BHMav8r

America Roadster ?

TL-Register

AMERICA ROADSTER

Front - wheel carriers Turbo 3.3 - shock absorbers regular C2 (Boge) with different springs - brakesystem Turbo 3.3

Rear wide axels Turbo 3.3 - shock absorbers regular C2 (Boge) with different springs - Brakesystem Turbo 3.3

Best

Norbert

Chris R.

Wow! Great info...aaaaannnnndddd now I want a jubi!
Thanks

Mondrian

Norbert - at what stage in 911 history did wide body & turbo body separate?

cobalt

Norbert I hate to argue with you but I have to somewhat disagree. I have had several of these on my lift and these are the differences. I would consider the rear trailing arms to be turbo suspension.

The US spec 94 widebody used the majority of its suspension from the turbo.

Suspension front specs:

Turbo/turbo look and Narrow body cars all used the same cross members side members and wishbones along with the same steering rack.

Turbo and turbo look 1992 America roadster used wheel carrier part number 965.341.656.19 & .21 these were to fit the turbo brakes

C2/4 and turbo look C4 used wheel carrier 964.341.656.19 & .21 to fit standard brakes.

The turbo used the same shock absorber as used on the M030 suspension (I have seen an M030 MY 1994 C4 TL's) the shock otherwise was the same as the C4 but used the upper support mount for the turbo on all the turbo and turbo look US spec cars and was mounted in the outboard position specific to the turbo/TL cars.

Sway bar was the same 21mm on all turbo/TL cars 965.343.707.29 the narrow body used a 20mm 964.343.707.33 or a 22 mm 964.343.707.35 on the M030 cars. Sway bar mounting for the turbo/TL cars were specific to the widebody

Front spring was a specific rate to the TL cars and were not a C2/4 or turbo part number

Suspension rear differences:

The rear trailing arm on the turbo/TL cars were much larger and used a 965 part number vs the narrow body cars using the 964 part number. All the turbo and AR TL used a beefier drive shaft the 94 TL cars used a wider but less beefy drive shaft with its own specific part number. The turbo drive shafts are an easy replacement on the 94TL but will not fit the regular C2/C4.

Both turbo and TL cars used the wheel hub from the 928 vs the ones used on the narrow body C2/4 which used a 964 part number

Rear shocks were standard C2/4 for the TL cars and specific to the 91-92 and 94 turbos independently

Rear sway bar for the '92 AR and turbo were the same 965 part number at 22mm 965.333.701.04 the 94 C4TL used a specific rear sway bar to itself it was 21mm and was part number 965.333.701.10 this was essentially the 965 sway bar but 1mm smaller dia and is not interchangeable with the narrow body cars.

Otherwise the majority of other parts are shared by all models.

Brakes difference.

There are many variations to the brakes on the turbo vs AR and C4 TL. The system used on all the turbo/turbo look cars was the electro-hydraulic system initially used originally on the 89 C4 vs the hydraulic boosted system of the C2 however many items are specific to the turbo bodied cars. They all used the 23.81mm mater cylinder with a 20/12mm stroke as used on the C4 however proportioning valve pressures varied. the turbo used a 60 bar pv while the standard C4 used 55 bar and the C4 TL used a 33 bar valve. brake lines were turbo up front except for the C4TL.

The front brakes on the AR turbo look were standard 91-92 turbo also known as medium S4 calipers similar to those used on the 928S4/GT cars with same 44/36 pistons. These were all fitted with the larger 322x32mm rotors. The 94 turbo used the larger big reds with a different 322x32mm front rotors and the 94 turbo look used standard C4 front calipers with 40/36 pistons and smaller 298 x 28mm rotors the same as used on the standard C2/C4

Rear brakes were the same on all the turbo and TL cars. These used larger pistons than the C2/4 with 34/30mm vs 30/28 they also used the larger 299 x 28 mm rotor vs the 299 x 24 mm rotor used on the standard C2/4.

Wheels

The turbo 3.3T and TL cars all were supplied with the same cup I's in 7 & 9 x 17 inch sizes a 9.5 was optional although I have never seen it fitted. The C2/ C4 were fitted with a 7 & 8 x 17 inch version of the cup I. As you know the 94 turbo was fitted with 8 & 10 x 18's

_________________________________________________________________

Although there are differences the Turbo look cars used parts that more closely resemble the setup of the turbo vs the narrow body cars. Although they have a combination of components of both I believe you sill find the info I provided to be accurate.

This is a picture of a 94 C4 I almost purchased last year. This car was a 94 C4TL with turbo conversion although someone tried fitting it with narrow body sway bars which do not fit a widebody car and created all sorts of problems. I have been under a half dozen or so of these extensively. I know this info is correct.

Unfortunately this car was in a spray booth that collapsed last winter and was completely destroyed. Incidentally it had a salvage title and the insurance company still paid out over $68k for a car with an S title which I was surprised to see.

cobalt

pictures of narrow body rear suspension vs turbo/ TL.

You can see the size differences of the trailing arm which are considerable along with mounting points for sway bars which are about 1.5 inches further outboard on the turbo vs the narrow body cars this also requires a longer drive shaft.

TL-Register

fine Anthony - If I understand it correctly I see no difference between what I wrote and what you wrote, except that yours is much more differentiated and accutate!

- sad that you never listed this white widebody C4 on TL-R ...

- i have some TL-Cabs (RoW) on my list with the 7 and 9,5 wheels ex factory - so this is no rumour

for those who are interested in the widebodys and especially in the America Roadster:

It lasted now about 7 years to get them completed, but now i have them all on my lists! - see the final color-distribution for the Roadsters here : America Roadster and some other interesting facts.

Best from Germany

Norbert

Best

Norbert

Mondrian

I am not sure if this is also the case in RoW but here in UK you can take out an "agreed value policy" for classic cars - the way it works is that you agree the price of vehicle in advance of taking out the policy with your insurance company. This works for cars who's value is not necessarily reflected in the books such as classics or other special cars. I assume the guy you talked about had something like this which renders the salvage title irrelevant and avoids haggling with insurance company after such an incident. I assume you can do same in all western countries as insurance is pretty much work the same.

cobalt

Not exactly there are many differences I have outlined. From my perspective owning both turbo and C2 along with working on many C4TL cars I would consider the suspension to resemble a turbo's more than a C2/4 although many components are the same for both; the turbo parts and NB parts are not interchangeable. Sways and offsets are purely turbo not C4 which is the majority of the suspension and how it mounts. Unlike the TL 964 3.8 RS which is closer to the C2/C4 in design and fitment.

I am sure the 9.5's exist I have just never seen any here in the US.

Sorry i did not list this C4TL I believe i can still get the vin if that helps?

cobalt

I have agreed value on my cars. In this case this car had been rolled and was a complete rebuild. New roof, fenders etc. No agreed value policy but the insurer used NADA value for car they should have considered worth less due to the need to be reconstructed and carried an S title. In most cases an S title car is worth half or less of a non S titled car unless you carry agreed value insurance.

RAASpeedster

Cobalt. If I could find a set of the 18" Speedlines that were used on a 94 turbo 3.6, would they just bolt onto my 94 C4 WB or are spacers required?

cobalt

They should just bolt up assuming you can find a set for a reasonable price.

TL-Register

VIN would be nice - i´m wondering if i know this car or not m491@turbo-look.com

Thanks

Norbert

Navaros911

I always knew I was missing some knowledge on the suspension differences.

Thanks for the detailed write-up guys!