Why do people spend so much money on lowering/suspension but...?
08-18-2008, 09:13 AM
#1
Why do people spend so much money on lowering/suspension but...?
Dont worry about how much theyre reducing their bump travel?
Can we have a conversation about why this happens?
I mean why spend 600$ on something and then complain you're hitting your bump stops, or risk bottoming out the shocks?
Can we have a conversation about why this happens?
I mean why spend 600$ on something and then complain you're hitting your bump stops, or risk bottoming out the shocks?
08-18-2008, 11:24 AM
#2
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do people spend so much money on lowering/suspension but...? (dfoxengr)
for show/bling.
They wanna ride low and have sweet brand name suspension but don't want to have it set at an actually functional level.
Maybe, maybe not. My guess is as good as yours.
They wanna ride low and have sweet brand name suspension but don't want to have it set at an actually functional level.
Maybe, maybe not. My guess is as good as yours.
08-18-2008, 11:32 AM
#3
Re: Why do people spend so much money on lowering/suspension but...? (206 EH2)
see thats what I think too, but then you even have guys that auto-x and DE their cars and still dont do the right thing.
maybe a lot of people dont know it is necessary?
but it just kills me when they say, I have such and such suspension and I cant keep it off the bumpstops due to potholes, or racing, or whatever
maybe a lot of people dont know it is necessary?
but it just kills me when they say, I have such and such suspension and I cant keep it off the bumpstops due to potholes, or racing, or whatever
08-18-2008, 02:57 PM
#6
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (dfoxengr)
The question should be, WHY THE F don't any shock company's make shorter shocks for us? I know koni can make a custom shock with what ever setting you want and maybe a shorter shock tube. But why is a custom shock our only option. we have bilstein, KYB, koni, tokico, dropzone and monroe. And NO ONE offers a shorter shock housing. I mean do these companies think people are buying their expensive shocks and putting them in their modified cars on stock springs? And everyones warranty is "if vehicle is lowered more then 1.5", warranty is void" WTF. 8 outta 10 modified cars are lowered way pass 1.5", so why can't these shock companies make something that is made for this purpose. You would think after all these years of people driving their slammed cars and having problems with bottoming out SOME company might have a product out there made to solve this problem.
08-18-2008, 04:32 PM
#7
Re: (hondadriver)
good point. does the shorter body allow for any advantages over the top hats?
seems to me that a shorter body would increase bump travel but decrease droop.
Modified by dfoxengr at 8:38 PM 8/18/2008
seems to me that a shorter body would increase bump travel but decrease droop.
Modified by dfoxengr at 8:38 PM 8/18/2008
Trending Topics
08-19-2008, 10:17 AM
#8
Honda-Tech Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nowhere and Everywhere
Posts: 29,530
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
46 Posts
Re: (hondadriver)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hondadriver »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The question should be, WHY THE F don't any shock company's make shorter shocks for us?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
There already is a solution - a short-body full coilover. Whether this is the best option or not, however, is up for debate.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dfoxengr »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">good point. does the shorter body allow for any advantages over the top hats?
seems to me that a shorter body would increase bump travel but decrease droop.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
yep, this is what the short-body full coilovers do.
Now really, your bump travel is physically limited by the size of the inside of the shock tower. At a given ride height, you will ALWAYS have the same amount of bump travel from the at-rest upper control arm position to the point of the UCA hitting the shock tower above when the suspension is compressed. That is, of course, assuming your shocks don't bottom out on bump stops first. If you have extended upper mounts, then your are more likely to hit the shock towers before the bump stops, anyway.
And speaking of short-body shocks, there used to be one on the market from GAB. It was an OEM-style shortened body shock absorber for Civics and Integras, which I think may have been adjustable for either bump or rebound or both. There may have been a non-adjustable version, as well, but I'm not sure on that. But those have long since been discontinued for some years now (probably since the late 90's).
Other options for increased bump travel and lowered ride height are moving the wheels higher up on the knuckle (like drop spindles for trucks). I have seen some custom knuckles for Civics and Integras, but I'm not sure if they were really marketed to the public.
Another product from back in the day is the old Suspension Techniques DropForks. This was a shorter version of the OEM front shock forks that could get the car lower even on factory springs and shocks. This would maintain the same distance from shock body to shock tower, therefore maintaining the same amount of bump travel (or increasing it if you had coilovers and could raise the spring perch by the same amount as the fork dropped the ride height).
If you have Koni shocks, you can do the fork trick, which essentially does the same thing as the old DropForks did. By sliding the fork a little higher up on the shock, you can get the car lower while still maintaining the same bump travel on the shock piston.
But again, all of these are still limited by the clearance from the UCA to the shock tower. There's really no way to change that unless you cut holes in the towers and maybe weld new sheetmetal back into place to create more room.
