When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
For adjusting the sway bars, is that doable with jack ramps and the wheels on, or best to take somewhere with a lift?
I managed to do mine by jacking up each front corner in turn (plus a backup jackstand for safety) and crawled underneath. It's pretty simple and there's no preload on the bar to make reconnecting difficult.
For adjusting the sway bars, is that doable with jack ramps and the wheels on, or best to take somewhere with a lift?
You need to have both wheels off the ground otherwise the bar has a pre-load(twist).
Theoretically if the car is on a perfectly level surface and the spring perches are level the bar should be unloaded and you could change it with the wheels on the ground. carl
Problem with changing the rear sway bar setting with no load is tightening them will be difficult. I did it with the wheels off, car jacked and then I jacked the brakes to put some load on the sway bar so I can tighten it properly.
Problem with changing the rear sway bar setting with no load is tightening them will be difficult. I did it with the wheels off, car jacked and then I jacked the brakes to put some load on the sway bar so I can tighten it properly.
The bar is designed with a torx hole in the end of the stud so you can keep it from turning while you tighten the nut. Not good to set the bar with a load on it .carl
Found it. This was originally posted by ShakeNBake:
Originally Posted by IrishAndy
So, I decided to do a little testing on the whole wing thing.
I wanted to do the adjustment but was wondering if there was any real adjustability based on comments from those that have tried, and was also concerned about the brake light warning and generally err on the side of caution.
Adjustability
I loosened the rear bolts with a T30 Torx mini-wrench and a T30 Torx screwdriver. First realization was that - although the torque specs are something like 6lbs there is thread lock on the bolts and they take a hell of a twist to initially loosen (definitely recommend a mini-wrench and taking your watch off in case your hand slips and scratches the paint on the trunk).
I couldn't verify the wing angle per se as I have no idea what reference point they used for calculating the angle of a curved wing, so I did the next best thing.
I placed a Wixey Angle Gauge on the wing and zeroed it out, so that my reference point for the factory wing setting was zero. I kept the angle gauge in exactly the same spot while adjusting the wing, which as others have stated requires a complete removal of the bolts. After adjustment you can see that the difference reads as 2.5 degrees. I've seen different readings for the wing angles (Jalopnik said 4.5 and 7 whereas Ian Kuah's article said 5 and 7) but what I can say is that I'm definitely reading a 2.5 degree difference based on my simple test. Now that's hardly like activating an air brake, but it is consistent with the largest supposed difference I've seen so I feel like they gave us exactly what they said they gave us.
Before - 0
After - 2.5
Brake Light Visibility
This is very much a laymans's way of testing brake light visibility but I wanted to try to make it real-world. So, I sat in my sedan with the door open and measured with tape from my eye to the ground. I got 46.5 inches from eye to ground.
I then got someone to press the brake to activate the light as I stood behind the car about 5 feet, crouched so that my eyeline was again 46.5 inches from the ground (as if I was in a sedan and tailgating my GT4).
You can see the results from the photograph. The brake light is clearly and fully visible. I think I'd have to be tailgating on my 4 year old son's Thomas the Train bike to have any chance of having my view of the brake light impeded.
So, there you go. Hardly scientific but it's enough for me.
Hey Andy
Reading your earlier post, which you were quoting the magazine (from Snakebite's orig post) It seemed to indicate that the setting goes from 5.3 (which is the base position ) to the 7.6 which is the steepest angle, so if you subtract one from the other, you get a difference of 2.3, which is pretty close to what you came up with ... No?
Regards
Ed
Last edited by Crazy Eddie; 11-07-2015 at 03:54 PM.
I made the aero adjustments in 10 minutes while at the dealership prior to delivery while on lift.
1. Front downforce reducer plastic bits removed.
2. Front tie bar from middle to last hole for full soft (rear in middle).
3. Wing set in upper holes for full tilt.
Plan to leave it as such 100% of time street / track.
Change from as shipped settings nearly imperceptible on street. Alignment set at OEM settings for now. It is so minimal, most ask - Porsche why bother making it adjustable at all.
Hey Andy
Reading you earlier post which you were quoting the magazine (from Snakebite's orig post It seemed to indicate that the setting goes from 5.3 (which is the base position ) to the 7.6 which is the steepest angle so if you subtract one from the other you get a difference of 2.3 which is pretty close to what you came up with ... No?
Regards
Ed
Thanks for finding that, Ed! So, this is a the third set of reported wing measurements (on top of Jalopnik and Kuah) and I'm convinced there's a 4th floating around somewhere.
Agreed - the 2.3 here is very close to the 2.5 that I measured. These angle gauges are very accurate (almost annoyingly so) and the wing support design with the drilled slots means there's thankfully very little play in the wing. Maybe 0.1 degrees of wiggle. So, that puts these measurements extremely close as you say. I wonder if it really is meant to be 2.3 or 2.5? I wonder which spec is correct?
I made the aero adjustments in 10 minutes while at the dealership prior to delivery while on lift.
1. Front downforce reducer plastic bits removed.
2. Front tie bar from middle to last hole for full soft (rear in middle).
3. Wing set in upper holes for full tilt.
Plan to leave it as such 100% of time street / track.
