CP Racing R&P kit - New Version - Part II
10-08-04, 06:21 PM
#52
Got Boost?
I'm no engineer by any means, but it seems that in the end, tie rod length won't affect the turning radius or speed. After all, that's the point of an alignment... To vary the length of a tie rod to change the angle of the tire relative to the rack... In the end, the steering assembly (Be it R&P or the linkage in a recirculating ball setup.) from tie rod to tie rod must be a fixed length in order to keep the wheels aligned.
10-08-04, 07:42 PM
#53
The sway bar mounts to the tension rod brackets so you're not gonna remove that much weight, just that of the bars themselves. Also, heres a dumb question, how do you adjust caster on a lower A arm setup like the FC has? One other thing I'm unlcear on is the width measurement between the fb and fc, it seems, just looking at both, that the FC is wider, if I wanted to do this on my fb and not use a widebody kit (which i certainly don't want) would it work? Whats everyone think?
Originally Posted by grantmac
I had to contact Abeomid on this myself. The swaybar is still up in the air but I'll have both available and he seems to think that the FC unit will be the best. As for the front torsion bars that is the really good part. We get to totally remove them along with the mounts, which is good in three ways, one we get to remove all that weight from infront of the axle, two we get a better suspension set-up that doesn't bind like a torsion bar set-up and three it'll be much easier to fit larger swaybars on the front.
Grant
Grant
10-09-04, 12:02 AM
#54
Senior Member
I thought the FB swaybar mounted through the bracket but was ultimately held on by the bushing and frame, I'm gonna need a better look. I think the FC subframe looks wider partially because it uses lower offset rims, But I'll need to check it out in person. I'm not sure how the caster is adjusted in the FC, I think it might be strut-top only; which could get interesting.
Grant
Grant
10-09-04, 02:49 PM
#55
the sway bar mounts directly to the tension rod bracket, which in turns attaches to the frame. Assuming enough body work is off to do so you can remove the tension rods/brackets/sway bar all as one unit. You could always cut what you don't need off the tension rod bracket though, as long as the mounting holes are there you'd be fine. I bet a few pounds could be trimmed off.
10-09-04, 05:06 PM
#56
Senior Member
After look at the suspension diagram (oddly enough in the ever helpful Victoria Brittish catalog) I realise your totally right. I also realise I will need to use the 2nd gen swaybar which will probably require custom body mounts anyway, so I'll probably just remove the tension rod brakcets and make some mounts out of steel plate.
Grant
Grant
10-10-04, 08:40 AM
#58
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
I talked with CP about the the update for the old rack kit and the new kit and here's what I've learned.
First, to get your old kit updated you have to send them your inner tie rod ends first. So you're looking at being without your car for at least 3 weeks and needing an alignment when it's all done.
The new kit apparently re-uses the shaft and u-joints from the original kit, but uses an aluminum rack and a subframe that doesn't bolt through the control arms like the first one. Couldn't get any more details than that
First, to get your old kit updated you have to send them your inner tie rod ends first. So you're looking at being without your car for at least 3 weeks and needing an alignment when it's all done.
The new kit apparently re-uses the shaft and u-joints from the original kit, but uses an aluminum rack and a subframe that doesn't bolt through the control arms like the first one. Couldn't get any more details than that
10-10-04, 09:34 AM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When i first started talking to CP racing. They told me the R&P kit would be $500 CDN. And i am sure they were making a hefty profit on that. Now i see how much they have marked it up and it disgusts me. They should be banished from the tuner community with the amount of people they have ripped off.
-Carlton
-Carlton
10-10-04, 06:20 PM
#60
Old [Sch|F]ool
Originally Posted by Pele
Good to know that I won't be able to align my car once I'm done with it...
How low is your car PeeJay?
How low is your car PeeJay?
It's not. (The rear suspension is squatting about an inch, I'm hard on the throttle to the finish. That's about where the front suspension sits normally) It's just that the exhaust hangs down a bit, and the exhaust clamps catch on the rack.
Anyway.
I got done with my radio installation ordeal (well not DONE, I still need to engineer a way to work the power antenna (have relays will travel!) and make a cover plate, but it's together and makes tunes) and my frontal swaybarectomy, and had enough light-time that I could take some measurements!
And here is what I found:
For an FB with the stock power steering box, there is...
Get ready...
SIX INCHES of travel at the center link (analogue to the rack in an R&P), stop to stop!
Furthermore, turning from steering wheel center one full turn to the side, the center link moves 1 7/8 (or if you prefer 1.875) inches!
"But Peejay", you say, "there's three turns lock to lock with the power steering box and 1.875 times three is not six!"
That is true! The steering mechanism therefore is variable ratio. This is why I measured from the center position instead of just taking total length and dividing by three.
However! Note that we know that the travel per turn of the Rabbit rack is 1.458" per turn. And that we know that the travel per turn of the P/S box is 1.875" per turn. So the CP setup therefore requires... get ready... 28% MORE steering wheel travel for a given amount of motion at the wheels. And in reality it feels like a lot more than that.
10-10-04, 09:30 PM
#62
Old [Sch|F]ool
How would you make a variable ratio rack?
Variable ratio sucks, for what it's worth. However, I'll take a variable ratio unit over a dog-slow straight rate unit *anyday*.
Variable ratio sucks, for what it's worth. However, I'll take a variable ratio unit over a dog-slow straight rate unit *anyday*.
10-11-04, 01:29 AM
#63
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
I don't think it's very fair to compare the CP kit to a power steering box, since those only came in, what, one in a hundred first gens?
Oh yeah and the boxes are NLA.
Oh yeah and the boxes are NLA.
10-11-04, 01:27 PM
#65
My wife bought me 2 RX-7s
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 2,328
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Peejay
However! Note that we know that the travel per turn of the Rabbit rack is 1.458" per turn. And that we know that the travel per turn of the P/S box is 1.875" per turn. So the CP setup therefore requires... get ready... 28% MORE steering wheel travel for a given amount of motion at the wheels. And in reality it feels like a lot more than that.
A serious waste of money with the current rack.
10-11-04, 06:28 PM
#66
Originally Posted by MosesX605
Right on Peejay. That totally confirms what I've thought about the RP kit from day one.
A serious waste of money with the current rack.
A serious waste of money with the current rack.
10-11-04, 07:23 PM
#67
Old [Sch|F]ool
Originally Posted by MosesX605
Right on Peejay. That totally confirms what I've thought about the RP kit from day one.
A serious waste of money with the current rack.
A serious waste of money with the current rack.
There is a very good reason why Mazda went to the trouble of relocating the motor mounts to the center housing on the FC... it's so they could use a front steer rack.
