Value of an Americas Roadster
08-13-2010, 09:57 PM
#16
Rennlist Member
The intent was to create a basic lightweight, no frills 911 with minimal luxury options. Fitting the RS America with the M030 sport suspension package, which included the use of much of the running gear from the 911 C2 Turbo, led to higher performance limits. The Turbo's progressively wound coil springs, larger diameter front stabilizer bar, and upgraded shock absorbers were standard equipment for the RS America, as were 17” diameter C2 Turbo wheels.
-Blake
08-14-2010, 09:47 AM
#17
Rennlist Member
08-14-2010, 10:30 AM
#18
RSA has 22mm/20mm front/rear stabilizer bars
AR & turbo have 21mm/22mm
RSA also has different stabilizer bar links parts numbers than the turbo/AR (I dont know if they are actually different parts)
Also the AR/turbo have bigger brakes with high pressure vs vacuum operation.
I preferred the AR to the RSA when I was comparing them before purchase - maybe the RSA is more track oriented, I dont know if they have different allignment specs - again, just my 02.
08-16-2010, 04:12 PM
#21
Rennlist Member
Hold up here guys!!
Lets get the suspension info correct.
The AR and turbo share the same suspension. The RSA shares the suspension with the C2. The RSA has a manual steering rack vs the power rack of the C2.
The 1991-92 turbo/AR have the Medium S4 front brakes with 44/36mm pistons 322 x32 rotors and 48 x 132mm pads, the rear brakes used the 34/30 pistons with 299 x 28mm rotors and 44 x 98mm pads.
The RSA and C2 used the smaller 40/36mm piston calipers with 298 x 28mm rotors and 44 x 98mm pads and even smaller 30/28 mm piston calipers with 299 x24mm rotors and same size 44 x 98mm pads.
The turbo and AR also have the electro-hydraulic brake system and 23.81 mm master cylinder and 4.8:1 boost coefficient. the C2/RSA has 8" vacuum and 20.64 mm MC with a 3:1 boost coefficient.
Suspension differences include stiffer springs for the turbo, AR and again for the RSA. Same as M030 used on the C2. Front shocks are rotated outward for wider track and rear trailing arms are completely different nearly twice the size for the turbo/AR. Half shafts are different and far stronger on the turbo. Sway bar designs vary for the widebody vs the narrow body and vary per model.
The turbo is capable of high speed stability that the narrow body cars do not have but the narrow body cars are far more nimble than the widebody. IMO the ride of the C2/RSA is superior to the turbo/AR however they are both decent and provide different benefits.
So if you look at them closely side by side there is very little in common with the suspensions. Only the springs of the turbo are the same for the A/R and RSA although they are different part numbers fro the RSA. the C4 widebody on the other hand is a combination of turbo and C2 parts.
Lets get the suspension info correct.
The AR and turbo share the same suspension. The RSA shares the suspension with the C2. The RSA has a manual steering rack vs the power rack of the C2.
The 1991-92 turbo/AR have the Medium S4 front brakes with 44/36mm pistons 322 x32 rotors and 48 x 132mm pads, the rear brakes used the 34/30 pistons with 299 x 28mm rotors and 44 x 98mm pads.
The RSA and C2 used the smaller 40/36mm piston calipers with 298 x 28mm rotors and 44 x 98mm pads and even smaller 30/28 mm piston calipers with 299 x24mm rotors and same size 44 x 98mm pads.
The turbo and AR also have the electro-hydraulic brake system and 23.81 mm master cylinder and 4.8:1 boost coefficient. the C2/RSA has 8" vacuum and 20.64 mm MC with a 3:1 boost coefficient.
Suspension differences include stiffer springs for the turbo, AR and again for the RSA. Same as M030 used on the C2. Front shocks are rotated outward for wider track and rear trailing arms are completely different nearly twice the size for the turbo/AR. Half shafts are different and far stronger on the turbo. Sway bar designs vary for the widebody vs the narrow body and vary per model.
