Change HistoryDiscussion of Boxsters and other Porsches |  |  |
|
Buying through this link, gets PB a donation. |
Products for your Boxster, Cayman and Carrera. |
 | |
Message: I agree that luck is not a strategy... but
Changed By: grant
Change Date: October 26, 2016 03:38PM
I agree that luck is not a stragetegy... but
Change Date: October 26, 2016 03:38PM
I agree that luck is not a stragetegy... but
I also need consistent logic and facts - not blind faith in Porsche, which occasionally proves unfounded anyway.
Beyond the rare errors, they have been very secretive - we often don't know the real reason.
The idea that the core problem is oiling (per your note), yet Porsche's MY1998 changes affect the rear tub strength, is inconsistent.
Tub strength does not impact oiling.
Second, none of these cars -- 1997 --> 2008 at minimum, oil perfectly under loads above maybe 0.9 Gs.
But the solution, or the improvement since its not a complete solution, aside from (corner slower) is a deep sump, not 17" wheels.
If the issue is tub/subframe strength, the solution might be a techno-brace, which distributes the forces much better across both sides.
So i don't buy that this is a deal-breaking concern. especially for occasional track use, which generally means well under 1G.
Grant
Beyond the rare errors, they have been very secretive - we often don't know the real reason.
The idea that the core problem is oiling (per your note), yet Porsche's MY1998 changes affect the rear tub strength, is inconsistent.
Tub strength does not impact oiling.
Second, none of these cars -- 1997 --> 2008 at minimum, oil perfectly under loads above maybe 0.9 Gs.
But the solution, or the improvement since its not a complete solution, aside from (corner slower) is a deep sump, not 17" wheels.
If the issue is tub/subframe strength, the solution might be a techno-brace, which distributes the forces much better across both sides.
So i don't buy that this is a deal-breaking concern. especially for occasional track use, which generally means well under 1G.
Grant
Original Message
Author: grantDate: October 26, 2016 03:37PM
I agree that luck is not a stragey... but
I also need consistent logic and facts - not blind faith in Porsche, which occasionally proves unfounded anyway.
Beyond the rare errors, they have been very secretive - we often don't know the real reason.
The idea that the core problem is oiling (per your note), yet Porsche's MY1998 changes affect the rear tub strength, is inconsistent.
Tub strength does not impact oiling.
Second, none of these cars -- 1997 --> 2008 at minimum, oil perfectly under loads above maybe 0.9 Gs.
But the solution, or the improvement since its not a complete solution, aside from (corner slower) is a deep sump, not 17" wheels.
If the issue is tub/subframe strength, the solution might be a techno-brace, which distributes the forces much better across both sides.
So i don't buy that this is a deal-breaking concern. especially for occasional track use, which generally means well under 1G.
Grant
Beyond the rare errors, they have been very secretive - we often don't know the real reason.
The idea that the core problem is oiling (per your note), yet Porsche's MY1998 changes affect the rear tub strength, is inconsistent.
Tub strength does not impact oiling.
Second, none of these cars -- 1997 --> 2008 at minimum, oil perfectly under loads above maybe 0.9 Gs.
But the solution, or the improvement since its not a complete solution, aside from (corner slower) is a deep sump, not 17" wheels.
If the issue is tub/subframe strength, the solution might be a techno-brace, which distributes the forces much better across both sides.
So i don't buy that this is a deal-breaking concern. especially for occasional track use, which generally means well under 1G.
Grant