Crown

Available as from 09/2009, so I presume not even press cars have them.

PASM and the engine mount doesn't change the stiffness exactly. Techincally they vary the damping. They also do it in very different ways. PASM varies the valve (orifice) through which the fluid flows while the engine mount (and I think magnetic ride) actually varies the viscosity of the ("magnetisable") fluid.

Just wanted to poitn this out because varying the damping is actually a lot more innovative than varying the stiffness (which has been done before).

x838nwy:

PASM and the engine mount doesn't change the stiffness exactly. Techincally they vary the damping. They also do it in very different ways. PASM varies the valve (orifice) through which the fluid flows while the engine mount (and I think magnetic ride) actually varies the viscosity of the ("magnetisable") fluid.

Just wanted to poitn this out because varying the damping is actually a lot more innovative than varying the stiffness (which has been done before).

Good brief summary of the differences between the systems.
The Delco magnetic ride system does depend on varying viscosity of the fluid between magnetized / non-magnetized states.
 

fritz

devo:

How much time would the gt3 dynamic mounts be worth on a track like the ring? 1-2 seconds? I am having a hard time comprehending their measureable benefit; understanding it on paper, theoretically, no problem.

 

I think it's wrong to think of the benefit in terms of a laptime improvement (all though there is some small benefit there).  Solid or semi-solid mounts improve the precision of the chassis and the shifting feel.  This precision comes at the expense of the intrusion of noise and vibration into the cabin.

It is easy to gain the performance benefits of dynamic mounts with a less expensive and more reliable alternative (using RSR solid mounts or WEVO semi-solid ones), but the real benefit of the dynamic mounts is that driving comfort is not compromised as much.  I consider it a comfort/luxury option more than a performance option (some might correctly say it's both).

Grant:

devo:

How much time would the gt3 dynamic mounts be worth on a track like the ring? 1-2 seconds? I am having a hard time comprehending their measureable benefit; understanding it on paper, theoretically, no problem.

 

I think it's wrong to think of the benefit in terms of a laptime improvement (although there is some small benefit there).  Solid or semi-solid mounts improve the precision of the chassis and the shifting feel.  This precision comes at the expense of the intrusion of noise and vibration into the cabin.

It is easy to gain the performance benefits of dynamic mounts with a less expensive and more reliable alternative (using RSR solid mounts or WEVO semi-solid ones), but the real benefit of the dynamic mounts is that driving comfort is not compromised as much.  I consider it a comfort/luxury option more than a performance option (some might correctly say it's both).

 Can anyone provide a scan or summary of the Supertest article (aside from the NoS and Hockenheim laptimes), please?

Grant:

devo:

How much time would the gt3 dynamic mounts be worth on a track like the ring? 1-2 seconds? I am having a hard time comprehending their measureable benefit; understanding it on paper, theoretically, no problem.

 

I think it's wrong to think of the benefit in terms of a laptime improvement (all though there is some small benefit there).  Solid or semi-solid mounts improve the precision of the chassis and the shifting feel.  This precision comes at the expense of the intrusion of noise and vibration into the cabin.

It is easy to gain the performance benefits of dynamic mounts with a less expensive and more reliable alternative (using RSR solid mounts or WEVO semi-solid ones), but the real benefit of the dynamic mounts is that driving comfort is not compromised as much.  I consider it a comfort/luxury option more than a performance option (some might correctly say it's both).

You know, I was thinking about this earlier today. The fact is, most other 'active' mounts where the stiffness is altered as the revs change do so because if you want good vibration isolation from engine->chassis then you want a mount as soft as possible. But this allows for too much movement of the engine/gearbox combo so when the revs is higher (vehicle more likely to experience higher forces), the mount becomes stiffer  - you end up with _nearly_ the same isolation but a lot less movement of the engine/gearbox.

However, as mentioned, the Porsche system varies the _damping_ which is slightly different. I shall look into this and if I can make any heads or tails of it, I might share my ideas :)

x838nwy:

PASM and the engine mount doesn't change the stiffness exactly. Techincally they vary the damping. They also do it in very different ways. PASM varies the valve (orifice) through which the fluid flows while the engine mount (and I think magnetic ride) actually varies the viscosity of the ("magnetisable") fluid.

Is the control of the viscosity electrically controlled as an on/off from the driver?  Maybe controlled by the "sport mode" button?  Or, is the dynamic motor mount feature "always on".

