springs

Looking for info on springs to lower ride height app. 1" and not loose to much in comfort. Brand? Thanks. JW

everyone here likes the H&R

Thanks. JW

It depends on how you define "too much" in terms of comfort loss. I have the H&R's and find them a bit harsh (not too bad imo) for street use and I'm fairly tolerant of stiff suspension. I know it's not what you were asking about specifically, but I'd have put the ROW M030 kit on the car if it had been my choice (P.O. had the H&R's installed). It's pretty cheap ($1K and it comes with roll bars too) and it's a complete system with shocks that match the springs damping and travel-wise. There's not much travel left now before I'm into the bump stops.

Here's a link to our brand, developed for the C2 and TT cars... TRG Springs on eBay We bundle these with the Bilstein HD's for a suspension replacement kit, works absolutely great, like a new car again. Only $1325 with replacement hardware. The stock shocks just don't last as long as they ought to.

you know... im a new pcar owner.... how are your products in regards to the H&R?

The Ruf springs are probably the right choice for you. Give them a call and they can explain.

From customer experience (subjective opinions of course) the TRG 996 springs are a better ride quality (more towards street than sport comfort) than the H&R, but deliver almost same performance when pushed past the progressive rate. (with Bilstein HD's, stock rubber shock mounts, rubber bushed control arms, stock sway bars and DOT tires and wheels as equipped from factory) (If upgrading past the US or Euro Porsche Genuine sway bars, we strongly recommend a coil over set up with more agressive spring, shock, camber adjustment and ride height.)

hey austin..... thanks for the info.... oh btw, how much of a drop will i be expecting with your springs? looking for a set as well..... trying to decide what to get right now....

+1 for H&R here (w/ Bilstein Sport)

Just did the ROW M030, couldn't be happier for the money. This is what Porsche had in mind for the car.

ROW M030 is the sport suspension for European 996's, Right??

Yep. Ciao, Adrian.

Regarding ROW 030, factory drop is considered 20mm front, 10 mm rear. Many have posted inconsistency with the amount of lowering provided by the ROW kit. My drop was 13mm front, 8mm rear, but these measurements are against 6 year old springs; I don't know if that is a factor or not. My car sits at about 25-15/16" fnt / 25-5/8" rear from paving to top fender lip on factory 18's, 225/265, 1/2 tank fuel, which seems to be about average. At the other end of the range, I think Dell's car dropped about 25mm. The ROW 030 might not be best for someone requiring a full 1" drop. I think the ROW 030 is fantastic. However, I do think the car would look better lowered a bit further (than mine). -3/4" to - 1" would be about perfect. More than -1.25" starts looking "slammed".

What are you getting in the kit? Is this a straight from the factory supplied kit or something else? I would be interested in the part numbers of the major kit components. Technically the ROW Porsche factory M030 kit should take you down to the ROW ride heights if all the same components are used. I have not seen variations in ride heights here in Europe among the M030 996s done at the factory. Ciao, Adrian.

Yes, the kit is a Porsche part number, and is available directly from Porsche dealers. The kit includes front and rear springs, shocks, sway bars, sway bar bushings, and bumpstops for one pair of shocks, I don't remember if they were front or rear. I don't have my actual part numbers readily available, and the kits vary according to whether the car is C2, C4, Coupe or Cab, manual tranny or Tip, and probably 3.4L vs 3.6L (which you probably already know). There are threads here in the 996 List that contain many posts about the inconsistency of the ROW 030 lowering. As I mentioned, my lowering measurements are against 6 year old springs vs lowering differences between two new sets of springs. However, I don't know if that is actually a factor. I suppose that if springs sag over time, that might explain my car's lesser drop. That is why I mentioned the measurement from paving to top of fender opening, as that would take old vs new springs out of the equation. Do you have any paving to fender lip measurements for other ROW 030 cars to compare to those of my car?

I will need to do some research, but I do need to know the kit contents. Doesn't matter which model because it will provide a reference point. This is obviously a kit sold in the USA, but you do not mention things like the compensation plates. There is a 3mm and a 6.5mm plate. The springs you received should have a colour coded dot, white or green, telling you which plate to use. Did you follow the workshop manual for the installation? Porsche springs do not sag by the way. I use the correct measurement points for ride height measured Curb weight. I place no faith whatsover in paving to lip measurements unless the ground is perfectly level and every car measured has the same weight and weight distribution. Anyway I need to check into these things and I won't be able to do any physical checks until my 996 with M030 comes out of winter storage. However I will certainly look into it. Looks like the 996 M030 is as complicated as the 964 and 993 series. Ciao, Adrian.

Adrian, There was a thread recently where Dell posted part numbers for a couple of the different ROW 030 kits. Should be able to find it fairly quickly with the search function. As for the paving to lip measurement, I agree, and tire wear would also effect the measurement.

