It's here! It's here! it's really really here! CP R&P Kit
09-26-04, 03:37 PM
#26
HEAVY METAL THUNDER
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elsenborn, Belgian Eifel
Posts: 3,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pele
Never done the swap myself, Only going offa what I've seen and heard here...
Besides, I did say it required a little fabrication.
Besides, I did say it required a little fabrication.
that's the coolest understatement I've heared for ages!
on a serious note: I'm still waiting to see pics of such an swap, most people bring it up when they start it, but I'd like to see a diary, from start to finish, and driving experiences. Obviously, I wouldn't like a out-of-wheelarch-center frontwheel.
09-26-04, 04:02 PM
#27
Right near Malloy
iTrader: (28)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Behind a workbench, repairing FC Electronics.
Posts: 7,840
Received 509 Likes
on
345 Posts
Originally Posted by rotary emotions
that's the coolest understatement I've heared for ages!
on a serious note: I'm still waiting to see pics of such an swap, most people bring it up when they start it, but I'd like to see a diary, from start to finish, and driving experiences. Obviously, I wouldn't like a out-of-wheelarch-center frontwheel.
on a serious note: I'm still waiting to see pics of such an swap, most people bring it up when they start it, but I'd like to see a diary, from start to finish, and driving experiences. Obviously, I wouldn't like a out-of-wheelarch-center frontwheel.
09-26-04, 04:03 PM
#28
Old [Sch|F]ool
Hey, if'n you don't have to make brackets or your own subframe, then it IS just a little fabrication.
I don't see why having the wheels more forwards is a problem. Moving the front axle centerline forwards means less weight over the front wheels, more over the rear wheels. If you care about that sort of thing. More importantly, longer wheelbases make for greater stability.
So you have to Sawzall the fenders for tire clearance. Big whoop.
I don't see why having the wheels more forwards is a problem. Moving the front axle centerline forwards means less weight over the front wheels, more over the rear wheels. If you care about that sort of thing. More importantly, longer wheelbases make for greater stability.
So you have to Sawzall the fenders for tire clearance. Big whoop.
09-27-04, 03:32 AM
#29
HEAVY METAL THUNDER
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elsenborn, Belgian Eifel
Posts: 3,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you do not only move the wheels forward as such, since you actually put the struts under a rather serious angle. This will still mean greater balance on a straight, but will make cornering less good (a lot like those chopper motorbikes) As for "sawzall" the fenders for clearance, waw, that's gonna look good. To make it look decent you'd have to move the fender "cut-out" over the wheel to the front, it's the only way it's going to look like it should.
For those really intrested in a balanced car: you can match the front end of an FC with an FB. All the main dimensions are the same. What these Germans did was cutting of two halfes, and welding them in using the exact spot-weld loctations Mazda used. Even the mounting holes for the fenders are spaced the same on FC/FB.
But indeed it's a lot of work.
For those really intrested in a balanced car: you can match the front end of an FC with an FB. All the main dimensions are the same. What these Germans did was cutting of two halfes, and welding them in using the exact spot-weld loctations Mazda used. Even the mounting holes for the fenders are spaced the same on FC/FB.
But indeed it's a lot of work.
09-27-04, 06:38 PM
#32
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: O'sd,CA.
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why do i have a little teeny feeling that bullethead might be CP &/or associates
LOL. Not likely, as I live in Ocnsd, CA. The only part of Canuckistan I've been through is on my way home from AK. on the ALCAN Hwy.
LOL. Not likely, as I live in Ocnsd, CA. The only part of Canuckistan I've been through is on my way home from AK. on the ALCAN Hwy.
09-27-04, 07:30 PM
#33
Old [Sch|F]ool
Originally Posted by FD Racer
Losing a foot turing radius is a small price to pay for improve steering response and feel....
So yes there's NO PLAY but there's no steering response either.
It depends on personal preference, I guess. I honestly don't mind up to 1/8 turn of play before anything happens. In my car you can rock the wheel 1/8 turn and it feels like nothing's happening, when sitting still, but on the actual road doing actual driving there's only maybe 1/4" of "dead spot". So it's WAY MEGA TONS better than the Fords and Chryslers (especially them Mopars) that I learned to drive in and therefore learned to DRIVE HARD in.
But even with the P/S box the *ratio* is too slow for my tastes.
If there was a rack conversion, that boasted 2 turns lock to lock and full steering motion (this is about twice as fast as a stock manual box) then I'd be all over it. For what I care about, steering SPEED is more important than a little slop, so the current "rack conversion" is a step in entirely the opposite direction.
What's more important to you?
Last edited by peejay; 09-27-04 at 07:32 PM.
09-28-04, 01:49 AM
#34
sold the FD...kept the FB
Originally Posted by peejay
The reason you lose turning radius is because the steering is WAY WAY SLOWER than stock steering. It's like, you need to the turn the wheel 3/4 turn for what you would normally need 1/2 turn with the stock 'box.
So yes there's NO PLAY but there's no steering response either.
It depends on personal preference, I guess. I honestly don't mind up to 1/8 turn of play before anything happens. In my car you can rock the wheel 1/8 turn and it feels like nothing's happening, when sitting still, but on the actual road doing actual driving there's only maybe 1/4" of "dead spot". So it's WAY MEGA TONS better than the Fords and Chryslers (especially them Mopars) that I learned to drive in and therefore learned to DRIVE HARD in.
