What sort of baffles me about the angst over FAL is that the car is about 150k (give or take 10k) and an option (FAL) that is less than 2% of the MSRP of the car (2,770) is enough to generate multiple threads on Rennlist.

 

No idea? Mine has worked 100% of the time ever since I saved the GPS location. If it works for the FAL, no idea why (if it’s GPS related) why it shouldn’t pop up for homelink? That said, I only use homelink to close the garage door once I’ve backed out of the garage and have a full view of the satellites. Trying to get a strong satellite signal/lock, from inside a closed garage, could be problematic, or taker longer? But that is not an issue for me, since I always open the garage door, first, from the keypad near the door to the house.

For a check, I just went into my garage, with the garage door closed. I got into the car and switched on the ignition. It took exactly 9 seconds for the PCM to load up my home screen. While not instantaneously, I usually take 9 seconds to put on my sun glasses and fasten my seat belt before putting into reverse. By the time I back out of the garage, the FAL has automatically raised the front, and the homelink screen has appeared on the PCM.

 

Maybe I could have gotten away without FAL but it’s likely I’d be scraping a lot more especially in and out of my driveway. But I’m willing to pay for a little peace of mind and to some extent that’s what FAL is.

 

With my 991 C4S I came across a few situations going into parking garages where I scraped the front lip. Over time I just considered it a sacrificial part as I didn't have FAL. Since that experience I've always checked the FAL option.

 

Does this mean the garage door control on PCM is available in about 9 seconds after the car is started? Or does the 9 seconds only pertain to the amt of time it takes for the FAL to become functional? Thx

 

I only ever use the GPS feature of homelink when coming back home, so always outside and in full view of satellites as you put it. PCM takes between 45 and 60 seconds to load to the point the diamond buttons work, but having said the homelink profile always displays when I unlock the car, before the PCM has fully booted. Stuffs me how it’s supposed to work, I’d just rather they’d left the buttons.

 

I agree on the buttons....but love the GPS feature. IMO, one of the coolest things on the car’s technology list.

 

Well I did some digging, and these seem to be hard to find away from what's on the website, which I believe is standard suspension only. I also think that the standard Carrera is 5mm lower than the standard Carrera S and therefore 5mm higher than the Carrera S w/ SPASM - I'm just going off of the ground clearance posted.

Using a calculator here are some rough numbers:
Carrera approach angle: 10.1 as posted on the website
Carrera S w/ standard suspension approach angle: 10.2 posted on the website, 10.5 using my calc
Carrera S w/ SPASM (keeping overhang the same): 9.7
Carrera S w/ SPASM (adding 2in. (?)to the front overhang to account for extended lip): 9


Now I just need to find the same for my old Cayman S w/ sport suspension to compare! I never had issues with that car driving around the city for a couple years and I suspect it was at least as low as the Carrera S w SPASM.

 

What I did before optioning the FAL...my dealership allowed me to take one of their 992 demo cars (that had SPASM) and drove it to my house. I had my wife watch the front as I angled my approach and slowly creeped over the curve to my driveway. I have a pretty high/steep curve. According to my wife, I had maybe about about 1-2 mm height clearance to spare. Since I had spec’d my 992 out with the sport front facia, in addition to the SPASM, I knew I would not make it. At that point, optioning the FAL became a no-brainer.

 

Thanks so much for this!

 

I have over 5000 miles on my 911 and do not have FAL and in San Diego I wish I had it multiple times every day. Look at your area and make the decision based on that. Some places you need it and in others you don't. It only depends on the conditions where you drive.

 

I don't think it is about the cost - at least it wasn't for me. I was more worried about added weight and complexity and long term issues - probably one of the reasons I also questioned RAS. At some point we are just adding crap to our cars in order to add bottom line to the company we call Porsche. I personally think that pictures of where people need FAL (examples of driveways/appoaches) would go a long way in terms of the discussion. In the 4 weeks I've had my car, I have yet to scrape the front - and no, I don't have FAL - so I am curious what an approach angle looks like in the real world where it is necessary.

 

Weight? FAL adds about 7 kg (or about 15 lb).

As to complexity, since the evolution of the system from the 997 (hydraulic) to the 991 (pneumatic) the system has been less prone to issues than probably the PDK unit in these cars. In the 992 generation I would imagine PAG has further refined, or maybe even perfected, the system.

The info below is for the the 991 GT3, but applies equally to the 992 (which is largely a carryover, save for some minor tweaks like the speed at which the system automatically lowers).

 

Nice find. Thx

 

So you agree. It adds weight, complexity, and cost. Why get it if you don't need it?