pdcc failure
08-19-2014, 01:44 PM
#46
Rennlist Member
Why is this 991 crowd throwing out the baby with the bath water? The concept of PDCC makes sense not only on the street but also on the track. I'm listening to some owners who say they knew they didn't want to track their cars and that's the reason that they didn't spec PDCC... HUH? That's exactly why I specced it! Did you know something I didn't before this s..t hit the fan?
Given that the apparent PDCC limitations appear to be software based (no one has argued otherwise, right Chuck911?), then there is no reason to believe that the Porsche engineers cannot program the PDCC load parameters to meet OR exceed the severe cornering loads that might be anticipated on ANY racetrack in the world.
"PDCC is an active anti-roll system that suppresses lateral body movement during cornering manoeuvres. In addition, it minimises the lateral instability of the vehicle on uneven ground. With the result that the car holds the road even better and performs even more dynamically."
It is therefore absurd for any 991 owner to demand any less than what would be expected from the top-of-the-line Turbo S owner. Porsche Dynamic Chassis Control (PDCC) is fitted as standard in the 911 Turbo S models for a reason.
PDCC is no different in application for a track car than it is for a street car. It's appears to be only a matter of degrees of programming. Look at PDK... The ONLY difference between PDK in a 991 and PDK S on a GT3 is the programming.
For all you 991 guys who think they wont need PDCC later, you're kidding yourselves! For those with PDCC who don't think they now need higher limits of programming, don't you think that your current skills on the track and street will improve over time? Come on and have some faith in yourselves....
Given that the apparent PDCC limitations appear to be software based (no one has argued otherwise, right Chuck911?), then there is no reason to believe that the Porsche engineers cannot program the PDCC load parameters to meet OR exceed the severe cornering loads that might be anticipated on ANY racetrack in the world.
"PDCC is an active anti-roll system that suppresses lateral body movement during cornering manoeuvres. In addition, it minimises the lateral instability of the vehicle on uneven ground. With the result that the car holds the road even better and performs even more dynamically."
It is therefore absurd for any 991 owner to demand any less than what would be expected from the top-of-the-line Turbo S owner. Porsche Dynamic Chassis Control (PDCC) is fitted as standard in the 911 Turbo S models for a reason.
PDCC is no different in application for a track car than it is for a street car. It's appears to be only a matter of degrees of programming. Look at PDK... The ONLY difference between PDK in a 991 and PDK S on a GT3 is the programming.
For all you 991 guys who think they wont need PDCC later, you're kidding yourselves! For those with PDCC who don't think they now need higher limits of programming, don't you think that your current skills on the track and street will improve over time? Come on and have some faith in yourselves....
Hence, I think if owners are experiencing 'outages' the system is experiencing an environment that exceeds the parameters Porsche engineers envisaged and codified therein (for whatever reason) ...
A good example of this is take a PASM equiped 997 around the Nordschleife, and drive 'slowly' through the Karusell, your instrument cluster will light up
like a christmas tree with PASM faults, that will not occur if you drive through
at speed.
My explanation for this is that the dynamic inputs the car is getting at low speeds dont make sense to the system, so it whigs out ...
regardless, I dont see how a PDCC owner that is experiencing these symtoms is going to get a PDCC reprogramming from Porsche unless they occur in sufficient numbers (or severity) to cause the company to investigate and rectify it.
08-20-2014, 03:54 AM
#47
Why is this 991 crowd throwing out the baby with the bath water? The concept of PDCC makes sense not only on the street but also on the track. I'm listening to some owners who say they knew they didn't want to track their cars and that's the reason that they didn't spec PDCC... HUH? That's exactly why I specced it! Did you know something I didn't before this s..t hit the fan?
Given that the apparent PDCC limitations appear to be software based (no one has argued otherwise, right Chuck911?), then there is no reason to believe that the Porsche engineers cannot program the PDCC load parameters to meet OR exceed the severe cornering loads that might be anticipated on ANY racetrack in the world.
"PDCC is an active anti-roll system that suppresses lateral body movement during cornering manoeuvres. In addition, it minimises the lateral instability of the vehicle on uneven ground. With the result that the car holds the road even better and performs even more dynamically."
It is therefore absurd for any 991 owner to demand any less than what would be expected from the top-of-the-line Turbo S owner. Porsche Dynamic Chassis Control (PDCC) is fitted as standard in the 911 Turbo S models for a reason.
PDCC is no different in application for a track car than it is for a street car. It's appears to be only a matter of degrees of programming. Look at PDK... The ONLY difference between PDK in a 991 and PDK S on a GT3 is the programming.
For all you 991 guys who think they wont need PDCC later, you're kidding yourselves! For those with PDCC who don't think they now need higher limits of programming, don't you think that your current skills on the track and street will improve over time? Come on and have some faith in yourselves....
Given that the apparent PDCC limitations appear to be software based (no one has argued otherwise, right Chuck911?), then there is no reason to believe that the Porsche engineers cannot program the PDCC load parameters to meet OR exceed the severe cornering loads that might be anticipated on ANY racetrack in the world.