But even with the P/S box the *ratio* is too slow for my tastes.
If there was a rack conversion, that boasted 2 turns lock to lock and full steering motion (this is about twice as fast as a stock manual box) then I'd be all over it. For what I care about, steering SPEED is more important than a little slop, so the current "rack conversion" is a step in entirely the opposite direction.
What's more important to you?
So yes there's NO PLAY but there's no steering response either.
It depends on personal preference, I guess. I honestly don't mind up to 1/8 turn of play before anything happens. In my car you can rock the wheel 1/8 turn and it feels like nothing's happening, when sitting still, but on the actual road doing actual driving there's only maybe 1/4" of "dead spot". So it's WAY MEGA TONS better than the Fords and Chryslers (especially them Mopars) that I learned to drive in and therefore learned to DRIVE HARD in.
But even with the P/S box the *ratio* is too slow for my tastes.
If there was a rack conversion, that boasted 2 turns lock to lock and full steering motion (this is about twice as fast as a stock manual box) then I'd be all over it. For what I care about, steering SPEED is more important than a little slop, so the current "rack conversion" is a step in entirely the opposite direction.
What's more important to you?
Last edited by FD Racer; 09-28-04 at 01:59 AM.
09-28-04, 02:24 AM
#35
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
The CP kit really isn't that slow. It's 3.9 turns lock to lock, as opposed to the stock 3.6? 3.7?
The difference in turning radius is because the total travel is a little less than stock (something like 1/2"). I'm sad to report that this is something I have noticed, but it's not really a big deal.
The binding of the u-joints is a non-issue; you don't notice unless you're really, really looking for it. What you *will* notice is that sometimes it's easier to turn the wheel in one direction than it is to turn it in the other. Overall it's much easier to turn the wheel in any direction.
The difference in turning radius is because the total travel is a little less than stock (something like 1/2"). I'm sad to report that this is something I have noticed, but it's not really a big deal.
The binding of the u-joints is a non-issue; you don't notice unless you're really, really looking for it. What you *will* notice is that sometimes it's easier to turn the wheel in one direction than it is to turn it in the other. Overall it's much easier to turn the wheel in any direction.
09-28-04, 02:37 AM
#36
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
I don't think it would be that tough to have a steering quickener installed. They make them in 1.5:1 and 2:1. Add one in and you'd go from 4 turns lock to lock to 2.6 or 2.0.
I'm going to look into this, I think. I need to get good measurements on the steering quickeners out there and see how/where they're supposed to mount.
I'm going to look into this, I think. I need to get good measurements on the steering quickeners out there and see how/where they're supposed to mount.
09-28-04, 09:43 AM
#38
Right near Malloy
iTrader: (28)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Behind a workbench, repairing FC Electronics.
Posts: 7,840
Received 509 Likes
on
345 Posts
Originally Posted by bouis
The CP kit really isn't that slow. It's 3.9 turns lock to lock, as opposed to the stock 3.6? 3.7?
The difference in turning radius is because the total travel is a little less than stock (something like 1/2"). I'm sad to report that this is something I have noticed, but it's not really a big deal.
The binding of the u-joints is a non-issue; you don't notice unless you're really, really looking for it. What you *will* notice is that sometimes it's easier to turn the wheel in one direction than it is to turn it in the other. Overall it's much easier to turn the wheel in any direction.
The difference in turning radius is because the total travel is a little less than stock (something like 1/2"). I'm sad to report that this is something I have noticed, but it's not really a big deal.
The binding of the u-joints is a non-issue; you don't notice unless you're really, really looking for it. What you *will* notice is that sometimes it's easier to turn the wheel in one direction than it is to turn it in the other. Overall it's much easier to turn the wheel in any direction.
In light of all the complaints, I'm still glad I bought the Rack and pinion kit as it was half the price of a replacement gearbox.
09-28-04, 01:29 PM
#40
Rotary Enthusiast
Well I thought I post in here about the FC swap. Since you can put the subframe anywhere, you don't really need to have your wheels move forward. I did that b/c I had wider opening in the fenders and a little bit of caster could help.
09-28-04, 03:26 PM
#41
HEAVY METAL THUNDER
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elsenborn, Belgian Eifel
Posts: 3,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by abeomid
Well I thought I post in here about the FC swap. Since you can put the subframe anywhere, you don't really need to have your wheels move forward. I did that b/c I had wider opening in the fenders and a little bit of caster could help.
Does that mean you moved the subframe a bit rearward in order to get wheels more or less correct? I'd like to see pics of that car from the side. And again: how does it drive (if it's ready)? I know for sure the FC front end swap mentioned above does drive perfect. So as I have both a FC chassis as a FB chassis just standing here, I might aswell try.
09-28-04, 06:40 PM
#42
Rotary Enthusiast
I did not move it rearward, but it is easy to do so. I will post link to pictures on my site as I am moving them around and organizing it at the moment
10-01-04, 08:26 PM
#45
add to cart
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Saskatoon, SK & Montreal, PQ
Posts: 4,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vipernicus42
I seem to remember someone mentioning that Mazda originally tested the FC rack bolted up to an FB with some modifications... don't know if this is true or not.
Jon
Jon
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SakeBomb Garage
Group Buy & Product Dev. FD RX-7
8
10-09-15 10:05 PM