When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Please provide some documentation (preferably illustration) to support your claim. The change to the engine and gearbox mounts do not mean the drivetrain itself has moved forward. It's my understand that the 992 is still very much a rear-engine car. My 991 does not feel at all like a mid-engine car to me. But even that is irrelevant - it either is or it is not rear-engined. Very easily proven one way or another with a proper illustration.
Found this cutaway, but it is not the best view (though doesn't convince me at all that the engine is "over the rear axle"):
Meh, whatever. I don't care enough to "research" this. I could be wrong. This assertion has been made in press. Maybe the press is wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
"The big issue lies in engine placement. For the 991, its flat six engine is placed more on top of the rear axle, rather than past it. This calls into question just how ‘rear engined’ the 991 actually is, especially when compared to the full-bodied rear-engined nature of every single Porsche 911 that preceded it. As well as the engine’s incremental shift forwards, the ‘mid-engine’ feel is supposedly exacerbated by the 991’s extended wheelbase, which is 100mm longer than that of the previous generation 997."
how much do the dynamic engine mounts being added have to do with this relocation of the engine? or are they two mutually exclusive design improvements?
how much do the dynamic engine mounts being added have to do with this relocation of the engine? or are they two mutually exclusive design improvements?
The engine mounts are only dynamic in the sense that they can become softer or harder (like magnetic shocks on a Ferrari or Corvette - they don't impact their location or that of the drivetrain). These were introduced 10 years ago in the 997 GT3.
If you think about how things would look if the engine were truly mid-mounted at the rear axle line, the transaxle gearbox would be way in front of the rear axle line). So the exit from the transaxle of the drive shafts (half-shafts) would have to be mounted at a severe rearward angle to reach the wheel hubs. This would not be good (and this is not how it's done).
I tried cars with RAS and without. You can definitely feel the RAS, but that's a pro and a con. Yes, it helps turn in.. but you can feel it helping turn in.
Also I'm sorry but I laugh whenever someone suggests RAS helps "highway stability" and parallel parking. Really? The 911 is lacking "highway stability" and is hard to parallel park without RAS? Come on.
The following 6 users liked this post by GratedWasabi:
Adr (05-03-2021),aggie57 (01-21-2020),carson2 (01-22-2020),dchang81 (01-25-2020),detansinn (01-21-2020),phefner (01-22-2020) and 1 others liked this post. (Show less...)
I tried cars with RAS and without. You can definitely feel the RAS, but that's a pro and a con. Yes, it helps turn in.. but you can feel it helping turn in.
Also I'm sorry but I laugh whenever someone suggests RAS helps "highway stability" and parallel parking. Really? The 911 is lacking "highway stability" and is hard to parallel park without RAS? Come on.
whether it needs it or not .. it helps with parking.
I tried cars with RAS and without. You can definitely feel the RAS, but that's a pro and a con. Yes, it helps turn in.. but you can feel it helping turn in.
Also I'm sorry but I laugh whenever someone suggests RAS helps "highway stability" and parallel parking. Really? The 911 is lacking "highway stability" and is hard to parallel park without RAS? Come on.
Driving on track or on the street? I'm wondering how hard you have to push to notice this.
Driving a 992 w/out RAS I didn't notice anything particularly difficult about parking or stability. Hyperbole is hard to tease out in some of the reviews.
Driving on track or on the street? I'm wondering how hard you have to push to notice this.
Driving a 992 w/out RAS I didn't notice anything particularly difficult about parking or stability. Hyperbole is hard to tease out in some of the reviews.
clearly the people on here know something the Porsche engineers don’t .. I mean standard equipment on the GT cars .. I’m sure it was just for the added weight, right?
clearly the people on here know something the Porsche engineers don’t .. I mean standard equipment on the GT cars .. I’m sure it was just for the added weight, right?
I don't doubt it helps. GT cars are meant to be exploited on the track, where these tools can really come alive. Those cars are also less diluted, where the advantages may be more obvious. My question is would be whether people have seen significant advantages on the street with a Carrera. Parking lots and U-turns aside. I don't think this is so cut and dry. As of now - RAS is on my build. But I wonder.
I would just as soon answer the question myself, but I don't have access to a RAS equipped car to test.
Also I'm sorry but I laugh whenever someone suggests RAS helps "highway stability" and parallel parking. Really? The 911 is lacking "highway stability" and is hard to parallel park without RAS? Come on.
I did 4300 miles on my 992 C2 so far, lots of inner city, lots of German Autobahn.
No issues with parking at all (Steering Plus, but no RAS), easier as with my Prius.
Did 150mph max so far (winter tires), no stability issues at all.
clearly the people on here know something the Porsche engineers don’t .. I mean standard equipment on the GT cars .. I’m sure it was just for the added weight, right?
There is no question that RAS has numerous benefits. Primarily to reduce/eliminate inherent rear-engined understeer further exacerbated by the longer wheelbase of the 991 and 992 generation. By bringing the rear end around, it enables controlled rotation that only a very skilled driver could otherwise accomplish by provoking a bit of oversteer. So while it absolutely improves handling, it also adds weight, complexity, and takes away some of the fun for those of us who enjoy rear-engined dynamics.
That it helps with parking and u-turns is a positive side-effect.
While modern 911s are very stable at speed, having all four wheels turning in phase during high-speed lane changes does increase stability...for a GT car, especially in inclement weather on Cup tires.
clearly the people on here know something the Porsche engineers don’t .. I mean standard equipment on the GT cars .. I’m sure it was just for the added weight, right?
No one has ever questioned that RAS improves track times. People have questioned whether the improvement is worth the added complexity and different "feel" of the car for real world use. There are pros and cons on both sides.
It's a definite yes for a regularly tracked car, no question. Hence why it's on GT cars, which are incredibly complex examples of the 911. The GT cars also integrate the RAS better, which was a complaint on 991.2 S/4S cars and supposedly improved to some extent on the 992, although I can still feel the RAS working. The point is you might get a better feeling car in real world use without it.
Personally I've yet to find a car/suv/truck I can't U-Turn or parallel park in a busy city (Seattle) and I would argue there's a certain gravitas (and humor) in doing so in a 911 without the assistance options (PS+ and RAS).
01-21-2020, 01:08 PM
