fester

Wow a lot of hate re s/t on this thread. I got one.

786

Agree. ST is awesome, if you can you should. I’m looking forward to driving @kyrocks PTS ST.

Nizer

Very high praise. Justin, did you get yours yet?

https://www.motor1.com/reviews/70027...911-st-review/

raclaims

Nope....I literally have no interest in the S/T. I'll keep driving the wheels off my R.

TheDangerZone

So is rear axle steering the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater? Nothing but praise for it in every prior implementation but now that the S/T has had it removed in the name of weight savings, it's apparently not anything valuable.

dave2020

The programming of the 911R's rear wheel steering was changed so it did nothing really between 40-70 mph. The 992 GT3 is programmed to essentially deactivate between 30-50 mph. So, it makes a lot of sense to completely remove it from the S/T and save weight since it's a road focused car. No real loss in function but gain in weight savings. Also, goes hand-in-hand with rear wing deploying at 80 mph instead of 50 mph... keeping the proper 911 shape. Also, allows for better tuning and directness of steering feel.

TheDangerZone

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, if it helps at higher speeds why would it make sense to remove it? Even if it's a road > track focused car, you're still going to derive benefit.

dave2020

The RWS did very little between 40-70 mph in the 911R, the driving dynamics of which everyone raves about. Presumably, these speeds would be ideal for back roads spirited driving. So, not having it would allow weight savings without losing functionality (since it didn't really do much between 40-70 mph in the 911R anyway).

In the current gen 992 GT3, the inactive zone for RWS is between 30-50 mph. So, it does kick in at operating speeds one would typically be at in a spirited drive (greater than 50 mph). I suppose Porsche could have taken the same approach as it did for the 911R and kept the RWS in the S/T and reprogrammed it similarly as the 911R, but they were aiming for weight savings. From all the driving reviews, it seems they worked the typically Porsche magic and made it feel even more direct by adjusting the steering ratio. I'm sure the new front suspension setup also helps.

GrantG

I’m not following your logic either. Are you saying you mostly drive between 40 and 70 mph, so you have no use for RWS?

dave2020

I'm saying that's how they programmed the RWS in the 911R.

GrantG

Understood, but how does that fact make you anxious to go without it? There obviously has to be a transitional period between the axles steering out of phase and then in phase or the steering response would be violently inconsistent when accelerating through the instantaneous transition.

I have never been able to drive the same model of 911 with and without the RWS option, so I don’t have an opinion. But I don’t understand how your opinion can be informed by the fact above.

Porsche911GTS'16

Having one 911 without RWS (991.1 GTS) and one with (991.2 GT3), I'll take the RWS and the "weight penalty" 10 times out of 10. The RWS is one of the most obvious upgrades between my two 911s.

786

The thing with the R is, no matter how much I like the car and how special I think it is, it has the 991.1 heads so that engine will always be sus. Yes, I know unlikely etc but the R is probably the least driven example of any 991.1 so no real sample size. For that fact alone I’d say ST all the way. It’s certainly not as pretty as an R from the front, but everything else, and especially mechanically, it’s probably going to end up being peak Porsche. Or at least tied with the RS 4.0.

dave2020

I guess I'm not making myself clear. I am NOT anxious to go without it. I prefer the idea of not having RWS and the benefits of such (more analog/direct steering feel and lighter weight). I've not driven one back to back with and without RWS. I'm basing my thoughts on how the 911R is currently considered the pinnacle of road driving and that the RWS in it was essentially re-programmed out of the car at road legal speeds. That is, it's not very active at 40-70 mph and is just a weight on the car.

GrantG

I love the idea of saving weight (I own a 911 that weighed under 1,900 pounds before I added a few heavier components for track use - that's over 1,100 pounds less than a 911R), but I think you are misunderstanding the technical details of RWS. The disabling of the RWS at some lower speeds (40-70mph) was not done because the engineers subjectively preferred the feel of the car without RWS there (as you mentioned that speed range can be subtly shifted higher or lower, but it cannot be eliminated). It is a fundamental necessity to program in a significant period where the rear axle is not active to make the car able to have the ability to both have the rear wheels steer out of phase with the front tires (shortening the effective wheelbase at low speeds and adding agility) and in phase with the front tires (lengthening the effective wheelbase at high speeds and adding stability).

Imagine if they wanted to have the RWS active at all speeds and the change from "out of phase rear steer" to "in phase rear steer " happened at 50 mph. You'd be taking a corner at 49 mph and the turning circle would be made smaller (the nose would dive for the apex) by the "out of phase rear steer" and then as you went 1mph faster, all of a sudden the car would push wide (the nose would aim toward the outside of the corner) at the apex as the steering changed to "in phase rear steer". Would be scary, dangerous, and not fun at all.