It's alright and cool for a street car...wouldn't worry about it either way.

 

I have PDCC and like it a lot. I would consider it if ordering a car. If buying CPO or used it would be a nice to have but not a deal-breaker if I liked the car and it was optioned close enough to what I wanted.

 

I test drove extensively two 2015 S cars with PASM (not SPASM), trying to discern a reason to pay 4K for PDCC (isn't that what it costs? I can't remember for sure but I think it was that much.) In the end I decided:

A) if it was a "free" option and you could order with or without, I'd order without.
B) if I wasn't ordering but found an otherwise perfect car on a lot with PDCC I'd probably buy it (in other words, it wouldn't kill the deal on a perfect car, but I didn't like it.)
C) when ordering, paying $4k extra for something I actually didn't like as well as NOT having it was ludicrous so that decision was a no-brainier.

I wound up ordering SPASM, no PDCC.

 

When I bought my car I test drove a couple cars. The second one had PDCC, but I didn't know it at the time. The first corner I was able to push the car, I thought felt odd. After a couple more corners I couldn't put my finger on it, but it felt synthesized, artificial. It then occurred to me that it was equipped with PDCC--which was confirmed later. I didn't really enjoy it. I understand it is something you acclimate to as well as being objectively quicker. My concern would be the added complexity. I have the DSC module for my car (uninstalled until spring) and it will be interesting to see the affect that has. I hope Larry's right.

 

Help Mongo understand this - because this stuff is confusing.

SPASM uses magneto fluid to stiffen the dampers/shock absorbers themselves - correct? This fluid can be engaged or disengaged at the push of a button. Actually I think it was a port that allows the fluid to take a long path or a short path thus changing the stiffness.

PDCC is a hydraulic piston within the control linkage between the shock absorber's drop linkage and the sway bar. This puts additional torque/twist into the swap bar to prevent the car from rolling - correct?

 

I'll go one step further. Part of the reason I got the base car over the GTS was that I didn't want PASM (put coilovers on with GT3 swaybars). PDCC felt very fake and further robbed me blind of any feeling that was not already robbed by PASM.

 

Almost... PASM dynamically adjusts the valving in each shock controlling the rate of compression and rebound its active all the time, the button simply
toggles between "normal" rates of damping and "sport" which is more aggressive, thus stiffening the suspension.

Note that PASM-S is "simply" PASM with more aggressive springs and ARBs/swaybars (and perhaps different shocks and or programming TBC)

this is correct when the car is cornering the PDCC mechanism applies dynamically controlled hydraulics to apply variable pressure across the ARB
in order to transfer load from the outside to the inside thus flattening the
car, reducing roll, further when the car is not cornering the system effectively
disconnects the ARBs (removes any pre-load) thus any bumps etc do not
transfer from movement in the ARB into the suspension, thus the ride
should be smoother/softer

 

+1

respectfully, I am not sure I agree with this, yes PASM-S is a more aggressive system than PASM, with shorter, stiffer springs, and ARBs/sway-bars (and perhaps different struts and PASM programming - TBC) ...

However what we are still comparing is a "conventional" suspension (using
static ARBs/swaybars) vs. a system with dynamic, hydraulically adjustable ARBs/swaybars

If the former is an 'apple' and the 'latter' an 'orange' then I think such a comparison is always apples to oranges ... I dont think that the degree
of 'aggressiveness' (effectively the degree of damping) determines if its
"apples to apples" or not...

The question in my mind is "does a dynamic ARB work better than a simple mechanical one?" - the answer is probably/potentially yes, since if the system
is dynamic and fast enough the amount of force transfer should be better
in the dynamic system ...

The fact that the PDCC ARBs are effectively "disconnected" when the car is
not turning to give it that "Lincoln Town Car" ride in a straight line is
neither here nor there to me ... its a matter of taste

I personally don't think the 911 needs a dynamic ARB system, its suspension is
already very aggressively damped, and it has a low CoG vs the SUVs on
which these systems evolved.

Also, PASM is capable of addressing lateral weight transfer during cornering
one of the reasons I am a fan of the TPC-DSC module ... thus obviating
the need for yet another weight and complexity contributing system on the
cars suspension!

(*) ARB Anti-Roll Bar (what we Brits call swaybars)

Happy New Year!

 

I was simply referring to the fact that PASM and SPASM are noticeably different, and comparing a PASM/PDCC car with a plain SPASM car is not a good way to assess PDCC, because the PASM/SPASM difference muddies the water. I would compare a SPASM/PDCC car with a plain SPASM car in order to really isolate the PDCC effect.

To me, all these different suspension differences, including the X73 on my Cayman, are simply movement along a continuum from soft to firm, with PDCC being that last element on the far right that basically eliminates body roll and allows the car to corner just a bit quicker. Basically, everything Porsche shows in the video comparing PASM/SPASM/PDCC is exactly the way I feel it when I drive these cars.

 

gotcha! - we are in violent" agreement!

 

gotcha!

 

I have PDCC on my GTS, having driven cars with and without it at Silverstone. On the track I loved it - definitely allowed me to corner more quickly. It's also great for high-intensity driving on the road; you can do things that normal physics would dictate you shouldn't be able to do.

But there is something a little odd to me about that. I'm not a track guy, I'm a road guy who likes a feeling of total connection to whatever I'm driving or riding. When I test drove the 991.2, which didn't have PDCC (and I know it has improved suspension etc etc so not a strictly fair comparison), I felt I could corner much more intuitively and was aware of what the car was doing more exactly than I am in my own car.

Overall, I like what PDCC brings to my GTS, but it does make it slightly, on some intuitive level, different. I don't think that I would spec it again.

 

Did the .2 have RWS?

 

Just in case some folks don't recognize hyperbole, PDCC doesn't result in a "Lincoln Town Car" ride. When driving on crappy roads it takes the edge off. That's it. The rest of the suspension is just as stiff as it would otherwise be.

 

I've got PDCC with PASM - not SPASM. I bought the car from dealer inventory - I didn't spec it and order it. I've driven 991's with PASM both with and without PDCC back to back. On the street, not on the track.

Yes, there is definitely a difference. Both over rough pavement and especially taking turns like a juvenile delinquent. I like it.

If ordering today would I spec it and pay the $4k? Probably not. $4k pays for a lot of leather covered dash vents...

DaveGee