When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Not targeted directly at you, you and bullwings both going on about square set up as the end all be all. I'm allowed to be tired of reading something and not agreeing with it, just as you're allowed to not agree with me. Not a big deal at all.
Fair. OP seems to agree with my last post.
Also of note regarding square. All generations of MX-5 - NA, NB, NC, ND1-2-3 all come with square setups. And both Gen1-2 BRZ/86 come with square setups. These are low powered, torque-less cars - they don't need staggered setups.
Also of note regarding square. All generations of MX-5 - NA, NB, NC, ND1-2-3 all come with square setups. And both Gen1-2 BRZ/86 come with square setups. These are low powered, torque-less cars - they don't need staggered setups.
I’m open to square for sure, just trying to analyze the costs/benefits, and I definitely see how it would easily make the car more tailhappy (though I could also see the balance shifting significantly, maybe even too much without a stiffer FSB.)
Why do y’all think Honda chose staggered originally? I see it often on higher HP cars, but I was surprised to see it on an s2000.
I’m open to square for sure, just trying to analyze the costs/benefits, and I definitely see how it would easily make the car more tailhappy (though I could also see the balance shifting significantly, maybe even too much without a stiffer FSB.)
Well, you just got some Ohlins DFV in standard 10k/8k as well, right? You can fine tune the handling balance with the coilover knobs. Since you already bought them - i would say just run the coilovers and see if you can tune-in more of the tail happiness that you desire via the shock settings. If you desire more - then it's time to go square setup.
As far as stiffer swaybar, you don't need to go much stiffer. You can pick up an AP1 or CR front swaybar for cheap (like $50 on ebay cheap) - the stiffest of all generations. You shouldn't need to go much stiffer than that.
If you're curious about the different generation OEM suspensions - twohoos did a very very very comprehensive analysis of all of that. See this link.
Why do y’all think Honda chose staggered originally? I see it often on higher HP cars, but I was surprised to see it on an s2000.
Debatable, but definitely for the 2000-2005 generations without traction control, it was just too much chassis for the average driver.
In the linked thread, there's a lot of discussion regarding engineering choices and hypothesis on why the suspension was revised so much over the different years including why the s2k is staggered in general.
I’m open to square for sure, just trying to analyze the costs/benefits, and I definitely see how it would easily make the car more tailhappy (though I could also see the balance shifting significantly, maybe even too much without a stiffer FSB.)
Why do y’all think Honda chose staggered originally? I see it often on higher HP cars, but I was surprised to see it on an s2000.
Understeer is safer for the average driver to encounter than oversteer, so most stock cars are going to be set up in that regard. Less grip up front helps to reduce the tendency to oversteer.
Also of note regarding square. All generations of MX-5 - NA, NB, NC, ND1-2-3 all come with square setups. And both Gen1-2 BRZ/86 come with square setups. These are low powered, torque-less cars - they don't need staggered setups.
And that's totally fine as well.
No clue why Honda did a staggered set up, maybe Honda did it to look cool, if you think about it, the stagger on the AP1 was fairly drastic, the real size of the rear tire was a 245 though they were sold as a 225 with a 205 up front.
Yeah one would think there would be slightly less stagger with the AP2 since they tamed the toe curve down a bit. But to your point, the actual size of the original rears were wider than nominal on the AP1. I am sure looks play into it as well but I even notice on a lot of SUVs that are RWD when AWD is not engaged that you see a lot of rear camber for a stock vehicle, also likely to help prevent oversteer. Some have upwards of -2 degrees rear camber and zero to positive in the front.
There is less on an AP2, stock was 215/245. CR was then what, 215/255 I think. which went back to AP1 stagger difference. They did beef up the suspension on the CR, and the stock tires on that were sticky.
If you just want to be tail happy for a lap or two, just bump the rear air pressure by 10 psi. If you run 30psi out back, bumping it up to 40 will give you a lot less traction. Then when you want to try and put down some fast lap times just bring the A/P back down to 30. No need to change wheels and tires. If you want to be loose most of the time, this (more psi in the rear tires) would not be my first choice.
