can you change 88 crx rear lower controll arms to 89 in sts2
01-16-2008, 06:31 PM
#1
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
can you change 88 crx rear lower controll arms to 89 in sts2
can you change 88 crx rear lower control arms to 89 in sts2. i already have some 89-91 shocks and don't want to buy new ones. also will the st sway bar work on an 88?
01-16-2008, 06:44 PM
#3
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STS2 doesn't have update/backdate. You can change either the upper or lower arm (not both) for 'camber correction'. You could change the arm, but you'd lose the legal opportunity to be able to adjust the rear camber.
01-16-2008, 07:03 PM
#4
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (MattP)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MattP »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">STS2 doesn't have update/backdate. You can change either the upper or lower arm (not both) for 'camber correction'. You could change the arm, but you'd lose the legal opportunity to be able to adjust the rear camber.</TD></TR></TABLE>
ouch... that bites.
ouch... that bites.
01-16-2008, 07:26 PM
#5
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Re: (Tyson)
but lowering the car should give it enough camber. right? too much and you can use the washer trick?
also can you use an aftermarket or hf lca? or it has to be 89 si?
also can you use an aftermarket or hf lca? or it has to be 89 si?
01-17-2008, 01:00 PM
#6
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Va Beach, VA, USA
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (coot_er)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by coot_er »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">but lowering the car should give it enough camber. right? too much and you can use the washer trick?
also can you use an aftermarket or hf lca? or it has to be 89 si?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I have an 88 Si now in CSP but was about 95% prepped for STS2 you have the LCA to have (so people say we found its no big deal) its the same as the TypeR. If you need camber you change the upper controll arm with an Ingralls or other MFG camber kit. You will need a rear camber kit and its debatable if you need a front kit. Also the only front camber kit I have seen used is the ingralls kit. I'm not sure the model # but of the 3-4 they make there is only one that will give you neg camber.
also can you use an aftermarket or hf lca? or it has to be 89 si?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I have an 88 Si now in CSP but was about 95% prepped for STS2 you have the LCA to have (so people say we found its no big deal) its the same as the TypeR. If you need camber you change the upper controll arm with an Ingralls or other MFG camber kit. You will need a rear camber kit and its debatable if you need a front kit. Also the only front camber kit I have seen used is the ingralls kit. I'm not sure the model # but of the 3-4 they make there is only one that will give you neg camber.
01-17-2008, 01:05 PM
#7
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (vbspec)
theres nothing functionally different between the two. geometries are exactly the same. if the box frame is more stiff than the cast arm, i doubt it has any effect.
its not JUST the 88's and Type-R those arms came with, in fact all civics and integras in every country BUT the US got those arms. so its in fact, nothing special. why only US bound cars got the cast version, who knows....
its not JUST the 88's and Type-R those arms came with, in fact all civics and integras in every country BUT the US got those arms. so its in fact, nothing special. why only US bound cars got the cast version, who knows....
Trending Topics
01-17-2008, 01:54 PM
#8
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Re: (vbspec)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by vbspec »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
You will need a rear camber kit and its debatable if you need a front kit. </TD></TR></TABLE>
is the rear kit needed for more or less camber?
if its for less can't you just use the washer trick?
You will need a rear camber kit and its debatable if you need a front kit. </TD></TR></TABLE>
is the rear kit needed for more or less camber?
if its for less can't you just use the washer trick?
01-17-2008, 07:00 PM
#9
I said I don't want a title!
Re: (coot_er)
You can only alter the upper OR the lower control arm, NOT both. Washer trick on the top arm = altering.
So if you change your lower arm to a 89-91, then you have the leave the other arm 100% untouched...this means no washer trick.
The rumor goes that the US got the 89+ style LCA because there were a lot of instances of 88 Civics/CRX's spinning, and Honda wasn't happy with this. And IMO the ITR/88 style of arm does provide slightly better oversteer.
So if you change your lower arm to a 89-91, then you have the leave the other arm 100% untouched...this means no washer trick.
