MMR vs. AWR Adj. FC Rear Camber Link Comparison
#26
Most of the Mazda Motorsports stuff was AWR stuff.
So that part number should be the same as:
http://store.awrracing.com/rx-7-rear...986-1992-rx-7/
BTW are those Team Dynamic wheels on your RX-7. I'm running the same ones now as well!
So that part number should be the same as:
http://store.awrracing.com/rx-7-rear...986-1992-rx-7/
BTW are those Team Dynamic wheels on your RX-7. I'm running the same ones now as well!
Yes, they are the Team Dynamics wheels. I have a mix of the old style and new. In the pic I think the old is on the rear and the new is on the front but difficult to make out. I like the newer ones a lot. They increased the size of the opening for the lug nuts so sockets don't bind as easily.
jason
#29
These links are not 0 points for "simple camber" adjustment for NASA PT/TT classes. I have been going back and forth with Greg for almost 2 months now. Here is the final ruling.
Ok, the NASA Exec's have weighed in, and we all agree that unless there are subsequent changes in the rules regarding these parts, here is the bottom line as of 4-27-12.
1) The center "control link" functions as a sub-frame brace and sub-frame mount. You can modify (replace) this brace for the +3 points under rule 5.3.F.4)
Add or modify other chassis stiffening devices or fabricated parts (such as lower strut braces or lower arm braces (with greater than two attachment points), subframe connectors, subframe braces, subframe mounts/bushings, etc) +3
Slotting the chassis bolt holes for this link would have the same effect, so would take the same +3 point assessment. It would not be considered an alteration of suspension mounting points, but would be, as stated above, considered a modification of a subframe mount. If this +3 points assessment is taken, then the other aspects of this rule can also be taken advantage of (more chassis stiffening devices, etc).
2) The "outside" links that connect the subframe to the trailing arms are considered either part of the subframe suspension mounting points, or are considered part of the trailing arms, whichever will be to the benefit of the competitor. Modifying or replacing them will result in either a +6 point assessment for relocation of suspension mounting points (5.3.E.17), or a +4 point assessment for control arm modification (5.3.E.9). If there are spherical joints involved in the upgrade, then the additional +3 point assessment under rule 5.3.E.24) applies. If the competitor is already taking points for either 5.3.E.17) or 5.3.E.9) for other modifications, then there would be no additional assessment for replacing these links. If neither of those assessments is already taken, then replacing these links would result in the lower +4 point assessment for control arm modification (5.3.E.9). As well, all control arms on the vehicle could them be modified without additional assessment.
3) Slotting of the bolt holes in the trailing arm that the "outside" links use to connect the trailing arms to the subframe are permitted under the No-Points assessment within rule 5.3.E.9)--with or without the use of eccentric bolts or bushings.
Please feel free to print out this e-mail and keep a copy with the vehicle log book and with the PT Car Classification Form for future reference in the event of a tech inspection or protest.
1) The center "control link" functions as a sub-frame brace and sub-frame mount. You can modify (replace) this brace for the +3 points under rule 5.3.F.4)
Add or modify other chassis stiffening devices or fabricated parts (such as lower strut braces or lower arm braces (with greater than two attachment points), subframe connectors, subframe braces, subframe mounts/bushings, etc) +3
Slotting the chassis bolt holes for this link would have the same effect, so would take the same +3 point assessment. It would not be considered an alteration of suspension mounting points, but would be, as stated above, considered a modification of a subframe mount. If this +3 points assessment is taken, then the other aspects of this rule can also be taken advantage of (more chassis stiffening devices, etc).
2) The "outside" links that connect the subframe to the trailing arms are considered either part of the subframe suspension mounting points, or are considered part of the trailing arms, whichever will be to the benefit of the competitor. Modifying or replacing them will result in either a +6 point assessment for relocation of suspension mounting points (5.3.E.17), or a +4 point assessment for control arm modification (5.3.E.9). If there are spherical joints involved in the upgrade, then the additional +3 point assessment under rule 5.3.E.24) applies. If the competitor is already taking points for either 5.3.E.17) or 5.3.E.9) for other modifications, then there would be no additional assessment for replacing these links. If neither of those assessments is already taken, then replacing these links would result in the lower +4 point assessment for control arm modification (5.3.E.9). As well, all control arms on the vehicle could them be modified without additional assessment.
3) Slotting of the bolt holes in the trailing arm that the "outside" links use to connect the trailing arms to the subframe are permitted under the No-Points assessment within rule 5.3.E.9)--with or without the use of eccentric bolts or bushings.
Please feel free to print out this e-mail and keep a copy with the vehicle log book and with the PT Car Classification Form for future reference in the event of a tech inspection or protest.
#30
bumping this thread because it's interesting
whiteline also makes some offset bushings.... but I imagine you'd have to keep the DTSS to get the triaxial hub to bend like that.
http://www.whiteline.com.au/product_..._number=KCA379
#32
nevermind, I re-read the description and it looks like they're already chromoly and teflin lined. It might still be possible to drill out the aluminum block though and put a larger rod end on it though.
#33
Has there been any experience with White part KCA379?
This looks like it would go in the upper hub mount on the control arm. I couldn't find instructions on the exact part, but I found instructions for a similar one from a GTO. Near as I can tell it would adjust exactly like this http://www.whiteline.com.au/instruction/Z333_KCA384.pdf
Real question is how this would interact with solid DTSS bushings.
#34
Not much meat to further drill out the block. Also, as it comes the rod end threads into a steel sleeve with a hex on top.
Has there been any experience with White part KCA379?
This looks like it would go in the upper hub mount on the control arm. I couldn't find instructions on the exact part, but I found instructions for a similar one from a GTO. Near as I can tell it would adjust exactly like this http://www.whiteline.com.au/instruction/Z333_KCA384.pdf
Real question is how this would interact with solid DTSS bushings.
Has there been any experience with White part KCA379?
This looks like it would go in the upper hub mount on the control arm. I couldn't find instructions on the exact part, but I found instructions for a similar one from a GTO. Near as I can tell it would adjust exactly like this http://www.whiteline.com.au/instruction/Z333_KCA384.pdf
Real question is how this would interact with solid DTSS bushings.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
GrossPolluter
Suspension/Wheels/Tires/Brakes
12
08-15-15 11:32 PM