[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ur-Q subframe questions...
- To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Ur-Q subframe questions...
- From: Dave Eaton <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 10:06:43 +0012
- Autoforwarded: false
- Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
- Hop-Count: 1
- Importance: normal
- In-Reply-To: <199708052123.RAA13968@coimbra.ans.net>
- Mr-Received: by mta MOEMR0.MUAS; Relayed; Wed, 06 Aug 1997 10:06:43 +0012
- Mr-Received: by mta CSAV10; Relayed; Wed, 06 Aug 1997 10:06:44 +0012
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Ua-Content-Id: 11B832862900
- X400-Mts-Identifier: [;5443061006081997/A78835/CSAV10]
apart from the deletion of the rear anti-roll bar to reduce understeer, i think
the rear suspension of the ur-q didn't change.
the front did however, a number of times. phil says that the setup values
didn't change through to the 20v, although the wishbone partnumbers did. the
20v rr certainly understeers less than the 10v mb.
>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:59:40 -0600 (MDT)
>My readings on the evolution of the TQC indicates that the same assembly might
>be expected for the earlier versions but as production increased there were
>several changes, especially to the rear assembly which indicates some degree