Gary, what an amazing post. Informative, complex yet covers all the elements of the experience in such a concise and direct manner that only few can communicate ! Thank you so much for doing this! I'm sorry, like rpilot I've been swamped at work so wasn't able to get to this this but boy, it's worth every second (and more) I spent reading it.

A big THANK YOU for reassuring C4S w/PDCC... Coming from you...Now I know that I've done well!

cheers!!

 

Bob is like to say "Because the carboceramic brakes help you when at limits then you can t
progress your drive skills" :-) An old saying :A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose...,
a stupid driver is a stupid driver nannies or not, i agree with you in the sense that if want to becaome
a race driver maybe a good go-kart experience in first will help you, i don t agree with nobody when
a stupid or not experinced driver drives a 400HP car without training

 

I agree with Gary.
The nannies don't do a thing right up to the point where grip starts to let go.
Press sport/sport plus and it even allows you to go past that point - as long as the yaw gyro rate agrees within a set limit with the desired rate calculated from speed and steering angle.
You are actually driving that car, not the nannies. You may think it is the nannies. It's that good.
For purposes of this post nannies = PSM. I am not refering to any of the other dynamic aids the car uses so perfectly.

Rainier

 

Bob, my take on the electronic nannies, specifically PSM, is that it does save me when I make a mistake, and I really appreciate that. When I started DE in the 991 at Thunderhill, I braked late going into turn 3 and made the mistake of turning the steering wheel while still on the brake. The rear started sliding but PSM caught it. These terrifying seconds taught me a good lesson, but I did not have to spin out or crash to learn it.

By the time I start tracking the GT3 I am already running in the high intermediate group, but a simple mistake of early apex at turn 3 spun the car. Good thing the sand trap caught my car and I did not have to foot an expensive bill.

So does electronic nannies give me overconfidence? Probably. But it does give me a bigger margin of error on the track. After all, I am interested in learning to drive the car on the track, but I am not interested in going into racing.

 

I did not spec PDCC since my car will see a good amount of track time. I did spec Sport PASM though.
My reasoning came down to basically not making the car feel to "artificial" and not to muddle any feedback of what the car is naturally doing. A car that has some lateral and forward/aft pitch is not a bad thing, too stiff will make the car handle worse actually, especially if they are street tires. Plus, that movement is providing the driver with a lot of feedback, at least thats how I use some info at the track and how I have been taught to drive at the track over many years.

I have zero time at the track in a 991, with or without PDCC, so I could totally be off...but that was my thinking when I ordered my car with my intended use and spec. 2013 C4S.

 

Thanks for the excellent analysis as usual Gary. Nice to see someone who knows what they're talking about switch to the pro-PDCC camp after a side by side comparison. Makes me feel good about speccing it in my build!

 

There should not be a "pro" or "against" camp.
One is NOT better than the other. They are different. Each is in fact better suited to a particular task - you take your pick what you are looking for. The big problem we are having is near zero guidance from Porsche coupled with many reports from journos and owners (which mostly drive one variant - theirs) - all pretty much conflicting. This in itself is circumstantial proof that neither choice can be labeled "worse" or "better".

Gary, perhaps unwittingly has put himself forward as a yardstick, a calibrated measurement tool and due to his balanced experience (and elecronics background - you can't fake it in electronics, that tends to brush off on you) we can expect a reasonable conclusion.
The conclusion can only have 4 outcomes: Which of the 4 variations (I am ignoring C4 for now) would be most suitable for a particular goal and thus the right choice for you ?

The good part is even if you take a random variation - you most likely will love it and defend it. That means it is good.

Rainier

 

The first question is : Did you try one with and one without? No? Then you re talking about parallel universes, how can be said spasm is less "artificial" than pdcc ?? that s crazy spasm makes the car more stiff whilst pdcc leaves the suspensions to work better in a softer way proved when you drive on bad road and the same is around the corner , don t you feel you head shaking so much due the spasm stiffness so you don t know wher you're going? what a pity :-)

 

Gary was so careful to articulate how this comparison was not about good or bad, better or worse! They are all GREAT cars, just different!

It will be a shame if others try to reduce this thread into a "mine is best" dialogue!

 

Yes yes, that's not what I mean to do at all! I was simply stating that it wasn't a (complete) waste of $3100

I can definitely understand if some people prefer the more traditional feel of a non-PDCC car, or if they feel that $3100 is too high a price to pay for it. I'm just glad that there was a discernible and mostly positive difference for the money paid!

And of course thankful that Gary was able to test what most of us wouldn't have the opportunity to test as a side-by-side comparison

 

Agree!

I have PDCC too and love it! I have compared with and without and I prefer with!

 

It is really not so hard to disentangle the physical effects- relative to the motivation of journalists needing more words to fulfill their assignments, arm-chair and actual 911 owners coming to grip (so to speak and literally) with yet more Porsche design progress, and the brutal accuracy of the Configurator calculator.

In its earliest marketing literature, Porsche described the 991S as (I forget the exact number but its immaterial given the 26 mile test site) ~13 seconds faster than the prior equivalent model.

Of that about half was attributed to the Sport PASM option (lowers car due to shorter stiffer springs and adjusts aero qualities with lip spoiler and greater rear spoiler angle) and about half due to PDCC (controls roll, optimizes tire contact patch placement).

 

If too stiff means harshness to you, I can assure you that my PDCC equipped car is not harsh at all on the track, in Sports+ mode and with PSAM in the sports setting. I can feel the movement of the suspension, but the whole car just feel stable in corners, acceleration, and braking. The whole car just feel every components working together in harmony, instead of fighting each other. The onboard G meter told me I was doing 1.2G in lateral acceleration with stock tires, and I attribute that to PDCC.

If I had a coupe, I would opt for SPASM with PDCC, it would be awesome on the track!

 

Just my opinion(after a test) , spasm + pdcc for track , only pdcc for daily driving

 

A harsh suspension and a stiff suspension are two very different things. Well aware of that. I have run JRZ coils in the past with very hight spring rates, while the ride is stiff, its never harsh(beat you up inside the car). Thats actually one of the pluses of a well put together suspension.

My hesitation with PDCC is that it will be too artificial and not give as much driver feedback. Im faster in a car that I know what is doing beneath me.