996 Handling Characteristics and Driving Style
04-03-2007, 04:51 AM
#16
Originally Posted by SleepRM3
I've been reading about the 996'es handling on this forum. It seems that many owners say that their car understeers (and that a limited slip dials in more understeer?).
I've track-driven 50/50 fr/rr static weight distributed cars (FD Rx7 and E36 M3), and love the neutral handling. Both the 3rd generation Rx7 and 2nd generation M3 have enough hp/tq to power-on oversteer to turn the car through the apex. This has been my track-driving style for 10 years.
I've tried a student's '99 996 in Oct 2004, and while it did understeer more than I liked, I found rotating the car took a little different approach--late braking with a bit more braking while turning, and blending the throttle in early (left-foot braking helps tremendously when there's no heel-toe-downshift required for the turn).
For opentrack 996 drivers, what is your technique for turning the 996 effectively?
How do you tune in more neutral handling with the 996?
Should I be looking at the Boxster S instead (better static fr/rr weight distribution and neutral handling)?
Thanks!
-Manny
I've track-driven 50/50 fr/rr static weight distributed cars (FD Rx7 and E36 M3), and love the neutral handling. Both the 3rd generation Rx7 and 2nd generation M3 have enough hp/tq to power-on oversteer to turn the car through the apex. This has been my track-driving style for 10 years.
I've tried a student's '99 996 in Oct 2004, and while it did understeer more than I liked, I found rotating the car took a little different approach--late braking with a bit more braking while turning, and blending the throttle in early (left-foot braking helps tremendously when there's no heel-toe-downshift required for the turn).
For opentrack 996 drivers, what is your technique for turning the 996 effectively?
How do you tune in more neutral handling with the 996?
Should I be looking at the Boxster S instead (better static fr/rr weight distribution and neutral handling)?
Thanks!
-Manny
Switching to a different suspension, such as an M030, ROW M030 or X73 will significantly change the car. The steering immediately tightens up. The car turns in sharper, but not immediate like an old 911. The car is neutral at the limit with the right alignment. Last, the nose stays true at high speeds. I run a ROW M030 suspension with GT3 control arms and I am very satisfied with the results. I run -1.6/-1.9 camber with 18x9/18x11 wheels and 235-40/295-30 MPSCs. My car is perfectly neutral on the skidpad and a perfect balanced for my driving style. Despite the camber settings, it is still extremely stable at high speeds (tested to 165 so far).
As a previous 911 owner, I have a hard time adapting to a 986 Boxster. I can get them to oversteer on tighter corners, just not very controllably at the limit and they like to push on bigger corners. The balance of the new 987 Boxster is far improved. The nose seems to stay where you aim it and you can play comfortably with the back end. They are many other benefits to the 987 over the 986 as the chassis is noticeably stiffer, the top is tighter, the top no longer rattles, the engine noise and vibration do not transmit through the back firewall. They also sound a lot nicer, like they already have a sport exhaust.
Although the Cayman is on the same chassis, they make the back end a little stiffer and grippier. At the same time the front end is a little softer. As a result, all it does is push at the limit and makes the nose light at higher speeds. I actually prefer the point and shoot feel of the Boxster over the Cayman. Neither are anywhere near as comfortable for me to drive as a 996. Keep in mind that this is based on my driving style, not yours. I like a neutral to slightly oversteering balance and I am used to transitioning onto throttle early in a corner. I can't nail the throttle as early in a corner with a Boxster as I would like or it will push wide. If you are used to late braking and trail braking, the Boxster will seem more natural. You also tend to control a Boxster with steering and not throttle inputs mid-corner.
At my level, I brake late and less in a straight line. I turn in early for the drift. I shift to throttle at turn-in to set the weight balance on the back wheels. I modulate throttle to control my line and I'm close or at full throttle at corner exit. I tend to use very little change in steering input in mid-corner as the car is easy to control my the right pedal.
04-03-2007, 07:33 AM
#18
Pro
Thread Starter
02 Carrera, excellent info. I'm disappointed to read about the Cayman S's soft front-end handling. Your opinion on the 987S explains why I was so impressed with that car on my thorough test drive.
I now understand why so many PCA 911 racers run taller tires in back, and shorter tires up front--for a steeper rake angle to minimize front-end lift at high speeds down the straights.
Your car sounds very well-sorted. The 9-fr/11-rr widths are wider than stock; I'm curious if you needed extra extra bodywork? Can you post a pic of your car??