The rumor goes that the US got the 89+ style LCA because there were a lot of instances of 88 Civics/CRX's spinning, and Honda wasn't happy with this. And IMO the ITR/88 style of arm does provide slightly better oversteer.
01-17-2008, 10:14 PM
#10
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Todd00)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Todd00 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The rumor goes that the US got the 89+ style LCA because there were a lot of instances of 88 Civics/CRX's spinning, and Honda wasn't happy with this. And IMO the ITR/88 style of arm does provide slightly better oversteer.</TD></TR></TABLE>
thats absolutely false. the control arms are absolutely identical in geometry. and couldnt possibly affect anything to change how it handles.
the difference in toe angles is at the welded anchor of the compensator arm to the chassis which is positioned higher.
just letting you know so you dont spread false rumors.
thats absolutely false. the control arms are absolutely identical in geometry. and couldnt possibly affect anything to change how it handles.
the difference in toe angles is at the welded anchor of the compensator arm to the chassis which is positioned higher.
just letting you know so you dont spread false rumors.
01-18-2008, 05:21 AM
#11
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Tyson)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
the control arms are absolutely identical in geometry. and couldnt possibly affect anything to change how it handles.
the difference in toe angles is at the welded anchor of the compensator arm to the chassis which is positioned higher.
just letting you know so you dont spread false rumors.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Tyson is correct here. Although a popular myth, the minor bump steer geometry difference from the '88 to the '89-91 is in the location of the forward trailing arm toe link location on the chassis, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the lower control arm itself. It is essentially just coincidence that they changed the arm for '89.
I have always thought that the geometry difference was pretty minor and showed up more when you were comparing two soft and mostly stock cars. Once you do other popular suspension changes like stiffer springs, sway bars, etc. then the geometry difference impact gets very small. '88s are good for other reasons like being much lighter but I had always thought the true effect of the bump steer change was overblown.
My racecar is an '88 and my street car is an '89 and with other mods you can't really point to the bumpsteer as much difference. I recently put the '89 arms on my '88 racecar just to make shock options easier.
the control arms are absolutely identical in geometry. and couldnt possibly affect anything to change how it handles.
the difference in toe angles is at the welded anchor of the compensator arm to the chassis which is positioned higher.
just letting you know so you dont spread false rumors.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Tyson is correct here. Although a popular myth, the minor bump steer geometry difference from the '88 to the '89-91 is in the location of the forward trailing arm toe link location on the chassis, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the lower control arm itself. It is essentially just coincidence that they changed the arm for '89.
I have always thought that the geometry difference was pretty minor and showed up more when you were comparing two soft and mostly stock cars. Once you do other popular suspension changes like stiffer springs, sway bars, etc. then the geometry difference impact gets very small. '88s are good for other reasons like being much lighter but I had always thought the true effect of the bump steer change was overblown.
My racecar is an '88 and my street car is an '89 and with other mods you can't really point to the bumpsteer as much difference. I recently put the '89 arms on my '88 racecar just to make shock options easier.
01-18-2008, 07:38 AM
#12
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Va Beach, VA, USA
Posts: 837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (coot_er)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by coot_er »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
is the rear kit needed for more or less camber?
if its for less can't you just use the washer trick?</TD></TR></TABLE>
You will want a rear camber kit to make adjustments. There is no magic one size fits all camber setting.
is the rear kit needed for more or less camber?
if its for less can't you just use the washer trick?</TD></TR></TABLE>
You will want a rear camber kit to make adjustments. There is no magic one size fits all camber setting.
01-18-2008, 10:08 AM
#13
I said I don't want a title!
Re: (Tyson)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
thats absolutely false. the control arms are absolutely identical in geometry. and couldnt possibly affect anything to change how it handles.
the difference in toe angles is at the welded anchor of the compensator arm to the chassis which is positioned higher.
just letting you know so you dont spread false rumors.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Are you basing this on opinion or from facts that you've learned through American Honda?
