Gonna get slaughtered by you guys

[Guest]

Drove my 3.2 over to HP Motorsport in Hainault this morning (around the corner from design911).

Saw a raggy-looking LHD 964C4. Enquired as to price. Was told 9k. Took it for a 10-min blast.

My findings: PAS, ABS, a/c, SO, SO SMOOOOTH. SO, SO QUIET & CIVILISED.

Remind me again why I drive a 3.2?

 

[Guest]

Hmm,
Raggy looking car.........a few months later and raggy looking wallet,generally that is.Hope I'm wrong for your sake.Why do (did) you drive a 3.2?.....cos' it's a 911 ,a Porsche and we love 'em!
Best of luck with yer "new" Porsche.
Ian

 

[Guest]

C4 = understeer

 

[Guest]

Oh yeah, just realised my 3.2 in is A1 condition.
May as well enjoy it...for now

 

[Melv]

ORIGINAL: Richard Bernau

C4 = understeer

B0ll0cks -you just gotta learn how to drive the thing!!

 

[Guest]

B0ll0cks -you just gotta learn how to drive the thing!!

Or, more philosophically, is a 911 that's easy to drive still a 911?

 

[Guest]

ORIGINAL: Melv

ORIGINAL: Richard Bernau

C4 = understeer

B0ll0cks -you just gotta learn how to drive the thing!!

I just love the way you leap in with your pithy, well researched one-liners, but unfortunately, not true Mel. You do the research on how the diffs lock up under power and remain free under brakes for the ABS to work. The only way to drive around the understeer is to "toss and catch" it into corners, trail braking right to the apex to get the car to rotate with diffs free - which a relaxing road car does not make, nor an efficient track car.

Go and find a copy of the 3 articles Excellence ran on the release of the 964 C4 titled "Wringing out the Carrera 4" , read them and then apologise !!! Only with much bigger stickier tyres, track alignment and RS type suspension could they get the C4 to drive anything like a regular 911, and they still had to toss and catch it on track.

I stand by the statement, C4 = understeer, in the context of 964C4s.

And BTW, I spent a week driving the p!ss out of a 964 C4 that was set up much like an RS only not quite as stiff, and it still understeers.

ciao,
Richard

 

[Guest]

Totally agree with Richard on this one.

Interestingly and I await comments, but the loss of the front aerodynamic chin spoiler, must also effect the front end on a 964 - ie, at speed when the tail is up, the front must loose grip? This argument goes back to 3.2 not being sold with rear spoiler only. Now I know the underside of the 964 is less turbulant, but having understood that, the front must be lighter at speed - 911 lift?

At a recent Manx Tour, I had to back off over the mountain as the 964 following me would have understeered into oblivion...... as the (responsible) leader, I didn't want that on my concience.

All 911s understeer - that's the margin of in-built safety. If it doesn't, it's been dialled out with modifications.

 

[Guest]

Don't know about the aero Tony. Would Porsche have made the aero worse on the 964?

I do know you cannot get around the diff set-up (unless perhaps you are talking highly modified) and with OE size tyres, wheels, ride height and suspension you are doomed to understeer.

Hope I have not offended too many C4 owners. Still a nice car, but horses for courses.

RB

 

[Guest]

No, I don't know about the aero effect either, and I agree that Porsche would not have gone worse, but how did they get the downforce back at the front end of a 964?

A 911 shape generates lift ....... front and rear aerodynamic additions (chin and rear spoiler) greatly reduce lift - so I deduce, without a front spoiler and with the rear up, the front must still generate lift?

Underbody turbulance is a factor, of course, and the smoother the airflow, the better the suck - ground effect. Unfortunately, this theory fall flat without side or rear chanelling of air under the car ........

Any ideas?

 

[Jamie Summers]

Well, Neil Bainbridge puts front splitters onto any 964s that he sets up for track / racing (mine included), so I guess there must be some mileage in what you are suggesting. Certainly the 964 feels a lot more stable at speed than my old 3.2 (which also had the front lip spoiler), but frankly that could be just as much to do with the stiffer, lower suspension and wider tyres than aerodynamics ????

 

[Melv]

Thanks Richard -substantiated feedback, the lengths one has to go to!!

I can't help but agree. To turn my old understeering monster into a decent track day car involved more grunt in the back, strut brace, Porsche sports suspension (Boge dampers, 22mm front anti-roll bar and 40% stiffer springs) and more neg camber on the front -trail braking also helped!!

With ref to lift and understeer and the 964, I quote from Paul Frere's Porsche 911 story (p. 188 -sixth edition):

'Much improved aerodynamics......better incoroporation of the bumpers.....integration of the front spoiler.......almost completely flat underpan........The rear end of the pan rises to bumper height, creating a low pressure area into which the engine cooling air is discharged horizontally, reducing rear lift......In order to achieve near zero lift....the engine air intake grille deputizes as a mobile spoiler...........Carrera 3.2 Cd reduced.....from 0.42 to 0.32.....(and) the design of the 964 suspension is completely different from previous models. In it's first production year the Carrera 4 had an 18mm diam. rear anti-roll bar. To correct excessive understeer the diam. was increased to 21mm, as also used in the C2'

 

[Andy Tims]

Bloody hell Melv, that's almost a climb down[][]

 

[Melv]

Only almost.... []