What Components would i need for RS Spec
08-28-2006, 09:12 AM
#31
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Christer
I always thought your screen name was Simon Extreme - now I realise it is actually Simone Xtreme
But in all seriousness, do you actually know what you weigh to nearest tenth of a kilo? That would seem ......unnecessary?
But in all seriousness, do you actually know what you weigh to nearest tenth of a kilo? That would seem ......unnecessary?
08-28-2006, 09:44 AM
#32
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AVoyvoda
"Rear bumper is 5 kgs" I think you mean the rear bumper beam. In fact its 5.5 lbs lighter (11.5 vis 16). Also the middle section of the rear bumper is different.
08-28-2006, 09:59 AM
#33
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are absolutely correct. The rear bumper is more flexible and lighter, as you say. However, not too sure where the total weight saving of 5.5 kgs comes from, since the standard rear bumper only weighs 5lbs. It would have to weigh virtually nothing for the weight savings to equal 5.5 kgs. Maybe most of the remaining difference can be found in the rear bumper supports (6 lbs for US version)?
08-28-2006, 10:32 AM
#34
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, I am not trying to be arguementative. I really want to learn.. It's one of the reasons I love this forum, because of the knowledge. Try having this conversation on the PCGB forum, even under the 964RS section. top guys, but except for one who posts on here, barely a technical thought between them 
. It's just not their thing while for me, it's part of the joy of ownership.
Agreed. I should have been specific and said pu! I shoudl also add I have not tested this myself but will be doing so soon!
Sorry. I was only going by the part numbers and data in my PET but it is a fairly recent version. That definately lists the 964 618 124 94 as being for M64.03, M64.02 and M114. I hadn't noticed before but it also states that part number is the right one for 91 cars (!) although it dos give the right part number for post 91. Confusing!
Interesting. I obviously haven't seen the results of those tests. However, I cannot say whether it is a placibo effect or something else coming into play but, as mentioned, 3 tuners have told me the same thing about RS engines making more power. Now, that is with different components so maybe there is a gain from both DME and engine. For instance, I have read many times that not only were the pistons weighed, but they were matched to individual cylinders and used different rings from a standard engine. Now, this makes sense to me as every RS that I know that has been leak tested has performed really well. So, it could be that the engines retain their power and don't wear as quickly.
Again, I am going on 2 bits of info. The PET lists the part no. for the RS as 964 355 305 10 while the C2 is lsted as 964 355 305 00. Also, I read in an article that the Proportioning Valve Switch Pressure on the C2 is 45 bar and the RS is 55 bar. I had put the 2 together to assume a difference. Again, hearsay adds to the confusion with people saying that the ABS on the c2's cuts in significantly before the RS. Now, this could be due to placibo effect, the different sized brakes and hydrolically assisted.
Having said all of the above, the real point of my first post should have been that there are lots of small changes to the C2 to make an RS and they all add up to a very different driving experience. I cannot tell you which really make the big difference and which make little difference. Weight is a significant difference, as is the suspension, brakes, flywheel, gearbox and lsd. Could I really tell if the rear bumper/pu was 5kg's lighter? I don't know although I believe I can feel a difference between when I have the lightweight mags on and normal cup wheels. However, like so many things, it's the whole package and even the things that might make no difference at all interest me, just because of all the trouble Porsche went to.
. It's just not their thing while for me, it's part of the joy of ownership.
Originally Posted by JasonAndreas
The RS and C2/C4 share the same front bumper reinforcement bar..
Originally Posted by JasonAndreas
Actually it's not, the C4 was delivered with the same DME control unit as the C2 (both are engine type M64.01, tiptronic is M64.02, RS is M64.03, Turbo 3.3 is M30.69 and the Turbo 3.6 is M64.50.) For MY91 the C2/C4 came with 964-618-124-00 until ~March 1990 when it was switched over to 964-618-124-02 and then for MY92+ 964-618-124-03. The RS and M114 came with 964-618-124-04. There was some discussion about it HERE.
You'll need to find an older version of PET (v3 or v4) without the part updates or read pg135 of Adrian's book showing a chart with pretty much the same information (the book lists the intro dates which is something that PET doesn't.) I don't know the reasoning behind M114 (Taiwan) or if it had anything to do with the temperature monitoring of the catalytic converter that was required for the Japanese market or if it just mapping differences to deal with fuel quality issues?.
You'll need to find an older version of PET (v3 or v4) without the part updates or read pg135 of Adrian's book showing a chart with pretty much the same information (the book lists the intro dates which is something that PET doesn't.) I don't know the reasoning behind M114 (Taiwan) or if it had anything to do with the temperature monitoring of the catalytic converter that was required for the Japanese market or if it just mapping differences to deal with fuel quality issues?.