I agree that the geometry is the same between the two. However, there is a reason why Honda did this and there is a reason they showed back up on the ITR in 1997.
Honda is not known to do things on a whim--there has to be some difference (especially since the 88 arm was continued across the globe). The only other thing I can think of is the way the bushings are layed out on the 88/ITR arm and perhaps the arm itself doesn't 'give' as much (change toe) as the 89+ USDM piece.
But still, the complaints with the 88 CRX were there--people didn't know how to drive them and the car was known to swap ends on the street. I'm sure if you look through the archives at an older Honda dealer there is mention of this somewhere.
All of the 88 Civics were changed as well in 89 (hatchbacks, 4-doors, etc).
thats absolutely false. the control arms are absolutely identical in geometry. and couldnt possibly affect anything to change how it handles.
the difference in toe angles is at the welded anchor of the compensator arm to the chassis which is positioned higher.
just letting you know so you dont spread false rumors.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
Are you basing this on opinion or from facts that you've learned through American Honda?
I agree that the geometry is the same between the two. However, there is a reason why Honda did this and there is a reason they showed back up on the ITR in 1997.
Honda is not known to do things on a whim--there has to be some difference (especially since the 88 arm was continued across the globe). The only other thing I can think of is the way the bushings are layed out on the 88/ITR arm and perhaps the arm itself doesn't 'give' as much (change toe) as the 89+ USDM piece.
But still, the complaints with the 88 CRX were there--people didn't know how to drive them and the car was known to swap ends on the street. I'm sure if you look through the archives at an older Honda dealer there is mention of this somewhere.
All of the 88 Civics were changed as well in 89 (hatchbacks, 4-doors, etc).
01-18-2008, 10:21 AM
#14
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Todd00)
the change resulted from the feedback from AHM factory team drivers in the escort/firehawk series who had to run at stock height. i know this from sources close to the drivers at the time.
ive also actually measured the 88 and 89 chassis. its different.
88
89
there is no extra "give" at the bushings. they look pretty much the same diameter to me. id like you to even show me that how that would even result in a toe change.
im not denying 88's feel differently. i have one, at stock height. and i also changed the control arma to a later model, with no change in behaviour.
ive also actually measured the 88 and 89 chassis. its different.
88
89
there is no extra "give" at the bushings. they look pretty much the same diameter to me. id like you to even show me that how that would even result in a toe change.
im not denying 88's feel differently. i have one, at stock height. and i also changed the control arma to a later model, with no change in behaviour.
01-18-2008, 10:24 AM
#15
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Todd00)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Todd00 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> However, there is a reason why Honda did this and there is a reason they showed back up on the ITR in 1997.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
explain how this has to do with anything when all civics and integras in all other markets came with the same box arm suspension arms?
youre the one guessing man. go out and measure things. take pictures. dont just guess.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
explain how this has to do with anything when all civics and integras in all other markets came with the same box arm suspension arms?
youre the one guessing man. go out and measure things. take pictures. dont just guess.
01-18-2008, 12:40 PM
#17
I said I don't want a title!
Re: (Tyson)
There is no arguing the 88-89 chassis is different on the CRX (in that area). I am not sure about the 88 Civic hatch and 4-door, however.
But from what you mentioned:
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
the change resulted from the feedback from AHM factory team drivers in the escort/firehawk series who had to run at stock height. i know this from sources close to the drivers at the time.</TD></TR></TABLE>
What does this have to do with the change in rear LCA styles? *That's* what I'm getting at. There is no reason to change just the US market piece when the rest of the world continues on with the 88-style RLCA.
Unless, of course, the RLCA does have some impact on handling. Past Honda history shows us that the US market always get the more toned-down versions. Even the 98 SpecR has a different swaybar combo/rear UCA than our US ITR version did.
I've measured both, I've ran both, I own both. Never at stock height on a stock bushing car, however. I'm not guessing anymore than you are.
But from the pic posted just up above, there appears to be an ever-so-slightly different motion ratio between the two LCAs.
