I know the suspension is stiffer on R1 & R2 models. Is the stock ride height lower on R1 & R2's then on other Base and Touring models?

 

Yep it's 1 inch lower than touring.Had r1 and still have touring.

 

same height..

 

Um, no... they all have the same springs. The difference was the more aggressively valved (read: stiffer) shocks.

 

Well, how about this....
I live in a house where myself and my two roommates have FD's. One is a 95 R2, another is a 94 Touring, and mine is a 94 base. The touring has the Eibach pro kit spring set on it and before I put my car on jack stands, it was stock base suspension. The R2 still has stock suspension. Out of all three of these cars, the R2 is the lowest. Stock base suspension is deffinitely higher riding than anything else by an obvious amount. The pro kit spring set had the car sitting just over an inch lower than the base model. You can look up part numbers and compare them if you want, but remember that the Showa 'hard' struts may have different spring seats than the base suspension struts, which would in turn cause different ride height settings. I would agree that it feels like there is a difference in spring rates between the two, however, antiroll capabilities is really where the two are proven different. There are always no fewer than 2 FD's in my garage at any time and I see 3-4 in my driveway on a day to day basis. There is a difference.

 

Thats weird, cause they should not have a difference between R1, R2 and base touring. Just stiffer struts and spring rates. I will go home re-read "the Sports Car Color History" on the "Mazda Rx7". That book has much helpful information.

 

The R1 is lower than the R2. They raised the car in 94/95 to soften the suspension a little. I thought the springs were the the same in all cars with the same model year, with the "R" cars getting stiffer shocks.

 

All the springs between models are identical. I have seen several different touring models of different years and they ALL were different heights. I think it comes down more to car-to-car variance than differences between models.

 

Tyler, They softened the suspension in 94. To do this, they changed the springs. They put in softer, slightly taller springs. I believe the rest of the suspension effecting ride height remained the same.

Some cars with different wheels/tires will have different heights.

 

Well, there seem to be a lot of different opinions. Does anyone know for sure? Anyone have a link to the stock ride heights?

 

We ALL know for sure!

 

I thought they reduced the damper rebound and rear swaybar size in 94+ R2s?

I'm fairly sure Mazda did not change the size of the springs. Doing so would require them to use springs atleast one coil taller (in order to have the same mounting characteristics) which would be much taller than you'd expect, or else they would have to retool the coils altogether.

 

Yes, they decreased the rear sway bar thickness to give it more of an understeer charateristic. They though that would be a little more safe. People were complaining of snapy oversteer.

Again, I get all my information from "Sports Car Color History" on the "Mazda Rx7". I do not have the book with me, because I am supposed to be working right now. So if someone has it on hand please verify what I am saying. Or clear up the confussion.

 

The part numbers are the same for the springs, for 93's anyway, no matter what model you have.

 

The 93 drivers side rear spring part number is: FD03-82-011
The 94 drivers side rear spring part number is: FD15-82-011B

Mazda informs me that these are two completely different parts. The 94 part does not supercede the 93 part, meaning that it is not intended to replace it. They are two different springs.

 

Not sure about the damper, but they did reduce the rear sway diameter in 94. That would not effect the ride height.

 

Of course it wouldn't, I was just including all of the suspension changes .

With the parts information that you provided, Mazda most likely retooled the 94+ springs to have more coils.

 

Huh, I never realized they softened the spring rate too. I thought they only softened the shock valving and reduced the thickness of the rear anti-roll bar. Well, you learn something new every day.

 

That's good because I forget something every day

 

Haha, I forget more things every day than I learn, methinks. That doesn't bode well for my old age...

 

For 93s all the models have the same springs. So the answer to the question "is the ride height on a R1 the same" is YES. It is the SAME as other 93s.

I know they changed the p/n on later cars springs but that doesn't mean the ride height is different.

I've had 16 FDs, only 2 94s but they ALL have different ride heights after a while. The biggest culprit I've noticed is the upper spring mount is rubber, over time the spring really digs into the rubber lowering the car. I've seen stock car height vary by 1" pretty frequently.

Also since a 93 Base is the lightest and all 93 5spd cars (not sure about autos) have the same springs the Base model will be the highest the Touring will be the lowest.

The weight difference between my 93 R1 and a friends 94 Touring with nearly the EXACT (diff brand IC and intake) same mods was 120lbs on corner scales at a santioned SCCA event. The 94 Touring also had all the R1 parts on it, 2nd oil cooler, fr and r spoilers, R1 strut brace and seats.

On 93s the only significant suspension difference between R1 and Touring/Base cars was the shocks.

 

Is this in a FAQ somewhere? If not, it should be. I've read countless posts about the springs being the same on ALL US FD's...

 

I simply called the local Mazda parts dept for the info. I was certain that they were different, but I wanted proof.

 

You coulda just looked at the parts catalog on iluvmyrx7.com, thats all the Mazda dealers have to go by anyways.

 

Yes, I could have done that. Easier/faster to let someone else do it that knows where to look. Those guys know me, and don't mind.