"PDCC is an active anti-roll system that suppresses lateral body movement during cornering manoeuvres. In addition, it minimises the lateral instability of the vehicle on uneven ground. With the result that the car holds the road even better and performs even more dynamically."
It is therefore absurd for any 991 owner to demand any less than what would be expected from the top-of-the-line Turbo S owner. Porsche Dynamic Chassis Control (PDCC) is fitted as standard in the 911 Turbo S models for a reason.
PDCC is no different in application for a track car than it is for a street car. It's appears to be only a matter of degrees of programming. Look at PDK... The ONLY difference between PDK in a 991 and PDK S on a GT3 is the programming.
For all you 991 guys who think they wont need PDCC later, you're kidding yourselves! For those with PDCC who don't think they now need higher limits of programming, don't you think that your current skills on the track and street will improve over time? Come on and have some faith in yourselves....
This is like a lot of things where implementation sometimes turns out to be at least as important as design. Like the 911 itself- nobody setting out to make the world's best drivers car would ever choose a rear engine layout, but thanks to superior implementation that's what we got anyway. With PDCC design is actually in its favor. Anybody who understands suspensions knows the severe tradeoffs that come with anti-roll bars. PDCC takes a big step in the direction of erasing that tradeoff. Street or track, its a winner.
08-20-2014, 08:27 AM
#48
Rennlist Member
I don't think people are dumping on PDCC, as the system is working great within a certain range Porsche has deemed acceptable. But I do think it is a giant leap of faith that Porsche will offer an update to alleviate the the point at which the car goes in limp mode. Quite frankly, I don't think that will ever happen.
My point is I was happy I didn't add that option, as with DE'ing often at Sebring, I believe faults described in this thread would be a common occurrence.
My point is I was happy I didn't add that option, as with DE'ing often at Sebring, I believe faults described in this thread would be a common occurrence.
08-20-2014, 12:57 PM
#49
So in summary. Works great for DD's. Smoother ride with less body roll. In extreme track conditions it may exceed it's programed limits. Best avoided in cars with heavy track use. I personally have had no issues and like it on my DD. Like all options, pick them based on what you want/need and temper that with the cars intended use. Do I have that right?
08-20-2014, 03:15 PM
#50
Burning Brakes
It's odd that the 981 (gts and regular) has a "sports suspension option but the 991 doesn't. Hopefully it'll be available soon. Won't help me out any as I'm not eating a huge depreciation sandwich for some cosmetics and a few potential hp, but it's still a nice thing to be able to spec.
08-20-2014, 03:22 PM
#51
So in summary. Works great for DD's. Smoother ride with less body roll. In extreme track conditions it may exceed it's programed limits. Best avoided in cars with heavy track use. I personally have had no issues and like it on my DD. Like all options, pick them based on what you want/need and temper that with the cars intended use. Do I have that right?
08-20-2014, 03:29 PM
#52
Rennlist Member
It's odd that the 981 (gts and regular) has a "sports suspension option but the 991 doesn't. Hopefully it'll be available soon. Won't help me out any as I'm not eating a huge depreciation sandwich for some cosmetics and a few potential hp, but it's still a nice thing to be able to spec.
08-20-2014, 03:31 PM
#53
Rennlist Member
So in summary. Works great for DD's. Smoother ride with less body roll. In extreme track conditions it may exceed it's programed limits. Best avoided in cars with heavy track use. I personally have had no issues and like it on my DD. Like all options, pick them based on what you want/need and temper that with the cars intended use. Do I have that right?
08-20-2014, 04:30 PM
#54
Burning Brakes
The 981 sport suspension option is free for the GTS and $1300ish I think for the S. From what I've heard it's basically like PASM in sport plus mode all the time with fixed bars and shock/spring rates. It's also 20mm lower than standard. There's just no slush mode, which is fine with me.
08-20-2014, 04:43 PM
#55
Rennlist Member
The 981 sport suspension option is free for the GTS and $1300ish I think for the S. From what I've heard it's basically like PASM in sport plus mode all the time with fixed bars and shock/spring rates. It's also 20mm lower than standard. There's just no slush mode, which is fine with me.
08-20-2014, 04:49 PM
#56
The 981 sport suspension option is free for the GTS and $1300ish I think for the S. From what I've heard it's basically like PASM in sport plus mode all the time with fixed bars and shock/spring rates. It's also 20mm lower than standard. There's just no slush mode, which is fine with me.
08-20-2014, 06:42 PM
#57
Burning Brakes
I like keeping my cars for a long time. I'm not a car flipper and I could care less about the latest facelift so I'd love to be able to keep my 991 for a long time. Replacing quad core maglev suspension components when the time comes, however, is an intimidating prospect.
08-21-2014, 05:23 PM
#58
just got another warning for doing a u-turn, on public road, it was traffic so made a quick u, then lights came on, check the G meter and its not even 1 G.
I reset and drive to work, haven't got any warning over a week or so till now.
I reset and drive to work, haven't got any warning over a week or so till now.
Hopefully not, when it light up again, I'll drive straight to the dealer.