I'm glad this thread is getting positive comments and helpful replies.
I now understand why so many PCA 911 racers run taller tires in back, and shorter tires up front--for a steeper rake angle to minimize front-end lift at high speeds down the straights.
Your car sounds very well-sorted. The 9-fr/11-rr widths are wider than stock; I'm curious if you needed extra extra bodywork? Can you post a pic of your car??
Originally Posted by 02 Carrera
With the standard suspension and alignment, they definitely understeer at the limit; but that is a very high limit. They are not hard cars to drive until you get over the limits. They are very stable and you don't have to be worried about the back end snapping around like an old 911. With the stock US ride height, the front starts wandering at speeds above 130 mph. It is the ride height that also adds to the numbness in the feel of a stock 996's front end.
Switching to a different suspension, such as an M030, ROW M030 or X73 will significantly change the car. The steering immediately tightens up. The car turns in sharper, but not immediate like an old 911. The car is neutral at the limit with the right alignment. Last, the nose stays true at high speeds. I run a ROW M030 suspension with GT3 control arms and I am very satisfied with the results. I run -1.6/-1.9 camber with 18x9/18x11 wheels and 235-40/295-30 MPSCs. My car is perfectly neutral on the skidpad and a perfect balanced for my driving style. Despite the camber settings, it is still extremely stable at high speeds (tested to 165 so far).
As a previous 911 owner, I have a hard time adapting to a 986 Boxster. I can get them to oversteer on tighter corners, just not very controllably at the limit and they like to push on bigger corners. The balance of the new 987 Boxster is far improved. The nose seems to stay where you aim it and you can play comfortably with the back end. They are many other benefits to the 987 over the 986 as the chassis is noticeably stiffer, the top is tighter, the top no longer rattles, the engine noise and vibration do not transmit through the back firewall. They also sound a lot nicer, like they already have a sport exhaust.
Although the Cayman is on the same chassis, they make the back end a little stiffer and grippier. At the same time the front end is a little softer. As a result, all it does is push at the limit and makes the nose light at higher speeds. I actually prefer the point and shoot feel of the Boxster over the Cayman. Neither are anywhere near as comfortable for me to drive as a 996. Keep in mind that this is based on my driving style, not yours. I like a neutral to slightly oversteering balance and I am used to transitioning onto throttle early in a corner. I can't nail the throttle as early in a corner with a Boxster as I would like or it will push wide. If you are used to late braking and trail braking, the Boxster will seem more natural. You also tend to control a Boxster with steering and not throttle inputs mid-corner.
At my level, I brake late and less in a straight line. I turn in early for the drift. I shift to throttle at turn-in to set the weight balance on the back wheels. I modulate throttle to control my line and I'm close or at full throttle at corner exit. I tend to use very little change in steering input in mid-corner as the car is easy to control my the right pedal.
Switching to a different suspension, such as an M030, ROW M030 or X73 will significantly change the car. The steering immediately tightens up. The car turns in sharper, but not immediate like an old 911. The car is neutral at the limit with the right alignment. Last, the nose stays true at high speeds. I run a ROW M030 suspension with GT3 control arms and I am very satisfied with the results. I run -1.6/-1.9 camber with 18x9/18x11 wheels and 235-40/295-30 MPSCs. My car is perfectly neutral on the skidpad and a perfect balanced for my driving style. Despite the camber settings, it is still extremely stable at high speeds (tested to 165 so far).
As a previous 911 owner, I have a hard time adapting to a 986 Boxster. I can get them to oversteer on tighter corners, just not very controllably at the limit and they like to push on bigger corners. The balance of the new 987 Boxster is far improved. The nose seems to stay where you aim it and you can play comfortably with the back end. They are many other benefits to the 987 over the 986 as the chassis is noticeably stiffer, the top is tighter, the top no longer rattles, the engine noise and vibration do not transmit through the back firewall. They also sound a lot nicer, like they already have a sport exhaust.
Although the Cayman is on the same chassis, they make the back end a little stiffer and grippier. At the same time the front end is a little softer. As a result, all it does is push at the limit and makes the nose light at higher speeds. I actually prefer the point and shoot feel of the Boxster over the Cayman. Neither are anywhere near as comfortable for me to drive as a 996. Keep in mind that this is based on my driving style, not yours. I like a neutral to slightly oversteering balance and I am used to transitioning onto throttle early in a corner. I can't nail the throttle as early in a corner with a Boxster as I would like or it will push wide. If you are used to late braking and trail braking, the Boxster will seem more natural. You also tend to control a Boxster with steering and not throttle inputs mid-corner.
