Lowering, highering, but...

[Petrus]

There´s gazillion threads about lowering and hitting rock bottom.

Now, because of crash requirements, more specifically compatability tests, per m.y. 2004 the MR2 was 25mm highered.

This means that lowering springs should be different too or am I missing something?
Álso that users are, depending on the m.y., not talking about the same thing no?!

[Ardent]

Can you clarify "m.y."
Model year?
"was 25mm highered" Highered from what?

Is this a Spain vs UK thing?

[Bossworld]

Facelift rear springs are a different size to pre face lift but I thought that was to accommodate the move to 16" wheels. Assume there is a slight difference in rolling radius.

[Petrus]

Can you clarify "m.y."
Model year?
"was 25mm highered" Highered from what?

Is this a Spain vs UK thing?

M.y. is indeed model year. Pretty standard use of English.

If lower, lowering, lowered is a correct way to use the verb, than higher, highering, highered should be. It certainly is more succinct.

Highered from m.y. 2003.

It is a logical use of language thing.
I do the same to Dutch but mostly to Spanish because that I speak most.

But, back to the subject: If Teins are specced to lower 30 mm. then the question becomes; from what? Per example.

This one reason why when I was faffing with restoring ride hight I asked for measurements. It is a much more objective bit of info than observations on scraping.

[Petrus]

Facelift rear springs are a different size to pre face lift but I thought that was to accommodate the move to 16" wheels. Assume there is a slight difference in rolling radius.

It is unrelated. The change to 16" was per m.y. 2002. The ride hight 2004 and specifically for improved crash compabilty.

To be complete, 205/55x15 and 215/45x16 are only 2% different in circumference = legally equivalent.

Oh and it, the m.y. 2003 changes make that there are twó generations of FL:  The m.y. 2003 FL and the m.y. 2004 FL2.

[Beachbum957]

Wikipedia states the 2004+ cars were raised 1". That seems to be the internet consensus.  However, a check of specifications in other materials shows the height of all years to be the same at 1240 mm or 48.8 in.  So were the cars actually raised, or is the spec wrong?

Other research shows the EU specification for pedestrian impact standards that caused some cars to be raised didn't go into effect until October 2005, so did it even impact any MR2's sold in Europe?  But there is plenty to suggest the safety regulations lead to the ultimate death of the MR2.

A search of spring part numbers used in various markets and years reveals some interesting facts. 

• The springs used in the Japanese market were different than any other market.
• There were only 2 front springs used in a specific market, and the switch over was for cars built after 2/2004. These would have been late 2004 or 2005+ models, but it is unclear how many of the cars built after than date were shipped to the US or Europe.
• Data suggests the last build dates for 2005 cars for the US was 12/2004, while 2005 cars for other markets were built until 8/2005.
• There was a rear spring change for the 2003-early 2004 models, but that may have just been spring rate as comparing ride height of a 2002 to a 2003 shows no difference.
• There doesn't seem to be any data anywhere to indicate what changed in the springs on 2/2004.

Front All markets other than Japan
48131-17690 ( - 01/2004)
48131-17710 (02/2004 - 12/2004)

Front Japan
48131-17680 ( - 01/2004)
48131-17700 (02/2004 - )

Rear All markets other than Japan
8231-17890 (12/1999 - 07/2002)
48231-1R350 (08/2002 - 01/2004)
48231-17A10 (02/2004 - 12/2004)

Rear Japan
48231-17880 ( - 08/2002
48231-1R340 (08/2002 - 01/2004)
48231-17A00 (02/2004 - )

The few companies still making lowering springs show the same springs for all years

To add to the confusion, Toyota lists 2 different struts.  There is no date breakdown shown for the parts, but some data can be inferred.  All markets used the same struts.

Right Front
48510-80081   MARK 48510-17200 (all up to 2004 and some 2004)
48510-80231   MARK 48510-17210 (some 2004-2005)

Right Rear
48530-80078   MARK 48530-17230 (all up to 2004 and some 2004)
48530-80237   MARK 48530-17240 (some 2004-2005)

All aftermarket struts like KYB list the same struts for all years.

So is your 2004+ actually higher than early models?  The only way to know is find one of each with the same tires and measure them.

