If not, what are the differences?

I seem to recall reading some info a while back on this, but a search turned up nada.

 

I don't know the rates, but I'm pretty sure the R1 springs are stiffer than the touring springs.

 

From reading a few of the other posts, it seems the difference was the shocks, not the springs.

Howard Coleman has also made references to matching the Eibach Springs with the Touring shocks verses the R1's which supports that they are different.

 

Damn it, i READ that post and completely forgot that. Oh well.

 

Right, the R1s came with Bilsteins, which were quite a bit stiffer than the Tourings shocks. I need to know about the springs, however .

Basically, my dad just bought a set of used Tokicos with stock Touring springs, and before we install them we need to know if we should switch over his stock R1 springs (his stock R1 shocks are toast, thus the need for new suspension).

 

The springs are the same between the models. However, they are supposedly different between 93 and 94/95.

 

Yup, as far as the 93 models, only the shocks were different.

 

R1 springs are identical to non R1 springs.

howard coleman

 

Thanks guys

 

The springs on all 93-95 US models are the same.


94 and 95 cars had softer rear sway bars. Shocks vary among models.

 

From the always usefull Steve Cirian site -

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:19:24 +0100
From: "Bernd Kluesener"

R1 front R1 rear R2 front R2 rear

Wire diameter 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48
Number of active coils 4.27 4.21 4.02 4.21
Mean coil diameter 4.13 4.516 4.12 4.516
Free length 10.74 11.77 10.50 11.93

Spring rate lbs/in 269.5 192.5 265.5 192.5
Spring rate kp/mm 5.01 3.58 4.94 3.58

_

 

If that's true I stand corrected, they are not the same. They may as well be considered the same though as I challenge anyone to feel a difference in a 1.5% difference of front spring rate...

 

i have a digital (read: accurate) spring tester. i have tested 20-30 fd springs. they average out at 263 front and 195 rear regardless of R1/non R1.

howard coleman

 

While the springs may have a spring rate that is very close, they are not the same length. The 94/95 cars have slightly longer springs. If you compare ride height for stock cars, you will find that the 93's ride lower. My 94 FD (with stock suspension at 54K miles) sits at 27" at the rear fender well, and about 1/2" lower in the front. EVERY stock 93 that I have seen sits lower than the 94/95's. Since all of the other components, that effect ride height, are the same between model years, the springs have to be different.

If you contact Mazda, you will find different part numbers for the later model springs. Unfortunately, they can't/won't/don't tell you the difference in length.

This should be easy enough to settle. Mahjik has a 93 FD. Rynberg has a 95. I believe that both of them have removed their stock springs. If you guys will measure them, and report your findings, we will know the answer

 

I think that the point that Howard was making was that there are slight variiation in the springs based on manufacturing tolerances and wear and tear. They have essentially the same spring rates. As far as the free spring lenght I would guess that you would need to measure several springs to confirm the measurments that Bernd Kluesener posted to the "Big List" in '98. I can only assume that these were based on a comparison of single set of springs from each model.