In another thread that turned out kinda pointless, the issue of vert handling came up. From some of the posts, I inferred that people believed the vert had some vert-specific suspension/braking/drivetrain pieces that might be superior to (in certain viewpoints), as well as transferable to (so "reinforced frame" issues need not apply.. :p ) the naturally aspirated coupe as available OE. Specifically springs, sway bars, and brakes were mentioned.

If that were so, I would be interested in finding out specific information about this. I profess to considerable ignorance about the vert, but would like to know what parts (if any) to keep my eyes open for if I spot a junk vert or a parts vert.

Let's keep this thread to facts and no opinions and no internet racing, lest this thread be closed.

Anyway, to seed the discussion, I found in this sticky thread:
https://www.rx7club.com/2nd-generation-specific-1986-1992-17/specifications-what-did-2nd-generation-rx-7-come-w-options-standard-features-249616/
From the 1988 model...
Transmission: 5th gear and final drive are different from NA
With some and dirty excel work...
M5 M5T M5C
FD 4.1 4.1 3.909
1 3.475 3.483 3.475
2 2.002 2.015 2.002
3 1.366 1.391 1.366
4 1 1 1
5 0.697 0.762 0.711

FD Adjusted
1 14.2475 14.2803 13.583775
2 8.2082 8.2615 7.825818
3 5.6006 5.7031 5.339694
4 4.1 4.1 3.909
5 2.8577 3.1242 2.779299

According to the 1988 brochure the 'vert did not have a "sport-tuned" suspension, nor an LSD.

Other than 1988, the vert seems to have the same transmission as the NA...

Brakes are the upgraded brakes that are available on the coupe through the years, according to the marketting brochures.

Of course, marketting brochures are not necessarily the most rock-solid source for technical information, so if someone knows some page numbers from FSM's or something pointing out special springs, sway bars, etc. then that would be very cool to see. Note: I'm talking stock equipment from Mazda.. nothing aftermarket.

Of course due to my American parochialism I personally am just interested in USDM info.. but other people in other markets may well enjoy more international info... --But if your information refers to a model that was not available in the US, please clearly identify it as such!

Please let's not continue any vitriol or emotion from other threads into this one-- keep it to facts with references.

Many thanks..
Note: I am having trouble posting this due to proxy errors.. if this thread is multiposted, please collapse it to one and accept my apologies.

 

The brakes on 'verts are the same as any other non base model- in other words, the same 4 piston front brakes, and vent rear rotor as the 86-87 Sports, 86-90 GXLs, 88 GTU, 87-91 Turbo, 89-90 GTUs model.

As far as the tranny, the 88 'Vert used a version of the M50 Tranny. This was the same basic tranny found on the S5 non turbos (but different than the S4 non turbo coupes which used the M85).

And not sure where you are going with the tranny gearing...other than 5th gear on the 88 (which used the same 5th gear as the 86-87 coupes anyway) they are the same gearing for all non turbo coupes of the respective year.

The 'Verts front subframe may be transferable to a coupe, but I do not have personal experience to confirm that.

As far as the shocks, they are the same again as any other heavy duty suspension, but the stabilizer bars and springs are different depending on year. But since coupes do not have the same weight distribution, using vert suspension parts on a coupe would probably only make the coupe handle worse.

 

Actually, I wasn't trying to go anywhere with tranny gearing... I was just reading the thread I referenced and that was the only time the brochures mentioned a different vert tranny specification (that I noticed)... again.. I'm swimming in ignorance when it comes to the vert. Just trying to correct that a little bit, and maybe build a resource for other swap-hunters.

Hrm.. any good place to go looking specifically for the front antisway bar stiffness/diameter information? I'm assuming it would have the same geometry and attachment points except for bar diameter, but I could be wrong.

Of course I'd be curious to hear specifics about the springs as well.. if you or anybody else knows of a resource for that as well...

The weight distribution on the vert is off of 50/50? I'm assuming more front-biased then? (Not completely on my original topic, so no worries to leave it unanswered)

 

No, the vert weight distribution is closer to 50/50, while the coupe is not.. the coupe is heavier in the front and lighter in the rear (51/49) weight distribution.

These numbers are from articles in both Road & Track and Car & Driver at the time.

 

86-88

Front sway bar has 2 options: 22 or 24mm

Rear Sway Bar has only one: 13mm

89-91

Front sway bar has only one: 24mm

Rear sway bar has 3 options: 14 or 12mm on coupes, 12mm on verts.

 

Stabilizer bars... not sway bars... sway bars are for motor homes

 

LOL, when you get a job for Racing Beat, make sure to tell them that they're selling motor home parts. Oh wait, rx7.com calls it a sway bar too. So does, rx7store.net. I can't beleive their letting me put motor home parts on my car, aggghhhh!!! I better go to mazdatrix...oh no, they call em sway bars too. Lets check reteds' site, well, yup, he calls 'em, sway bars too. Corksport does it, AWR, and even howstuffworks.com calls them sway bars.

The point is, you have no point. I wouldn't be suprised if a search of your posts wouldn't reveil you calling the propeller shaft a drive shaft.

