Mike818

That has been a common opinion I have heard across the board as well. Since I don't really have much experience with electric racks in general, it's hard for me to really contextualize that. I certainly don't expect to be disappointed though. Hopefully at worst, a little getting used to.

I appreciate your feedback I don't want to jinx it, but hopefully my car will be arriving *soon* and I'll see for myself.

Mike818

This is a loose hand grenade question around here, and looks like I get to be the first to try and jump on it.

Objectively: RAS makes the car better.
Subjectively: RAS creates a different driving experience that is not to everyone's liking.

1stgear

My SA has only built one car since PSP has been available without it. It was for a lady who drove tractors growing up and she simply didn't want PSP. He looked up the car I was trading in and it had PSP. (I had no idea.) I let it rip and added it. No complaints here.

arrivederci

I would say I never notice it taking anything away from the experience. It suits the car well. But make no mistake it doesn't provide the rawness and feel of an old non-power 911 steering rack, nor would I want 992 steering to have that kind of feel.

Scott P

PSP can be added at the dealer's post-delivery if desired.

Wilder

If you're going to track the car, get RAS. If you like tech and digital gizmos, get RAS. If you like having "the latest", get RAS.
If you're not going to track the car, skip it. If you've had several 911s and like the rear bias feel, skip it. If you like analog stuff, skip it. If you like things that make sense, skip it.

I agree. And this speaks to my "in some respects, better" comment.
If you want it to feel more direct, play with alignment. I have zero toe in the front and -1.5 camber all around (GT3RS street specs) and it's sharper. My car is also lowered.

IPA1

I have been driving my 2023 T for a year now, I bought it to make me smile like my older air cooled 911's did back in the day. The car has RAS, no FAL, no PSP. It is simply an amazing car day to day and pure pleasure to drive at the local autocross events.. I'm no longer a track junkie but, have done a few laps. All that said, the T is a real treat with RAS, RAS is not invisible, if you have some seat time you will feel it. I believe it raises the cars performance potential by a good bit. The car is competitive with all the curent GT cars for autocross, Maybe it would do as well without RAS. Can't speak to the track but, pretty sure it wont hurt a bit. The car is very, very easy to drive at the limits of traction with RAS. If your building a cruiser it might be overkill. For tight manuevering and any track type duty RAS is probably a plus. Either way, you will have one of, if not the best, driving cars out there.

Biohazard

Got to port today. No dates for the remaining stages at this time. Hopefully this weekend I'll get dates.

Mr.Bourne

I’m a few months behind you.

kilyung

I got to the port on 23.03.24 and was originally supposed to get on the boat on 24.03.24 but instead went to “not scheduled” and has not changed since then.

1stgear

This made me laugh. It's me in a nutshell in regard to the vehicles I own.

Schn3ll

As 911 owners we are already in the non-sensical category or we would all have Camry’s instead.

I didn’t have RAS on my 991.2 T but when I specced my 992 T I added it. It’s barely noticeable to me besides low speed maneuvering and slightly better high speed stability. I guess on mountain runs it makes the car a small % sharper but I’m not a good enough driver to know the difference. I don’t think it’s anywhere close to make or break but again a caveat that I’m far from a great driver.

Tireman

Well, after an 18 month wait, the configuration is "locked and loaded" ... only about 1,000 different tweaks during the wait

Scheduled build date is April 10 !!! ... AND its already got a VIN

https://configurator.porsche.com/en-...dFrom=PRBXTF12

SEA2ATX

I read a lot of discussion on this forum about RAS before locking my T build. It was one of the options I debated. In the end, I decided to include it mainly because it is an option you can't get on the base 911. That makes it somewhat unique for the T in my mind.

I like how you characterize it as "not invisible." Having a few months behind the wheel with RAS, I have noticed it in two distinct areas (both helpful): 1) as many have described it does make the turning radius and general maneuverability of the car at low speeds quite impressive, and 2) it has helped (some might say "saved") me a few times through corners where I was carrying too much speed. As someone who is new to the 911 platform, I am still adjusting to the feeling of the rear and and the way it changes braking dynamics. I find I have to be much more focused about dialing in my straight line braking during spirited driving. A few times I haven't quite got it right and when braking through the corner the rear wants to let loose. This is when I really feel the RAS. Someone described it as a feeling of pivoting around the midpoint of the car. I completely agree with that! It is an odd sensation at first, but I would consider it a useful feature for someone who is new to tracking and/or new to the 911 dynamics who wants a little extra peace of mind.

As @Wilder points out, if you have had prior experience with 911s you may not like this sensation - as it does change the way the rear of the car behaves. Personally, I would spec it again. The same cannot be said for FAL which I have maybe used once.

6sigma

The great RAS debate - which may never end. I think of RAS similar to PDK. It objectively makes the car better - faster around a track, eases driver inputs, greater efficiency, etc. Subjectively, we all know why some want a manual though. RAS is obviously more subtle than PDK. I've noticed it mostly on low speed turns and in parking maneuvers. I did not have RAS on my 991T and did not select it on my 992T.

RAS is standard on GT cars because it no doubt improves lap times. RAS is conspicuously absent on the S/T though, and if you watch some of the initial press videos they talk about wanting to retain a traditional driving feel along with saving weight. Later videos they seem to only focus on weight savings though, probably don't want to ruffle feathers in the GT crowd. It was reported that there was a big debate in engineering when RAS was being developed for the 991 - some did not want it and others clearly did. The data on faster lap times sealed the deal and RAS became standard on GT cars. But that didn't resolve the driving feel question.

There is no clear right or wrong answer with RAS. Overall, RAS is subtle compared to something like PDK vs manual. I chose to keep it simple, save the weight and cost, and preserve whatever hint of 'traditional' driving feel there might be with a non-RAS car. If I were looking at a 991 or 992T and the spec was right, the presence or absence of RAS wouldn't be a deal breaker.