Install 930 Suspension or just Coil Overs ?

[antares]

Just wondering .... for anyone's take that has done this sort of upgrade regarding swapping out a 79 911 suspension for either Turbo Swing Arms including replacing with 930 Front A-ams or just doing a 4 corner coil over ? ... or perhaps just leaving well enough alone. I am a welder so repositioning the rear arms to the needed new relocation point is not a challenge nor is bolting up Turbo suspension fronts as well.

Other than the nice rear squat one gets with the 930 swing arms would just going to 4 corner coil overs be just as productive or is doing either not all what it is cut up to be ?

[Tremelune]

I believe the front A-arms are the same, and they simply used 28mm spacers...That may have changed in some years. The 930 chassis has slightly different pickup points for "anti-dive" that I think can be replicated by adding spacers. It's been a while since I've researched this stuff.

Welding in rear pickup points seems tricky to be precise about, but if you can do it, that's the way to go for widebody conversions. I'm not sure what you mean by "squat" though. There is no visual difference between the two. If your car is narrow, you don't want Turbo stuff anyway.

The question of coilover vs torsion bar is independent of these decisions, as they won't change what you do with the arms.

What are your goals?

[scottrx7tt]

Pointless to do turbo rear suspension if the car isn’t widebody. Just do coilovers

[Snitzler]

There was a recent thread about doing coilovers. It was very interesting.

[ian c2]

There was a recent signature about car owned. It was very interesting .

[Snitzler]

Try this:

Coilover regrets?

[stlrj]

Originally Posted by antares

Just wondering .... for anyone's take that has done this sort of upgrade regarding swapping out a 79 911 suspension for either Turbo Swing Arms including replacing with 930 Front A-ams or just doing a 4 corner coil over ? ... or perhaps just leaving well enough alone. I am a welder so repositioning the rear arms to the needed new relocation point is not a challenge nor is bolting up Turbo suspension fronts as well.

Other than the nice rear squat one gets with the 930 swing arms would just going to 4 corner coil overs be just as productive or is doing either not all what it is cut up to be ?

This could be a symptom of too much isolation. Something we should all be aware of.

[r lane]

Depends on what you are trying to achieve. I track a narrow car with turbo arms. Don't know what it would have been like with the longer ones, but it is amazingly stable and deliberate. The turbo arms are matched better in camber gain to the degree of roll that you get from the chassis, so you can set the static camber a bit less. And yes, it isn't the welding, it is the location of the pickup points that is so criticle, not that you want lousy welding. The front arms as has been stated are the same, but had a spacer under the front and the rear pickup point was up 3/4''. It would seem that this setup induced more caster under braking, making it more stable.

[911pcars]

Is there a greater objective than having your ride "squat" when accelerating? Seems like it's achievable for that purpose. YMMV.

Sherwood

[r lane]

They talk about anti dive and anti squat. I have gathered from that, that they are referring to a reduced amount of camber and toe change when these suspension mods have been made as the car is going to squat and dive dependent on the force applied and the stiffness of the springs and shocks. A reduced range of roll and bump steer. If I have this wrong, would like to hear the more correct version.

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by r lane

They talk about anti dive and anti squat. I have gathered from that, that they are referring to a reduced amount of camber and toe change when these suspension mods have been made as the car is going to squat and dive dependent on the force applied and the stiffness of the springs and shocks. A reduced range of roll and bump steer. If I have this wrong, would like to hear the more correct version.

The 911 platform has been around for what, +50 years. In that time, there's a general consensus as to what it takes to improve the handling for various road and driving conditions. The archives are full of suggestions, product recommendations and settings/specifications. Suggest going there as well as reading the usual 911 modifications reference sources/manuals.

Of course, others will try to assist with their recommendations. If there's something new, like a long-wearing sticky tire compound or shock technology, that'd be good to know.

Sherwood

[Garen]

Echoing others' input, yeah this has been debated at length through multiple threads, here, on reenlist, and no doubt a hundred other places.

However, one thing should be common in a well-planned upgrade of this sort: What is the goal?

Unless you know what you want (track performance, great all-around performance, low NVH road performance, etc.), suggestions won't be on point or useful..

If it were me, I would define the sweet-spot of usage for the car and plan (or ask) accordingly.

[antares]

Thanks for all the informative input. Fat n Wide is well ... just a fat n wide bodied all steel sexy n flexy targa and like I said just kicking at the idea. This is not my first hay ride with P-cars either. I did a coil over years ago and learned that welding in extra beefy support mounts in the upper rears was more than just a good idea as the removal of the rear torsion bar in the upgrade now shifts the stress loads to the upper perch mounts of the rear coil overs. Yes, I will have to do more homework searching old posts out as this was much more common as I recall in the late 90's and early 20's.