Race Car Tech Discuss anything related to road racing and auto X.

MMR vs. AWR Adj. FC Rear Camber Link Comparison

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-08-11, 10:44 PM
  #26  
Proven Lurker

iTrader: (3)
 
Continuum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Potomac, MD
Posts: 62
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jrx13
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!
Thank you. Yes, I confirmed Mazda is reselling the AWR version.

Yes, they are the Team Dynamics wheels. I have a mix of the old style and new. In the pic I think the old is on the rear and the new is on the front but difficult to make out. I like the newer ones a lot. They increased the size of the opening for the lug nuts so sockets don't bind as easily.


jason
Old 04-11-12, 11:51 PM
  #27  
dll
Junior Member

 
dll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
anyone do customization of stock links? Short it off? how much i must short it to reduce camber from -2,5 to zero?
Old 04-12-12, 12:39 AM
  #28  
dll
Junior Member

 
dll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
and other question. Anyone install this links without bearing bush and lateral links? It is ok with alligment toe 0 and camber 0 with much lowering car
Old 04-28-12, 09:04 AM
  #29  
Senior Member

 
wlfpkrcn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
These links are not 0 points for "simple camber" adjustment for NASA PT/TT classes. I have been going back and forth with Greg for almost 2 months now. Here is the final ruling.

Ok, the NASA Exec's have weighed in, and we all agree that unless there are subsequent changes in the rules regarding these parts, here is the bottom line as of 4-27-12.

1) The center "control link" functions as a sub-frame brace and sub-frame mount. You can modify (replace) this brace for the +3 points under rule 5.3.F.4)
Add or modify other chassis stiffening devices or fabricated parts (such as lower strut braces or lower arm braces (with greater than two attachment points), subframe connectors, subframe braces, subframe mounts/bushings, etc) +3

Slotting the chassis bolt holes for this link would have the same effect, so would take the same +3 point assessment. It would not be considered an alteration of suspension mounting points, but would be, as stated above, considered a modification of a subframe mount. If this +3 points assessment is taken, then the other aspects of this rule can also be taken advantage of (more chassis stiffening devices, etc).

2) The "outside" links that connect the subframe to the trailing arms are considered either part of the subframe suspension mounting points, or are considered part of the trailing arms, whichever will be to the benefit of the competitor. Modifying or replacing them will result in either a +6 point assessment for relocation of suspension mounting points (5.3.E.17), or a +4 point assessment for control arm modification (5.3.E.9). If there are spherical joints involved in the upgrade, then the additional +3 point assessment under rule 5.3.E.24) applies. If the competitor is already taking points for either 5.3.E.17) or 5.3.E.9) for other modifications, then there would be no additional assessment for replacing these links. If neither of those assessments is already taken, then replacing these links would result in the lower +4 point assessment for control arm modification (5.3.E.9). As well, all control arms on the vehicle could them be modified without additional assessment.

3) Slotting of the bolt holes in the trailing arm that the "outside" links use to connect the trailing arms to the subframe are permitted under the No-Points assessment within rule 5.3.E.9)--with or without the use of eccentric bolts or bushings.

Please feel free to print out this e-mail and keep a copy with the vehicle log book and with the PT Car Classification Form for future reference in the event of a tech inspection or protest.
Old 06-26-12, 11:42 AM
  #30  
1308ccs of awesome

iTrader: (9)
 
eage8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Woodbine, MD
Posts: 6,189
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by wlfpkrcn
These links are not 0 points for "simple camber" adjustment for NASA PT/TT classes. I have been going back and forth with Greg for almost 2 months now. Here is the final ruling.
for #2, the stock dog bones have spherical bearings in them, so replacing them with different sphericals wouldn't count extra would they?

bumping this thread because it's interesting

whiteline also makes some offset bushings.... but I imagine you'd have to keep the DTSS to get the triaxial hub to bend like that.

http://www.whiteline.com.au/product_..._number=KCA379
Old 06-26-12, 11:56 AM
  #31  
1308ccs of awesome

iTrader: (9)
 
eage8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Woodbine, MD
Posts: 6,189
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts
Also, anyone know what the rod ends that come with the MMR links are made of? Is it possible to replace them with something stronger/ less rust prone like chromoly rod ends?
Old 06-26-12, 03:55 PM
  #32  
1308ccs of awesome

iTrader: (9)
 
eage8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Woodbine, MD
Posts: 6,189
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by eage8
Also, anyone know what the rod ends that come with the MMR links are made of? Is it possible to replace them with something stronger/ less rust prone like chromoly rod ends?
nevermind, I re-read the description and it looks like they're already chromoly and teflin lined. It might still be possible to drill out the aluminum block though and put a larger rod end on it though.
Old 06-27-12, 01:07 AM
  #33  
Senior Member

iTrader: (3)
 
HotRodMex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by eage8
nevermind, I re-read the description and it looks like they're already chromoly and teflin lined. It might still be possible to drill out the aluminum block though and put a larger rod end on it though.
Not much meat to further drill out the block. Also, as it comes the rod end threads into a steel sleeve with a hex on top.

Has there been any experience with White part KCA379?


This looks like it would go in the upper hub mount on the control arm. I couldn't find instructions on the exact part, but I found instructions for a similar one from a GTO. Near as I can tell it would adjust exactly like this http://www.whiteline.com.au/instruction/Z333_KCA384.pdf

Real question is how this would interact with solid DTSS bushings.
Old 06-27-12, 01:25 PM
  #34  
Senior Member

 
wlfpkrcn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HotRodMex
Not much meat to further drill out the block. Also, as it comes the rod end threads into a steel sleeve with a hex on top.

Has there been any experience with White part KCA379?


This looks like it would go in the upper hub mount on the control arm. I couldn't find instructions on the exact part, but I found instructions for a similar one from a GTO. Near as I can tell it would adjust exactly like this http://www.whiteline.com.au/instruction/Z333_KCA384.pdf

Real question is how this would interact with solid DTSS bushings.
I have been thinking about a solution like this for our car to save the points. My plan was to figure out how much camber i can take out and then machine a bushing with the an offset center to match.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ItsJBohmzB
Build Threads
171
04-24-17 01:11 PM
primerGrey
Suspension/Wheels/Tires/Brakes
10
08-25-15 02:46 PM
RaY358
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
5
08-19-15 11:44 PM
GrossPolluter
Suspension/Wheels/Tires/Brakes
12
08-15-15 10:32 PM



Quick Reply: MMR vs. AWR Adj. FC Rear Camber Link Comparison



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:07 PM.