At my level, I brake late and less in a straight line. I turn in early for the drift. I shift to throttle at turn-in to set the weight balance on the back wheels. I modulate throttle to control my line and I'm close or at full throttle at corner exit. I tend to use very little change in steering input in mid-corner as the car is easy to control my the right pedal.
Originally Posted by 450knotOffice
excellent thread!
Last edited by SleepRM3; 04-03-2007 at 08:33 AM.
04-03-2007, 10:19 AM
#19
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
[QUOTE=SleepRM3]02 Carrera, excellent info. I'm disappointed to read about the Cayman S's soft front-end handling. Your opinion on the 987S explains why I was so impressed with that car on my thorough test drive.
I now understand why so many PCA 911 racers run taller tires in back, and shorter tires up front--for a steeper rake angle to minimize front-end lift at high speeds down the straights.
Your car sounds very well-sorted. The 9-fr/11-rr widths are wider than stock; I'm curious if you needed extra extra bodywork? Can you post a pic of your car??
[QUOTE]
For what it's worth, I think Carrera is nuts. I've spent a lot of time on the track in my GF's stock Cayman S and it's far better than either a stock Boxster or a stock 996. The car is great at speed and loves to turn. I love the car and I'm used to driving what's arguably the most developed 996 in the country or my cup car. Look at the PCA club racing results. You’ll see Ernie Jabakowski (sp?) in his little Cayman S beating up on a lot of 3.6L 996s.
You don't want to run taller tires in back to get more rake. If you wanted more rake you should do it with adjustable ride height dampers. In fact, at the track you want your back end pretty low. The other problem with tall back tires is that they effectively give you taller gears which slow your acceleration.
Jim
I now understand why so many PCA 911 racers run taller tires in back, and shorter tires up front--for a steeper rake angle to minimize front-end lift at high speeds down the straights.
Your car sounds very well-sorted. The 9-fr/11-rr widths are wider than stock; I'm curious if you needed extra extra bodywork? Can you post a pic of your car??
[QUOTE]
For what it's worth, I think Carrera is nuts. I've spent a lot of time on the track in my GF's stock Cayman S and it's far better than either a stock Boxster or a stock 996. The car is great at speed and loves to turn. I love the car and I'm used to driving what's arguably the most developed 996 in the country or my cup car. Look at the PCA club racing results. You’ll see Ernie Jabakowski (sp?) in his little Cayman S beating up on a lot of 3.6L 996s.
You don't want to run taller tires in back to get more rake. If you wanted more rake you should do it with adjustable ride height dampers. In fact, at the track you want your back end pretty low. The other problem with tall back tires is that they effectively give you taller gears which slow your acceleration.
Jim
04-03-2007, 10:51 AM
#20
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JimB
Ram, if that were true the 907, 917, 962 and Spyder RSs would all have been rear engine. When Porsche isn't hamstrung by history they always put the engine in the middle.
The point I was making was that having more weight in the rear of the car is better than 50/50 weight distribution on track. Traction and braking are both improved. I find this to be true whether the car is mid- or rear-engined. The idea that 50/50 is somehow "ideal" is a myth.
As much as I love 996s (and 911s generally), I think the motor's in a stupid place (at least for those of us who don't use the backseat). Works, though.
04-03-2007, 11:23 AM
#21
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by RamVA
That's not the point I was making. I didn't say that rear-engined is better than mid-engined. I think I implied that mid-engined is better than rear-engined, which I believe to be true, certainly for agility. I was pretty clear that slinging the motor out back is less than ideal relative to a centralized mass.
The point I was making was that having more weight in the rear of the car is better than 50/50 weight distribution on track. Traction and braking are both improved. I find this to be true whether the car is mid- or rear-engined. The idea that 50/50 is somehow "ideal" is a myth.
As much as I love 996s (and 911s generally), I think the motor's in a stupid place (at least for those of us who don't use the backseat). Works, though.
The point I was making was that having more weight in the rear of the car is better than 50/50 weight distribution on track. Traction and braking are both improved. I find this to be true whether the car is mid- or rear-engined. The idea that 50/50 is somehow "ideal" is a myth.
As much as I love 996s (and 911s generally), I think the motor's in a stupid place (at least for those of us who don't use the backseat). Works, though.
