1995 vs 96-98 993's
05-08-2007, 01:19 AM
#106
Originally Posted by ZombiePorsche44
Dude,
Who rammed a stick up your *** today.
Not all of us here on rennlist are the worlds greatest expert on everything Porsche like you 
and California is not a **** state, unlike places down south where the KKK is alive, well and preaching hate.
IMHO, you are a complete & total *** for making such a statement!...................ZP44
Who rammed a stick up your *** today.
Not all of us here on rennlist are the worlds greatest expert on everything Porsche like you and California is not a **** state, unlike places down south where the KKK is alive, well and preaching hate.IMHO, you are a complete & total *** for making such a statement!...................ZP44
And judging by the rest of your ignorant post, you're just another delusional socialist... with flowers in your hair.
05-08-2007, 02:56 AM
#107
Drifting
Originally Posted by pcar964
Hey ZP - All I stated was, "your ignorance is apparent on this issue." I believe my statement was accurate and not at all malicious. The SAI issue is over-hyped.
And judging by the rest of your ignorant post, you're just another delusional socialist... with flowers in your hair.
And judging by the rest of your ignorant post, you're just another delusional socialist... with flowers in your hair.
Hey PPcar,
Just in case you really thought all you wrote was "your ignorance is apparent on this issue." I cut and pasted your whole original reply to jog your memory. (see above)
Now do you remember the **** comment? I still say IMHO you were a complete and total *** for posting a comment like that, but don't worry, it's probably just a poor upbringing and no fault of your own.
And if socialist with flowers in my hair is the best you can do, I misjudged you as a worthy adversary and my mom told me it was not nice to pick on the challenged so we're done here.
ZP44.............
05-08-2007, 12:22 PM
#110
Drifting
Originally Posted by 95 C4 993
I love debates and things could be much worse for you Californians. You could be living in Utah!!!
ZP44 (confirmed ignorant spanish speaking welfare pinko)
05-08-2007, 12:52 PM
#112
Originally Posted by pedsurg
How bout we get back to that ever exciting topic of the 95 vrs the 96 993's??
Jack
Jack
Last edited by pcar964; 05-08-2007 at 01:33 PM.
05-08-2007, 01:37 PM
#114
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sandy, UT/Fish Haven, ID
Posts: 3,033
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by pedsurg
How bout we get back to that ever exciting topic of the 95 vrs the 96 993's??
Jack
Jack
05-08-2007, 01:45 PM
#115
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by pcar964
I'm surprised no experts have chimed in to resolve the rear suspension debate.
05-08-2007, 01:52 PM
#116
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by Edward
LOL! Exactly what I was thinking!
- safety *****
- food *****
- health *****
- trans-fat *****
- air *****
- cigarette *****
- safety *****
- food *****
- health *****
- trans-fat *****
- air *****
- cigarette *****
05-08-2007, 02:52 PM
#117
Originally Posted by TheOtherEric
Why are you surprised? Nobody knows anything about this "debate" except for the one person who started it and us poor saps stuck with paying the $4000 bill if we follow it.
05-08-2007, 03:36 PM
#118
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I think the $4000 figure came from this article posted by AndyT:
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...ht=joel+reiser
***
from PCA.org
Changing to the later style rear suspension control arms is an absolute necessity for a track, and is close to that on a street driven car. If you have ever felt the back end of the car start fighting back & forth, for example in a bump in a corner, then you are ready for the update.
The update consists of changing the camber arms, kinematic arms, and lower A-arms. The subframe upper arches were revised as well, however, a) they do not affect the suspension geometry, and b) it is virtually impossible to replace them with the engine in the car. Porsche says in fact not to do it. I've done it, and it takes some long hours of trial & error, and it is very very difficult to get it to fit nicely.
I don't know of a technical bulletin on this, all I have found is a statement that they made "suspension geometry changes". The following rear suspension parts were revised for 1996:
1- 993.331.041.02 A-arm L
1- 993.331.042.02 A-arm R
2- 993.331.045.03 Kinematic link L&R
2- 993.331.047.03 Camber link L&R
2- 993.331.131.06 Subframe arch L&R
The toe link was unchanged.
I would not change the arches unless the engine is out of the car.
A rear wheel alignment is required after changing these parts, and the rear toe specification was reduced from 15' per wheel to 10' per wheel as part of this modification.
I just did another one of these the other day, and noted that the rear toe was way way off after the change, like 70 minutes total toe out, which proves the geometry is in fact altered. After setting the camber and correcting (increasing) the toe to spec you are good to go.
Joel Reiser- Website 12/01 revised 11/2005
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...ht=joel+reiser
***
from PCA.org
Changing to the later style rear suspension control arms is an absolute necessity for a track, and is close to that on a street driven car. If you have ever felt the back end of the car start fighting back & forth, for example in a bump in a corner, then you are ready for the update.
The update consists of changing the camber arms, kinematic arms, and lower A-arms. The subframe upper arches were revised as well, however, a) they do not affect the suspension geometry, and b) it is virtually impossible to replace them with the engine in the car. Porsche says in fact not to do it. I've done it, and it takes some long hours of trial & error, and it is very very difficult to get it to fit nicely.
I don't know of a technical bulletin on this, all I have found is a statement that they made "suspension geometry changes". The following rear suspension parts were revised for 1996:
1- 993.331.041.02 A-arm L
1- 993.331.042.02 A-arm R
2- 993.331.045.03 Kinematic link L&R
2- 993.331.047.03 Camber link L&R
2- 993.331.131.06 Subframe arch L&R
The toe link was unchanged.
I would not change the arches unless the engine is out of the car.
A rear wheel alignment is required after changing these parts, and the rear toe specification was reduced from 15' per wheel to 10' per wheel as part of this modification.
I just did another one of these the other day, and noted that the rear toe was way way off after the change, like 70 minutes total toe out, which proves the geometry is in fact altered. After setting the camber and correcting (increasing) the toe to spec you are good to go.
Joel Reiser- Website 12/01 revised 11/2005
05-08-2007, 11:51 PM
#120
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pcar964,
I've read that thread before and I only have 100+ posts compare to your almost 4K...
I'd guess we Californians have better memory than you FLO people.
BTW, I thought you were pretty cool by your avatar until recently when you start talking ****$%^^% to us Caly people.
I think you owe ZP44 an apology!
ENUF said.
I've read that thread before and I only have 100+ posts compare to your almost 4K...
I'd guess we Californians have better memory than you FLO people.
BTW, I thought you were pretty cool by your avatar until recently when you start talking ****$%^^% to us Caly people.
I think you owe ZP44 an apology!
ENUF said.