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

[MR2TRD1]

I love the 91/92 suspension. Since I've swapped over to coilovers its extremely predictable. There is a 180 degree exit ramp where I work and sometimes in the rain the back will kick out, but its extremely smooth and controllable (if you can drive). Sometimes I just give it power and hold the angle. Before this setup I had KYB's and Suspension Technique springs. It was very twitchy and it wasn't easy to regain control once it slid out.

[Gairloch]

Originally Posted by pothiawala786

So Gairloch, just curious, but what exactly is your susp setup?

KYB struts
RSR race springs
Stock sway bars?
Stock 91 crossmember, etc (assuming your car's a 91)

what are you alignment settings?
tire sizes?

Also, are RSR race springs linear or progressive?

That's exactly right, for the moment. I really want to get rid of the KYBs.

I'm running:
5* caster up front
-1.8* camber all around
Zero toe up front and just barely a hint of negative toe in back. I'd have to look to know for sure what it is. I was running zero toe but the car was rotating a bit easier than I wanted it to.

Hankook RS-2 235/40-17 in back and 215/40-17 in front.

They are a progressive rate spring.

[KaDuWin]

Originally Posted by MR2TRD1

I love the 91/92 suspension. Since I've swapped over to coilovers its extremely predictable. There is a 180 degree exit ramp where I work and sometimes in the rain the back will kick out, but its extremely smooth and controllable (if you can drive). Sometimes I just give it power and hold the angle. Before this setup I had KYB's and Suspension Technique springs. It was very twitchy and it wasn't easy to regain control once it slid out.

Yeah I feel as though, that back when Toyota did the revisions to the suspension I think that instead of changing the rear toe end linkage, and such, I think if they simply increased the size of the tire width, (14in rims for any car especially a sports like the MR2 was a down right insult never mind a joke) as well as increased the stiffness of the shock, (the black bilsteins that came with the G-Limited later on would have done just fine) put a slightly more aggressive tire on the car, and maybe lower it like they did then they wouldn't have had to go back and make the car ultimately handle worse than it originally was designed to do.

Originally Toyota set out to build a production car which would have the handling characteristics of the supercars of the day. And they did it with the first gen MK2. One of the problems was the daily/average driver wasn't prepared for the car, the other problem was that Toyota got the car to react amazingly well; too well even, and they forgot to increase the lateral grip of the car, if they did that the car wouldn't have been nearly as hard for the average driver to control.

Take the Noble M12 and M400 basically it was the same idea, minimal understeer ("point and shoot" type of steering reaction) with plenty of lateral grip and that chassis is extremely well behaved while still providing the best handling money can buy at almost any price. Noble M12GTO3/M400 Average=1.165 lateral G.

[HarrisRacing]

The whole reasoning for this is that I drove my friend's Lotus Elise on the track that I race at. I put about 15 laps on it and it seemed a LOT more responsive to my inputs than my MR2. While I didn't turn near the lap times that I do in the MR2 (way too many variables to list here), the car was just so predictable and correctable (actually thought about trading in the EVO for one).

Anyway, I haven't put much into my suspension yet, other than replacing all the wear items and new bushings and sways, so we will see what happens with the KW Variant 3's.

I will leave the 91 geometry for now. BTW I found the exact pictures I needed regarding it by searching on the net.

Patrick

[KaDuWin]

Originally Posted by HarrisRacing

The whole reasoning for this is that I drove my friend's Lotus Elise on the track that I race at. I put about 15 laps on it and it seemed a LOT more responsive to my inputs than my MR2. While I didn't turn near the lap times that I do in the MR2 (way too many variables to list here), the car was just so predictable and correctable (actually thought about trading in the EVO for one).

Anyway, I haven't put much into my suspension yet, other than replacing all the wear items and new bushings and sways, so we will see what happens with the KW Variant 3's.

I will leave the 91 geometry for now. BTW I found the exact pictures I needed regarding it by searching on the net.

Patrick

If I may make a recommendation, the KW Variants are without a dout a step in the right direction if you wonna get your MR2 to handle like the Elise, but don't forget the tires, the Elise is running on very special Yokohoma Advan tires which is one of the stickiest tires you can get, which will account for a lot of the responsiveness. What kind of tires are you using on your MR2? That might solve a lot of your problem.

[JimKing]

Originally Posted by HarrisRacing

my friend's Lotus Elise ... seemed a LOT more responsive to my inputs than my MR2.

The Elise has much quicker steering ratio than the MK2. By todays sports car standards, the MK2 steering (even the marginally quicker EHPS cars) is very slow. As mentioned above, tires (specifically sidewall flex) affect responsiveness too.

[KaDuWin]

Originally Posted by JimKing

The Elise has much quicker steering ratio than the MK2. By todays sports car standards, the MK2 steering (even the marginally quicker EHPS cars) is very slow. As mentioned above, tires (specifically sidewall flex) affect responsiveness too.

