Differences in the car bodies construction?
05-20-2002, 12:21 PM
#1
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Differences in the car bodies construction?
Here's a topic I haven't yet found in the archives which interests me a lot:
Does anyone know if the 924/944/968 series had differences in their basic body structure on the course of production? I mean stuff like sheetmetal strength/thickness, rigidity of welds and construction of the bodies key stress points (strut towers, A-arm linkages...).
The only superficial differences I have been able to spot are the car lifting points, which were different between the '83 NA, '86 NA and '86 turbo.
It's kind of hard to believe that the basic structure would have been exactly the same all the way from the late seventies (924) to mid nineties (968) without Porsche adding to the stiffness of the chassis. (I believe torsional rigidity has been the "in" thing at least between late 90's econo-box manufacturers, which each claim xx% stiffer body than the last model).
I guess I'm trying to establish, if there were any specific years, when the body stiffness was enhanced.
Does anyone know if the 924/944/968 series had differences in their basic body structure on the course of production? I mean stuff like sheetmetal strength/thickness, rigidity of welds and construction of the bodies key stress points (strut towers, A-arm linkages...).
The only superficial differences I have been able to spot are the car lifting points, which were different between the '83 NA, '86 NA and '86 turbo.
It's kind of hard to believe that the basic structure would have been exactly the same all the way from the late seventies (924) to mid nineties (968) without Porsche adding to the stiffness of the chassis. (I believe torsional rigidity has been the "in" thing at least between late 90's econo-box manufacturers, which each claim xx% stiffer body than the last model).
I guess I'm trying to establish, if there were any specific years, when the body stiffness was enhanced.
05-20-2002, 08:53 PM
#3
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 1,250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the driver side fender from an early model wont fit a late model.. (with antenna patched)
the nose panels are different between early and late models.
the gas cap door is differnent between early and late models..
SHAUN
the nose panels are different between early and late models.
the gas cap door is differnent between early and late models..
SHAUN
05-20-2002, 09:36 PM
#4
Nordschleife Master
[quote]Originally posted by Tabor Kelly:
<strong>I read the 951 'S' had a stiffer frame from more bracing in the front section.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you know if this applies to the 89 turbo as well? If so, cool!! :-D <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" />
<strong>I read the 951 'S' had a stiffer frame from more bracing in the front section.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you know if this applies to the 89 turbo as well? If so, cool!! :-D <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" />
05-20-2002, 10:39 PM
#5
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 1,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont know specifically but when i was shopping for a quarter panel for my 88 i was told that there are slight slight differences in size/fit between the years... but it might just be a technicality.
05-21-2002, 05:26 AM
#6
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]Originally posted by adrial:
<strong>
Do you know if this applies to the 89 turbo as well? If so, cool!! :-D <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure it was, as well as 968's, and I waseven under the impression that the S2's had it too. I know that both types of 968 Turbo's had it also.
There was a thread about this a month or so ago, and it had a decent amount of responses (20 maybe?), but I'm not sure how it ended up, and it dissapeared quickly. I am VERY interested in this subject. I've driven E36 M3's and know them to be superior to the 951S in every way except top speed- I'd LOVE to own one. Their ride quality is INCREDIBLE and I've been told that there are MANY reasons why. The E36 M3 chassis were always looked at as one of the best ever along w/the Audi S4. Our chassis' aren't nearly as great as many think they are, but, they really aren't bad (from what I understand).I had an '89 Integra (1st Gen). When the '90's came out (2nd Gen) a test article comented on how they were 90% stiffer in torsion and 80% stiffer in bending (or vice versa) than the 1st Gen, BUT, had ~15% MORE glass(!?). Every few months you read about some car and how it is twice as stiff as it's predecessor, and how it HAD been SO much stiffer than it's ancestors- makes me wonder what people used to drive back in the '60's and '70's(?)- Jello??? Cardboard???Nerf??? Oh well, one dif (of the MANY) I've noticed b/t my 1st Gen Integra and my Turbo S is that when it's up in the air, on a lift, I can still open & close the doors very easily, whereas w/the Integra, it was a lot more difficult b/c of the way the doors were misaligned from th stress- not sure if this meant the chassis weren't stiff or not. I would love to find a site or two that specifically deals w/this subject....
<strong>
Do you know if this applies to the 89 turbo as well? If so, cool!! :-D <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure it was, as well as 968's, and I waseven under the impression that the S2's had it too. I know that both types of 968 Turbo's had it also.
There was a thread about this a month or so ago, and it had a decent amount of responses (20 maybe?), but I'm not sure how it ended up, and it dissapeared quickly. I am VERY interested in this subject. I've driven E36 M3's and know them to be superior to the 951S in every way except top speed- I'd LOVE to own one. Their ride quality is INCREDIBLE and I've been told that there are MANY reasons why. The E36 M3 chassis were always looked at as one of the best ever along w/the Audi S4. Our chassis' aren't nearly as great as many think they are, but, they really aren't bad (from what I understand).I had an '89 Integra (1st Gen). When the '90's came out (2nd Gen) a test article comented on how they were 90% stiffer in torsion and 80% stiffer in bending (or vice versa) than the 1st Gen, BUT, had ~15% MORE glass(!?). Every few months you read about some car and how it is twice as stiff as it's predecessor, and how it HAD been SO much stiffer than it's ancestors- makes me wonder what people used to drive back in the '60's and '70's(?)- Jello??? Cardboard???Nerf??? Oh well, one dif (of the MANY) I've noticed b/t my 1st Gen Integra and my Turbo S is that when it's up in the air, on a lift, I can still open & close the doors very easily, whereas w/the Integra, it was a lot more difficult b/c of the way the doors were misaligned from th stress- not sure if this meant the chassis weren't stiff or not. I would love to find a site or two that specifically deals w/this subject....