I suspect some of the gearing advantage diminishes when you start utting
99's on those tall 225/50/15's, as opposed to the 225/50/14's that are
available - in fact, the G-force spec sheet shows the new 225/14 to be no
taller than the 205/55/14. Now the hoosier 225/45/15 would be a great
sized tire for the 99 - it is very short and wide, but I don't know if
anyone has tried them.
Keep the 96, and drive the wheels off of it, you should be able to hold
your own, or better. All the talk of geometry changes - they seem to be
slight, as only the front subframes are a different part number - same
a-arms and shock dimensions (except rear - longer shocks in back for more
travel)
Good luck
Stan Whitney
Ex-'96 R owner - swapped to something that isn't a bott's dot to
suburbans/expeditions in rush hour traffic. The talon is more of a speed
bump....
At 10:04 AM 4/8/99 -0700, Bret Dodson wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Kevin McCormick wrote:
>
>> Someday Katie Edler and I will do an impromptu drag race between her '99
and
>> my '95 to verify which is quicker. Hard to tell by seat of the pants - and
>> mine has the full cat back Borla, so is louder, making it _sound_ faster.
>
>I have a '96 R. It's a smidge faster accelerating than a friend's 94 C.
>When Alan got the '99, we did a few 2nd gear runs of about 20 Miles Per
>Hour to redline. When the '99 had only a few hundred miles on it we would
>be just about dead even. I'd find myself pulling ahead a few times (sure
>made me happy) Now that Alan has racked up a few thousand miles, the '99
>will walk from my '96 like mine will walk from the '94.
>
>The '99 does hit the rev limiter earlier than the '96. The '99 is about a
>car length or two ahead of the '96 when it hits the limiter. The '96
>appears to have a couple more mph before it hits the limiter.
>
>Hopping in and out of the two cars leaves me relly wanting a '99. It
>leaps off the line much better than the '96. The '99 has the 4.30 rear
>end compared to the 4.10 of the old cars.
>
>Here's some interesting power figures for the cars:
>94 - 95 Miata
>128 hp @ 6500
>110 ft/lbs @ 5500
>
>96 - 97 Miata
>133 hp @ 6500
>114 ft/lbs @ 5500
>
>99+ Miata
>140 hp @ 6500
>119 ft/lbs @ 5500
>
>After looking at other classes, the power differences between the three
>types of 1.8 Miatas isn't that big. What do other folks think? Will the
>old cars be rendered completely obsolete? Is the power difference enough
>to nullify driver talent from teh equation? (What I'm really asking is if
>a sorta fast guy like me will still have a chance when the really fast
>guys all develop the '99s)
>
>Maybe I should be hunting for a co-drive with Alan...
>
>Bret Dodson
>'96 Miata R
>Seattle, WA
>
>
|