CDinSing

The car will over and under steer with PDCC and SPASM if you push hard enough. I found through three days at the track that you can "feel" what the car is doing, it just doesn't shout it to you like a normal street car. It feels a lot like my old lotus track car in sport+, I love it. It tells you what it is doing and is correctable and forgiving. Actually more than some mid engine cars I've driven.

As for more under steer from PDCC, I can't say. That would need back to back testing which no one has done to my knowledge. Sorry couldn't be more helpful, but I think all you can get at the moment is opinions.

SiNi

I don't think there is any definitive evidence that PDCC increases under steer because there have been no direct comparisons of cars with and without it. It is essentially a performance option. Less body roll equals more planted wheels should equal more grip. I can't really see how it could consistently cause more under steer to the extent of being detrimental to the car's handling.

Also I don't buy the whole "numbs the seat of your pants feel" argument. Driving a car fast at the limit of grip is exciting and it is mainly the Gs that cause the rush not a couple more degrees of body roll!

sand8

In my opinion, the PDCC is more to control body roll during cornering by using "variable" swaybar driven by hydraulic pump. It should no affect the normal driving on rough road more than car without PDCC. The only problem with PDCC is when going fast around the corner on bumpy road, it may get out of shape. But this can be fixed by software update later by Porsche, provided the hydraulic can take it (faster response/higher pressure, or they can switch to electric servo....) to work better with the passive current suspension setup (difficult to accomplice). Unless, Porsche decide to use active suspension later in 991.2, then PDCC is not necessary anymore. This will never end.....

SiNi

Not sure about this.

To quote from the new 911 book regarding PDCC it says - "In addition, it minimises the lateral instability of the vehicle on uneven ground." Also, "The results are improved dynamic performance and increased ride comfort at all speeds, as well as optimised turn-in and stable load transfer characteristics."

chuckbdc

With sensors working and the computer controlling torque fed to the front wheels and side to side in the rear and the inside rear wheel braking action under turn in while the roll rate and rebound are being dynamically adjusted over speed ranges and slip angles and the engine mounts are being tightened, and PDK hunting for the highest RPM possible, the final result may depend on how hard you are clenching. (What you are clenching is likely a function on how fast the scenery is going by.)

ADias

Playstation driving galore.

Dag Johnsen

Just a short notice, there is now a fix for some 991s out there. There have been reports of some cars behaving weird and twitching a lot. The suspention will be loosened and tightened again with correct values, heights and angles. My friend tested the "problem car" 991 S at Nürburgring yesterday, and the fix was fantastic, from hell to heaven!!!

CDinSing

Good to hear it was a reset of the suspension and not the new tech (PDCC) that has been getting all the bad press. I have it, tracked it and think it is great on track and adds comfort on rough roads. Fits the dual personality of my car.

Carrera GT

Agreed. S-PASM is jittery and exhibits more NVH than I think is acceptable for a 2012 car and yet it's too compliant on the track. Best of neither world. At the cost of repeating myself, an option to put something like Boxster Spyder suspension bits (conventional coil-over dampers) would obviate the compromises of electronic systems that adapt within milliseconds to be perfectly adapted to the road conditions now milliseconds behind the car ...

chuckbdc

I have a 991 with Sport PASM and 20 in Pirellis. I do not find it in any way "jittery" under any condition. I find that it provides significantly more of the old 911 "feel" and control (but with NONE of the traditional compromise for shrot wheelbase and and bump steer that some people confuse with "handling") than the regular PASM and softer springs and sways of the non-Sport suspension. It sure was better than the regular PASM in back to back comparisons on the track at the Porsche World event were I pushed them.
.
It is for sure far more tight and not as smooth riding over rough surfaces than the non-sport PASM- and I am not at all sure it would be worth it for people who don't track the car (or just like the stiffer ride). But I find it quite acceptable- and way better than the older 911s I have owned

My experience is that it is much more supple even in the Sport setting than regular PASM was in the 997. It is a whole lot less harsh than the PASM in my Boxter RS-60 (where the sport setting was a threat to fillings). I have not driven a 911 or a Boxter without PASM so cannot comment on them.

Carrera GT

If the noise and vibration coming to the driver were actually "feel" and feedback, then it would have something to do with the handling and dynamics of the car.

A hot lap at a Porsche marketing event with a sales person in the passenger seat feeding you carefully prepared and rehearsed selling points is fun, but not relevant and the prospective customers are not permitted to push the cars.

As for bump-steer or handling, I didn't mention either, and this is more a road car subjectivity of NVH or product quality. The handling of the 991 is quite impressive in the context of a Carrera with PDK. It's clearly a quick car in the right hands on the ring and it puts down impressive lap times without even having tires under it. I wouldn't want to try to be in my old 997.2 S versus the my current 991.1S and win any kind of race. ( ... where's the smiley icon for "yawn" ...) It's the plastic-fantastic and let-the-software-do-the-driving way of the 991 that's at fault here and I think S-PASM only contributes to the "driving by numbers" experience. Here's hoping that recent suggestion of ways to correct the misdemeanor of PDCC can lead to a fix for my 991S. I would be ordering the 991C4S Power Kit today if I could get it with steering instead of a TV remote control.

ADias

I suspect you consider the Lotus Exige a compromise too.
Short WB a compromise? The reverse is true. Short WB is fun. Long WB is boring.

chuckbdc

When is the last time a Lotus sports car has been competitive in serious company? They make a fine toy for amateurs at track days so long as they don't get near a serious car (like at PCA DEs).

Check out how much fun the Porsche race pros are having loosing to Ferrari 458s. Then you will know why they are drooling to get 991 based cars.

ADias

Different strokes for different folks. You do not know what you are missing when you ignore an Exige. Fun is not always all-out performance.

chuckbdc

Porsche has abandoned developing the 997 race cars to focus on the 991 platform. Apparently Flying Lizards have flown the coop.