What I mean is that, can one completely disable the dynamic motor mount feature, as if you didn't have purchase the option?

--

2005 997S Blk/Blk

From what I can gather from reading the brochure and the web-site there is no On/Off button.

So the function is ON all the time and works accordingly.

Grant:

 Can anyone provide a scan or summary of the Supertest article (aside from the NoS and Hockenheim laptimes), please?

Here you go:

fritz

SoCal Alan:

devo:

KresoF1:

Devo, here is very good explanation by 911rox:

"

The dynamic engine mounts stiffen according to load... When you drive the car hard (i.e track, spirited driving) they stiffen to reduce engine movement. This improves the feel of the car in changing direction but would obviously give a noisier, less comfortable ride as more of the engine vibration makes its way to the chassis (engine movement is reduced to 1.8mm per Porsche)- similar effect to solid mounts in race cars.

When you are cruising casually, the mounts remain soft and cushion the effects of the engine on the chassis- therefore more comfortable ride but also a lot more engine movement. Not having the dynamic mounts (ie.standard mounts) would be similar to the soft setting also....

"

Very informative, thanks.
 

 

So, soft is the same as regular mounts. It would seem that these may be a bit of a waste for non-track guys; like me who just wants a gt3 and was very, very happy with my extensive test drive of the mkI.

Not to confuse things but I did believe that Porsche was making the soft ride, softer to cater to making more of a potential dd.

The dynamic motor mounts only kick in when you drive hard.  Pefect.  It does not affect your rideability during normal driving.  Don't you want the maximum performance when you drive it hard, though?

Too bad there are no reviews of these feature yet.  Unless I'm mistaken.
 

I would like the most performance however, I have an opportunity to spec one now without the option availability. If I skip I may not -and probably won't - get another. After hearing more info on the mounts; being purely dynamic without an on/off button, I think I may pass on this car. Am I nuts?!!!!! I really f
-ing want this ride.

fritz:

Grant:

 Can anyone provide a scan or summary of the Supertest article (aside from the NoS and Hockenheim laptimes), please?

Here you go:

Thanks, Fritz!  I can understand most of the objective results.  Are there any interesting subjective observations made that are worth translating?

Much appreciated,

Grant

Hey Fritz, what did they think about the dynamic motor mounts?  Apparently it was on this car, as I see it listed as one of the options.

Thanks.

2005 997S Blk/Blk

SoCal Alan:

Hey Fritz, what did they think about the dynamic motor mounts?  Apparently it was on this car, as I see it listed as one of the options.

Thanks.

According to Horst dynamic mounts work flawless. They definitely bring some marginal improvements for track. Just, he also wrote the subjective benefites are little bit harder to describe. Good thing is it work.

Is it a must for new GT3? NO IMHO. Same goes for PCCBs.

I find it irritating that Porsche provided a press car that featured every single performance option, even the ones that are not yet available. Apart from the dynamic engine mounts there is a weight-saving battery featured in the options list (Leichtbaubatterie 1945 €). From my understanding, the optional paint scheme is not available either?

I personally see more importance in the front lift option...

Is there the official measurement of how much the PADM reduces the movement?I didn't see in the press-release........ I read different values about...the last one says without padm 18mm and with padm only 3mm..

--
Dedi La vita è troppo corta per non guidare italiano.....

Ferdie:

Apart from the dynamic engine mounts there is a weight-saving battery featured in the options list (Leichtbaubatterie 1945 €).

a BARGAIN at that

TEE:

Ferdie:

Apart from the dynamic engine mounts there is a weight-saving battery featured in the options list (Leichtbaubatterie 1945 €).

a BARGAIN at that

I'm curious what the weight saving is.  Is it mentioned?

2005 997S Blk/Blk

Ferdie:

I find it irritating that Porsche provided a press car that featured every single performance option, even the ones that are not yet available. Apart from the dynamic engine mounts there is a weight-saving battery featured in the options list (Leichtbaubatterie 1945 €). From my understanding, the optional paint scheme is not available either?

I personally see more importance in the front lift option...

How much weight will be saved by this special battery 

no mention of weight. although on driver republic it gets mentioned in the Chris Harris interview IIRC

I am not sure whether this has been discussed already: part of the performance improvement of the GT3 Mk2 seems to result from switching from N0 spec tires to N1 spec. If you take a look at the wet handling result you can see that the Mk2 time is quite a bit slower than the Mk1 time. This is actually consistent with the N0 vs. N1 spec topic as the N1 tire is further improved for dry handling.

