Rear wheels rubbing and suspension mods

I'm looking at buying a 996 Turbo but prior MOT's indicate the rear wheels are rubbing themselves bare on the inside of the wheel arch. The car looks lowered and appears to have a little bit more negative camber than is normal on the rear wheels. a) in your opinion, is this very likely to indicate a track car? Or do people frequently do this simply for the road / cosmetic reasons? b) If it is a track / raced car, is this something that should be avoided? b) roughly how much does this suspension cost to return to normal in the UK? Is a relatively small camber adjustment typically a case of new parts, or just adjusting some nuts and bolt settings? Also, MOT advisories say the anti roll bar connections are non-standard. Is this anything to be concerned about? You can just about see the degree of camber in the picture. [/img]

Hi Rob, :welcome: to 911uk. I altered your typo from 993 to 996 based on the sub-forum you posted in and the picture you posted. :wink: If the car has been tracked there should be other signs of wear and tear. This wouldn't be an issue but it would be worth having a rev-range report done as part of the pre-purchase inspection (PPI) that is always advisable on a 911. Lowering is a modification just as often done as a cosmetic change. If the result is only some rubbing on the arches I'd guess that this is why this car has been done. It's not something people would want a track-prepared car to suffer. Others will have a good idea of what a return to standard might cost. Good luck. :thumb:

Lowering alone wont cause the issue, unless its sat on the bumpstops. I would be inspecting the entire rear suspension, the camber is very excessive from the picture, I would expect to see collapsed bushings on the lower arm (Coffin Arm). Worth checking the entire suspension.

I mean, it's a black turbo. You should buy immediately This looks like it has the GT2 wheels fitted. They are half an inch wider at the back vs standard. From the image, the car appears to have a lot of negative camber at the rear and without corresponding increase in camber at the front. Would seem an unusual choice for track driving. I highly suspect this has been done for the sake of image not track performance. The adjustable length anti roll bar links will have been necessary to get it that low. Assuming it hasn't spent too much time bouncing off the rev limiter in an Argos carpark it's probably had an easy life by that owner. Not that you should be too afraid of a car that's been to track providing it's been looked after.

Thanks. It's a tiptronic so I was expecting the overrevving to be less of a concern, right? I won't be in a position to check the computer, unfortunately. Any idea what's involved in lifting the suspension back up again and what it might cost?

Caught myself waffling because I'm on holiday and have too much time so going back to answer your actual questions: a) in your opinion, is this very likely to indicate a track car? Or do people frequently do this simply for the road / cosmetic reasons? This looks cosmetic to me. From memory the GT2 runs the same camber as the turbo from the factory so that suggests it doesn't need more, also if you wanted to improve the handling you'd probably add camber to the front so it rolls onto front and rear contact patches more evenly rather than rolling onto the contact patch at the rear as it rolls off the front.. causing understeer. b) If it is a track / raced car, is this something that should be avoided? No. The turbo is well suited to track use. It's a dry sumped engine with very effective cooling and the chassis is built for the cornering forces it can generate. The only issues I've ever had are the front diff oil overheating in wet conditions and the brakes getting hot. My car feels no worse for wear from a life of occasional track work. Just means fluids, consumable bits need replacing faster than a lightly used car. Poor maintenance and servicing is far worse than hard use. b) roughly how much does this suspension cost to return to normal in the UK? Is a relatively small camber adjustment typically a case of new parts, or just adjusting some nuts and bolt settings? Based on recent experience I'd have a figure of £4000 to 5000 in mind for a refresh of the rear end suspension (including bushings that would be prudent). It does tend to add up and is labour is expensive if you don't do it yourself. If the original springs are gone, it may be cheaper to go for an aftermarket coil over solution like Bilstien B16s. Bilstien make the original shock absorbers for the 996 and are well priced. Cheaper than buying original replacement springs and dampers.

This is what it looks like with the GT2 rear wheels, they stick out further than original wheels so line up with the bodywork rather than sitting inside the arches. It looked to me like those rears in the original picture were the same. However, at this height they don't rub, looking again at the car you're looking at, it has original turbo wheels on the front not GT2 (you can see from the depth of the wheel nuts). I'm just not sure why it would rub on original width wheels, unless as the chap above said it is literally riding on the bump stops!

Does look a fair bit of camber but I dont think that would cause it. The rear wheels do seem to sit quite far into the arch so they may not be the correct ones.

If it's not wider wheels it's probably got spacers fitted and needed additional camber to clear the arch. The fact that it doesn't actually clear the arch suggests the suspension is at the limit of its adjustment and the spacers are too wide. If that's all it is then removing the spacers and getting a full wheel alignment should solve it. Ask the vendor if it's got spacers (or for a photo of where the wheel meets the hub and post it here).