Spec Miata Community   
search | help | calendar | games | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello Spec Miata Community » Sports Car Club of America » SCCA Great Lakes » NB Suspension on NA cars (Page 2)

 - Email this page to someone! | Subscribe To Topic
Page 2 of 2 1  2 
 
Author Topic: NB Suspension on NA cars
Z-MAN Verified Driver
Member

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 54
Year : 1990
Posts: 711
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Z-MAN     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Good point...

I recently saw a pile of 99 front sub-frames with A-Arms and steering racks attached at an "Experienced" parts supplier.

I think that is the way to buy them - then you know you have everything you need.

The yards are full of this stuff - why put brand new stuff on a car that is 15 - 20 years old and has more bent parts then straight parts on it (most SMs are no where near straight)

MZ

DickCDawg Verified Driver
Member

Region: East Tennessee
Car #: 39
Year : 1992
Posts: 29
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for DickCDawg     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

[QUOTE]Originally posted by B Wilson:
...So really the minimum cost is $150 used front subframe, a $100 used steering rack (priced at car-part.com) and an alignment.

Jim Drago gave me a different opinion - he says the '99 front uprights are needed, and that requires the '99 upper control arms because the ball joint taper in the upright differs from NA's, and the upper ball joint/UCA come as a unit.

His 'safe' estimate of prices here in Tennessee are:
99 front sub frame $369 new $200 used
99 steering gear assembly $350 new $125 used
99 left and right spindles $170 new $100 used
99 UCAs & ball joints $224 new $140 used
Totals before shipping/tax $1113 new $565 used

Dick
#39SM - SeDiv North

B Wilson Verified Driver Series Champ
Gold Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 68
Year : 91
Posts: 2359
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for B Wilson   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

"I have been told by reliable sources that the geometry of a 99 upper/99 spindle combination is the same as an early combination. But you can not use a 99 spindle with early upper, or vice versa. So there is no need to buy upper arms and spindels. "

Drago, Dave, or anyone who has cheated these up [Big Grin] , please advise -- UCA needed or not...

-bw
PS, if this does go through, I will be doing mine for the low end as that's what I always do and usually finish well, actually nothing worse than a podium in this years regionals and nationals, well except for one wreck [Wink]

--------------------
Bruce Wilson
2010 Oregon Region Champ
2010 Monte Shelton Driver of the Year
2010 25 Hours of Thunderhill E3 and Under 2 liter Overall Champion
Oregon Region SM Class Advisor

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

NO TRUE BRUCE. YOUR STATEMENT AND CHEATED UP PART [Big Grin]
The 99 spindle geometry is different. The taper on upper ball joint is also different, so a 99 up spindle must be matched with 99 or newer upper arm. Unless you find the ball joint somewhere separate? then you can just press it in 90-97 upper arm. Mazda does not sell ball joint separate, but it may be sold separately somewhere aftermarket, never looked.
Jim

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

B Wilson Verified Driver Series Champ
Gold Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 68
Year : 91
Posts: 2359
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for B Wilson   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I should have said anyone ELSE who cheated up... Not meaning to imply... oh well you know what I was trying to say.

Jim, yes the 99 spindle won't fit the early control arm, but the quote from Dave says the early spindle combined with the early uca is the same geometry as the 99 spindle combined with the 99 uca, ergo no need to replace early UCA and spindle when upgrading???

-Bruce
PS, been waiting a long time to use ergo in a post

--------------------
Bruce Wilson
2010 Oregon Region Champ
2010 Monte Shelton Driver of the Year
2010 25 Hours of Thunderhill E3 and Under 2 liter Overall Champion
Oregon Region SM Class Advisor

Motor City Hamilton
Member

Region: Great Lakes/Detroit
Car #: 51
Year : 1994 Miata
Posts: 401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Motor City Hamilton     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Then what makes the track wider on the front? Gotta be the subframe or the spindle? Right?

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Bruce,
If you didnt believe my answer? Why would ask me for it? [Eek!] [Big Grin]
The 99 spindle is 100% different, the tie rod mounts in a different location?
as far as uppers, they are the same less the ball joint.

Jim

go ahead and ask me again [Big Grin]

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

B Wilson Verified Driver Series Champ
Gold Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 68
Year : 91
Posts: 2359
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for B Wilson   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Maybe I will [Smile]

-bw

--------------------
Bruce Wilson
2010 Oregon Region Champ
2010 Monte Shelton Driver of the Year
2010 25 Hours of Thunderhill E3 and Under 2 liter Overall Champion
Oregon Region SM Class Advisor

B Wilson Verified Driver Series Champ
Gold Member

Region: Oregon
Car #: 68
Year : 91
Posts: 2359
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for B Wilson   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Damn page breaks. Just to be clear that wasn't my statement, but a quote from a quote. I'm going with Jim on this one as he sounds like he knows what hes' talkin 'bout.

