Cupcar

So does the Audi RS4, the Caymen is a different roof.

I just want proof that the 997 will pass the test or not pass the test.

I just think it would be interesting if the 997 would not pass the test; either way, not being able to pass the test or not attempting to pass the test with the 997 in the first place, is a problem Porsche could have solved in the enthusiasts favor but chose not to.

Flying Finn

997 without a sunroof would pass the USA roll over test.

Re: the cost of chrash test. That's bull**** for pimpin' Porsche out. It's complete nonsense to try and justify not doing it because of the cost.

How much does a 997 GT3 cost to manufacture?

Let's say about $60-70k, strip that down for a chrash test and you're looking at what, $30k a piece? Chrash few of them, so let's say total for bits & pieces and for all the other paper stuff etc. and we're looking at about $200k

Sell 1000 GT3s here in US and that chrash testing would add $200 per car.

Even if someone would believe all the nonse (that it's so friggin' expensive to chrast test them), be nice and say it will cost million bucks to do the test, you're only looking $1000 extra per car. For a $100k+ car, how lame is to put you're company's image on the line and rape only "hardcore" model in your lineup for that?

And because of that damn sunroof, you only need about 30 potential GT3 buyers to cancel their order, to buy a Ferrari or Z06 instead, and there's your million bucks lost in profit.

AeroGT3RedWing

You don't need a structural or engineering background to know the no-sunroof car will perform BETTER in the test, but I have one and can tell you for a fact it would

Cupcar

I am no engineer but have a question.

The car is not actually rolled over onto it's roof in this test as I understand it.

The way I understand the test to work is in photo below.

The vehicle is held at an angle and a force is delivered by the orange anvil to the angle formed by the roof and the window pillars shown as lines "A" and "B".

Why couldn't line "A" be stiffened by a sunroof opening constructed in a way which improves the stiffness of the roof membrane compared to that of just sheet metal?

MJones

S5. Requirements. Subject to S5.1, when the test device described in S6 is
used to apply a force to either side of the forward edge of a vehicle’s roof in
accordance with the procedures of S7, the lower surface of the test device
must not move more than 127 millimeters. The applied force in Newtons is
equal to 1.5 times the unloaded vehicle weight of the vehicle, measured in
kilograms and multiplied by 9.8, but does not exceed 22,240 Newtons for pas-
senger cars. Both the left and right front portions of the vehicle’s roof
structure must be capable of meeting the requirements. A particular vehicle
need not meet further requirements after being tested at one location.

Full Text HERE

Will the roof panel really make a difference?

AeroGT3RedWing

The joint where the sunroof is allowed to slide freely will be more subject to buckling. You can make the sunroof as thick and stiff as you want along line A, but it will reduce headroom and it will also be subject to twisting and buckling so long as it isn't welded in place. The torsional rigidity of the roof panel will be much stronger with a welded sunroof panel in place.

Bob Rouleau

Consider - the 996 and 997 are essentially the same car. The 996 GT3 passed the test without a sun roof. I see no reason why the 997 would be any different since it is essentially (structurally) the same car.

Flying Finn

What AeroGT3RedWing said and I repeat: 997 without a sunroof would pass the USA roll over test.

MJSpeed

Couldn't have said it better...right on point!

MJSpeed

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

Cupcar

OK guys, I'll stipulate the car would pass the test, although I am still not totally convinced.

I just gotta ask though, how much could it cost Porsche to put a few body shells (really seems it should take only one) in their rollover crash test tool and show they meet the test?

It just seems to me there has to be more to it than just a simple test given the furor they are putting up with and the way it is being handled by PCNA.

I know orders have been lost for the GT3 at my dealer and the reputation Porsche has for building track worthy cars has suffered; why do they want to put up with this when it seems so simple to just test and offer Sunroof delete ala Europe and ROW.

JasonAndreas

Porsche is now a car company like any other (i.e. coming soon to a theatre near you, "when MBAs go bad" ) so they will not spread the cost of the sunroof-less model over to the sunroof models. One group will not subsidize the other. The option has to stand on its own and I doubt the potential 20 sunroof-less buyers would be willing to swallow an additional 40% tacked onto the MSRP (using the mythical $1,000,000 figure -- which is probably low)?

FMVSS 201 requires smashing up several cars and I'm guessing the cost of the individual vehicles is minor compared to the associated testing costs? FMVSS 216 costs average $80-$100k (using an outside facility) per test excluding the price of the vehicle. For a real eye opener look up the civil litigation involving GM and FMVSS 216, they were using the windshield to hold up the roof for the test. Testing for 201 seems to be a little more involved? You can't just rely on validating the output from LS-Dyna.

Cupcar

I thought Porsche did their own FMVSS testing and actually did this as an engineering service to other car makers, true?

If so, it makes it more maddening.

JasonAndreas

Yes they do stuff inhouse but the "cost of regulations" stuff put out by the NHTSA and the few other examples (that I was able to find) were for outside engineering services. Porsche Engineering Services here in the USA is no longer owned by Porsche it was sold to the canadian company (Magna) that designed the Z4 coupe (PAG also sold the convertible roof company) but they still provide outside engineering services in Germany.

I agree and would prefer a non-sunroof model but I can kinda, sorta understand not wanting to spend the money for so few orders. Maybe if more people had ordered previous models without sunroofs (I did) they could justify spending the extra $$$? The USA could always mandate seat-belt usage and then the cost of compliance testing would/should drop dramatically?

Flying Finn

Jason,

I agree and get your point. However, my point is that in the end, this softening trend will bite Porshce in their *** when there's no "real sportscar" models left and people realize there's no real Porsche (the true sportscar company) left. It's a slow process but IMO the direction seems to be this.