Difference between 94 and 95?
05-17-03, 12:43 PM
#5
Originally posted by ZeroBanger
the only difference I know is the a/c system. the 94 has the older a/c, I think its R134? the 95 has the R12.
the only difference I know is the a/c system. the 94 has the older a/c, I think its R134? the 95 has the R12.
R-12 is the old stuff - more thermodynamically efficient, but getting extremely expensive to recharge. R134a is the newer standard stuff, but requires a bigger system to do the same cooling by comparison. And yes, in 95 it is the R-134a. Anyone know if they up-sized the components accordingly when they made the switch?
Dave
05-17-03, 02:35 PM
#6
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by JOES95RX7
doesn't the 94s have a rear wiper. 95s dont
doesn't the 94s have a rear wiper. 95s dont
And yes, I forgot about the A/C. Judging by how **** poor my A/C is, I would guess that they didn't upsize the components much if at all when they switched to R-134a.
05-17-03, 03:54 PM
#7
Racing is life!
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Grapevine, TX
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure about this, but turbojeff said that the turbo or turbo control mechanism is somewhat different. Maybe some knows about that, or maybe I just misunderstood. I'm kind of new to the fd's.
Trending Topics
05-17-03, 03:56 PM
#8
Racing is life!
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Grapevine, TX
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, I believe the rear wiper was an option on the 95. It's not included in the peg package that replaced the touring package. Cruise control was optional as well.
05-19-03, 12:41 PM
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Eagle Rock, Ca
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard they also replaced the diff...to improve on wheel hop or something. Or did they change that for the '94s as improvements over the '93s....Apart from peeling interior, gauge, a/c details, non-cracking wheels, what are the improvements you get in a '94, '95 that you don't get in a '93? I used to have a '93 and am considering another FD.
05-19-03, 01:19 PM
#12
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
They never changed the diff between model years. As you can see from the responses, there's really no major differences between 94s and 95s.
Although I can post about one minor change not listed yet -- the secondary turbo intake hose was changed for the 95 year and will NOT work with the PFS intake. Only 93-94 secondary intake hoses work with the PFS intake. Now if anyone can explain why the hell Mazda would change THAT, of all things....
Although I can post about one minor change not listed yet -- the secondary turbo intake hose was changed for the 95 year and will NOT work with the PFS intake. Only 93-94 secondary intake hoses work with the PFS intake. Now if anyone can explain why the hell Mazda would change THAT, of all things....
05-19-03, 05:46 PM
#14
Originally posted by montego
one was bought in 94 the other was bought in 95
one was bought in 94 the other was bought in 95
In addition, some new cars dont sell, and sit on the lot until the year after the year of the car. Most used cars won't fit your statment either.
05-19-03, 06:06 PM
#15
Originally posted by adam c
It's OK to be a smart ***, but don't forget the smart part. New year model cars are normally available in August or September of the year before the year of the car.
In addition, some new cars dont sell, and sit on the lot until the year after the year of the car. Most used cars won't fit your statment either.
It's OK to be a smart ***, but don't forget the smart part. New year model cars are normally available in August or September of the year before the year of the car.
In addition, some new cars dont sell, and sit on the lot until the year after the year of the car. Most used cars won't fit your statment either.
I guess there's nothing to do up in good Old San Luis Obispo huh.
What a freakin' nerd...
05-19-03, 06:22 PM
#16
Originally posted by montego
I guess there's nothing to do up in good Old San Luis Obispo huh.
What a freakin' nerd...
I guess there's nothing to do up in good Old San Luis Obispo huh.
What a freakin' nerd...
05-19-03, 06:49 PM
#17
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Eagle Rock, Ca
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok....thanks...so apart from the above mentioned, there aren't too many differences between the years? What about reliability or performance issues? Any difference from '93 to '95?
05-19-03, 07:12 PM
#18
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
The major performance changes from a 93 R1 to a 94 R2 were that they softened the shock valving and the bushing stiffness a little bit. They also reduced the size of the rear anti-sway bar on all 94s, which means that 94-95 FDs have a little more understeer than 93s.
Please do a search on this as this has been thoroughly covered many, many times.
Please do a search on this as this has been thoroughly covered many, many times.
05-20-03, 09:22 AM
#19
Originally posted by adam c
It's a SLO day today (get it). No need to name call when you make a dumb post and someone responds. Just messing with you a little that's all.
It's a SLO day today (get it). No need to name call when you make a dumb post and someone responds. Just messing with you a little that's all.
05-20-03, 10:18 AM
#21
Wow, some people can never be wrong without it becoming a big deal (and a big waste of space). Montego, you were a smartass without the smart part. Your "interjection" contained nothing but false information. Somebody needed to point that out, and Adam did it admirably. If you want to continue to make a big deal about it, then you'll continue to remind people of the *** part of smartass.
Originally posted by montego
Your right no need to name call. I was just having a little fun since you called me a smart *** with out the smart. Didn't really mean anything by it though.
Your right no need to name call. I was just having a little fun since you called me a smart *** with out the smart. Didn't really mean anything by it though.