Now going to re-calculate my minimum cost numbers.

-bw

--------------------
Bruce Wilson
2010 Oregon Region Champ
2010 Monte Shelton Driver of the Year
2010 25 Hours of Thunderhill E3 and Under 2 liter Overall Champion
Oregon Region SM Class Advisor

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by B Wilson:
Maybe I will [Smile]

-bw

[Big Grin]

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

Teamfour Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: WDCR
Car #: 04
Year : 1993
Posts: 519
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Teamfour   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

If replacing the spindles, will the '93 hubs still fit? Also, no LCA replacement required?

--------------------
Lee Tilton
1993 Meowta #04
Brimtek Motorsports/ Team Four Racing
Team Four Racing

Z-MAN Verified Driver
Member

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 54
Year : 1990
Posts: 711
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Z-MAN     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Here's my calculation:

My current 94 + $600 for NB Upgrade = Half a chance of running near the big dogs. [yep]

-V-

Sell the 94 and build a $20,000 - $30,000 NB to run near the big dogs. [nope]

-V-

Don't do the upgrade - walk on SM - convert a car to E/FP or ITA... Because I'm not going to go run SSM or SM2 or any other lame duck class that's invented for NA's only to run just so I can say I was 7th... Instead of I was 17th... [banghead]


MZ

Muda Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
ComingToAMirrorNearYou

Region: WDC
Car #: #23
Year : 1991
Posts: 642
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Muda     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Z-MAN:
I can say I was 7th...

Another Z-Man was proud to be 7th. [Wink]

--------------------
Muda Motorsports
"We're all here 'cause we're not all there."

JimEli Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: NWR
Car #: 5
Year : 1991
Posts: 252
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for JimEli   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Wow, this is starting to sound like we're headed down a '99 shock hat, spacer, fat cat road.

Where is somebody that has accomplished this conversion and the substantiating data?

FWIW, my local junkyards are listing parts near MM new prices.

--------------------
UPR.com
Team LemonLappers

Z-MAN Verified Driver
Member

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 54
Year : 1990
Posts: 711
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Z-MAN     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Muda:
quote:
Originally posted by Z-MAN:
I can say I was 7th...

Another Z-Man was proud to be 7th. [Wink]
Glad you noticed the reference... Man that is funny even after watching it ten times...

MZ

Z-MAN Verified Driver
Member

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 54
Year : 1990
Posts: 711
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Z-MAN     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by JimEli:
Wow, this is starting to sound like we're headed down a '99 shock hat, spacer, fat cat road.

Where is somebody that has accomplished this conversion and the substantiating data?

FWIW, my local junkyards are listing parts near MM new prices.

Guys have been getting caught with this mod ever since 1999 probably when the first 99 was rear ended and ended up in a junk yard - It's pretty straight forward - the measurements don't lie.

The under hood and chassis dimensions are the same - the bolt locations for all the model years sub frames is the same - the difference is in the parts in question.

However, I know there are guys that love the way the 1.6 handles - they won't have to change if they don't want to. It will be an option.


MZ

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by JimEli:
Wow, this is starting to sound like we're headed down a '99 shock hat, spacer, fat cat road.


You could always go back to the 90-97 shock hats and MS bumpstop kit? I bet you won't [Wink]
You guys blow that deal way out of proportion.

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Willie the Tard:
Mike could you point me to that rule -- I do not see it in 9.1.8.4
Thanks [/QB]

Not sure what happened here, I think this is the second time this slipped? I should be able to get it added, worst case it will be in next Fastrack

O. All cars 1990-1997 are permitted to use the "R" model tie rod ends part#N021-32-280A
Jim

[ 08-05-2010, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Drago ]

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

Steve D. Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Once you get past the gag reflex, the jelly ain't bad!

Region: Atlanta
Car #: 30
Year : 1999
Posts: 652
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Steve D.     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by JimEli:
FWIW, my local junkyards are listing parts near MM new prices.

...which goes to show you the substantial deal Mazda cuts for its racers. [thumbsup]

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Drago:
quote:
Originally posted by Willie the Tard:
Mike could you point me to that rule -- I do not see it in 9.1.8.4
Thanks

Not sure what happened here, I think this is the second time this slipped? I should be able to get it added, worst case it will be in next Fastrack

O. All cars 1990-1997 are permitted to use the "R" model tie rod ends part#N021-32-280A
Jim [/QB]

Cool thanks

--------------------
William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard

Neil O Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: DC
Posts: 68
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Neil O   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Regardless of weight and plates adjustments most will agree that the NB will still be an easier car to drive.

