1991 suspension V.S. 1993 suspension (USA Car)

[buzz21]

I am Brand new to the site, in fact this is my first post.

My question is: is the suspension on the 1993 better than the one on the 1991 version.

I am looking to drive it on the street and do some track days with the car on the weekend.

This will help me decide on what year MR2 I will purchase.

Thank You for your input and opinion.

[canadam]

Welcome, fellow Canuck

You're going to get differning opinions on this. Most prefer the 93+ suspension because it's more refined, and easier to drive. The pre-93 suspension is slightly more "tail-happy." However, for your use, it may be worthwhile buying the cheaper 91/92 and running it hard on the track

[buzz21]

What do you mean by tail happy? the 1991's like to kick out more rather than hold the corner?

[PETC]

The Gen1 MK2s perpetuated the "OMG snap 0versteer!!!1!1one!!on11Eeleventy!" myth about how the MK2 likes to whip itself around violently and slam into everything that could possibly kill you instantly.

The suspension was a little harder to control/predict on the Gen1, but not horrible by any means. Snap Oversteer is a myth perpetuated by bad drivers who don't know the limits of their car.

You really can't loose with either the Gen1 or Gen2 suspension. I love my Gen2 suspension, and it works great for autox. However, in Canada, you're probably going to be hard pressed to find a Gen2 sitting around, and might have to settle for the Gen1. Just know the cars limits and don't go past those on the street!

[buzz21]

I will be importing from the states. So i am getting that there is really not much of a difference that i should really worry about it.

[mr2greasemonkey]

other than length of rear tie rods i didnt really see any noticeable difference in the rear. took a bunch of pics of a 91 and 93 subframe with lower control arms. front strut rods are different design but, same placement. looks like earlier version has adjustability while later version does not. lots of room for modifcations though.

[imweip]

I have a gen2, and it's pretty difficult under normal driving to get the back end out (in fact I've only done it once, while doing a u-turn and I got on it while still turning). I've heard the rumorous nightmares about the gen1, but never driven one myself. However a lot of people swear by the gen1 and think that with a skilled driver it will out perform the gen2. Im sure some of the more knowledgable guys will chime in here.

I myself like the gen2 because I'm not that good of a driver yet... after all I'm only 24, I have a lot to learn/practice. But I think my next car will be a 91or92na, and I'll do a 3rd gen swap on it... that's a few years out so I may change my mind, but from what I've been reading, so far, that's the way to go.

But just so you know the 93+ is slightly lower stock than the 91-92. My car is a 93 lowered about 2". You can see it in my member's garage.

[PETC]

One of the major differences is the actually size of the crossmember.

[Raptor13x]

Originally Posted by PETC

The Gen1 MK2s perpetuated the "OMG snap 0versteer!!!1!1one!!on11Eeleventy!" myth about how the MK2 likes to whip itself around violently and slam into everything that could possibly kill you instantly.

The suspension was a little harder to control/predict on the Gen1, but not horrible by any means. Snap Oversteer is a myth perpetuated by bad drivers who don't know the limits of their car.

You really can't loose with either the Gen1 or Gen2 suspension. I love my Gen2 suspension, and it works great for autox. However, in Canada, you're probably going to be hard pressed to find a Gen2 sitting around, and might have to settle for the Gen1. Just know the cars limits and don't go past those on the street!

You are right though. The '91-'92 suspension is absolutely no problem for someone who knows how to drive and respects the car. That said, most people don't know how to drive. As long as you remember never to lift off abruptly or brake during corners near the limit without being fully prepared for the back end to come out, you'll be fine.

[mr2slow4you]

My car is a 91, and when I did my turbo swap I swapped over all the 93 suspension components. I really like the differences, I still get my back out but I find it is alot more predicitable and usually stable. This could have to do with the larger tires and lsd I gained after the swap though.

[erioshi]

Here's what I have observed having both rear suspensions out of the car on the garage floor side-by-side.

For the most part, they are identical with just a few small changes. The biggest single difference is that the crossmember and rear toe endlinks have been changed on 93+ cars to remove the possibility of the suspension going into a toe-out configuration under extreme corner loads. The rear toe links are about 3.75" longer, and where they mount to the rear crossmember has been changed; that point was moved up by about 4mm (IIRC) and inward to accommodate the longer toe links.

[buzz21]

So the 93 would be better to get for the slight suspension update.

I also read something about the steering ratio being better (tighter) on the 1993 version. is that correct?

Thanks for your reply guys, great forum by the way.

[EL PAALO]

bigger brakes on the 93+ turbo is the best reason to get one, imo.

[AndrewMcG]

Better synchro's on the tranny on the 93+ turbo is the best reason to get one, imo.

[Mister2.2]

You are better off with a 93+, obviously. The 93+ had stiffer springs, longer trailing arms, 15" rims with wider tires, larger rotors, Larger throttle body, retuned throttle cam and better synchros.

The 94+ also had Multi Stage Struts and reinforced strut towers.

[mr2slow4you]

Do not forget the electronic speedo!

[JimKing]

Here's the straight dope:

Neither car is going to spin when driving straight down the road (duh!), but if you are rounding a corner near the limit and have to lift / brake or THE CORNER SUDDENDLY GET SHARER UNEXPECTELY, then the 91-92 is much more likely to swap ends suddenly on you.
In stock form, the 91-92 cars do this for two reasons:

1) Tire sizes: The 91-92 cars come with 195/60-14 on 6" wide rims front and 205/60-14 rear on 7" wide rims rear. The 93+ cars went to 15" rims of the same width, but have 195/55-15 front and 225/50-15 rear tires. More rear grip = less likely to spin.

2) Rear suspension geometry: The 91-92 rear suspension geometry is designed to TOE-OUT under lift throttle / braking. In the hands of an experienced driver on a race track, this helps the car rotate on entry to a turn as you ease off the brakes and begin turning in. On a race track where you know every turn and have good visibilily this is great. In the real world with surprises and turns that aren't quite what you expect this can be disasterous if you are driving fast.
The 93+ rear suspension, due to the longer rear toe-control links, TOES-IN slightely under lift throttle / braking. This means turn-in is not as "crisp" as the 91-92 cars, but the car is much more amenable to mid-turn corrections, even braking. Braking mid-turn in a 93+ car will still cause the rear to lighten up and in extreme cases to start slding/spinning, but a good driver can recover with some opposite lock steering. In the same situation with the 91-92 cars, the toe-out that happens literally kicks the rear of the car towards the outside of the turn, making the spin happen much, much more quickly.

Using a much larger front/rear tire width stagger on the 91-92 cars (eg: 205 front / 245 rear) helps make it harder to spin by increasing rear grip, but the overall geometry problem (or feature, depending on how you look at it) is still there.

This should be a sticky.

[buzz21]

Jim King,

thanks for taking the time to explain that, it helps allot.
Looks like a 1993 it will be.
Now i shall slide over to the V6 section and learn about this phenomenon.

[Weasy2k]

Welcome buzz....WHere in canada are you?

yea Jimking laid it out nicley!
Sticky would be nice, some good info in here.

[buzz21]

I am near Toronto.

Do you know anything about the cost of doing the day time running lights for the 93's or if they already have them. Ontario requres day time running lights on all cars now newer than 15 years old.