40th Edition and R3 Suspension are the same?
 

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2070808....ary-edition-ja

are they the same? and is that 40th edition the same as the one over here?

Yes and no.

The Shinka, 40thAE suspensions are the same, but the 09 models have a revised rear suspension that does incorporate some of the same features as a Shinka and 40thAE.

The 40th AE in Japan is white.

that kind of sucks... we should have got the white too... the 10th AE FC's were all white... would be continuing that (which is probably why they did it in japan...)

Just a color...As far as I have heard all export (from Japan) 40thAE were the metro grey, while in Japan they were white.

And in Japan, White is the death color... in most of the western world, black is the death color. So shouldn't it have been black?

But the 10thAE Rotary (not to be confused with the 10thAE RX-7) I have only seen in brown. So if it was really following the lineage it should be brown. Chrystal White was the color of the 10AE RX-7, not the 10AE Rotary engined car.

See, just a color.

So um, slightly different suspension from the 40th, to the R3, and of course the revised Trans in the R3. Any other notable performance differences?

they use white in the weddings still =P So it's not always a negative color

I assumed that white was a nod to the Cosmo. Every Cosmo I've seen a picture of has been white (then again, as rare as they are they could have all been pictures of the same car).

i think starting from 1970 or so, w/ the slightly revised cosmo (the L10B), other colors became available. i've seen photos of red, silver, and lime green ones, even yellow. i suspect some of them were re-sprays, but pretty sure at least red was also a later factory color

Seems more appropriate... after all marriage is often a type of death:lol:

that's actually due to american influence if i am not mistaken

Difference...
 

Okay, I don't mean to hijack the thread's discussion about the colors for weddings in Japan but how significant is the difference between the suspension of the 08 Touring and the 40th Anniversary edition. This isn't an idle question as I have a deal in the works.

It sounds as if the difference was significant enough that Mazda carried it through to the '09s and then some.

I've just started a search on the topic and stumbled across this so thought I'd post to it.

The 40th vs a Touring is virtually the same other than the foam injected cross member on the 40thAE (and Shinka's and R3).

I have not seen any studies on what sort of an improvement there is supposed to be on a FE, but on my old FC 'vert, foam filling the side rails netted a noticeable increase in frame stiffness, so although the R3, Shinka's, and the 40thAE only have the cross member filled, it may be pretty minor of a difference.

I am sure you would have to back to back test too see any sort of difference and that 95% of the drivers out there would probably not notice any difference.

Test...
 

I took them both out for a test on a winding stretch of road. It felt very different to me but it's hard to tell when you're fooling yourself. From what I've read on the forums here that's also the case with a lot of the horsepower improvements. When you trust the seat of your pants you often end up feeling what you want to feel.

Of course, just sitting in the leather sets feels like an improved experience.

From what I understand the 40th has specially tunee Bilstein shocks as well as the foam cross member. I'm not sure if the Touring has those or not.

This is correct, the 40th has Bilstein shocks, the Touring does not have them. I think the only major difference between the shocks is the 40th is just a tad stiffer and they have a slightly (less than 5mm I think) larger shaft diameter.

Stiffer shocks....
 

Ah. Thanks. Yours is the first description of what makes them different. Marketing descriptions just mention "specially tuned" which is rather nebulous. But "stiffer" shocks I can understand. Different shaft dimension makes some sense. That's probably why I feel the bumps in the road a bit more in the 40th than in the Touring. But coming from a Mazdaspeed3 it's hardly noticeable.

hmm so then there is no difference suspension wise in the R3? then whats the point lol.

Bingo. There really is no point. Just marketing for more $'s. The R3 is essentially a Shinka with different seats, 19" wheels and a little different final drive gearing.

well no... remember the R3 has the same rear suspension upgrades that all the 09 and 10 models get.

You gave the correct definitive answer from the beginning but sometimes people aren't paying attention :dunno:

Paul.

I actually did see that, but I wasn't sure how much of a difference it was, but I suppose its negligible or replicable in any 8.

I'd agree that it's probably replicable. All but one rear link per side has changed and so has the knuckle (Spindle/Hub support).

Paul.

Shinka = foam filled crossmembers plus revised Tokicos (thicker shaft among others)

40th AE = foam filled crossmembers plus Bilsteins

R3 = revised geometry (present in all 2009s and up) plus foam filled crossmembers plus Bilsteins

Correct, and it has been my experience that OEM Bilsteins such as what are found on the RX-8 or any Toyota with the off road package, that they are really not much of an improvement over the standard OEM Tokico or KYBs.

That you really have to use aftermarket to get any sort of reliable long term improvement.

People should not confuse OEM Bilsteins with the quality and function you get with aftermarket Bilsteins.

Yep, as said pretty much the same or fairly readily replicable.

I don't fault Mazda for trying to stimulate interest five years down the line by way of the R3.

I also don't fault those folks who buy the R3 for the 'have them now' features (as relatively minor as they may be).

I do find fault with the premium cost for the R3 considering how little has changed or again how easily and more cost effectively it may be replicated.

Again, if buying today I would go GT.

R3 use blisten shocks isnt it ?