Markus,

Tires used on GT3 were actually Cup+ N0. You can NOT get Cup or Cup+ in N1 specs.

Difference is in Cup+ N0 which are little bit different then older  Cup N0.

IMHO improvements in new GT3 are coming from updated chassis, engine and specially much better aerodynamics.

Kreso,

The reason why I believe in the guy who told me about the different tires used is the wet handling result - which is clearly significantly slower than for the Mk1 version. If you ask me this strongly indicates that they used tires that are further optimized for dry track conditions... Should make a significantly better lap time - if Porsche accepts a significantly  worse wet handling, don't you agree?

Markus and Kreso,

after reading the Supertest HvS mentioned that the main factors leading to performance improvement are the chassis and the aerodynamic.  As far as I remember he stated that the hp / torque increase was relatively marginal and that the tires technology did not improve significantly between MK1 and MK2.  Correct me if I am wrong since I am currently too busy to dip in the article again.

Ferdie:

 From my understanding, the optional paint scheme is not available either?
 

What optional paint scheme? This is the first Ive heard of such a thing... Do you have more details?

Ziggy:

Markus and Kreso,

after reading the Supertest HvS mentioned that the main factors leading to performance improvement are the chassis and the aerodynamic.  As far as I remember he stated that the hp / torque increase was relatively marginal and that the tires technology did not improve significantly between MK1 and MK2.  Correct me if I am wrong since I am currently too busy to dip in the article again.

That is actually a perfect summary of what is written in the text 

The thing is (and I started to reflect about this only after somebody told me about the different tires): Porsche can be assumed to trade-off between wet and dry track performance, right? If that is true I do not believe that the tire effect is only marginal on a dry track while the wet track performance is 2s worse than for Mk1... 

Markus,

Cup+ N0 are marginally better for dry track BUT, also not so good on the wet. Same thing happened to current M3 in Supertest. BMW equiped the car with Cup+ and while pretty fast on dry track wet track results were not good at all.

Just, IMHO GT3 is NOT wet road car anyway...

I asked a friend to blacken the rear spoiler, mk.I RS-style if you want, thought I'd like it, not so sure now I've seen it...

--

MKSGR:

Kreso,

The reason why I believe in the guy who told me about the different tires used is the wet handling result - which is clearly significantly slower than for the Mk1 version. If you ask me this strongly indicates that they used tires that are further optimized for dry track conditions... Should make a significantly better lap time - if Porsche accepts a significantly  worse wet handling, don't you agree?

Sounds logic - IMHO the advantages are due to tires + chassis/suspension improvements. I don't buy the aerodynamic thing. It sounds impressive if you look at the improved downforce at highspeed as a percentage (marketing version ). But: if you put the GT3 RS front splitter on the GT3 (MKI) it adds 15 kg at 200 km/h also

Grant:

I can understand most of the objective results.  Are there any interesting subjective observations made that are worth translating?

Grant

Kreso has already mentioned that Horst von Saurma did not precisely pinpoint the handling advantages of the dynamic engine mount, but he did say that the relatively smooth running of the engine both at idle and throughout its rev range are in indication of its efficacy. The driving wheels are less inclined to tramp during heavy acceleration.

Where the suspension is concerned, the new GT3 has inherited the genes of the 997 GT2, whose production has now come to an end, so the car now runs better than its immediate predecessor not only in a straight line but also in corners.

HvS cryptically says that the choice of set-ups for Normal and Sport settings of the PASM system are now more easy to comprehend, meaning that the set-ups now really do fit the different requirements of street and track better than in the past. He mentions in this context that during warmup or in traffic there are no signs of shaking (presumeably of the power unit) or of resonance. (I suspect that he should really have attributed these improvements to the dynamic engine mounts though).

The optimized aerodynamics make straight line running up to the top speed of 310 km/h more easily accessible, improving the car out of all recognition.
Where a comfortable (Autobahn) cruising speed might for various reasons have been about 220 km/h up until now, the GT3 now makes a base speed of 250 km/h easily and comfortably possible.

Initial diasappointment at the lack of a PDK transmission is tempered by the facts that the function and operation of the manual transmission leave nothing to be desired, and that the additional weight of the PDK would have run counter to the highest priority of a GT3, keeping down weight.

The driving dynamics of the car come in for a lot of praise from HvS.

fritz