Change from as shipped settings nearly imperceptible on street. Alignment set at OEM settings for now. It is so minimal, most ask - Porsche why bother making it adjustable at all.
Wow - that was an early change-up!
I'm guessing that these subtle changes make no perceptible difference for most of us mere mortals, but as ShakeNBake mentioned there is probably a perceptible difference on longer sweepers and for those close to the limit.
If I remember correctly Porsche even subtly altered the angle of attack between the 997.2 RS and RS 4.0 so I'm assuming there's a material effect in the right circumstances.
I just think it's cool. I'm glad that the adjustment is A) real, B) doesn't block the rear brake light, and C) that it makes a subtle difference to the lines of the car. I think it's a well thought-out addition to the overall package, along with the front end adjustment which has to be almost unique for a road car. I'm glad they cared enough to develop it.
I'm guessing that these subtle changes make no perceptible difference for most of us mere mortals, but as ShakeNBake mentioned there is probably a perceptible difference on longer sweepers and for those close to the limit.
If I remember correctly Porsche even subtly altered the angle of attack between the 997.2 RS and RS 4.0 so I'm assuming there's a material effect in the right circumstances.
I just think it's cool. I'm glad that the adjustment is A) real, B) doesn't block the rear brake light, and C) that it makes a subtle difference to the lines of the car. I think it's a well thought-out addition to the overall package, along with the front end adjustment which has to be almost unique for a road car. I'm glad they cared enough to develop it.
I can confirm that there is a noticeable difference when making these adjustments. Here are my findings on this:
1. Front aero blocked, Rear wing low position, both sway bars in middle:
The car felt easy to drive with noticeable push in corner entry and mid corner.
2. Front aero open, rear wing high position, both sway bars middle:
The car felt much more planted in the rear than before but I believe the front aero creates less down force than what the rear wing adds. Therefore the car pushes more than without the aero settings!!! Lap times do confirm that this setting is faster though.
3. Front aero open, rear wing high position, front sway middle, rear sway firm:
The adjustment of the rear bar to stiff significantly helped slower speed turns and this is verified by datalogs (available if anyways cars to dig into the numbers). What I did feel though is now the rear of the car is on rails but the front is lacking. Having said this, this setup is the fastest of all with a gain of 1.5 seconds on the Bahrain International Circuit GP configuration.
The next thing I want to test is Front aero open, rear wing high, front sway soft, read sway middle. I also want to see if alignment would help with making the front end stronger.
On a final note we have confirmed that the Dunlops are quicker around the track. We have datalogs of our 3 GT4's on track and 2 have the CUP2 and 1 has the Dunlops. Data confirms Dunlops are quicker.
I'm guessing that these subtle changes make no perceptible difference for most of us mere mortals, but as ShakeNBake mentioned there is probably a perceptible difference on longer sweepers and for those close to the limit.
If I remember correctly Porsche even subtly altered the angle of attack between the 997.2 RS and RS 4.0 so I'm assuming there's a material effect in the right circumstances.
I just think it's cool. I'm glad that the adjustment is A) real, B) doesn't block the rear brake light, and C) that it makes a subtle difference to the lines of the car. I think it's a well thought-out addition to the overall package, along with the front end adjustment which has to be almost unique for a road car. I'm glad they cared enough to develop it.
The 4.0 comes with the wing in max attack, it's the only difference from the 3.8 (along with different end-plates and being painted carbon fiber)
I can confirm that there is a noticeable difference when making these adjustments. Here are my findings on this:
1. Front aero blocked, Rear wing low position, both sway bars in middle:
The car felt easy to drive with noticeable push in corner entry and mid corner.
2. Front aero open, rear wing high position, both sway bars middle:
The car felt much more planted in the rear than before but I believe the front aero creates less down force than what the rear wing adds. Therefore the car pushes more than without the aero settings!!! Lap times do confirm that this setting is faster though.
3. Front aero open, rear wing high position, front sway middle, rear sway firm:
The adjustment of the rear bar to stiff significantly helped slower speed turns and this is verified by datalogs (available if anyways cars to dig into the numbers). What I did feel though is now the rear of the car is on rails but the front is lacking. Having said this, this setup is the fastest of all with a gain of 1.5 seconds on the Bahrain International Circuit GP configuration.
The next thing I want to test is Front aero open, rear wing high, front sway soft, read sway middle. I also want to see if alignment would help with making the front end stronger.
On a final note we have confirmed that the Dunlops are quicker around the track. We have datalogs of our 3 GT4's on track and 2 have the CUP2 and 1 has the Dunlops. Data confirms Dunlops are quicker.
That's great info. A really methodical way of testing the various settings in an incremental manner and measuring the results. Very cool.
Also interesting that you guys are checking multiple cars with the different OEM tires. Great post!
I also felt the same as #2 on last Saturdays first track day. Push increased when i added rear wing but for me my times got slower. Felt better with front set to high and rear low downforce. Both bars in the middle but im going to go with rear middle and full soft front for the next track day. carl
11-07-2015, 01:01 AM
