Anti-roll bar droplink

[TTM]

Fitting the 30 mm front bar on my S2 that already had M474 Konis with 968 CS springs has made the steering much heavier.

Given that 968 CS spring rates are the same as M030 spring rates I believe I would need either to switch back to the original 26.8 mm bar or to go with shocks with significantly stiffer valving to find back the original lightness of the steering.
Even with the bigger and wider front wheels a 968 M030 doesn't understeer that much.

 

[Fen]

Dave Lindsay told me the solid mounts are WAY too harsh for the road.

The stock mounts are good enough to supposedly fool people who have removed their balance shaft belt into thinking the engine is still smooth throughout the range when I understand it is anything but around the 3,000 - 3,500 rpm range.

 

[sawood12]

968CS springs are the same rate as 944 M030 max rate as the 944 M030 are progressive rate rather than constant. My understanding of progressive rate spings is that they are a compromise for road cars to give you a subtler ride on the road but provide you with the stiffness you need when pushing hard. This will result in more body roll until the increased stiffnes of the spring comes into play.

 

[333pg333]

That's interesting Fen. I am trying to think how it would change the characteristics of the ride quality? With stock mounts I assume there is an amount of 'give' due to the rubber material. This in turn would travel through the rest of the transmission to some degree due to the movement of the engine under load. I'm not sure what shifts and where but there is obvious movement. With solid mounts would there not be more direct transmission resulting in more power to the ground? I'm not sure how this would be detrimental on the road? You can imagine it would I'm just not sure how?

 

[TTM]

ORIGINAL: sawood12
968CS springs are the same rate as 944 M030 max rate as the 944 M030 are progressive rate rather than constant. My understanding of progressive rate spings is that they are a compromise for road cars to give you a subtler ride on the road but provide you with the stiffness you need when pushing hard. This will result in more body roll until the increased stiffnes of the spring comes into play.

The last car with virtually new M030 shocks I drove had the 26.8 mm front bar but understeered much less than my S2, although 968 CS springs are, as you rightly point out, "all the time" at the quoted rate of 28 N/mm, unlike M030 springs. Also, both cars alignment values are similar.
This leads me to believe damper rating must be factored in too in addition to spring rates.

 

[Fen]

ORIGINAL: 333pg333

That's interesting Fen. I am trying to think how it would change the characteristics of the ride quality? With stock mounts I assume there is an amount of 'give' due to the rubber material. This in turn would travel through the rest of the transmission to some degree due to the movement of the engine under load. I'm not sure what shifts and where but there is obvious movement. With solid mounts would there not be more direct transmission resulting in more power to the ground? I'm not sure how this would be detrimental on the road? You can imagine it would I'm just not sure how?

I assume it is better for power transmission to have solid mounts as the torque will go to the transmission and ultimately the road rather than moving the engine in the bay, but the harshness transmitted to the car through solid engine mounts to a crossmember mounted solidly to the monocoque is the payoff. I think a halfway house of stiffened mounts is the best compromise, but I didn't get round to looking for any.

 

[333pg333]

Lindsey do what seem a combination mount that is also adjustable but they're a bit expensive. Over $300 US. If there are any that are stiffened over stock I may go those. Don't think I need adjustable ones?
Sorry for the OT on the thread.

 

[Guest]

Just spoken to Exeter OPC about ARB bushes - i need to check the diameter of the ARB so they can get the correct ones (aparently they cannot tell from the chassis number which seems strange) anyway he said worse case would be £25 for the three pairs of bushes which sounds good.....but......

I then asked about Engine Mounts - £164 !!! EACH!!!

Now I know Original Porsche mounts are meant to be much better but I'm sure I've seen American sites selling them for £60?

Anyone know the best option for Engine Mounts on an 86 944 Turbo?

Cheers

 

[dlknight]

ORIGINAL: mattpone

Anyone know the best option for Engine Mounts on an 86 944 Turbo?

Cheers

Try Bert at www.berlyn-services.co.uk, he's a very helpful guy and can usually undercut the dealer prices on genuine parts - £105.69 for the genuine engine mount, £57.58 for non-genuine.

Cheers

Dave K.

 

[Fen]

I have a good pair of used ones; the hotside is the modified type and the cold side the original. £60 the pair.

 

[Diver944]

The new parts guy at Exeter (Chris) is not as clued up on 944 as Adrian was, but he's still blummin helpful. I bought new inner mount ARB bushes for my S2 last week. I know that for 1989 onwards you have three options:

21.5mm Lux 951 343 794 07
25.5mm S2 951 343 794 02
26.8mm Turbo 951 343 794 04

He gave me 20% discount which made them £2.48 each []

 

[richthomas]

S2s can also come with a 26.8 bar, mine has and I know it's fairly common. Maybe it was a 90 onwards upgarde?