Carlo_Carrera

Here is a site that says the opposite.

"That 2002 makeover applied to non-turbo Porsche 911s, which that year comprised the Carrera coupe and Cabriolet, Carrera 4 Cabrio, a revived Carrera 4S coupe (replacing the C4 coupe) and a new-design Targa. The big news for all was an M96 engine stroked by 4.8mm to 3.6 liters and boasting Porsche's VarioCam Plus variable-valve-timing-and-lift system."

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/porsche-911-history41.htm

993GT

Understood 2001.5 gained hollow's and all front bumperette's went away.
Like I said, Porsche is 'loose' with weight figures regardless of year.
Part sheets show the difference in bodyshell in 2001 vs 2002+....... introduction of #13 and 14 in 2002+ shells (#14 being the main structural improvement)....

jumper5836

and if you really look at that part and where it is. It doesn't look like it would produce much structural integrity at all in the chassis. Maybe some to reinforce the b piller but that wouldn't help for handling.

Carlo_Carrera

I like how you use Porsche being loose with the facts to support your view but take them at their exact word on when the chassis was stiffened and by how much.

As I wrote my car has part #14. I would have to check for #13.
Maybe my car is actually an early 2002 car? Or maybe some of the stiffening went in 2001 mid or late year?

Also the mis-informed articles written talk about something like a 30-50% improvement in chassis stiffness. Do you think adding just parts 13 and 14 would do that?

Carlo_Carrera

Exactly.

And I will ask again. Is Porsche going to go through all the suspension development time for the 2001 Turbo just to throw it all away when they stiffen the chassis a year later? Answer: no.

jumper5836

This is all good info and ideas from everyone, I do believe I came across all this same stuff when doing my research 2 years or more ago before I bought one, after someone mentioned I shoudn't even consider a 2001 becuase their **** and only good to be used for a track car.
Think I even found a similar thread on it back then.

993GT

agree its has minimal/if any effect on handling
but disagree on structural improvement, small changes can make massive changes on rigidity(not saying 2001 is potentially weak, etc,etc..) an example is difference in rigidity numbers for 996 vs 997...'same' chassis, but a few small part tweaks...
Will add, the change for 2002+ was most likely to meet new crash test mandates, allowed deformity level...

There's a difference between manufacturer suggest curb weights, and a part number/part that's in the car...there may very well be a production cut-off on implementation of the reinforcement. If I happen to work on a 2001TT in respect to this area (ie. seat belt reel cover), I will try to document what I find.
Agree, articles suggesting 30-50% chassis stiffness is BS, the roof section maybe, but not the chassis as a whole.
Want to be clear: I am not saying 2001 is a bad car, I am solely pointing out a part number difference, as requested by the OP.

mcbit

The 2001 turbo was a standard c4 shell modified at the rear end to accept the new MB tip box. For MY02 stiffening was added across the board to cope with the increased power available from the X50 and GT2 models.

(Source Porsche Service Technik)

2001



2002



Legend item #1 is Very High Strength steel

jumper5836

My interpretation of that is that the #1 purple was the only thing added which also correlates to the part list from post #10

rmc1148

These types of discussions always amuse me for the fact that better then 99% of the people that own a 996tt would never notice the difference if there is a difference. Its along the same lines as people getting caught up in the sheep mentality of modding a car that will outperform their driving ability or needs especially for a car that will never see a track= which most do not..

jumper5836

99.9% won't notice a diff from a 996 to 997 so you not saying much here. The 996 3.6 is actually quicker then a 997 (non S).

mcbit

Whether the changes are noticeable or not is moot; the OP asked whether it is true that body shell stiffening was added in 2002 and the fact is that it was.

If Porsche state that rigidity was increased by 25%, I tend to believe them; factual claims by manufacturers have legal consequences in Europe.

"02996ttx50

so you managed to find a quote that helps to support your incorrect assertions on the topic and you're missing information yet you continue to attempt to support your erroneous conclusion, based upon missing data! well, here it is!. there are times it's just "easier" to be "wrong"and you should just let this one go lol

..and what mcbit has just posted tell the tale. which appears to be strikingly similar! to my first post in the thread. "there is indeed added structural rigidity. iirc 20/25% whatever that means.

what a coincidence.

that is exactly right. i would add, it would border on madness not to believe porsches own information/press releases or whatever. they are company docs as i indicated upthread and i have read them also. as i also said earlier.

carlo carerra, what is it man?...lol

Chris996

My 2001 came from the factory with hollow spoke wheels.

Carlo_Carrera

All I can say is that my 2001 car has stiffening in or around the B pillar. I know this because when I had to have a seat belt changed the tech tried fitting a 2001 spec version but it didn't fit because of the reinforcement tube. The car had to stay an extra night at the shop while an 2002 spec belt unit was delivered and installed. And as I wrote I know my car does not have the extra seat pan because I had to remove the seat to replace a seat belt buckle and I saw it wasn't present.

So in the end I stand behind what I said. Some and maybe all 2001 chassis may have gotten some of, or all of, the reinforcement parts made standard on the 2002 model.

EDIT: Looking closer at the diagrams the seat plate appears to be underneath the rear seats, not the front as I thought, so I will to check again on thoses.