But from what you mentioned:
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
the change resulted from the feedback from AHM factory team drivers in the escort/firehawk series who had to run at stock height. i know this from sources close to the drivers at the time.</TD></TR></TABLE>
What does this have to do with the change in rear LCA styles? *That's* what I'm getting at. There is no reason to change just the US market piece when the rest of the world continues on with the 88-style RLCA.
Unless, of course, the RLCA does have some impact on handling. Past Honda history shows us that the US market always get the more toned-down versions. Even the 98 SpecR has a different swaybar combo/rear UCA than our US ITR version did.
I've measured both, I've ran both, I own both. Never at stock height on a stock bushing car, however. I'm not guessing anymore than you are.
But from the pic posted just up above, there appears to be an ever-so-slightly different motion ratio between the two LCAs.
01-18-2008, 12:45 PM
#18
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Todd00)
but theres no reason to connect the change in control arms to the change in rear toe.
THATS what im getting at.
who knows the reason why US cars got the cast version. but youre absolutely guessing by connecting the two. as well as completely being ignorant of the fact the two chassis do have different toe arm placements.
THATS what im getting at.
who knows the reason why US cars got the cast version. but youre absolutely guessing by connecting the two. as well as completely being ignorant of the fact the two chassis do have different toe arm placements.
01-18-2008, 12:50 PM
#19
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Todd00)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Todd00 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">But from the pic posted just up above, there appears to be an ever-so-slightly different motion ratio between the two LCAs.</TD></TR></TABLE>
if you mean the distance from the outer bushing to the shock bushing being different, you cant forget the two arms used completely different shock mounting. that is the reason why the distances are different. HOWEVER, if you look carefully, and overlay the two arms, they will be in line of the same ANGLE that the shock is aligned. so there is no change in motion ratio.
you can see what im talking about better with this pic. notice the 89+ arm has the shock bolt slightly lower, but closer to the outside than the 88 arm.
if you mean the distance from the outer bushing to the shock bushing being different, you cant forget the two arms used completely different shock mounting. that is the reason why the distances are different. HOWEVER, if you look carefully, and overlay the two arms, they will be in line of the same ANGLE that the shock is aligned. so there is no change in motion ratio.
you can see what im talking about better with this pic. notice the 89+ arm has the shock bolt slightly lower, but closer to the outside than the 88 arm.
01-18-2008, 01:33 PM
#20
I said I don't want a title!
Re: (Tyson)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">but theres no reason to connect the change in control arms to the change in rear toe.
THATS what im getting at.
who knows the reason why US cars got the cast version. but youre absolutely guessing by connecting the two. as well as completely being ignorant of the fact the two chassis do have different toe arm placements.</TD></TR></TABLE>
How was the 88 CRX described in literature--that it had 'passive rear steering', or something to that tune? I believe this was dropped on the 89+ description. Was this also unique to the CRX worldwide in 88-91? What about the 88-91 Civic hatches worldwide--did they have the setup identical to the 88 USDM CRX?
The only reason I was connecting toe was I thought perhaps the LCA bushing styles might have been different between the 88 and 89 arms. That was from memory and not measurements.
You don't need to call anyone ignorant, ok? I am WELL AWARE that the 88 differed from the 89 in this case, as I said above. Are you trying to discuss or belittle, because it sure seems like the latter of the two. If you know something don't be an *** about it.
As for motion ratios, since you seem to have the time--do the math/trig between the control arms and find out for sure.
THATS what im getting at.
who knows the reason why US cars got the cast version. but youre absolutely guessing by connecting the two. as well as completely being ignorant of the fact the two chassis do have different toe arm placements.</TD></TR></TABLE>
How was the 88 CRX described in literature--that it had 'passive rear steering', or something to that tune? I believe this was dropped on the 89+ description. Was this also unique to the CRX worldwide in 88-91? What about the 88-91 Civic hatches worldwide--did they have the setup identical to the 88 USDM CRX?
The only reason I was connecting toe was I thought perhaps the LCA bushing styles might have been different between the 88 and 89 arms. That was from memory and not measurements.
