Quote:
Originally Posted by runabout93
Oh yeah... While we are still on suspension. Anyone know of a writeup about the differences between 91-92 and 93+ suspension? And how to convert to 93+ if desired or any thoughts on it?
|
There was an extensive breakdown a few years ago on the IMOC mailing list which even gave every last part number for the conversion.
FWIW however, the general consensus is to stick with the 91-92 suspension if you have an NA, as "snap" didn't really plague these models. It was mainly due the increased power and rear weight bias of the turbo that caused it to exhibit these symptoms.
Look at it this way, the original design is what was intended for the car, and gave the car a "live feel" that is nearly missing with the 93 NA's, as they had "mind numbing understeer" a direct quote from R&T's 93 road test, while C&D basically said the fun was gone, in not those exact words.
Keep in mind that the redesign was done for "lawsuit reasons" - as one might assume it was a pure upgrade, had they not researched it fully. Sure, grip increased marginally (around .02g) but the wheel / tire improvement, or for that matter the stickier compound alone, would account for that, not to mention the increase in spring and damping rates. In other words, there is no reason I can see to spend the bucks on the conversion for your pre-93 NA.
Take it from someone that has owned a few of both styles back to back - hands down the 91-92 NA has more of a "MKI feel" in the curvies. However, if someone is a "dangerous" driver, I am sure the 93 setup will give a little more insurance, at the price of the mild loss of turn-in response, and a chunk out of their wallet.