Originally Posted by JasonAndreas
In back-to-back testing a stock MY90(?) C2 with an original (911-618-124-04) DME control unit that originally dyno'd at 258Hp improved to 282Hp with the only change having been the RS control unit. Another bone-stock C2 control unit was tried at the same time and on the same the car, back to 259Hp. There is probably some overall fudge factor in the absolute numbers from the dyno test but the improvements are there.
Originally Posted by JasonAndreas
The front/rear brake pressure regulator (bias valve) is the same unit used in the C2 (MY92+) and C4 having a switchover pressure of 55bar/798PSI and reducing factor of 0.46..
Having said all of the above, the real point of my first post should have been that there are lots of small changes to the C2 to make an RS and they all add up to a very different driving experience. I cannot tell you which really make the big difference and which make little difference. Weight is a significant difference, as is the suspension, brakes, flywheel, gearbox and lsd. Could I really tell if the rear bumper/pu was 5kg's lighter? I don't know although I believe I can feel a difference between when I have the lightweight mags on and normal cup wheels. However, like so many things, it's the whole package and even the things that might make no difference at all interest me, just because of all the trouble Porsche went to.
08-28-2006, 01:20 PM
#35
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: WhippetWorld, .........is it really only this many
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by SimonExtreme
Having said all of the above, the real point of my first post should have been that there are lots of small changes to the C2 to make an RS and they all add up to a very different driving experience. I cannot tell you which really make the big difference and which make little difference. Weight is a significant difference, as is the suspension, brakes, flywheel, gearbox and lsd. Could I really tell if the rear bumper/pu was 5kg's lighter? I don't know although I believe I can feel a difference between when I have the lightweight mags on and normal cup wheels. However, like so many things, it's the whole package and even the things that might make no difference at all interest me, just because of all the trouble Porsche went to.
Having said that there are a number of changes that will make a C2 drive and feel like an RS. My C2 has largely been converted to a track only car and I have been told by several people with the relevant experience (including someone who probably has more experience with 964 RS than anyone in the UK) that the car drives just like an RS. The main changes need to give an RS like drive are the LWF. suspension and weight loss. Lots of the other smaller changes simply aren't noticable as such.
As far as the bumper is concerned the US C2 has a different beam for crash worthiness that is far more substantial than the ROW.
I have been told that the RS engine typicaly makes 5-8hp more than a C2 engine in the same state of tune ( assuming similar ECU chips).
08-28-2006, 03:41 PM
#36
Racer
Just as a point of interest my Porsche service tecknik wkd 497 620 (a 1992 book)lists the dme as 964.618.124.01 ???
with regards to the bumper issue i guess this could be down to some markets having the shock absorbertype mountings as opposed to deformable tubes(just a guess)the former weight a lot more.
Touring version clutch pressure plate same as C2 but not the Basic which has the additions of spring damping in the plate unless of course this was later updated on all cars?
oh and i'm another lightweight 67kg approx. And I can't think of a fat 964 RS owner in the UK!!!!!
It's raining i will go and get my anorak
with regards to the bumper issue i guess this could be down to some markets having the shock absorbertype mountings as opposed to deformable tubes(just a guess)the former weight a lot more.
Touring version clutch pressure plate same as C2 but not the Basic which has the additions of spring damping in the plate unless of course this was later updated on all cars?
oh and i'm another lightweight 67kg approx. And I can't think of a fat 964 RS owner in the UK!!!!!
It's raining i will go and get my anorak
08-28-2006, 03:52 PM
#37
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Laurence Gibbs
oh and i'm another lightweight 67kg approx. And I can't think of a fat 964 RS owner in the UK!!!!!
08-28-2006, 05:02 PM
#41
Technical Guru
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by SimonExtreme
Again, I am going on 2 bits of info. The PET lists the part no. for the RS as 964 355 305 10 while the C2 is lsted as 964 355 305 00. Also, I read in an article that the Proportioning Valve Switch Pressure on the C2 is 45 bar and the RS is 55 bar. I had put the 2 together to assume a difference.
Originally Posted by SimonExtreme
Having said all of the above, the real point of my first post should have been that there are lots of small changes to the C2 to make an RS and they all add up to a very different driving experience.
Originally Posted by Laurence Gibbs
Touring version clutch pressure plate same as C2 but not the Basic which has the additions of spring damping in the plate unless of course this was later updated on all cars?
Originally Posted by Bill Verburg
here is a list which only includes the different parts
08-29-2006, 04:31 AM
#42
Instructor
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never met a fat 964 RS owner either. Is this a competition now, i'm 63.636363636363 kg? I understand the lightweight principles so have made use of age. I have very little hair left (saves a few grammes) what there is is white (much lighter than the original dark brown ) also thinner bones & muscle loss save a bit more.
Pete
) also thinner bones & muscle loss save a bit more.Pete
08-29-2006, 05:11 AM
#43
Racer
Opps my mistake (typing before thinking!) , I was thinking of the driven plate(clutch disc) not thrust or pressure plate which of course is the same. Brain fade again.
