5 replies to this topic

[Sphinx]

I must be short on the morning coffee, but I can't seem to locate the newish rule that allowed upgrading some NB suspension parts into NA's. I've been through the GCR twice with no results. Anyone have a reference?

Thanks.

[LarryKing]

I believe shock hats are it - no other substitutes were ever approved.

[davew]

Superceded parts would be allowed. This would include:

Front upper control arms 90-97 interchangable
Front lower control arms 90-05 interchangable
rear upper arms are all the same
Rear lower arms 90-05 interchangable

Mazda has discontinued the earliest versions and can only supply the latest.

Note that you can not put 99+ front upper control arms on a NA car. The SMAC tried this a few years ago and we are still licking the wounds

Dave

[Sphinx]

Note that you can not put 99+ front upper control arms on a NA car. The SMAC tried this a few years ago and we are still licking the wounds

Dave

That must have been what I was thinking of. I thought it had passed, but I guess I was wrong. Back when it was proposed, I thought it was a done deal.

[forestdweller37]

Superceded parts would be allowed. This would include:

Front upper control arms 90-97 interchangable
Front lower control arms 90-05 interchangable
rear upper arms are all the same
Rear lower arms 90-05 interchangable

Mazda has discontinued the earliest versions and can only supply the latest.

Note that you can not put 99+ front upper control arms on a NA car. The SMAC tried this a few years ago and we are still licking the wounds

Dave

For a class that allows a control arm to be changed, say the Solo STS class, what would be the effect of doing so? Is the NB arm shorter?
-Chris

[davew]

99 upper control arms must be used with the 99 upright. The ball joint taper is different. 99-00 are the same and 01+ are different again, right Jim?

Dave