MMR vs. AWR Adj. FC Rear Camber Link Comparison
 

AWR: http://www.awrracing.com/store/produ...products_id=80

vs.

MMR: http://www.mmr-direct.com/

What is everyones experience here with either? I'm assuming the AWR is better?


Footnote: I am installing the MMR spherical rear control arm bearings/pillowballs.

I have both AWR and MMR parts. On the individual adjusters, I have MMR and they have worked fine for a DOT R and lots of negative camber, but I could not get the camber less than -.9 degrees with the MMR (and I have an AWR single adjuster that is maxed out as well). Tony says his will have no problem taking more camber out. If your tires need lots of camber, either will work fine. If you don't want much camber, I'd go AWR.

Mazdatrix sells ones that are very similar to AWR but with grease fittings:

http://mazdatrix.com/h6_86-92.htm

Hmm...

So:

Mazdatrix $270
AWR $201
MMR $125

Anyone else? Chime in!

Mazdatrix is a distributor of AWR parts.

You can get with and without grease fittings through AWR, or at least Tony used to offer them that way.

The AWRs let you dial out camber until the suspension pieces start to bind on themselves so more really isn't possible without doing something drastic. (I get -1.2 on a pretty low car).

I seem to get a bit of lateral motion to the links during the suspensions range of motion so I know the AWRs let the sleeve float to compensate. Not sure about the MMRs but I suspect it's similar.

Because of this those internal sleeves try to bind up on the AWR's over time so you need to tear them down about once a year (again MMRs should be similar). Grease fittings help but don't quite have a means to get the grease to where it matters so nothing beats a tear down.

AWRs are on car adjustable, not sure about the MMRs.

MMR's are on car adjustable too.

Steve

FWIW I had one of the AWR ones break right at a thread root and he sent me a free replacement. Keep them oily so they don't rust. The bolt is coated with something but a little rust in a thread root can cause a weak point in a place that's already got a stress riser to begin with. That's my theory on why it broke anyway.

so mmr would be the best choice durability and pricewise?

The MMR one has threads too, so there is still a weak point there. It can't be helped if you want something adjustable.

I've been running the MMR adjusters for about a year, no problems yet. Haven't really adjusted them as I need to sort out some other things in the suspension but no signs of binding or fatigue . I'm at 25" in the rear with -3* or more camber (eyeballing).

If you have to break down the adjusters w/ grease fittings annually anyway, I fail to see the point.... I'll just buy 2 sets of MMR adjusters for that price.

My apologies for resurrecting an old thread...

Does anyone have any experience with the AWR and MMR compared to the parts from Mazda Motorsports: 0000-04-7420 "CAMBER ADJ. KIT (RR)" for $187? I am presuming here that the Mazda part is intended to perform the same function. I cannot find a picture of it but I do know the subframe adjuster is a separate part.

Any comments on legality in ITS?


Thank you,

jason

Most of the Mazda Motorsports stuff was AWR stuff.

So that part number should be the same as:

http://store.awrracing.com/rx-7-rear...986-1992-rx-7/

BTW are those Team Dynamic wheels on your RX-7. I'm running the same ones now as well!

Absolutely not legal for ITS, however people have been known to use them probably from a lack of not reading the rule book very thoroughly or because finding a way to adjust rear camber on an FC that does fit within the IT rules is difficult.

Is there actually a way to adjust rear camber "legally" and stay within the GCR? Offset bushings I guess?

I believe that is the way. Put offset bushings in the center subframe link to get the length needed. As to the stock dogbones, they need to stay.

These are legal in NASA PT as they are a part for camber adjustment only. We run the AWR ones fitted with zerks, keep them greased, and we have yet to have one fail with serious track time on them.

i have -3.2 on the rear, do u guys think the mmr should work fine?

Stay away from the MMR ones. Also if you have delrin or spherical rear control arm bushings you cant use any of these, they will just bind up and break. Your best bet is just to use the center mazdaspeed adj subframe link.

all i have is coilovers and just dont want to wear the tires, i hardly put 2k miles each year :D
i am assuming this is what i am changing.
http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/z...R/DSC05469.jpg

Don't the individual adjusters require spherical bearing outer control arm pickups to operate correctly? Delrin and poly binds.

I've had MMR and AWR. No real complaints on either.

Correct, that link in your picture is replaced with one that adjusts.

Word from Tony has always been that the poly bushings have enough flex axially and torsionally to allow the use of the links. His documentation says to avoid spherical and solid (delrin, etc).

To be clear about my strategy i try to minimize the adjustment from the stock length as much as possible. I only use the individual links to make small adjustments side to side. Any larger adjustment and i use the center link. Using either the center link or the individual side links to make a LOT of large changes causes binding and other problems.

EDIT: In thinking about it we could be talking apples and oranges. The MMR adjusters have rod end heim joints correct? This allows a certain degree of freedom that must be taken up somewhere else in the suspension perhaps? Thus with the MMR ones you want to install spherical main trailing arm bushings? This is all conjecture as i have not run any of MMRs stuff on anything i have.

I DO know AWR strongly discourages using spherical or solid main trailing arm bushings with their adjusters. But thier adjusters have solid metalic double bushings at both ends.

i guess i will order awr, so there is no confusion.,. thanks 4 the help guys.,., :)

why would a spherical trailing arm bearing be bad? no binding whatsoever.

i've found that both MMR and AWR links need to modified a little bit to work properly (not bind). neither design is perfect, each have their ups/downs. i've never broken either, but I believe MMR is better.

MMR:
I left out the spacers that go on either side of the rodend. if you cycle the suspension, you'll notice that the link needs to move side-side (as frijolee stated). the rodend needs to slide on the bolt. with spacers in, it puts a bending load on the rodend and will snap it in the threads. i greased the middle of the bolt and its all good. just use a lockwasher and snug up the bolt in the control arm.
for the top bolt (block end of link), i found that the sleeve isnt long enough to allow the link to rotate freely. with the top bolt tight, the link was locked in place, so suspension motion again puts bending on the rodend. i tightened the nut on the top bolt to a point just before it pinches the block, and then used a jamnut to secure it.

AWR/Mazdatrix:
dont use the jamnut on the upper block. as the suspension cycles, the upper and lower blocks rotate slightly with respect to each other, so the bolt needs to be free on one end. the only nut i use is on the lower block to prevent the bolt from rotating (changing camber).
grease the threads through the upper block and leave it free. camber wont change as long as the bolt is secured to one of the blocks, and this way they can rotate slightly with suspension motion.
the bolt will still see bending, you just have rely on the material's strength to keep it alive.
top and bottom bolts can be tightened normally assuming the sleeves are well greased.

My best guess is that it is bad because it does not have any limiting factor to its motion around the bolt thus putting extra stress on the camber links.... with a very slightly flexible bushing involved it takes up some of the stress of the moment against the main trailing arm bolt, thus relieving stress from the camber link....

Its all in static and dynamic forces throughout the whole suspension...