Get a grip on life, theres more to it than coming home from you job in a rush just to see what you can "correct" on this forum.

***Note*** If you really feel the need to correct something, go fix the link that doesn't work in your FAQ for FC.

EDIT: Make sure you get the last word, then close this thread.

EDIT #2: I had no intention of confusing anyone, I think everyone here knows what a sway bar is.

 

#1 I use the terms Mazda uses in their manuals. If you have a problem with that then maybe you should get Mazda to get your clue.
#2 what link does not work in the FAQ for FC? And it is not my FAQ for FC it is the 2nd gen technical sections. I simply started it. If you were able to read it, you might see that many members helped create it. Just whinning and complaining without helping is pretty useless and should be done on other boards than this one.
#3 Threads only get closed be mods or admins if the subject has been covered, or flaming (which you seem pretty borderline on here anyway).
#4 I am sure the thread starter appriciates your shitting in their thread. If you have a problem with someone you should take it through PMs or on some other board. But since you made it public with your attack I am responding here.

 

you say tommata, i say tomato.

i say, i cant spell either sorry.

 

Really...

I knew you were full of it....its called a PROPELLER SHAFT!!!

OK, lets cut the BS. I admit that I'm not using the term Mazda uses. Do you admit your wrong for correcting me when you hypocritically do the same?


To mechE00, I've stated the facts I know of. I can't justify the springs rates of specific 2nd gens. When I have that information I will pass it along.

FWIW, testing spring rates of 14 to 19 year old stock springs, from all types of 2nd gens, might not give the most accurate rates. If had every 2nd gen model springs, in brand new condition, I would test the springs with a machine that I saw years ago. The machine had a digital readout of the amount of force applied to a specific part, max pressure applied before the part began to depress, and a time based graph showing how much force was applied in relation to the time taken to travel a given distance. It very much looked like a shop press, with a computer hooked up to its various sensors.

 

woah. what's bigdv519's beef with Icemark?

 

Actually I used to do testing with a computer-controlled machine similar to what you're describing. Static stiffness, dynamic stiffness, creep, hysteresis.. yep. I'm familiar with testing with such a machine and others.

Regardless, I'm interested in stock specs for these things.. OE automotive springs are often progressive anyway, so one would have to be diligent when testing to get results that would be comparable to stock specifications.

I appreciate the info you and Icemark are bringing to me and to the thread, but I hope to keep this thread productive and avoid harsh sentiments.

Regarding the earlier post:
At first I thought that all of your provided values were specific to convertibles, but then the last line left me wondering if that's what you meant. If you have the time, could you clarify which of those values were available on which trim lines? The categories I'm thinking of are: Non-Sport NA Coupe Suspension, Sport NA Coupe Suspension, Convertible Suspension, Turbo II Suspension. Do my suggested categories leave anything out (allowing for changes between S4 and S5)?

Statements I have read have led me to infer that the Sport NA Suspension may be identical to the Turbo II Suspension, but I don't have anything authoritative to cite on the matter. If it's so, then I guess the categories could be collapsed from 4 to 3.

Thanks for the info guys..

 

probably some newbie that felt he was over moderated and got his panties in a bunch

 

Mazdatrix's testing shows around 95/90 (F/R) for coupe springs (but does not specifiy heavy duty or standard) or call out that they are progressive in anyway.

actually more accuratly would be that the S4 Turbo has the Sport's suspension.

 

Do us all a favour. Go out to your car and count the propellers. Come back and tell us how many you find.

The name "sway bar" is not a correct term. It's a shortened version of the correct name anti-sway bar. Think about it, why would you put something on the car that makes it sway? Stabiliser bar is another common (and correct) name for them.

 

I see youv'e retorted to mere childish comments.

Theres isn't a propeller on my car, nor yours. But we both have drive shafts, or what Mazda calls it, a propeller shaft.

Your assumption, that I don't know where the words "sway bar" are derived from, is futile.

I simply used the words "sway bar" in an effort to easily relate to MOST people. Whats so hard to understand about that. So far, I'm the only one to admit to using a Non-Mazda term.

 

Alright, before this spirals away into a nomenclature war.. I had a chance to check out the online manuals.

In section 13 of the 88 manual on page 4 of the pdf or page 13-3 according to original pagination, there is no mention of convertible or of the turbo. The suspension specs are apparently of the categories normal and "harder"..



In section 13 of the 89 manual, page 5 of the pdf or page R-4 in the original pagination, there is some additional information.



As you can see, it uses the categories of "Standard" and "Sport" suspensions with "Convertible Top" as a sub-category of the "Standard Suspension" for the rear end only (implying that the front end is the same as the "Standard" suspension).

Note: the sole realm of interest in this thread is the components of the suspension, not the performance. It does seem that parts-wise, the convertible is not of much interest to the swap-seeking, coupe-owning stock class autocrosser since its front sway bar does not offer any upgrade and the 15 year old shocks are not of any interest. Those without autocrossing rules restrictions or non-SCCA rules may, however, be somewhat interested in the rear springs from the vert, as they may be slightly stiffer.

Icemark: 95/90 F/R what? What units are those measurements in?