On a stock suspension set (standard like new shock bushings/mounts) 30mm (about 1.2") of lowering from the TRG spring set, consistent for front and rear over the factory new specs. The TRG springs fit all the C2 variations; the all wheel drive will have a different fit of course. We do recommend replacing the shocks if they are more than 50k miles or 5 years old they will be nearing worn out, additionally, it's a while-you're-in-there type of opportunity.

Have a look at http://www.renntech.org/forums/lofiv....php/t193.html for an example

Thanks and yes that is just one example that Loren took out of the parts catalogue. I have taken a quick look at the parts catalogue myself and I have to drag out the old one as well to see what the 98/99 and 00 996s had because there are different part numbers for each model year and then for the Coupe, Cab, Targa etc. Why and what are the differences? However this really does not help me. I need to know what is in these kits being sold into the USA for each model year. Are people being sold an 02 kit for a Coupe and installing it on a 99 Cab? Do people know they might have to change compensation plates? Are they getting the right springs? I have done this before on numerous previous models of Porsche and there is guaranteed to be more than one answer and this appears more complicated as well. Nothing is Black and white when it comes to Porsche and mixing specific versions like the sports suspension for the ROW to a version that was not supposed to have it. Something is always overlooked and the original difference in standard ride height between ROW and the USA may also play a part. It will take some time to work through this. Ciao, Adrian.

I have been toying with making this change and have looked at a dealer's website for parts cost. If you look at http://e-partssales.com/Merchant2/me..._Code=996sport and http://e-partssales.com/Merchant2/me..._Code=996sport you will see that, first, there is no Porsche part number in sight, and second, there appear to be a different kit for the various models. At least this dealer is well aware that there are differences, as I am sure most are.

anyone have pics of before and after with the ROW M030 drop?

Yeah one hopes, but none of this is good enough for me. If there is a variation in lowering levels there has to be a reason. If somebody expects 20mm and only gets 13mm then somebody else gets 25mm it would be nice to find out why. Ciao, Adrian.

Adrian here's the Panorama article. It is titled "996 Suspensions Analyzed". Part numbers and physical descriptions of the different parts lie within.

Adrian, Perhaps the majority of the difference in lowering we are reporting here may be due to: how our shade-tree measurements are taken. wheel size, 17" vs 18". tire size: 265/35 vs 285/30. tire pressure. tire wear. fuel on board. Cab vs Coupe. etc. Question: Why would a 996 sit 3/16" lower on the driver side than the passenger side (with no one in the car)? (Factory installed suspension).

Thanks Russ I have it already. This provides some good info for sure, but only covers what things should be, not what they actually are. I am more interested to know exactly what people are fitting to their 996s. My first question is: What is the compensation plate colour code of the springs removed as compared to the ones fitted? Was it white off and green on? Are the all the kit purchasers getting real ROW M030 or the USA Sport springs with ROW M030 struts and shocks? It is going to take quite sometime to gather all this up. Won't happen overnight. I need to get it right for my 996 book, so I will take my time and hopefully that will give others the opportunity to provide me the physical information I need. I will also have to get my 996 apart to check what Porche fitted to mine to give me a correct model year 99 Coupe reference point. I will have to call friends with other models and the ROW M030 option fitted to see if they can take a peek as well. Ciao, Adrian.

TechArt Springs over here

Kevin, Quite possible apart from the tyre sizes. The total diameter of the wheel and tyre assembly should be the same regardless of the wheel diameter fitted. However I have discovered that there is a slight difference between the ride heights front (1mm) and rear (5mm) depending if you have 17 or 18 diameter wheels, but again there is a plus or minus 10mm tolerance as well on the set ride height. To your question: This is quite normal. The equipment in a Porsche is not evenly distributed throughout the car. The 996 is better than previous models, but when the suspension is set up to the correct road height this may lead to what appears to be a body lean towards one side or the other. However this is just a "static" look. Ciao, Adrian.

That's really interesting Adrian. I had noticed--as most--the difference in ride height between passenger side and driver side, and I assumed this was just a matter of improper settings. If I understand you correctly then this difference is there to compensate for uneven weight distribution of the car's components. If that is correct, is it then so that the driver's side is always a tad lower without driver in the seat? Geert

How is the 10mm of ride height adjustment accomplished? I thought our strut and shock bodies had fixed spring seat heights.

My sincere apologies. Too much time on the GT-3 and GT-2 which have adjustable height for the struts and shocks. I plain forgot the normal 996 have fixed seats. Disregard my corner balancing comments for the 996. This is done at the factory and is a preset (with quite a tolerance) and forget system. Ciao, Adrian.

Geert, This is what Porsche write about this. I do not go around surveying these things, but from what complaints I have heard and from what I have seen it is usually always front left side slightly down which is driver's side (LHD) and passenger's side (RHD). Noting I have never seen this on your American version cars with the higher ride heights because I have yet to play with these 996s. My 996 experience is limited to what I have seen in my own park platz and from cars I know closer to home (Europe) including RHD 996s in the UK. Other issues are going to be badly matched springs, incorrectly torqued springs and maybe incorrrectly seated springs. However I would suggest these issues may arise during modification or repairs to the suspension. I need to learn more about how Porsche set this up at the factory. Ciao, Adrian.

