There must be exceptions because I have a 94 R2 and they are NOT reenforced. I found this out after seeing the above posted photo.

 

Ditto...mine came off my 94 R2 and aren't reinforced either. Speedking mentioned how w/ him it's been hit or miss...so I'm pretty sure that the rule doesn't hold. In fact, Diablone hinted that it's not a rule, and this has been discussed before, yet most ppl don't know about it and go by the "rule."

 

i was test driving an FD once and we heard a funny noise (the owner and i), sure enough we get out and the rim is cracked, this was in like 10/03... they were stock wheels chromed

 

FYI, I have a late-production 93 Touring. I still have the stock wheels sitting around as track-wheels. They all have a build date of June 92 and are the reinforced type. I can verify that they are all the original wheels (I am the second owner, and I personally know the original owner). I have used the wheels for 2 solid seasons of autocross, and multiple HPDE's. I've never had any cracking problems.

-Rob

 

My 93 FD has Reinforced wheels..

 

Same here.

 

This is weird .. had the car new since 95 and didn't know what wheel is what.
I have an R2 and the original set have an "HH" in a circle on 3/94 cast wheels ... this car was right off the boat ..so no dealer tampering. I also got 4 extras at the time, also HH 3/94 casting. These are the thin wheels (LHS picture). This secound set has seen autocross, sole trials and lap days for years.

Also have some HH 6/92 castings, recent purchase: history unknown.
and some "LM" 11/94 castings w/heavy spokes (RHS picture): purchased new in 95, and only used for road duty as they are heavy.

I always had assumed that the heavy wall ones were from the automatic and the light ones for the stick shifter, Mazda does use two part numbers. I though the "bad" ones were from and early batch of light weight ones on '93 cars, but that it wasn't a design issue

 

Note: You do not need to pull the wheel to check if it is thick or thin. insert finger behind spoke just outside of hub. Thin wheel has lots of room to move finger side to side. Thick spoke wheel has recess just about a finger width only.

Can we hear from any "LM" wheel owners .. do you have automatics, are they all thick spoked?? This thread seems consistant (so far) that manuals and R2's have "HH" wheels.

By the way all my wheels have a "JIC" or such, this is a Japanese Industrial Standard Insitute. Also all my "HH" wheels have the "HH" in a circle and a "PFD" in an oval next to it

 

this thread should go in newbie/faq for those wheel pics on pg 1 .... "wheels, oem"

There are at least 3 types of oem wheels: light, reinforced, and glossy reinforced.

Light rim build dates in this thread go from 5-92 to 3-94, and reinforced ones go from 6-92 to 10-93. I suspect multiple suppliers during most of the fd production period.

My 93T MT came with light rims, built 6-92. I bought another light set for driver ed stuff, two 6-92 and two 5-92. One of the 5-92 lights cracked ( the way the crack opened in back, I suspected high residual stresses from the casting process).

Special Cast-in Markings on My Inventory:

Light --------------------- JLL, HH, PFD
Reinforced -------------- JLL, LM
Glossy Reinforced ----- LM only

( the JLL could be JW, and the LM could be UM .... hard to read )

The "Glossy" ones are smoother than the rest, and have a metallic tint to them. My one glossy was built 2-92. My lights were built in 5-92 and 6-92. My reinforced pair are 2-92.

 

any feedback on wheel type/marking versus trim model

 

turbojeff...I had one crack on me about 2 years ago. I have a touring 93. The wheel lasted about 60k then decided to crack on me.

 

bump

 

could you possibly cryo or other metal harding methods the non-reinforced wheels, do you think that would help resist cracking?

 

I have a 94 Touring and the wheels on the car are mixed set thin in the front, and thick in the back. The number "94" cast into a grid on the front, and "93" is cast into the back wheels.

It looks like this:

 

Cryo is only for certain kinds of steel, so it won't work. I'm not aware of any process which might improve the toughness of aluminum, but if such a thing existed it would cost more than a set of reinforced wheels.

Aluminum has a finite life in these applications - if you ran the reinforced wheels long enough, they too would break. The trick is to make 'long enough' much more than the car can dish out.

Dave

 

Hmm, my original wheels (93 R1 w/ 92 build date) are reinforced and have a 92 stamp (see BLKTOPTRVL's image).

My track wheels came off a 94 touring (manual), have a 94 stamp, yet are the lightweight version.

Glad I could help add to the confusion

 

Honestly, I don't think it would even be worth it (even if it was possible). There are stronger inexpensive wheels that can be used. While they may be slightly heavier, it's not going to make that much of a difference especially if you aren't in competition. If you are in competition, you'd already have some REAL track rims.

 

Trying to drift this car with the brittle wheels seems like a bad idea. These will be much hight lateral stresses applied to the wheels in the areas where they are already prone to cracking.

 

i've owned 2 sets of fd wheels. 6 were nonreinforced. and 2 reinforced. 1 nonreinforced cracked. 1 reinforced cracked as well.

anyone see a problem with running 2 reinforced on drivers side and 2 nonreinforced on passengerside? is the 1.3lb difference on each wheel on the LH side going to affect vehicle handling? im deciding if i should have my tires remounted so i can stagger the wheels front to back rather than left to right

for those of u that have had these wheels crack where was it mounted? front or rears. rear here.

 

Pretty much any event that will put enough load on a tire to spin or slide will put maximum load on the tire. The grippier the tire, the higher the loading - so IIRC drifting doesn't use as sticky of a tire as, say road racing. If anything, I think the extreme heat being dumped into a wheel during road racing makes it the most stressful.

Anyway, pretty much any racing use maximizes tire capabilities and as such puts heavy loads on the wheel.

Dave

 

To be safe I would shy away from all of the non-reinforced wheels. It's a known issue that they crack adn that issue is easily avoided by not using them.

I own 3 sets of stock wheels, one set is the non-reinforced version. I plan to strip and powdercoat the "weak" set to use as street wheels. I will never put race rubber on them and use them at the track though. No sense in taking a risk you knew about ahead of time.

 

hmmm well i just checked my stock rims and they have the jic logo on them but i didnt take them off to check if they were reinforced, but from what everyone is saying those are the reinforced ones but my car is a 93 wit the r1 package

 

1994 PEP orig owner, car built 11/93, original wheels; all wheels have a lot of "finger clearance" in rear of spokes when tested as above. Stuff cast into rims includes the eggcrate followed by "93," what appears to be "JIL" in a weird merged script, another merged "LM" or "UM", "02," "16x8JJ," and "50." These appear to be the lighter weight wheels. 87 K miles, all street, no cracks visible.

 

Question is: Say you have lightwheels, not reinforced..say you take it to the roadcourse, say you're going 140 mph, say one cracks...say what would happen?