Chassis Stiffness Comparison
Thread Starter
Rennlist Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 366
Likes: 4
From: SF Bay Area
Chassis Stiffness Comparison
Thinking my GTS had high torsional rigidity, I did a quick search and found the following highlight from YouWheel: All values in Nm/deg.
Does it seem right that a Hyundai sedan is more rigid than a 991 GTS
Ferrari 458 33,120
Fisker Karma 35,000 (bending: 23,000)
Hyundai Genesis Sedan (2015 -) 39,400
Jaguar F-Type Coupe 33,000
Koenigsegg Agera 58,000
Koenigsegg Agera R 65,000
Lamborghini Aventador 35,000
Lamborghini Gallardo Super Trofeo Stradale 35,000
Lexus LFA 39,130
Porsche 911 Carrera Type 997 33,000
Porsche 911 Coupe 991 (2012) 30,359
VW Phaeton 37,000
Does it seem right that a Hyundai sedan is more rigid than a 991 GTS
Ferrari 458 33,120
Fisker Karma 35,000 (bending: 23,000)
Hyundai Genesis Sedan (2015 -) 39,400
Jaguar F-Type Coupe 33,000
Koenigsegg Agera 58,000
Koenigsegg Agera R 65,000
Lamborghini Aventador 35,000
Lamborghini Gallardo Super Trofeo Stradale 35,000
Lexus LFA 39,130
Porsche 911 Carrera Type 997 33,000
Porsche 911 Coupe 991 (2012) 30,359
VW Phaeton 37,000
Last edited by SDaddy; Jun 1, 2015 at 07:00 AM.
Racer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Thinking my GTS had high torsional rigidity, I did a quick search and found the following highlight from YouWheel: All values in Nm/deg.
Does it seem right that a Hyundai sedan is more rigid than a 991 GTS
Ferrari 458 33,120
Fisker Karma 35,000 (bending: 23,000)
Hyundai Genesis Sedan (2015 -) 39,400
Jaguar F-Type Coupe 33,000
Koenigsegg Agera 58,000
Koenigsegg Agera R 65,000
Lamborghini Aventador 35,000
Lamborghini Gallardo Super Trofeo Stradale 35,000
Lexus LFA 39,130
Porsche 911 Carrera Type 997 33,000
Porsche 911 Coupe 991 (2012) 30,359
VW Phaeton 37,000
Does it seem right that a Hyundai sedan is more rigid than a 991 GTS
Ferrari 458 33,120
Fisker Karma 35,000 (bending: 23,000)
Hyundai Genesis Sedan (2015 -) 39,400
Jaguar F-Type Coupe 33,000
Koenigsegg Agera 58,000
Koenigsegg Agera R 65,000
Lamborghini Aventador 35,000
Lamborghini Gallardo Super Trofeo Stradale 35,000
Lexus LFA 39,130
Porsche 911 Carrera Type 997 33,000
Porsche 911 Coupe 991 (2012) 30,359
VW Phaeton 37,000
Rennlist Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,027
Likes: 2,608
From: Pac NW
My guess is that a rear-engine, RWD platform simply doesn't need that much additional stiffness. No part of the chassis is exposed to significant driveline torque.
The C4/Turbo cars are an obvious problem with that reasoning, of course.
The C4/Turbo cars are an obvious problem with that reasoning, of course.
Trending Topics
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,724
Likes: 74
From: Napa Valley, CA
The problem with data like these is that they get presented independent of all other factors with the implication that a higher number is something that somehow makes the car better. Look at the number for the Lotus Elise, 10,000. Would anyone call this car a noodle. It is a mid-engine car and its torsional rigidity is probably more than acceptable given the way it puts down power. And therein lies the key, as stated above. If a car is the sum of its parts, torsional rigidity is simply one aspect. Suspension, engine, engine location, construction materials and location, etc. are all variables. I do not mean to say that the numbers are made up or exaggeated, just that the cars are engineered to meet certain performance expectations - a little more "X" and a little less "Y", and so on, makes the car what The manufacturer intends it to be (ideally).
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 18,818
Likes: 14,738
The problem with data like these is that they get presented independent of all other factors with the implication that a higher number is something that somehow makes the car better. Look at the number for the Lotus Elise, 10,000. Would anyone call this car a noodle. It is a mid-engine car and its torsional rigidity is probably more than acceptable given the way it puts down power. And therein lies the key, as stated above. If a car is the sum of its parts, torsional rigidity is simply one aspect. Suspension, engine, engine location, construction materials and location, etc. are all variables. I do not mean to say that the numbers are made up or exaggeated, just that the cars are engineered to meet certain performance expectations - a little more "X" and a little less "Y", and so on, makes the car what The manufacturer intends it to be (ideally).
Like saying a woman is beautiful simply because she wears a DDD bra.
Nordschleife Master
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,573
Likes: 97
From: great white north
I believe that is wrong or the Cab. Porsche used 20% torsionally stiffer as a design target over the 997, has claimed "up to 25% stiffer"
some other info I found based on 911 model differences
'88 911 7k nm/deg (measurement by burgermeister)
964 11.5k nm/deg (993 was 20% stiffer)
993 13.9k nm/deg (996 was 45% stiffer)
996 20.1k nm/deg (Excellence was Expected p.1381)
996.2 25.1k nm/deg (996.2 was 25% stiffer)
997 33k nm/deg
991 40k nm/deg (porsche used 20% torsionally stiffer as a design target, has claimed "up to 25% stiffer")
also
Porsche 911 Turbo 996: 27k Nm/deg
Porsche 959 12.9k Nm/deg
Porsche Carrera GT - 26k Nm/deg
987 Boxster 16.5k NM/deg
981 Boxster 23k NM/deg (40% more)
987 Cayman 30k NM/deg
981 Cayman 40k NM/deg
some other info I found based on 911 model differences
'88 911 7k nm/deg (measurement by burgermeister)
964 11.5k nm/deg (993 was 20% stiffer)
993 13.9k nm/deg (996 was 45% stiffer)
996 20.1k nm/deg (Excellence was Expected p.1381)
996.2 25.1k nm/deg (996.2 was 25% stiffer)
997 33k nm/deg
991 40k nm/deg (porsche used 20% torsionally stiffer as a design target, has claimed "up to 25% stiffer")
also
Porsche 911 Turbo 996: 27k Nm/deg
Porsche 959 12.9k Nm/deg
Porsche Carrera GT - 26k Nm/deg
987 Boxster 16.5k NM/deg
981 Boxster 23k NM/deg (40% more)
987 Cayman 30k NM/deg
981 Cayman 40k NM/deg
Last edited by jumper5836; Jun 2, 2015 at 09:22 AM.
