When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
stock ball joint fits perfectly New control arms, but 964 longitudes aren't wide enough Another shot beforer the new 993 front longitudes are installed
After a seven week respite, and a brand new 993 brake booster, bell housing and lever from Germany, the 993 brakes now work perfectly. I drove the car home from the shop on Saturday It’s like throwing a safe out the window.
I spent the day on Sunday reinstalling the wheels, seats and harnesses and got the car properly sorted for a test run. Initial driving impressions were favorable. The car turns in with surgical precision. And despite the race tuned suspension, the MCS two ways are remarkably compliant on the street. Driving the the country roads was a blast. The 964 with the MCS suspension is uniquely different from my 993 equipped with MCS two ways. The 964 feels more alive and visceral, commanding your attention. It’s more challenging to drive than the 993, and I’m looking forward to the challenge.
The racing brake pads shriek with a squeal. I’m hoping that the squeal subsides with time, but it is a pig after all. There’s also a light squeak coming from the right rear, particular when the left side is under load. I’m guessing it’s a wheel bearing. Still some work to be done, new wheels, exhaust and an engine drop, but the transformation is largely complete.
964 bell housing and lever were not compatible with the 993 brake booster. Diameter of 964 bell housing is too narrow New 993 bell housing on right The 993 lever on left compared to 964 lever in right. The 993 lever is 10mm wider.
Wilbur might be at Palmer Wednesday afternoon for a quick sortie, time permitting. I have a foreclosure in Westfield. And the 993 will be there Friday with PCA NER. Unfortunately October 8 isn’t looking too good.
Did BBI have any explanation for the ball joint issue? IIRC, those are $500+ and "strongly recommended" by them.
Thanks for asking. BBI has not responded to my requests to return the ball joints. Their response below, however, acknowledges that that these are not the right application for a lowered car with camber. The whole purpose of the BBI uprights is to lower the car and add camber, so WTF? My car rides at the low end of RS ride height, with 3 degrees camber up front. That’s not terribly radical. They confirmed that I should buy the stock ball joints.
I don’t like to speak negatively of vendors, but the BBI ball joints are pure packaging by BBI’s sales department. Sadly, BBI appears to be more focused on getting products off their shelves than setring our cars up properly. The BBI ball joints belong on a rally car in the desert, not on an RS height Porsche. Just ask the guy who designed them, Cary at ERP.
Response from BBI:
“The ball joint isn't wrong for the vehicles per se. There are a lot of variables in the setup that determine best part and use.
Droop level is a big factor as well as intended camber. We have set up several cars with the uprights and these balljoints (as well as factory), all operating as intended, but they are closer to normal operating range with a lowered setup. We have had no binding issues on those.
If you are seeking alot of camber that does change the angle and is a more unique setup. If you are seeking significant droop then thats another factor as well. Just looking to isolate all the variables to see what the solution is.
You might be in need of an OEM style balljoints (as per Cary as well) depending on the variables and to accommodate extra camber.”
07-30-2019 | 12:00 AM
And the 993 will be there Friday with PCA NER. Unfortunately October 8 isn’t looking too good.