04-03-2007, 12:21 PM
#22
Pro
Thread Starter
Ahh...thanks for clearing this up! The Cayman S has received nothing but rave reviews from all the car mag pundits. Unfortunately for BMW, the Cayman S has been favored over the Z4 M Coupe despite the large price advantage the bimmer has over the P-Cayman S! Something about how easily one can drive the Cayman S at a fast pace on the track--compared with the Z4 M Coupe which requires a little more "man handling" to make it go quickly around the turns?
Ahh...well then I'm not sure why the 911 club racers chose taller tires in back then in front (shrug)? Agree with the shorter tires giving better acceleration (I run shorter tires on my M3 for that very reason--235/40-17 all around instead of 245/40-17 all around).
Originally Posted by JimB
For what it's worth, I think Carrera is nuts. I've spent a lot of time on the track in my GF's stock Cayman S and it's far better than either a stock Boxster or a stock 996. The car is great at speed and loves to turn. I love the car and I'm used to driving what's arguably the most developed 996 in the country or my cup car. Look at the PCA club racing results. You’ll see Ernie Jabakowski (sp?) in his little Cayman S beating up on a lot of 3.6L 996s
Originally Posted by JimB
You don't want to run taller tires in back to get more rake. If you wanted more rake you should do it with adjustable ride height dampers. In fact, at the track you want your back end pretty low. The other problem with tall back tires is that they effectively give you taller gears which slow your acceleration.
Jim
Jim
Last edited by SleepRM3; 04-03-2007 at 06:12 PM.
04-03-2007, 01:16 PM
#23
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In driving my friend's E36 M3, I loved the 50/50 distribution, and it was very easy and neutral to drive hard. Similar feeling, but more "clumsy" was a different friend's Z4. The biggest difference to my 986S is that the BMWs just felt like everything happened in relative slow motion due to very different polar moments. The mid-engine platform is radically more responsive. The downside is that you have to be on your toes at the limit. Also, you can bust the rear end out with too aggressive throttle application in a corner (assuming no electronic aids, speed dependent, etc.). The 987 handling is much improved over the 986 (stock). Also, the biggest difference to me is how much stiffer the Cayman is compared to the Boxster. The Cayman is very fun. You may also want to check out the Boxster Racing Board: http://boxcar-racing.com/forum/index.php?board=1.0
04-03-2007, 01:37 PM
#24
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I second the motion for Excellent Thread.
There's a ton of value in seeing how different drivers perceive the dynamic characteristics of the same car(s) in different ways, and therefore use different methods to drive quickly.
There's a ton of value in seeing how different drivers perceive the dynamic characteristics of the same car(s) in different ways, and therefore use different methods to drive quickly.
04-03-2007, 02:44 PM
#25
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
50/50 is a great goal for a front-engined car, and certainly a 3-series handles better than my 65/35 Audi S4. That said, the S4 is very neutral (due to it's setup), as is my 38/62 Lotus Elise or, for that matter, a Cayman. The key things that matter here (it seems to me) are a) where the mass is in the car (i.e. polar moment and roll axis), and whether the car is set up appropriately for neutral handling. Further, even a front-engined car benefits from having more weight over the rear than the front, which is why Ferrari and Maserati work so hard to get rearward bias for cars like the 612 Scag and Quattroporte.
While a mid-engined car is somewhat more inclined to spin (and once it begins it goes around faster), I disagree that it's more inclined to power-on oversteer. A front-engined/rear-drive car (such as my 50/50 S2000), due to it's lower traction, is generally more inclined to go around on the throttle.
While a mid-engined car is somewhat more inclined to spin (and once it begins it goes around faster), I disagree that it's more inclined to power-on oversteer. A front-engined/rear-drive car (such as my 50/50 S2000), due to it's lower traction, is generally more inclined to go around on the throttle.
04-03-2007, 04:34 PM
#26
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by SleepRM3
Ahh...well then I'm not sure why the 911 club racers chose taller tires in back then in front (shrug)? Agree with the shorter tires giving better acceleration (I run shorters tires on my M3 for that very reason--235/40-17 all around instead of 245/40-17 all around).
On back we could run 285/30, 295/30 or 315/30. There are a few tradeoffs to consider. 285s were the shortest by nearly an inch providing the best gear ratios. They are also the lightest. I ran a 245/35-285/30 combo in 2005 and did pretty well. The downside was they were narrow and you'd overheat them much faster than the taller tires. I think this happened for two reasons. The smaller diameter meant the same section of rubber was used more often and being narrower they were working harder to maintain grip. Another issue identified by Hoosier engineers was that the sidewall was not tall enough to concurrently deal with both cornering and acceleration torque.