You don't need to call anyone ignorant, ok? I am WELL AWARE that the 88 differed from the 89 in this case, as I said above. Are you trying to discuss or belittle, because it sure seems like the latter of the two. If you know something don't be an *** about it.
As for motion ratios, since you seem to have the time--do the math/trig between the control arms and find out for sure.
01-18-2008, 02:37 PM
#21
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Todd00)
oh boy... now that often misquoted phrase "passive rear steering" rears its head...
yes, 88's had passive rear steering. you know what ELSE had passive rear steering? just about every honda afterwards! its inherent in the rear trailing arm and multilink suspension. its just another way of saying dynamic toe. toe changes by ride height. anyone who understands suspension knows this. 88's had it, and it was dialed back a notch by adjusting the position of the rear toe arm. its still passive rear steering. (as opposed to an active arm like in the 4WS preludes).
89 civics, crx's, AND integras all got the box end control arm in japan and elsewhere. standard. all models. nothign special about it being on the Type-R's.
oddly, the 90-91 B16 CRX Si-R's got a cast rear control arm. you tell me why? is it "detuned"?
look, im not arguing with you to belittle you. im trying to get the right information out, and stop the wrong info. and continuing to think the control arms had anything to do with "passive rear steering" is totally false. its a myth. it IGNORES the FACT that the difference is in the placement of the toe arm. that is fact. so stop saying it.
Modified by Tyson at 4:47 PM 1/18/2008
yes, 88's had passive rear steering. you know what ELSE had passive rear steering? just about every honda afterwards! its inherent in the rear trailing arm and multilink suspension. its just another way of saying dynamic toe. toe changes by ride height. anyone who understands suspension knows this. 88's had it, and it was dialed back a notch by adjusting the position of the rear toe arm. its still passive rear steering. (as opposed to an active arm like in the 4WS preludes).
89 civics, crx's, AND integras all got the box end control arm in japan and elsewhere. standard. all models. nothign special about it being on the Type-R's.
oddly, the 90-91 B16 CRX Si-R's got a cast rear control arm. you tell me why? is it "detuned"?
look, im not arguing with you to belittle you. im trying to get the right information out, and stop the wrong info. and continuing to think the control arms had anything to do with "passive rear steering" is totally false. its a myth. it IGNORES the FACT that the difference is in the placement of the toe arm. that is fact. so stop saying it.
Modified by Tyson at 4:47 PM 1/18/2008
01-18-2008, 02:40 PM
#22
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (MattP)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MattP »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">STS2 doesn't have update/backdate. .</TD></TR></TABLE>
btw, can i ask why? this seems like such an obvious and open rule. is it just failed to be mentioned in the rules? do certain cars benefit heavily from mixing and matching?
btw, can i ask why? this seems like such an obvious and open rule. is it just failed to be mentioned in the rules? do certain cars benefit heavily from mixing and matching?
01-18-2008, 04:11 PM
#23
I said I don't want a title!
Re: (Tyson)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
btw, can i ask why? this seems like such an obvious and open rule. is it just failed to be mentioned in the rules? do certain cars benefit heavily from mixing and matching?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Because ST isn't SP. ST originally had UD/BD but then people started building 88 STD hatches with Si running gear (for instance). This was never the intent of the class, and there was no way to dial it back without having the flood gates remain open. So ultimately, it was dropped for the good of the class.
btw, can i ask why? this seems like such an obvious and open rule. is it just failed to be mentioned in the rules? do certain cars benefit heavily from mixing and matching?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Because ST isn't SP. ST originally had UD/BD but then people started building 88 STD hatches with Si running gear (for instance). This was never the intent of the class, and there was no way to dial it back without having the flood gates remain open. So ultimately, it was dropped for the good of the class.
01-18-2008, 04:24 PM
#25
I said I don't want a title!