The turbo is capable of high speed stability that the narrow body cars do not have but the narrow body cars are far more nimble than the widebody. IMO the ride of the C2/RSA is superior to the turbo/AR however they are both decent and provide different benefits.
So if you look at them closely side by side there is very little in common with the suspensions. Only the springs of the turbo are the same for the A/R and RSA although they are different part numbers fro the RSA. the C4 widebody on the other hand is a combination of turbo and C2 parts.
08-16-2010, 04:37 PM
#22
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: on the waterfront, Kobe, Japan
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hold up here guys!!
Lets get the suspension info correct.
The AR and turbo share the same suspension. The RSA shares the suspension with the C2. The RSA has a manual steering rack vs the power rack of the C2.
The 1991-92 turbo/AR have the Medium S4 front brakes with 44/36mm pistons 322 x32 rotors and 48 x 132mm pads, the rear brakes used the 34/30 pistons with 299 x 28mm rotors and 44 x 98mm pads.
The RSA and C2 used the smaller 40/36mm piston calipers with 298 x 28mm rotors and 44 x 98mm pads and even smaller 30/28 mm piston calipers with 299 x24mm rotors and same size 44 x 98mm pads.
The turbo and AR also have the electro-hydraulic brake system and 23.81 mm master cylinder and 4.8:1 boost coefficient. the C2/RSA has 8" vacuum and 20.64 mm MC with a 3:1 boost coefficient.
Suspension differences include stiffer springs for the turbo, AR and again for the RSA. Same as M030 used on the C2. Front shocks are rotated outward for wider track and rear trailing arms are completely different nearly twice the size for the turbo/AR. Half shafts are different and far stronger on the turbo. Sway bar designs vary for the widebody vs the narrow body and vary per model.
The turbo is capable of high speed stability that the narrow body cars do not have but the narrow body cars are far more nimble than the widebody. IMO the ride of the C2/RSA is superior to the turbo/AR however they are both decent and provide different benefits.
So if you look at them closely side by side there is very little in common with the suspensions. Only the springs of the turbo are the same for the A/R and RSA although they are different part numbers fro the RSA. the C4 widebody on the other hand is a combination of turbo and C2 parts.
Lets get the suspension info correct.
The AR and turbo share the same suspension. The RSA shares the suspension with the C2. The RSA has a manual steering rack vs the power rack of the C2.
The 1991-92 turbo/AR have the Medium S4 front brakes with 44/36mm pistons 322 x32 rotors and 48 x 132mm pads, the rear brakes used the 34/30 pistons with 299 x 28mm rotors and 44 x 98mm pads.
The RSA and C2 used the smaller 40/36mm piston calipers with 298 x 28mm rotors and 44 x 98mm pads and even smaller 30/28 mm piston calipers with 299 x24mm rotors and same size 44 x 98mm pads.
The turbo and AR also have the electro-hydraulic brake system and 23.81 mm master cylinder and 4.8:1 boost coefficient. the C2/RSA has 8" vacuum and 20.64 mm MC with a 3:1 boost coefficient.
Suspension differences include stiffer springs for the turbo, AR and again for the RSA. Same as M030 used on the C2. Front shocks are rotated outward for wider track and rear trailing arms are completely different nearly twice the size for the turbo/AR. Half shafts are different and far stronger on the turbo. Sway bar designs vary for the widebody vs the narrow body and vary per model.
The turbo is capable of high speed stability that the narrow body cars do not have but the narrow body cars are far more nimble than the widebody. IMO the ride of the C2/RSA is superior to the turbo/AR however they are both decent and provide different benefits.
So if you look at them closely side by side there is very little in common with the suspensions. Only the springs of the turbo are the same for the A/R and RSA although they are different part numbers fro the RSA. the C4 widebody on the other hand is a combination of turbo and C2 parts.
correct as always...........