I doubt this update will be the be all- end all for the NA. Without the update, the NA has one less option to be as competitive as possible.

Just my 1 cent.

[ 08-05-2010, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Neil O ]

--------------------
SM #06
http://www.columbiatile.com

Waterboy Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: WDC
Car #: 15
Year : 1995
Posts: 314
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Waterboy     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Neil O:
Regardless of weight and plates most will agress that the 99 will still be an easier to drive car.

Will this update be the be the end be all for a NA, probably not.


Are you drinking already

--------------------
Tim Jacobs
Montgomery Irrigation

Z-MAN Verified Driver
Member

Region: Mid-South
Car #: 54
Year : 1990
Posts: 711
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Z-MAN     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

I started the this thread to openly discuss the situation and get the pro's and con's out there. And I like the idea and I really hoped that I could convert a few of the guys from the opposition.

In the last few days I have gotten a lot of PM's with reasons why we should not do this, most seam to be mid pack guys that have good points, they have fun where they are and do not think they should change - and in reality those guys probably shouldn't - until they have an off and need to replace the sub frame


Here is a response to a well thought out argument for not making the change that I made today - the driver is an admittedly mid-pack to front mid-pack guy that seams to know what he is doing - I wanted to share it with all of you.


I understand your point of view but I still don't understand your opposition. And here is where I think we differ the most - you think that somehow the CRB and BOD will slow down the NB cars - IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

I'm going to rant a bit - sorry but I'm trying my best to change your mind so here goes:

I have driven a very good 99 and it is more fun then you can believe - you don't have to fight the car nearly as much - even when the setup isn't right it is still more fun to drive then an NA car...

The suspension should help the average driver enjoy the race more but, if you already run an SM and you are having fun and on a budget you will have to consider if the change is really worth it to you and something you should do.

IMO - Most guys run cars that are not at the highest level of prep, the engine is down a few HP and they have no idea how to do anything with the set up so they are mid pack guys and they have a blast. The NB suspension change is probably not going to help them much and they probably shouldn't do it - it's most likely a waste of money for them.

However, the guys that are running 7-8-9-10 and the car is a high level of prep, the engine has good power and they work on the set up all weekend so in the last race of the week end the car is as good as it will be - when they make the change to NB suspension the money is going to be well spent - the NB cars will find that with the lower weight the tires on the NA car are a little better, the brakes are a little better and at the end of the race the NA driver is a little less tired then he has been in the past from fighting the car for 40 minutes and suddenly the guy might be fighting for a 2nd or third or maybe a win if the stars are lined up right.

As for pushing guys to ITA - hell some regions are so bad that they invented new SM classes like SSM and SM2 - that is the biggest reason right there - half the fields at some races are SM cars that have given up on SM because the cars are so different and the NB's are killing them - and once again I can promise you the 99's will not be given any major change that will slow them down very much - not anytime soon.

If we don't take this offer we can forget about NA cars ever being the preferred car again. The resell value will continue to drop and they will be second class cars and run only in ITA, converted to FP or GLT or run SSM so they can say they won the race when they finished 12th in the field...

So, we can live with what we have and most of us will still have fun running where we are or we can take the option that is being offered to us and maybe run a little better have closer races and maybe win some races.

As for slowing down the NB's I think we might get 25 pounds here or there and a few mm on the plates but this is our best shot at making the front of the grid a place where any car can run at any track.

Mark Zwolle


Note - I am just a mid pack SM racer (well I think I'm a front mid pack guy [yep] - others may disagree [duck] ) - I do not hold any position on any board, I think my 94 is fairly well prepped and I want to run with the guys in the NB's without building a new car.

d mathias Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Member

Region: OVR
Car #: 88
Year : 1991
Posts: 2401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for d mathias     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
and once again I can promise you the 99's will not be given any major change that will slow them down very much - not anytime soon
Have to ask - what evidence is this promise based on.

P.S. It's still possible for a 1.6 to whoop-up on the occasional 99+ - I did it last weekend [Big Grin]

Motor City Hamilton
Member

Region: Great Lakes/Detroit
Car #: 51
Year : 1994 Miata
Posts: 401
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Motor City Hamilton     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Z-Man, I'll post my PM to you out in the public so every has the other side of the issue. Again, good debate, differing opinions. Just trying to limit the number of upgrade options we have to spend money on. See PM below.