Re: (Tyson)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">oh boy... now that often misquoted phrase "passive rear steering" rears its head...</TD></TR></TABLE>
Misquoted? I believe it was mentioned by Honda and the 88 had it as bad as any Honda ever made. A misquote is an accidental or intentional misrepresentation of a person's speech or writing. Honda called it "passive rear steering" so, as such, do other people.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yes, 88's had passive rear steering. you know what ELSE had passive rear steering? just about every honda afterwards! its inherent in the rear trailing arm and multilink suspension. its just another way of saying dynamic toe. toe changes by ride height. anyone who understands suspension knows this. 88's had it, and it was dialed back a notch by adjusting the position of the rear toe arm. its still passive rear steering. (as opposed to an active arm like in the 4WS preludes).</TD></TR></TABLE>
As you mentioned, the 4WS Preludes were active rear steering. Which, in fact, is easier to control by an inexperienced driver.
And yes, anyone who knows anything about the rear of a Honda knows that toe (and camber) changes when the suspension moves. Point is, the USDM 88 had it worse than any Honda since.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">89 civics, crx's, AND integras all got the box end control arm in japan and elsewhere. standard. all models. nothign special about it being on the Type-R's.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Again, already been said. What is special about the USDM ITR is that it came back to north america only in this application.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">oddly, the 90-91 B16 CRX Si-R's got a cast rear control arm. you tell me why? is it "detuned"? </TD></TR></TABLE>
No idea. You'd have to look at springrates and swaybars to draw a complete conclusion.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">look, im not arguing with you to belittle you. im trying to get the right information out, and stop the wrong info. and continuing to think the control arms had anything to do with "passive rear steering" is totally false. its a myth. it IGNORES the FACT that the difference is in the placement of the toe arm. that is fact. so stop saying it.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes you are--and your tone is somewhat condescending. You can get the correct information out (as you believe it to be) without being this way. You can't say that you know 100% that the change in RLCAs from 88-89 was done for any particular reason. Neither can I. That's why I started out saying that "Rumor has it". Big difference.
What's funny is that this rumor has been repeated/told by people that work/worked for Honda, so take that for what you want.
Misquoted? I believe it was mentioned by Honda and the 88 had it as bad as any Honda ever made. A misquote is an accidental or intentional misrepresentation of a person's speech or writing. Honda called it "passive rear steering" so, as such, do other people.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yes, 88's had passive rear steering. you know what ELSE had passive rear steering? just about every honda afterwards! its inherent in the rear trailing arm and multilink suspension. its just another way of saying dynamic toe. toe changes by ride height. anyone who understands suspension knows this. 88's had it, and it was dialed back a notch by adjusting the position of the rear toe arm. its still passive rear steering. (as opposed to an active arm like in the 4WS preludes).</TD></TR></TABLE>
As you mentioned, the 4WS Preludes were active rear steering. Which, in fact, is easier to control by an inexperienced driver.
And yes, anyone who knows anything about the rear of a Honda knows that toe (and camber) changes when the suspension moves. Point is, the USDM 88 had it worse than any Honda since.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">89 civics, crx's, AND integras all got the box end control arm in japan and elsewhere. standard. all models. nothign special about it being on the Type-R's.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Again, already been said. What is special about the USDM ITR is that it came back to north america only in this application.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">oddly, the 90-91 B16 CRX Si-R's got a cast rear control arm. you tell me why? is it "detuned"? </TD></TR></TABLE>
No idea. You'd have to look at springrates and swaybars to draw a complete conclusion.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">look, im not arguing with you to belittle you. im trying to get the right information out, and stop the wrong info. and continuing to think the control arms had anything to do with "passive rear steering" is totally false. its a myth. it IGNORES the FACT that the difference is in the placement of the toe arm. that is fact. so stop saying it.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yes you are--and your tone is somewhat condescending. You can get the correct information out (as you believe it to be) without being this way. You can't say that you know 100% that the change in RLCAs from 88-89 was done for any particular reason. Neither can I. That's why I started out saying that "Rumor has it". Big difference.
What's funny is that this rumor has been repeated/told by people that work/worked for Honda, so take that for what you want.