JKinOB

Thanks re config and color.

But like I said in the post, the wheel sizes listed on the configurator are wrong. The widest wheels are 20x8.5 ET57 fronts and 20x10.5 ET47 rears for the "Carrera Sport" and "911 Turbo" wheel styles. You can see the actual sizes on the Techquipment accessories finder for the 718.

Edit: @DavidNJ100 - I realize now that I may have misunderstood your post, which is what I get for reading and replying on mobile. When you said, "It says the Carrera Sport are has 11.5" wide rears. with 245/305 tires," I assumed you meant "It" was the configurator for the 718. But I realize now that you may have been referring to the difference in wheel widths and tire sections on the 911. I don't know if Porsche makes any changes to the 911 suspension to accommodate those wheel sizes.

On your question about going to 18" wheels, to stay in A Street under SCCA rules, you can only go up or down 1" So to run 18" wheels on a 718 in A Street, the widths would be limited to stock sizes available in 18" or 19" wheels (there are no stock 17" wheels). For the 718, the widest stock set in those diameters are 8 x 19 ET 57 (front) and 10 x 19 ET 45 (rear).

Cheers!

John

BmacIL

Back from the dead to ask some questions about camber allowances.

Some cars have service procedures (for crashes) that allow slotting of strut mounts beyond the factory size to get a little bit of camber. Does anyone know if that rings true at all for non-GTx cars? 997 S, specifically. Any other options like messing w/ L & R strut mounts?

burglar

Basically, it has to be in the factory service manual as an approved repair procedure.

Specifically for the 997 - no. All you can do it loosen the strut mounts and push them in.

Not sure if the 997 was the car that can swap LH and RH positions of strut mounts for more camber, but assembling a car with parts in the incorrect positions is not compliant per 13.0

​​​​​​​If you find something that lets 987/997 folk get more camber legally, please share it!

BmacIL

I looked through the complete shop manual and haven't found anything other than using the existing slots. Bummer. I am curious as to whether flipping or rotating the strut mounts would even work (obviously more caster too but probably other issues would come).

It's been a while since I've read these in this much detail. Sigh.

Within Section 13 opening:
"Alternate components which are normally expendable and considered replacement parts (e.g., engine and wheel bearings, seals, gaskets, filters, belts, bolts, bulbs, batteries, brake rotors, clutch discs, pressure plates, suspension bushings, drivetrain mounts, fenders, trim pieces, fuel filler caps, etc.) may be used provided they are essentially identical to the standard parts (e.g., have the same type, size, hardness, weight, material, etc.), are used in the same location, and provide no performance benefit."

Z3papa

What is amazing is how little camber you can align this car to even on PASM and PSAM sport setups where you'd think with it being lower you'd get much more. My range is .0 to ~1.2 or 1.3. I don't think I've seen allowances for the rotation of hats like is permitted (really designed into the equation) as contemplated by the FSM. Pretty cool. Almost tempts me to start looking for 987 GT3. Must resist.

BmacIL

Something I'm going to have to get used to very, very soon.

sgreer78

Porsche doesn't really care about static camber when there's so much caster available. If you look at older 911's the front wheels are nearly straight up and down and the rear appears to have around 2.5-3.0º.

Z3papa

No way you are going to ever tell me that -1.3 is optimal in any circumstance. That formula can work on the street and light track duty, but not autocross where you putting far higher max loads on tires. Is it more like 50% more (-2.0), 100% more (-2.6)? If it doesn't matter, let's swap front lower control arms and you give me all the shims you have.

BmacIL

Yes.
The average owner would definitely be more likely to wrap it around a tree with an appropriate amount of front camber, though.

I wonder how the 997S would stack up in AS if you could get even -2.0 deg front.

sgreer78

I keep reading my post over and over looking for where I said that was optimal at all, let alone for autox. I only have one shim in each arm. But sure, lets.

sjfehr

Not just Street, either. GT3 is able to (legally) get more camber in Street than I'm able to get in my STU 987, because GT3 comes factory with adjustable ride height plus camber plates and adjustable LCAs (while STU only permits one or the other). In fact, utter lack of camber (combined with the prospect of my codriver and I likely cording A052s in 4 events, and frustration of being classed in AS against cars with 3x more camber, 200 more hp, and 1" more rubber on every corner than me) was what pushed me to STU.

Very frustrating that Porsche handicapped these cars with so little camber adjustability from the factory. We've had this conversation here countless times on Rennlist and Planet9; absolutely nothing we can do legally to fix camber within Street rules. Which I'd OK be with for Street, warts and all, if we were classed more appropriately and not just buried. The top cars in SS basically come straight from the factory with ST allowances and (imho) should be straight to SST, not SS. Fix that, and it would be possible to better accommodate the rest of the high-performance spectrum between BS, AS, and SS.

burglar

FWIW the odd overlap between SS/AS/BS is something we're aware of. The popularity of the C6Z, then the M2, then the Model 3P and it's updates, then the M2C, then the Supra, then the V8, then the updated Supra have made things pretty challenging. I'll gladly admit we haven't nailed it. Something we're trying to fix but manufacturers keep moving goalposts with rapid new car introductions and updates.

BmacIL

I can't wait to get a "Thank you for your input" letter in the future for 997.1 to BS

Z3papa

I get all this. What they need to really understand vis a vis the non-GT3 cars is this, you can totally manipulate rear grip (ie. 981 or 718 with 10 or 10.5" wheel can mount up a 305" rear vs. 265 stock), there's only so much you get out of the fronts which at most fit a 265 and more likely 255 out front. I understand the 42/58 weight bias puts less stress on front, but there is a 20-30 mm differential OE which goes to a 50 mm differential in our setting. You need max the grip out front match what you can get in the rear.

abqautoxer

The problem I foresee here is I really think the 718 GTS is better than the C5/C6 wide bodies at 2-3x the entry price. Porsches, 2nd only to Tesla, are the hardest cars to class. Originally the problem was the rare spec cars, and now its that they seem to classically find themselves between classes. Not good for class AS, but probably too good for BS. Some cars that are commonly popular and affordable you can take those risks, and unfortunately some cars you just cannot. Right when you think you find the sweet spot say in CS with a 986S, the ND comes along and ruins that plan.