[Ardent]

Can you clarify "m.y."
Model year?
"was 25mm highered" Highered from what?

Is this a Spain vs UK thing?

M.y. is indeed model year. Pretty standard use of English.

If lower, lowering, lowered is a correct way to use the verb, than higher, highering, highered should be. It certainly is more succinct.

Highered from m.y. 2003.

It is a logical use of language thing.
I do the same to Dutch but mostly to Spanish because that I speak most.

I was not questioning the language. I was querying if there was a different spec/requirements between uk and Spain.
I can see I did not make that clear.
Edit.
Which has been covered to some degree by post above.

[Petrus]

I was querying if there was a different spec/requirements between uk and Spain.

Ok.
Nope.
Development/changes of spec were pretty much for the whole of the production. This was the reason why it could not be imported to Canada. I forgot which regulation it failed to meet.

[Beachbum957]

Sales of MR2's in Canada stopped after 1993 due to low sales.  In 1992, Toyota sold just 80 MR2's in Canada.  No MK3 (MRS) were ever sold in Canada.

As for failing regulations, the only info available is in the Transport Canada registry, the mk3 is stated illegal only because Toyota didn't provide them the spec sheet of the MK3 (MRS). Apparently, they didn't even try to get it approved.

[Bossworld]

Aftermarket rear springs have two different heights. Can't be bothered getting drawn into specifics of what era of FL but here's the numbers. I've had both side by side and there may even be old pics on a thread.

https://www.mr2roc.org/forum/index.php?topic=67365.msg796957#msg796957

[Petrus]

Model year 2002 = 16" rear plus wider rubber in legal equivalent diameter (to slighty decrease understeer).
Model year 2004 = supposedly 25 mm more ground clearance (to improve crash compatability).

Imo the only way to go anywhere with whichever model year is to méasure the ride hight of that actual vehicle and take the intended modification/upgrade from thére.


Btw Beachbum, had not thanked you yet for the extensive info, Confusing indeed.

I think you were the one who provided the specs for the early ride height, thanks for that too btw:

Front measuring point
Measure the distance from the ground to the center of the front side lower suspension arm mounting bolt. (inner pivot)

Rear measuring point
Measure the distance from the ground to the center of the front side strut rod mounting bolt. (frame mount of trailing arm)

Front 204 mm (8.03 in.)
Rear 270 mm (10.63 in.)

I took it from there on mine.

[Beachbum957]

Wikipedia states the 2004+ cars were raised 1". That seems to be the internet consensus.  However, a check of specifications in other materials shows the height of all years to be the same at 1240 mm or 48.8 in.  So were the cars actually raised, or is the spec wrong?

Some empirical data adds more information, but not much clarity. 

I contacted an owner of a low mileage late production 2005 US model (08/2004 build date).  It is completely original.  I have a 2003 with original springs.  We both measured from the center-line of the hubs to the fender lip edge.  While probably not as accurate as measuring from the ground to chassis points, if the later cars were raised 1", there should be a significant difference.  There isn't.

Front
2003 13.625 in 346 mm
2005 13.625 in 346 mm

Rear
2003 14.000 in 355 mm
2005 13.625 in 346 mm

The fact the 2003 is slightly higher in the rear could just be variations between cars, and the fact the 2003 has nearly new struts, and the gas pressure in the struts add a small amount of spring rate and could raise the car slightly.

Since all markets other than Japan used the same springs, similar numbers should be seen in comparing other cars.  It is possible the Japanese market cars were raised 1" as they used different springs.

It might be interesting to learn the measurements of other cars with stock suspension

[Petrus]

Wikipedia states the 2004+ cars were raised 1". That seems to be the internet consensus.  However, a check of specifications in other materials shows the height of all years to be the same at 1240 mm or 48.8 in.  So were the cars actually raised, or is the spec wrong?

Some empirical data adds more information, but not much clarity. 

Would not be the first time that internet concensus is off.

Also would not be the first time that even the ´reliable source´ is wrong; Brian Long p.e. mentions the weight penalty of added structural supports for the later model years to be 10 kilos in one chapter and 30 in the next. It could be 30 lbs. just as easily ;-)