If you just want to lower the car (forget about 1in, thats too much) order the row porsche springs for your car. Its the cheapest and most sensable solution.

Dude, 22 of the 33 replies to this topic are about the ROW suspension. Where ya been? Just doing the springs is probably not the best solution though. The spring rates are different (not proportionally increased rates front and rear) so it'd be nice to have shocks valved to work with the altered rates and the ROW shocks have a 10mm shorter shaft to avoid losing travel by bottoming out the shock after lowering the car.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I do think that there is a tolerance of +/- 10mm on the ride height of Porsche from the factory. Adrian you are very knowledegable and have study the Porsche very well, but I do think the tolerence set in by the factory can account for the difference some people are seeing with the kits. I do have the M030 with the correct part numbers cross referenced with the factory manual and the part number that the springs came with and I only got about a 15 and 8 mm lowering, but it was measured by the lip, but on the same spot on the car port. Remember the M030 is 20mm lower then the US cars and only 10mm lower then a std. ROW suspension.

I would use the word Jein to describe what you are saying (Ja und Nein). When Porsche build a 996 they just measure the ride height (at the correct points) at the correct weight, supposedly at the correct wheel alignment and if it's within their set measurements (within tolerance which IMHO seriously suck) they let it go. If not, it's back to QC for rectification. How they actually fix this is another mystery. However when you rip out the original US version suspension and replace it with the ROW M030 the 996 is no longer how the factory set it up for the US market and all bets are off so to speak. In fact I would suspect that many people who do this are completely unaware of the plus or minus 10mm tolerance and other changes or differences such as wheel alignment between the ROW and US versions. Are there other parts which affect ride height in some way or another which cannot be compensated for? For the 964 and 993 the answer was "yes" because the US versions were physically heavier than the ROW versions. What about the 996? Needs to be checked. One major issues is that Porsche owners (worldwide) do not measure the ride height at the correct measuring points, they use the fender to ground. Another common problem is that they fail to set the 996's weight before they make the measurements. You need a full tank of gas for a start. Personally I feel some (not all) of the variations seen are caused by not setting the 996 up properly before the measurements are taken and possibly people not realising that the front wheel alignment is different for the ROW M030 as compared to the US standard and sports suspension, but there are many other unanswered issues as of yet to make hard statements. What is also missing is a reference model. Inotherwords, take a USA version of a 996 and do a set of proper measurements at the correct points at the correct weight and with the ROW M030 wheel alignment setting and then measure the fender to ground to give a more accurate reference measurement. This will need to be done for all models due to the differences in weight between the versions. I also suspect that some 996 owners are running around with the incorrect compensation plates fitted or even with a mix of plates. I do not know if tthe correct spring compensation plates are supplied with the kits. Standard is the white spring compensation plate (3mm) front and (0.5mm) rear. ROW M030 uses the green (6.5mm) front and (4mm) rear. Other problems may include incorrect tensioning of the springs on assembly, incorrect assembly (it happens), wrong kit for the model owned supplied and so on and so on. There is no black and white answer which fits all cases. I would still like to see a colour pictures of these ROW M030 kits received by US based customers. One tip I recommend to anyone doing this modification in the future is to use the workshop manual and if taking their 996 to a shop, to ask that they have the manual and make sure they actually use it. Did I mention wheel alignment differences. This issue is not unique to the 996. Ever since Porsche introduced option M030 during the 964 series run this problem of fitting ROW parts to US versions has been around. The 996 seems to be a tad more complicated so more facts and physical information is needed to come up with a reliable set of installation tips that people can rely upon. Ciao, Adrian. PS: According to the TEquipment catalogue the standard lowering kit for the ROW market is only 10mm. A special ROW 30mm kit is offered for the 996 Coupes in 2002 and a ROW 20mm kit is offered from 2003 for the 996 Turbo and C4S Coupes. TEquipment only show a 10mm lowering kit from 2002 for US market 996 Coupes which ride 10mm higher at the front than the ROW 996s. I have some kit lists now, but this is getting awfully complicated because the 20 and 30mm lowering kits also require a change of the two rear engine mounts. More questions to be answered and more research needed.

Compensation plates are not included in the ROW M030 kit, which is odd. I ordered the kit and the dealer said that the tolerance markings were white. They didn't have the right compensation plates for white, and seemed unfamiliar with the whole issue. This was from a Porsche dealer with a very large Internet parts business. They said that they'd "never ordered" compensation plates for green tolerance marks. So I called all over the country and finally found the right compensation plates. When the ROW M030 kit showed up, it had white rear and with green front springs. The morale of this story is that if you buy the M030 kit, you have to ask the seller to open the box that they are planning on selling you, and tell you what the tolerance markings are. They can't just look at any ol' M030 box on their shelf. And you may have to do some educating on the issue. When they said that they didn't think that compensation plates were an issue, I told them "Adrian Streather says it needs to be right, and that's good enough for me".