keith

come on down sometime.

jerome951

Of course, if you've ever met Keith you'll realize the 2275# is with him in the car. ;-)

keith

heeheehee...

Matt Marks

For what it's worth, I'm running 800 lb front springs on my 87 S and 650's in the rear. After some experimentation, I need to drop back to about 600lb fronts and 500lb rears with stock t-bars in place. as the front is too stiff and I'm getting too much understeer even with no front bar and the M030 rear bar set full hard. My car weighs in at 3200lbs and change with driver

The car is lowered about an inch, but with that much spring, I've had no issues with the joint binding on the track - just at parking lot speeds. I've got 5 years on one stock aluminum A-arms (other was replaced last summer due to a metal to metal racing incident - reminder to everyone that if you spin, go both feet in so you don't come back accross the track and take me out! ) and the joint is just starting to show some play. This includes probably 120 track days and two full seasons of racing and about 40K street miles and lots and lots of bounced curbing on the track.

It will be replaced in the next month with another stock arm as there appears to be no need to go with the fabcar or charley arms given the wear that I've gotten out of this arm.

924RACR

I am unfortunately still awaiting arrival of the 34mm rear t-bars for my car; once those arrive (and at a convenient time) I'll be swapping them in with 660# front springs. We'll have to do a test day, though; based on last weekend's experience with the car we may be needing closer to 700-800# front springs to balance the car once all is said and done.

I had actually hoped to be at the point that I was swapping them in now, but they still haven't arrived.

My car's 2620# on the nose in race config (for ITB). In case you haven't guessed, I'm with Geo on this (as I often am), think Jim may be taking the easy route out. Ultimately the question of stiff springs/soft bars vs. soft springs/stiff bars is a religous/philosophical one, I think.

Geo

That's Ok. Some days I feel like I'm 2275 w/o the car!

Bill L Seifert

Keith, about how much will it weigh with fiberglass and lexan? Are you going to run it EP SCCA, or what?

Thanks everyone for your input, as a matter of fact keep it coming.

Also, does anyone remember Marcus phone number, he makes a arms for 944's and modifies Alum A arms? He is in Canada, Montreal, I believe.

Thanks again all,

Bill

smokey

Blaszak Precision Motorosports. Markus is the registrar for PCA Upper Canada Region DE.

smokey

Oh yeah, 613-353-7012 is the phone number of Markus' shop near Kingston, Ontario.

Bill L Seifert

Smokey

Oh well, wrong province. Thanks

Matt Marks, Do you race your ITS?

Bill

keith

Bill, we put it together for NASAs 44 cup series, actually SuperCup. We race against 951s as an 8v NA lightweight. 2250 is minumum weight, plus 30# ballast per win up to #120. We're running with 60# ballast next time out.

NASA has a great little series in its infancy here. I really get into being able to build a light 944, legally shedding interior, climate controls, headlight assemblies, replacing steel with composites, and glass with lexan. As we've reached 2275 without replacing steel or glass, and since we're liited to a stock powerplant, one can end up with a really fun, capable, purposeful racecar on the cheap.

Aside from that, I'd like to get another 200# off the car, so we can put it back where it needs to go...

check it out on our website (link below)

M758

2275 with driver!

Dang,
My 944-spec is 2625 with driver and 60 lbs of ballast.

Figuring me in the car at 160 + 60 ballast makes the car 2400 lbs.
Wow more weight and still steel body? I have ditched all of my interior, headlights, but still have door panels, & power windows, dash, gutted heater box, and undercoatings.

Keith I could not tell from the pics, but it looks like you have removed the undercoatings, door glass and nearly all the dash. Is that really worth 200 lbs?

Geo

I'm reviving this thread because I have accused Porsche of a design flaw in allowing the balljoints to bind within the range of motion of the suspension. I may be too harsh here. The crux of the problem may simply be aftermarket dampers that are shorter than stock. Short dampers are great for getting suspension travel, but in this case, they may be the cause for allowing the suspension to travel outside its design parameters. I'll try to check this on my car soon. I'll drill an drain a front strut and remove the spring to see if the balljoint can bind with stock struts.

The solution to preventing balljoint binding may be as simple as changing the bump stops. Of course, longer bump stops means less travel, but that may be just what the doctor ordered. And it may also be the thing to push people to much higher spring rates because with the higher spring rates, less travel should be needed anyway.

Matt Marks

Geo,

I couldn't agree more. Though I can't speak to the bump stops, I can speak to the heavier springs.

I just replaced my 5 year old (originally installed 12/99) OEM aluminum arm as the joint was showing some play. The arm had 50+ k miles and more than 100 days of DE and racing on it. I'm running about 1.5" lower than stock on Bilstein Escort Cup shocks, but with spring rates between 700 and 850 lbs. The joint would bind at parking lot speeds, but never had an issue on the track.

Wish I had kept the arm for a pic (as I think it would have been illumninating), but when I cut the boot off, there as ZERO wear on the pin, and no signs of any wear on the edges of the joint or at the bottom of the pin where it would have contacted the socket if there had been any significant binding.

Needless to say, with the use I got out of the arm, I replaced it with another OEM arm. I can't justify a set of Charley's.

RedlineMan

This is probably the fair and honest way of looking at it. While these joints do wear and fail MUCH faster than the pedestrian steel Rabbit arms with seperate ball joints, it is really when people start frogging around and changing the parameters of what the joints have to deal with that they suffer most.

I still think that they are a stupid and unreliable design compared to the older ones, but they are not horrendous if LEFT ALONE!

The Law of Unintended Consequences, sub-heading under Murphy's Law.