type suspension typical of early SWB cars? I'm aware brakes were difierent.
type suspension typical of early SWB cars? I'm aware brakes were difierent.
Early 911S member #166
I have no problem with the theory that all men are created equal.
But after that moment you are on your own and nobody owes you a damn thing.
The November 1967 911R Parts List makes a very simple comment:
Front Axle:
'Spare parts are to be taken from the spare parts catalog 911/911S, illustration 4/1 and 4/1a, with the following exceptions:
The only parts listed are the Left and Right Torsion bars which are specifed as 17.1mm diameter.
Steering:
'Spare parts are to be taken from the spare parts catalog 911/911S, illustration 4/2 and 4/2a, with the following exceptions:
No parts are listed.
Even assuming Nov 1967 means that cars are being delivered to a 1968 specification the ball joint would be the early type as the change did not occur until the 1969 MY.
I believe the R, therefore, uses early Koni struts and camber plates with soft Torsion Bars to compensate for the significant weight reduction.
The front crossmember and aft attachment point and adjustment mechanism for 1968 SWB cars is different than 1964-1967. The ball joints are the same.
What ARB did the R use?
1966 911 #304065 Irischgruen
The ball joints were improved, same part number though, at least once if not more. The real problem that required the weights in the front bumper was poor, high friction, ball joints. They were improved fairly early on in the SWB's life but the weights were carreid on as a legacy. Thanks.
-Allen-
There is a interesting story related by Tobias Aichele in his book "Forever Young"
Another detrimental factor in the first year of production was the non-adjustable front end and the resulting inconsistent alignment settings. As the story goes Ferry took a pre-production car out for a weekend trip and was VERY dissatified with its straight line stability. He cornered Helmuth Bott and told him this had to be fixed....and NOW !! Helmuth made the front alignment adjustable (as they had done on the prototypes) and then tested the car with sandbags placed in different parts of the trunk. He found that it worked best with the bags at the outside corners of the trunk. Helmuth knew he had to come up with a quick and practical solution that would work for their low production volume, which precluded any major engineering changes. Helmuth took a front bumper across the street to a foundry, and had them make molds for the cast iron weights, which when installed, considerably improved the stability problem. Ultimately through improved suspension pieces, longer wheel base and dual batteries the bumper weights were no longer needed. Can you imagine that whole scenario happening at most any other company, the man whose name is on the building doing R&D work with his chief engineer, who also is able to come up with a quick back yard solution to a serious engineering problem.!!! Nowadays that decision would have been tied up in meetings for at least a year.
Early S Registry member #90
R Gruppe member #138
Fort Worth Tx.
Of course, it has always struck many as total "UnPorsche" to add weight(s) to the car; a desperate move at best. I read that the problem substantially was solved, as I mentioned, with improvemnts in the ball joint itself; certainly the adjustable shock top didnt hurt. But, of course, ultimately the long wheelbase was a big improvement. Speaking of which, many don't realize that the Boxster (and newer Cayman) have a longer wheelbase than the current 911 Carrera; coupled with a midengine, the Boxster combination is impossible for the 911 to beat.
-Allen-
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote