mikey_audiogeek

Lets stop p1ssing about and go to the source: http://www.lvvta.org.nz/documents/su..._Threshold.pdf

Well-written document that clears up most questions!

Cheers,
Mike

John McM

Camber humour

996tnz

Zeroing in on your own preferred settings over time as you have done is the way to go of course. I've dropped her to 1.5mm out a side now up front (to reduce tyre wear as much as anything) and she still feels good and responsive.

For sustained high speed (200+) stability or fuel economy, slight toe in at the front would be the go for me too but I'd urge anyone who has ever been underwhelmed with a 996 and up Turbo test drive to toe it out a bit, tone down the PSM and drive it hard, as it comes alive nicely.

Unless you're on a Gymkhana course though, probably best to pick a dry day for your first outing...

Macca

Mikey.

I only did a year at law school because I smoked too much dope and spent too much time socializing in the upper common rooms (and residing at Shadows bar). I did however set a high score on "Star Wars" arcade game next to the upper common rooms of which I'm very proud. I also got laid reasonably regularly which was also a highlight of my tertiary education....but I digress :-)

You can drive a bus through some of the statements in that compliance guideline doc. Just look at the terminology. Ive highlighted the areas Im referring to in just a few of the many segments I thought may have relevance to members here.

I have over 100 series modifications and 400 component modifications to my 993. The document is attached. I cannot find any single area that I currently compromise the LVVC free regulations other than a spurious argument around whether the top mount retainers of my OEM spec Bilstein coilover shocks (of the same design for 993RS but they dont make those any more) are qualified. The fact is only an absolute 993 expert or experienced Porsche mechanic would know the answer to that and if an insurer were refusing on that basis my lawyers would be asking them to provide evidence form a professional witness (engineer) as to why the design may have been at fault in terms of non payment of claim etc. Better still the section in relation to camber change and alignment setting modifications that are acceptable undermines a few of the areas under shocks in any case?

I can see that some members with large spacers or chipped turbos could have an issue bit otherwise the only area I would be concerned about was increased brake rotor package size. Again using OE components form a sub model variant and increasing size/piston count and effectiveness I cant see issue here. Pretty sure Steve R, Chris B and others have upgraded 997/997 rotors/calipers to larger size (turbo or otherwise) without LVVC.

Interesting debate but one that over the last 1000 pages and few years we are still at odds with. I think the fact is we do limited mileage and prepare and look after our cars better than 99.99% of the population and these rules were written mainly for a different market and audience in mind...:-)


Below tables in right hand panel show exceptions that could mean you require LVVC certification.

Red arrow areas poorly worded (there are 20-30 more some even more vague within the doc but ive just clipped a couple that had wider interest of topic here). Blue arrows areas where I believe one needs to pay more careful attention along with whole section on brakes and engine output...

P.S. Note- a 25mm change in track width requires LVVC

996tnz

Not to go groundhog, but height adjustability and original rotor size are the ones I'd most like to see relaxed for our purposes.

On the tyre suitability to rim width front, there is an official table somewhere of whats acceptable.

Macca

Im prepared to act as "straw man here" so feel free as peers to target areas of the modification list below in accordance with the LVVC guidelines and perhaps we could use my highly "altered" 993 as a good test of whether there really is an issue to be answered here. there are enough smart minds on here to give this a good trash. If I can reasonably defend my vehcile then most here can theres too. If there's an area I concede failure to address to satisfaction of myself and general audience I will go and get LVVC (without issue).

This is the list I update with the insurance company annually along with a independent professional valuation (not a dealer). The insurance company also hold on file a copy of the brochure that was professionally produced for the car in 2012 which talks through all the major modifications in detail.

996tnz

Very nice list Macca! As I've said before, your car is as much a work of art married with a continuous improvement project than a normal road going 911. Not going to post your list to some LVV and boy racer forums for wider opinion of course, but as you say we've been over the main points some 1000 odd pages back already. In the end, we each make our own calls on risk-return and rule interpretations, whether those be for LVV or insurance.

Suffice to say that I would love to go to height adjustable coilovers sans LVV but can't square that circle to my satisfaction.

Gluttons for punishment and Rennlist history buffs can look back over some of the earlier discussion here BTW:

https://rennlist.com/forums/rennlist...l#post11503307

Macca

Walt. Well said. I think that's where we arrived to last time. You make your own decisions ultimately. I'm going to make some assumptions here. If the 996 GT2 had height adjustable coil-overs and you ordered the same units for fitment to your car (forget expense etc for the moment) would you feel confident you would be complying with the spirit of the said LVVC guideline document? I curious because its on this basis (or similar) that Dean earlier advised me the LVVC was necessary. However Im prepared to change my mind as I have no issue with the plate being riveted into my 993 if need be.

Ive had some fairly in-depth experience with Vehicle Compliance in the last few years when I imported my GT3. I believe Graeme W & Chris M have too. I think they will agree with me thats its the most **** and ridiculous setup. Like LVVC its clearly a part of the industry that has got away on itself and spawned a money making enterprise for a number of agents and service providers. It doesn't make the government anything much but the private sector does ok out of it and are motivated to keep it alive. The main agent garages like CCS, Gillies, Aero, Motor-science etc all find the LVVC rules a curious thing and Id have to agree...

996tnz

The 996 GT2 does have height adjustable coilovers and if I thought I could swing those without LVV I'd have done it already as the car would be both safer and faster (or rather with the KW/Bilstein/Ohlins equivalent for Turbos as the GT2 front suspension has different hubs and carriers so their coilovers are not a direct swap in part). I am no more a fan of LVV than you are, but I guess something was needed to stop people dropping LS7s into Lada Nivas and racing us from the lights as I suspect they'd just flip over backwards when launched. My compliance with the thresholds though (interpreted as favourably as I believe I can justify if it comes to it) is just pragmatic rather than much to do with their spirit. I suppose if LVV didn't exist, the opposite extreme - where anyone could make and drive a 1000hp soapbox racer with a 44 gallon drum as a chassis and rubber bands for brakes - would be worse. But there's still lots of silliness in the current rules.

Macca

Sounds like Mad Max!! Bring it on ha ha. Bloody shame Darwin is dead. Im sure he would have been able to cut a swathe through all these nanny rules and regulations with some simple logic ;-)

996tnz

More likely to go the other way soon unfortunately. The results of NZTA's LVVTA review are due out next month - see below p1 - and then p4 on - for some background:

http://autofile.co.nz/issues/Current...%20%282%29.pdf

kiwi 911

The weight will we in the box and engine - much heavier than a stock T, no mag case etc. I'm guessing 1120-1150 in a comfort trim with radio, some sound pads leather on the doors etc.

Macca

Geez Walt. Its not going to get better is it!

Buba. Good point. As the 911 has progressed and become more powerful its engine and gearboxes have become beefier, heavier and larger I guess....

nzskater

An LVVTA support person who sounded well informed and technically competent confirmed that taking an adjustable part from an alternate sub model (say GT2 to Turbo) you would need a cert. They went as far as to say if you're car wasn't delivered with option A and you retrofit it (example - factory spacers) you would need to cert. This came about from me wanting to run 997 GT3 control arms.

Macca, the camber rules would be too restrictive for your car regardless. The whole thing is ridiculous, given the number of #stanced E30's and R32's driving around the city. http://www.lvvta.org.nz/documents/in...ngle_Guide.pdf

mikey_audiogeek

Hi Walt, didn't realise there had been such discussion on here before - although, given the length of the thread, I shouldn't be surprised!

Macca, I agree there are some holes in the regs - I read through all of the "test cases"on the LVVTA website a while back, helped my understanding a lot.
My gut feel is that your RS uprights should be certified. I'll go away and read up on it, but it constitutes a change in suspension geometry. Were they available as an option on your car, or only fitted to the RS model?

Walt, that review of the regs is a worry. Fortunately, the hotrod scene is thriving, particularly retro rods. They're a strong lobby group.
Might be worth calling in to a hotrod club for advice - you might get to talk to certifiers "off the record". Might try this myself when the rugby's over...