Zeus993

Just specking out a nice basic daily-driver 981 with the fixed X73 suspension package instead of the PASM. Love the idea of it. Never tired it. Live in a city with less than good roads but lots of beautiful twisty roads in the local mountains. Comments anyone? Still love it? Too harsh? Just right? Order it again?
Thanks in advance...
Joel

zirrah

It's more harsh than pasm and not as versatile. Which you are describing a scenario that may work better with pasm. But honestly the stock suspension is excellent unless you want the lower ride height :-)

Z356

So do I. I would suggest you read a thread we had on this subject here recently:

https://rennlist.com/forums/987-981-...r-article.html

And of course, read the Jan article it talks about as published in PCA's Panorama. As you may know, Pete Stout is a great fan of the Spyder and we all wanted to know how that set-up compares to the new 981's Sport Suspension option!

Saludos,
Eduardo
Carmel

.

Zeus993

Good question. I NEVER use the PASM in my TT. With the ride height, can I not simply lower it with different springs?

Marine Blue

I can't offer an opinion on the 981 but I can tell you that the Spyder suspension is compliant and is only harsh on really bumpy poorly maintained roads. I can't imagine your roads can be worse than what I had to deal with in southeastern MA.

Zeus993

Tx Eduardo. I pulled the Panorama issue and had a re-read. All good. Begs the question if a 981 Spyder will surface in the future.

Supagoat

It depends exactly how bad the roads are and how often you'll be driving on them. Like Afshin was, I'm in MA and for the most part there's no problem at all (once they fill the potholes from the winter).... But I don't live in the city. One day I took a coworker home to Cambridge and I had to go slow on one road because it was just so incredibly bumpy from having been cut open and poorly repaved multiple times. How do your roads compare?

Bill Lehman

The X73 option increases spring rates about 24%. If you convert the N-m (N-mm is incorrect) to pounds-inches the front springs are 265 and Rear 415. I'm running 450 F and 500 R in my street/track Cayman and this is not too bad if you're careful. The big increase with the X73 is the rear sway bar rate. Its rate is a 45% increase over a stock 981. This will have a substantial effect on handling (will reduce under steer) and would be really felt if you hit a pothole. I wrote an article on the Cayman Register about Cayman suspension modifications http://caymanregister.org/showthread.php?t=32816 which you might find useful. If I were buying a 981, I'd want the X73 option.

hf1

I wouldn't order a 981 without the X73, especially if it will be seeing a lot of twisty roads action. (But then why else would you buy one? )

Zeus993

Tx Bill. Had to join the PCA special Cayman interest group (a good thing) and not had access to your write up yet. Will read through it later.

Question: Not sure on what exactly 'spring rate' is. A high spring rate I am conjecturing works faster, more cycles per minute, and would be more compliant, creating a softer ride. Do I have this right?

hf1

Spring rate is the amount of weight (lb) you need to put on the spring to compress it by a certain amount (in). So higher SR means stiffer springs.

spyderphile

I am a novice when it comes to suspension specs and how they relate to real-world handling. Based on the specs posted by Eduardo, would it be ok to say that X73 is superior to 987 Spyder's specs? Higher specs (of X73) combined with longer wheelbase and refined chassis could allow 981 to out-handle the Spyder? (haven't read Panorama's article) If so, could a 981 (with X73 and PTV) replicate the hardcore nature of 987 Spyder? What may be missing is the steering feel. I bet Porsche will continue to re-calibrate and fine tune it. Upcoming GTS will have an answer.

cheers.

Bill Lehman

Yes, a 981 with X73 option should be able to generate higher cornering speeds resulting in higher lateral G force than a Spyder. This assumes a smooth road surface and equal tires. PTV may impair a very good driver in a track situation. It is unlikely that you would ever approach the handling limits with either car on the street.

hf1

That's what Stout concluded in the Panorama article. He would have skipped the PTV. Personally, I don't like it when the car does stuff with the rear brakes in turns either. Just eats up rear pads for no reason. Too bad you can't order the LSD without the PTV.

GTS will have PASM standard so not clear if it will be available with X73. Looks more like a nice luxury options package + 10-15hp without any upgrades to the suspension.

Z356

My expectations are that Porsche will announce a 're-calibrated' PASM for the 981 GTS models and will NOT offer the X73 with it. We will have to wait for the reviews to see if the sportier PASM on the 981 GTS lives up to expectation!

I am in the camp that thinks we will NOT see a 981 Spyder. As much as I loved my Boxster Spyder, I don't believe the exercise was a sales success for Porsche, according to their way of looking at it. I just don't see, for example, the return of a manual top like the 'sun canopy' on the 997 Spyder to achieve less weight & a lower center of gravity.

It does make you wonder what they'll come up in the last years of the face lifted .2 981 to create enthusiasm, 'buzz' & additional sales before they switch to the next, more advanced mid-engine platform! I predict that Porsche will go with a material increase in power (via a new turbo charged engine) in this last 'sport' variant of the .2 981 chassis, rather than the substantial weight savings which was one of the Spyder's key advantages!

Saludos,
Eduardo
Carmel

.