And, by the way, I don't consider myself a mid packer on the regional level. I'm right there. Usually top 10% of the field. I have two regional wins and two regional 2nds in the four events I have entered this year. You can call me mid pack for Nationals, but not regionals.

----------

We just differ on opinions. I think that if the 99's are that much better, then why not make them less attractive to build - slow them down. Instead of small changes to the 99, they are asking for large changes to the majority of the class. Sure there are used parts available all day long right now, but are there 2,000 sets of used parts available? 4,000?

I have 20 years of suspension experience. Bump steer is over rated and I doubt any regional driver can truly feel the difference or reduce lap times by simply eliminating bump steer. I'm not saying bump steer has no affect, it just has less than everyone is making it out to be. It's not about the bumps. This change is more about increased caster, wider track and I'm not clear, but will this also give more front camber? Those will provide a big advantage to those of us who understand how to use them.

You keep talking to me like I don't get it - what kind of upgrade this is. I do understand what it can do to the car. I know it sounds like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth, this will make me faster, yet I don't want it. I simply don't like the idea that fewer and fewer parts from the donor car are going to be useful, if we go down the road to make this all one spec of car. All across the SCCA there are cars with different weight, manufacturer, power, etc and they manage that with weight and restrictors. We are in a class with three generations of the same car that are already very close in parity. Why are we making large changes here that now make parts from the early years less optimal? That's the issue I have with this. Why can't we slow the 99s more? It can be done. I already hear that they are less fun to drive, make them slower too. I just think this change will raise the overall expense of the class and pushes us closer to ITA than the spirit of lower budget racing in Spec Miata. We are not Spec Racer Ford, we are in between that and ITA and I believe we should stay there.

Just my opinion. I understand that about half the class is on this side and half wants this. I respect both sides and will get in line with the rule whichever is in place. Right now it is just healthy debate. Once a ruling is made, I'm not the type of guy to dwell on it and bitch for years afterwords (like the guys complaining about Fat Cats, flywheels, etc.). That stuff is in the past. Let's all get our votes in and let the board and SCCA make their decisions, then call it done.

Drago Verified Driver Made Donation to Website Series Champ
MegaModerator

Region: mid south
Car #: 2
Year : 1999
Posts: 4275
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Drago   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Just to throw some facts out there...

This suspension proposal is NOT to speed anyone up or slow anyone down. This is to allow all SM drivers to legally run the best suspension that will bolt into there car, the suspension other generations are already LEGALLY using. Nothing more, nothing less.

Motor city is correct in this is far more than a bump steer corection issue.


Jim

--------------------
Jim Drago
East Street Auto Salvage
jdrago1@aol.com
2006-2007 Mid-West Division
07,09 June Sprints Champion

EAST STREET RACING

Kent Carter Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Future Never Has Been

Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991
Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Kent Carter   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

You know.... for about $400 bucks you could allow SM drivers to legally run the best ECU that will bolt onto their car.

Taking the leanness out of the NA cars at midrange would flatten out the torque curve and taking the richness out of the upper revs would make better HP. And... it could be policed, just like the cup cars.

But now I see the problem with this. It might actually speed the 1.6 cars up and make them get off the corners better. 'Equivalence' is the goal, not parity.

Just leave the suspension alone and plate the 99's until they are unattractive enough to where people stop building them.

--------------------
Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?

Willie the Tard Verified Driver
Member

Region: NASA Texas
Car #: 8
Year : 92
Posts: 697
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Willie the Tard   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

quote:
Originally posted by Kent Carter:
You know.... for about $400 bucks you could allow SM drivers to legally run the best ECU that will bolt onto their car.

Taking the leanness out of the NA cars at midrange would flatten out the torque curve and taking the richness out of the upper revs would make better HP. And... it could be policed, just like the cup cars.

But now I see the problem with this. It might actually speed the 1.6 cars up and make them get off the corners better. 'Equivalence' is the goal, not parity.

Just leave the suspension alone and plate the 99's until they are unattractive enough to where people stop building them.

silly rabbit can't you read we already have parity

--------------------
William Keeling a.k.a. Willie the Tard

Kent Carter Verified Driver Made Donation to Website
Future Never Has Been

Region: Houston
Car #: 91
Year : 1991
Posts: 2171
Status: Offline
Icon 1 posted  Profile for Kent Carter   Author's Homepage     Edit/Delete Post  Report this post to a Moderator

Aaron will be testing the 99 subframe in the NA this weekend. We'll see how he does.

--------------------
Do I turn my 99 Hard S into a killerfast SM or seek a donor?

 
Page 2 of 2 1  2 
 

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
Hop To: