C2S vs C4S if equal cost
03-18-2007, 03:54 PM
#16
Rennlist Member
Adrian Streathers's 'The Essential Companion - Porsche 993' quotes an interesting reference on this subject in the first two paragraphs of pg 34.
edit: Thanks to Svaha ( Mark), that info appears below in post #19
edit: Thanks to Svaha ( Mark), that info appears below in post #19
Last edited by Garth S; 03-19-2007 at 07:56 AM.
03-18-2007, 05:58 PM
#18
Advanced
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by richardew
The AWD setup in the 993 works as follows:
normal conditions, 95% of torque to rear axle and 5% to front axle.
under throttle, rear wheel slip, up to 20% torque to front, rest to rear.
off throttle, rear wheel slip, up to 40% torque to front, rest to rear.
I have been replacing 2 sets of rear tires (15k-20k) before I change the fronts, and I have never seen the fronts very worn. I could probably stretch it to 3/1. This lack of front tire wear suggests that the fronts aren't getting much extra torque. There is also an idiot light that flashes when the rears slip. For me this has been a rare event, even in the snow (I wear Blizzaks in the winter). I bought a '95 C2 in 1/95 and drove it for 1 1/2 years (25k miles) before trading it on a C4 Cab in 5/96. The 993 awd setup maintains the rear wheel drive character of the car.
normal conditions, 95% of torque to rear axle and 5% to front axle.
under throttle, rear wheel slip, up to 20% torque to front, rest to rear.
off throttle, rear wheel slip, up to 40% torque to front, rest to rear.
I have been replacing 2 sets of rear tires (15k-20k) before I change the fronts, and I have never seen the fronts very worn. I could probably stretch it to 3/1. This lack of front tire wear suggests that the fronts aren't getting much extra torque. There is also an idiot light that flashes when the rears slip. For me this has been a rare event, even in the snow (I wear Blizzaks in the winter). I bought a '95 C2 in 1/95 and drove it for 1 1/2 years (25k miles) before trading it on a C4 Cab in 5/96. The 993 awd setup maintains the rear wheel drive character of the car.
the big difference is the rear engine vs. front engine, I'd imagine the traction on a RWD rear engine car is better since it has the weight of the engine there, not quite sure how the weight distribution is measure, but the ideal WEIGHT ratio is 50/50... but considering wherever the engine and transaxle are, I'd imagine that's where a huge dispersion of weight would be so where there's 50/50 weight ratio b/w front and rear going by particular areas, I'd imagine that a rear-engine car w/ RWD would have more weight over the driving axle than a RWD front engine car... thus more TRACTION to the rear wheels would be necessary, even in an AWD setup
either way, I know that Porsche AWD is superior, but as was posted the RS, GT 1-3 models are ALL RWD tells you something about what Porsche thinks about their serious race cars
at the same time, if I had the opportunity to own a 993/996/997 TT or even the ultimate... 959.... I wouldn't pass it up
03-18-2007, 06:06 PM
#19
Carrera 4S:
Fitted with 993 Turbo, wide body, wheels and brakes the C4S has proven itself to be the King of Kings. The unspinnable 911.
The C4S remains the favourite 911 among the Porsche people from the production line floor to the engineering staff at Weissach. Even head office Porsche management really liked it.
...
The one disadvantage, from the performance point of view, comparing the Carrera 4S to the Carrera S is the weight of the C4S. It is somewhat heavier.
At 3197 lb the C4S weighs the same as the 911 (964) Carrera 4. However the extra 32hp means it is a little quicker off the mark than its older brother, but slower than its younger sister, the Carrera S.
A total of 6,948 of the C4S were produced, of which, 3,948 were sold in the USA.
The C4S enjoyed a longer production run compared to the Carrera S, and the C4S remains the most sought after of all the normally aspirated 911s ever built.
pg.34, Porsche 993 The Essential Companion by Adrian Streather
Fitted with 993 Turbo, wide body, wheels and brakes the C4S has proven itself to be the King of Kings. The unspinnable 911.
The C4S remains the favourite 911 among the Porsche people from the production line floor to the engineering staff at Weissach. Even head office Porsche management really liked it.
...
The one disadvantage, from the performance point of view, comparing the Carrera 4S to the Carrera S is the weight of the C4S. It is somewhat heavier.
At 3197 lb the C4S weighs the same as the 911 (964) Carrera 4. However the extra 32hp means it is a little quicker off the mark than its older brother, but slower than its younger sister, the Carrera S.
A total of 6,948 of the C4S were produced, of which, 3,948 were sold in the USA.
The C4S enjoyed a longer production run compared to the Carrera S, and the C4S remains the most sought after of all the normally aspirated 911s ever built.
pg.34, Porsche 993 The Essential Companion by Adrian Streather
03-18-2007, 06:10 PM
#20
R.I.P
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
have you ever heard of a RS,GT-1-2-3 or anything along those lines that is AWD? ....enough said rear 2wd no suB
959!!!
03-18-2007, 07:51 PM
#21
Advanced
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
actually they didn't, they just called it the 993 Turbo and it "only" cost $120,000 vs. $1million
not saying that AWD P-cars aren't completely awesome, just saying that the RWD models are the best.... it's like those commercials where they say "A bad day in Florida beats a good day anywhere else"...
then again, there's no such thing as a "bad" P-car
not saying that AWD P-cars aren't completely awesome, just saying that the RWD models are the best.... it's like those commercials where they say "A bad day in Florida beats a good day anywhere else"...
then again, there's no such thing as a "bad" P-car
03-18-2007, 08:11 PM
#22
Rennlist Member
Wasn't AWD banned from most race circuits because of the advantage they had over the RWD in inclement weather?
Also, from Adrian's book (page 246-251), I am confused about him writing that the "Dynamic 4-wheel drive" system sent 100% to the rear until the viscous coupler sensed slippage/transfers torque. Is this correct? I thought it was 95% rear/5% front?
This is the old 2wd vs 4wd discussion that can be searched and argued ad naseum. Your opinion is your opinion, and that's hunky-dory. To each his own.
Vive la difference!
Also, from Adrian's book (page 246-251), I am confused about him writing that the "Dynamic 4-wheel drive" system sent 100% to the rear until the viscous coupler sensed slippage/transfers torque. Is this correct? I thought it was 95% rear/5% front?
This is the old 2wd vs 4wd discussion that can be searched and argued ad naseum. Your opinion is your opinion, and that's hunky-dory. To each his own.
Vive la difference!
