Cupcar

If you configure a car on the UK Porsche site with the Clubsport option and then select the Sunroof option, a dialog box will ask you to delete the Clubsport if you want a Sunroof ie they are mutually exclusive options.

MJones

February 28, 2005:

"A sunroof delete option for the 997 Coupe series will not be available for the life span of the vehicle. Federal occupant crash regulations for sunroof versus non-sunroof vehicles and the resultant engineering expense to meet those regulations make this option financially non-viable, for the small number of vehicles configured."

Well the RS falls under the 997 Coupe series umbrella, does it not.???

Dig a bit deeper and it is FMVSS 216, Roof Crush Resistance that would be the area in question.
S1. Scope. This standard establishes strength requirements for the
passenger compartment roof.
S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce deaths and
injuries due to the crushing of the roof into the occupant compartment
in rollover crashes.
Read the standard CLICK HERE

It is interesting to note that the testing is accomplished using a platen placed at an angle near the "A" pillar...NOT from above. (picture below)

Interesting read, a letter from Porsche re:Roof Crush Resistance Click HERE

The sunroof equipped vehicle, granted has slightly less interior headroom to comply with the head contact standard of the test. Except for the hole, I believe that the "body in white" is structurally the same between the two, and the test concerns itself with the strength along a line between the A, B,C pillars.

The Porsche beancounters in NA elected to make a Sunroof standard (perceived value)...since very few ever elected the 652 delete... Instead of the ROW standard of Sunroof optional.

Pictured below is the Porsche test rig..will a sunroof or lack thereof make a differance???

Give me the 652 option at least!!!

Cupcar

I wonder, given the angle the rollover test is performed at relative to the roof, if the roof membrane is actually stiffer for the purposes of this test with the sunroof hole and its surrounding added sheet metal than without it.

Cupcar

Wouldn't it be interesting if the car actually fails the USA test without the sunroof?

That would explain a lot, first of all it would explain for sure why the sunroof delete is not an option, it would explain the wording in the letter PCNA sent on the matter and their relative lack of statements on the matter otherwise.

Imagine them having to explain to other markets that a sunroof-less configuration of a chassis their engineers designed actually does not pass a USA safety test.

MetalSolid

No, because Porsche could have simply engineered the non-sunroof car with the sunroof car's extra structural bracing just removing the motor, tracks, cables, extra insulation, tilt/slide mechanism, headliner, actual sunroof and roof skin that make up most of the weight.

MJSpeed

US regulations are not stopping PAG/PCNA of bringing non-sunroofed cars to the NA Market...PORSCHE IS!

For the record 996 GT3's were held up due to emissions issues nothing else. A situation that was rectified by Bosch. Besides the 996 GT2 had the same ride height.

f1realtor

PCNA's weak response and lack of ROW goodies really disappoints me. I will give PCNA a year to bring a GT3 and GT3RS to bring over the car I and others want or I will be shopping elsewhere.

Flying Finn

They don't have crash tests in Europe?

This whole "pimpification" fiasco of new Porsche models (now even 997 GT3 & RS included) makes me look more and more towards 996 GT2 (or GT3) instead of 997 counter parts.

JasonAndreas

FMVSS 201 is the other relevant standard.

Cupcar

My point is we have assumed that the non-sunroof car will simply pass any federal test without any re-engineering at all and that reluctance to spend money on testing by PCNA is the only issue at hand.

If the issue is not only one of testing but also of re-engineering the car to pass the test, than this represents and even bigger expense to Porsche as well as PCNA.

Porsche would be reluctant to publish the fact that the car would have be re-engineered as this would call into question the current construction of the non-suntop versions of the car for other markets.

MJSpeed

Again US regulations aren't stopping PAG/PCNA from importing non-sunroof cars to the NA Market...Porsche is.

AeroGT3RedWing

^ Exactly. The cars would pass the crash tests. They did in Europe. PCNA has chosen not to test the cars. No re-engineering would be necessary.

Cupcar

Don't get me wrong, I tend to sense that the 997 without a sunroof would proabably pass the USA rollover tests, but how do you "really know" the 997 without a sunroof will pass the USA rollover tests? The rollover tests may be different in Europe.

Have you read a statement from Porsche that the cars would pass or have other knowledge they would pass or are you speculating?

MetalSolid

...the Caymen passes DOT crash tests just fine without a sunroof.

mjb

Look, it's all speculation because PCNA won't give us a straight answer. But I think it is "reasoned" speculation and quite plausible that they just decided not to test the 997 wo/sunroof to save a few bucks on the U.S. market. You know, we loves our sunroofs over here.
In my letter to PCNA I challenged them to give us a straight answer and not purposefully vague statements assuring us that their engineers had researched and approved the decision.
I am also sure I will not get a direct response that will shed any more light on the issue.