Seen it in action, the balance/grip was exceptional, and that was on Dunlops! Work carried out by a company that run a Boxster race team apparently.

[PorscheGT4]

would like to see a geo print out, are you sure it's not rear stock and front -2.4 ;-)

[Robograd]

Hi Irevans

Very sorry. Got that wrong didn't I. I should the thread more thoroughly.

[jackwood]

mdianuk said:

jackwood said:

It does sound like a very strange setup, to be honest.

Seen it in action, the balance/grip was exceptional, and that was on Dunlops! Work carried out by a company that run a Boxster race team apparently.

It makes a bit of a mockery of the GT4 if a Spyder can get to -2.4 camber without any modifications (toe links).

Having tracked a Cayman S for several years, a stock front and -2.4 rear would feel horrible to me.

As David said, the other way around would make more sense.

[BubblesNW]

jackwood said:

mdianuk said:

jackwood said:

It does sound like a very strange setup, to be honest.

Seen it in action, the balance/grip was exceptional, and that was on Dunlops! Work carried out by a company that run a Boxster race team apparently.

It makes a bit of a mockery of the GT4 if a Spyder can get to -2.4 camber without any modifications (toe links).

Having tracked a Cayman S for several years, a stock front and -2.4 rear would feel horrible to me.

As David said, the other way around would make more sense.

I also spoke with the Spyder owner and he took me out in it for a few laps. The geo numbers are correct at max stock front (about -1 if I remember correctly)and definitely -2.4 rear. The set-up took 3 hours with an OPC mechanic who worked on racing 981 Boxsters. Previously the front was very stable without under steer on the way in but the back end was too loose which resulted in oversteer. The new set-up gave him huge confidence to carry more speed into corners with a bit of trail braking then pushing on really early to power out under complete control. Considering the Spyder has quite a bit less rubber than the GT4, and Pirelli P Zeros, it was carrying serious speed through Shell Oils, making up 2 or 3 car lengths mid corner against everything else on track, including a couple of rapid Lotus' (Loti?).

The Spyder owner also had a Lotus 211 there for comparison and the Spyder absolutely monstered it.

I don't know what the optimum GT4 settings will be but on yesterday's evidence it should be very rapid. Apparently Chris W was at a recent Porsche Club day at Oulton and there was very little that kept up with his GT4. Maybe it's just that yellow is the fastest colour...? But I doubt it would keep up with a red one...

Edited by BubblesNW on Saturday 28th November 19:15

[W12JFD]

Many apologies - I miss heard the technician - actually at neg 2.14 not 2.4 (top set of data is for rear). Front is incredibly planted with no understeer unless provoked or tyres going off.

Settings are of course a personal preference but the car is epically quick now, probably 2 secs a lap better than factory standard around Oulton. More to come when I switch to Michelin cups. Time for GT4 drivers to get nervous perhaps!

An absolute pleasure to meet fellow PH folks on the day.

[RSVP911]

Drive the 4 at the PEC today - lovely car , great fun - only complaint was it had a horrid , what I can only describe as a , "whirring" noise under acceleration - sounded like a turbo spooling up - very odd - other than this : lovely - think others have mentioned this noise on here (or have I imagined it ?) Does this happen to any owners cars ?

[RSVP911]

rk123 said:

That looks very nice - congratulations - do you have any photos in normal daylight that you would be willing to post ? I was at SC today , Carl said your car looked great in the metal

[jackwood]

W12JFD said:

Many apologies - I miss heard the technician - actually at neg 2.14 not 2.4 (top set of data is for rear). Front is incredibly planted with no understeer unless provoked or tyres going off.

Settings are of course a personal preference but the car is epically quick now, probably 2 secs a lap better than factory standard around Oulton. More to come when I switch to Michelin cups. Time for GT4 drivers to get nervous perhaps!

An absolute pleasure to meet fellow PH folks on the day.

Thanks for the information. Makes slightly more sense.

Having been in a 981 GTS on track I can see why the Spyder might be quite a handful and why some rear grip might want to be added.

I'm not 100% convinced that the information is transferable to the GT4, mind, as the setup is significantly different, specifically in terms of the ARB's. I get the feeling the 981 GTS and Spyder might suffer from an inherently more wayward/adjustable/mobile rear end due to its factory ARB setup.

Certainly the Rennlisters seem to be getting better results with a much more 4-square setup on their GT4's and then making finer adjustments on the front and rear toe to get sharpness or stability, depending on the drivers preference.

But thanks for again for the insight. Hope to see you at Oulton some time soon.

Jack

[ChrisW.]

That geo looks very similar to the maxed out geo on my Cayman R.

At Spa we rolled the outer edges of the M PSS tyres that were fitted, so it wasn't enough.

By comparison at Oulton I recall that we were running around -1,5 all around --- the max we could at the rear to retain the toe that we wanted, but strangely there is no evidence of rolling the shoulders of the PSC2's, so I assume that the whole chassis is stiffer and possibly does not need more negative camber to do a decent job ??

This certainly will save the inner edges on the road.

Of course the new Clubsport is designed to work with Slicks and therefore requires more negative camber and the suspension has revised Cup toe links ...