You're absolutely right, it is much slower than today's standards, however the car is still more responsive than most of the productions cars of today, no doubt some of the cars have a responsiveness which is very very nice and nothing to complain about, but I still prefer the responsiveness of my MR2 over most of them.

However I have to admit I wouldn't mind a tighter steering ratio, maybe around 2.5-.7 to lock the in my opinion the lower the better but I still want to make sure that the car has a good turning circle, right now the turning circle is amazing.

[PCx188]

i had a 95NA with stock suspension and that thing spun out on me twice! both 180s and once in the middle of a major NYC highway (L.I.E). WTF!

i replaced my suspension after the accident and it wont spin out unless i seriously try to.

[KaDuWin]

Originally Posted by PCx188

i had a 95NA with stock suspension and that thing spun out on me twice! both 180s and once in the middle of a major NYC highway (L.I.E). WTF!

i replaced my suspension after the accident and it wont spin out unless i seriously try to.

Yeah I know the feeling, although my situation was a tad different, mine is a 91 and I hit an oil slick coming off the high way at 35 in a seriously sharp corner of an exit ramp, twoo weeks after I started to drive the car when I first got it. I did a 90 degree turn to the left, 180 degree turn to the right, another 90 degree turn to the left and finally the car was righted. Thank God!

I eplaced my suspension and upgraded my rim size and tires with all the highest performance stuff I could afford and I now I can't even get my tires to spin, unless it is wet out and I really really give it some gas while the steering wheel is turned.

[Mister22u]

Originally Posted by 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.

Don't let this thread fool you. There is nothing wrong with the 91-92 suspension, provided you spend the $$$ on good tires. I recommend Falken Azenis RT-615's (about $80 each in size 13"). They have worked surprisingly well in wet conditions, too . . . at least so far.

[anonymousracer]

In my old 91 I could break the back end loose with slight throttle in a turn...

in my current 93, not so easily. Maybe the power difference had something to do with it(ct20b & gen3 on the 91, stock usdm 3sgte with ct26 on the 93). The 91 did seem more "fun" though... it was almost a challenge to drive it at times, whereas the 93 seems to be just "cruising" along. LOL

[jholder]

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.

I actually LOL'ed at that one.

[rboineau]

A lot of the bad reputation that 91s/92s got for being treacherous had to do with people NOT maintaining their tire pressure stagger properly. Very much like the early Corvairs, if you let the tire pressures get off much it turned the a 91/92 MR2 into a very squirrely-handling car. I know I had some anxious moments a couple of times in curves when I had been careless with the tire pressure. Just a few pounds "off" can make a big difference in my stock '91.

I have also found that just a change in tire brand, or just getting new tires, can definitely affect my '91's handling. Heck, when my first set of rear tires wore out, I could still buy the original-equipment Bridgestone RE-71s so got two as replacements. They only had a few dozen miles on them when I took a nearby off-ramp at my usual sporty-but-not-crazy speed and damn near spun out. Those new RE-71s felt like someone had greased them, and that nasty feeling persisted for some time. I was about to ditch them for another brand when they finally "broke in" and have been fine since.

[MR2Japan]

What is needed to make a 1991 suspension setup BETTER then the 93?

[RePete]

Well, they're both MacPherson suspension setups, so they both kinda suck.

But really, that's a dicey question considering many of us truly think the '91 suspension is already superior to the '93, myself included - I find the 'revised' setup feels a little lazy in comparison.

Not only just street drivers, many track enthusiasts prefer the original 'thoroughbred' design over the more 'civilized' '93+, mainly because it's more fun rather than faster lap times (which is more subjective than anything else).

I think using the word 'better' here is like preferring one chocolate over another. Both suspension setups can be improved by improving the driver (and replacing the OEM shocks w/ Koni/Bilstein).

[jholder]

I'm going to have to agree with RePete, the common wisdom is that the stock '91 suspension is "superior" from a track/handling perspective out of the box.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's _better_ for street driving, but if performance is your goal... stock for stock, 91 seems to be the way to go.

[Mister22u]

I wouldn't change my suspension in my 91 even if I had the money.


I was driving yesterday and hit two switchbacks at 40mph uphill with a passenger in the car on Rt 50 in WV.


US-50 W/George Washington Hwy to US-50 W/George Washington Hwy - Google Maps


Even if a 93 suspenion would have done better around these turns, it wouldn't be enough to merit paying money for it.


BTW - I should mention I have Bilstein struts. They're worth the money. ;-)

[TomsMR2]

most people with 93's dont take advantage of their rear end. the proper toe setup on a 93 will be in the red on an alignment machine. you can set the 93's to zero, or nearly zero and get tons of response. most people will have them set at .3-.5 like the machine says. this will dull handling.

add in bigger tires like most of us have, and the 93 really really needs to be set closer to zero.