993RS uprights on 964

[Cobalt]

Great stuff thx

I was lucky to be on the waiting list for the factory uprights. I picked up a pair from Porsche for under $1000 shipped. In hindsight I should have picked up several at that price. It appears they are nearly $2k per side now. Ouch. If I had to pay that much for factory parts no doubt the BBI would be on my car.

I already have the MCS 3WR suspension with tarett top plates installed so I will stick with them for now. I wish I knew about the Mode parts but I should be fine. Although I am considering the 380mm rotor upgrade used on the RSR.

BTW I am not sure but it might be possible from the coloring of the cast parts they are magnesium vs aluminum.

[Faster993]

Foxman here, and I wish I had run across this discussion before. I’m presently running with the 993 longitudes because we didn’t even consider notching the strut tower at the time. The towers are perfectly centered with the 993 longitudes, and camber is perfect. But the wheels are pushed out so far , I can’t fit anything wider than 225’s iin front on my 8” wide 49 ET front wheels.

I was just getting ready to buy a new set of wheels with more offset, when Pete woke me up out of my slumber and suggested going back to the 964 longitudes.

In hindsight we should have notched the towers, and stick with the 964 longitudes.

Thanks

[drola]

Originally Posted by Faster993

Foxman here, and I wish I had run across this discussion before. I’m presently running with the 993 longitudes because we didn’t even consider notching the strut tower at the time. The towers are perfectly centered with the 993 longitudes, and camber is perfect. But the wheels are pushed out so far , I can’t fit anything wider than 225’s iin front on my 8” wide 49 ET front wheels.

I was just getting ready to buy a new set of wheels with more offset, when Pete woke me up out of my slumber and suggested going back to the 964 longitudes.

In hindsight we should have notched the towers, and stick with the 964 longitudes.

Thanks

Exactly my same scenario. My only regret is the very limited wheel choices running this same set up.

[Faster993]

Originally Posted by drola

Exactly my same scenario. My only regret is the very limited wheel choices running this same set up.

What wheels are you running on, and what have you tried? I think I saw a photo of your car on black cup wheels.

Most of the stock wheels are ET50 up front, so it’s hard to find a good test wheel.

8.5” is the ideal wheel width up front for tracking the car, but my 8” is already pushing the limit.

So the question is, new longitudes and start over again, or new wheels?

[Ghill]

Camber shouldn't be impacted by which settings are used. I have no issue achieving the camber I want with them. The hats on the other hand require some modification of the top mount if you are using the ERP/Tarett or whoever makes it design.

[Faster993]

Originally Posted by Ghill

Camber shouldn't be impacted by which settings are used. I have no issue achieving the camber I want with them. The hats on the other hand require some modification of the top mount if you are using the ERP/Tarett or whoever makes it design.

Agree. We initially set the car up with the 964 longitudes and were unable to attain the desired camber because the ERP camber plates landed too far inboard and we’re fouling the top mounts. We could have notched the top mounts, but did not consider this at the time and opted to go with the 993 longitudes. The 993 longitudes got the top hats centered, and the camber plates sat perfectly with no mods.

So what prompted you to go with 993 longitudes, and what kind of wheels and tires are you running king you front? I’m trying to figure out if 8.5” wheels (with 245’s) are possible with the 993 longitudes, and if so what specs.

Trying to determine if I should go back to 964 longitudes, or get new wheels. Thanks for the feedback.

[Bill Verburg]

Originally Posted by Faster993

Agree. We initially set the car up with the 964 longitudes and were unable to attain the desired camber because the ERP camber plates landed too far inboard and we’re fouling the top mounts. We could have notched the top mounts, but did not consider this at the time and opted to go with the 993 longitudes. The 993 longitudes got the top hats centered, and the camber plates sat perfectly with no mods.

So what prompted you to go with 993 longitudes, and what kind of wheels and tires are you running king you front? I’m trying to figure out if 8.5” wheels (with 245’s) are possible with the 993 longitudes, and if so what specs.

Trying to determine if I should go back to 964 longitudes, or get new wheels. Thanks for the feedback.

I understand why some folks use 964 longitudinals on 993, to get room for wider wheels and tires

I don't understand why anyone would use 993 longitudinals on a 964, as the opposite happens, you loose room for wheels and tires

a 964 should be able to run 8.5" wheels and 245/35 x18 tires

another vote for Mode camber plates + I can get replacement uni-balls just around the corner.

[Cobalt]

On a 964 wide body it works nicely I agree regarding the narrow body 964. I can run 9.5" wide wheels up front with clearance no rubbing and lots of room.

I have a set of the Mode camber plates for sale in very clean condition if anyone is interested. They work much better on the 993 than the 964 which has a very different top hat setup regarding WB and NB. Most all the after market camber plates allow bearing replacement

[stanglife]

@cobalt - Would those top mounts work better on NB than WB 964 or you just suggest they go to 993 only?

[Cobalt]

Bill understands the 993 better than I. However my understanding is the inboard out board settings on the 964 went away with the 993. They used the inboard settings on the tub as the NB 964 did at the bottom and used a more centered top hat for the upper portion and adjusted the bottom by making changes to the longitudinal's.

I suspect since I haven't done any research on this that by using the mode on a 964 while using the lower longitudinal of a 993 on a 964 in the inboard settings that you would have a similar setup to the 993. How that would work on a 964 I haven't had time to consider.

Maybe Bill can answer that better.

[Bill Verburg]

Originally Posted by Cobalt

Bill understands the 993 better than I. However my understanding is the inboard out board settings on the 964 went away with the 993. They used the inboard settings on the tub as the NB 964 did at the bottom and used a more centered top hat for the upper portion and adjusted the bottom by making changes to the longitudinal's.

I suspect since I haven't done any research on this that by using the mode on a 964 while using the lower longitudinal of a 993 on a 964 in the inboard settings that you would have a similar setup to the 993. How that would work on a 964 I haven't had time to consider.

Maybe Bill can answer that better.

993 was never designed to use outer/inner longitudinals as the 964 was.

Though some have done it, you need to drill 2 new holes for the longitudinals to be mounted out board

They wanted more room for tires so kept everything in the n/b configuration even w/ wide RSR or GT2 fenders flares, if I recall correctly GT2evo used 10" front wheels



if you use 993 longitudinals on a n/b 964 you run out of tire room, a 964 n/b should be able to accommodate a 8.5 w/ 245 tires but not w/ 993 longitudinals

[Faster993]

Does anyone have the part numbers for the 964 longitudes? I’m planning on ditching the 993 longitudes on my 964, doh.

I’m also wondering if I will encounter any issues as I narrow the front track back to stock width? Tie rods are ERP adjustable.

Thanks, Jim

[Faster993]

The part nos. are 964-341.111.21 and 964.341.112.22. Prices are 3 times the 993 side frames.

[stanglife]

So what was it about the conversion that was limiting camber? With 964 uprights and monoballs = camber good but RS uprights, it's not?