There was no reason that I could see to use the 295 as they were as tall as the 315 and weighed almost as much. In 2006 I ran a 245/35 – 315/30 combo and had my best year ever including setting class track records at Mid-America, Road America and Daytona. I had tall tires in back but had the rear slammed as low as I could.
So, I think the answer is we run/ran taller tires in back then in front because it was the best tire combo rather than the rake it created.
Jim
Last edited by JimB; 04-04-2007 at 12:48 AM.
04-03-2007, 11:26 PM
#27
Pro
Thread Starter
Thanks for the link. Cool in-car vid of a Boxster (nonS) chasing a real light and fast 914-6. http://boxcar-racing.com/forum/index.php?topic=332.0
That little 914-6 really pulls away on the straights, but the 600-lb heavier Boxster is all over the 914 through the turns!
Laguna Seca must be awesome to drive, but we midwesterners are lucky to have Mid Ohio and Road America within a few hours drive.
Ahh...so the rake was just the by-product of running tires that WIN!
That little 914-6 really pulls away on the straights, but the 600-lb heavier Boxster is all over the 914 through the turns!
Laguna Seca must be awesome to drive, but we midwesterners are lucky to have Mid Ohio and Road America within a few hours drive.
Originally Posted by arenared
You may also want to check out the Boxster Racing Board: http://boxcar-racing.com/forum/index.php?board=1.0
Originally Posted by JimB
So, I think the answer is we run/ran taller tires in back then in front because it was the best tire combo rather than the rake it created.
Jim
Jim
04-04-2007, 12:21 AM
#28
I find that my setup is very neutral. (See signature after "Now have:"). Four wheel drifts, just enough to increase traction, are easy to produce. Early full throtle exits also controlable. I've driven the cayman, but still prefer my 911. Maybe I've just grown attached to it.
04-05-2007, 01:27 AM
#29
Originally Posted by SleepRM3
02 Carrera, excellent info. I'm disappointed to read about the Cayman S's soft front-end handling. Your opinion on the 987S explains why I was so impressed with that car on my thorough test drive.
I now understand why so many PCA 911 racers run taller tires in back, and shorter tires up front--for a steeper rake angle to minimize front-end lift at high speeds down the straights.
Your car sounds very well-sorted. The 9-fr/11-rr widths are wider than stock; I'm curious if you needed extra extra bodywork? Can you post a pic of your car??
I'm glad this thread is getting positive comments and helpful replies.
I now understand why so many PCA 911 racers run taller tires in back, and shorter tires up front--for a steeper rake angle to minimize front-end lift at high speeds down the straights.
Your car sounds very well-sorted. The 9-fr/11-rr widths are wider than stock; I'm curious if you needed extra extra bodywork? Can you post a pic of your car??
I'm glad this thread is getting positive comments and helpful replies.
For the rear tire heights, it probably has more to do with tires size availability than anything else. The stock rear tire on a 996 with 18" wheels, a 285/30-18, is actually shorter than the front tires, 225/40-18. 235/40-18 is the most common size for a front upgrade. A 315/30-18 is significantly taller than the stock 285/30. If you want to go wider, then you have to go taller.
Porsche makes the front of our cars 10mm higher than other other markets. This includes both our stock and M030 suspensions. Bascially they design the car to function aerodynamically at a certain front and rear ride height to balance out aerodynamically. They always design and release cars for other markets first. They then adjust the suspension to meet US market requirements. Swapping to the European suspensions isn't necessarily improving it, rather correcting it.
Here is a pic of me chasing a little tail
Last edited by 10 GT3; 05-27-2008 at 05:09 PM.
04-05-2007, 01:35 AM
#30
Great thread. Let's keep it drama-free!
I have a question for you guys. Do you think what has been typed here will be different from the AWD 996's? I have yet to take my 4S to Buttonwillow (scheduled in August) and some low-speed auto-x'ing. I was wondering if the dynamics and what most have typed would be somewhat similar for AWD cars.
I have a question for you guys. Do you think what has been typed here will be different from the AWD 996's? I have yet to take my 4S to Buttonwillow (scheduled in August) and some low-speed auto-x'ing. I was wondering if the dynamics and what most have typed would be somewhat similar for AWD cars.