But again, there are physical limitations to everything. And when you start doing custom shock tower enclosures, you could possibly run into problems of not enough movement in the stock upper ball joint, and the axles hitting the frame rails. The ball joint stud can only move so far the higher the UCA goes, and at a certain point it just won't go anymore without breaking. But your CV axles would probably hit the frame rails before you reached the limitations of the ball joints anyway.
So there are always compromises to be made here or there when working with a stock-chassis vehicle. There really is no way to get everything you need/want unless you do a full tube-framed front chassis with custom upper/lower control arms, etc.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
There already is a solution - a short-body full coilover. Whether this is the best option or not, however, is up for debate.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dfoxengr »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">good point. does the shorter body allow for any advantages over the top hats?
seems to me that a shorter body would increase bump travel but decrease droop.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
yep, this is what the short-body full coilovers do.
Now really, your bump travel is physically limited by the size of the inside of the shock tower. At a given ride height, you will ALWAYS have the same amount of bump travel from the at-rest upper control arm position to the point of the UCA hitting the shock tower above when the suspension is compressed. That is, of course, assuming your shocks don't bottom out on bump stops first. If you have extended upper mounts, then your are more likely to hit the shock towers before the bump stops, anyway.
And speaking of short-body shocks, there used to be one on the market from GAB. It was an OEM-style shortened body shock absorber for Civics and Integras, which I think may have been adjustable for either bump or rebound or both. There may have been a non-adjustable version, as well, but I'm not sure on that. But those have long since been discontinued for some years now (probably since the late 90's).
Other options for increased bump travel and lowered ride height are moving the wheels higher up on the knuckle (like drop spindles for trucks). I have seen some custom knuckles for Civics and Integras, but I'm not sure if they were really marketed to the public.
Another product from back in the day is the old Suspension Techniques DropForks. This was a shorter version of the OEM front shock forks that could get the car lower even on factory springs and shocks. This would maintain the same distance from shock body to shock tower, therefore maintaining the same amount of bump travel (or increasing it if you had coilovers and could raise the spring perch by the same amount as the fork dropped the ride height).
If you have Koni shocks, you can do the fork trick, which essentially does the same thing as the old DropForks did. By sliding the fork a little higher up on the shock, you can get the car lower while still maintaining the same bump travel on the shock piston.
But again, all of these are still limited by the clearance from the UCA to the shock tower. There's really no way to change that unless you cut holes in the towers and maybe weld new sheetmetal back into place to create more room.
But again, there are physical limitations to everything. And when you start doing custom shock tower enclosures, you could possibly run into problems of not enough movement in the stock upper ball joint, and the axles hitting the frame rails. The ball joint stud can only move so far the higher the UCA goes, and at a certain point it just won't go anymore without breaking. But your CV axles would probably hit the frame rails before you reached the limitations of the ball joints anyway.
So there are always compromises to be made here or there when working with a stock-chassis vehicle. There really is no way to get everything you need/want unless you do a full tube-framed front chassis with custom upper/lower control arms, etc.
08-19-2008, 11:36 AM
#9
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (PatrickGSR94)
Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94
There already is a solution - a short-body full coilover. Whether this is the best option or not, however, is up for debate.
yep, this is what the short-body full coilovers do.
Now really, your bump travel is physically limited by the size of the inside of the shock tower. At a given ride height, you will ALWAYS have the same amount of bump travel from the at-rest upper control arm position to the point of the UCA hitting the shock tower above when the suspension is compressed. That is, of course, assuming your shocks don't bottom out on bump stops first. If you have extended upper mounts, then your are more likely to hit the shock towers before the bump stops, anyway.
And speaking of short-body shocks, there used to be one on the market from GAB. It was an OEM-style shortened body shock absorber for Civics and Integras, which I think may have been adjustable for either bump or rebound or both. There may have been a non-adjustable version, as well, but I'm not sure on that. But those have long since been discontinued for some years now (probably since the late 90's).
Other options for increased bump travel and lowered ride height are moving the wheels higher up on the knuckle (like drop spindles for trucks). I have seen some custom knuckles for Civics and Integras, but I'm not sure if they were really marketed to the public.
Another product from back in the day is the old Suspension Techniques DropForks. This was a shorter version of the OEM front shock forks that could get the car lower even on factory springs and shocks. This would maintain the same distance from shock body to shock tower, therefore maintaining the same amount of bump travel (or increasing it if you had coilovers and could raise the spring perch by the same amount as the fork dropped the ride height).
If you have Koni shocks, you can do the fork trick, which essentially does the same thing as the old DropForks did. By sliding the fork a little higher up on the shock, you can get the car lower while still maintaining the same bump travel on the shock piston.
But again, all of these are still limited by the clearance from the UCA to the shock tower. There's really no way to change that unless you cut holes in the towers and maybe weld new sheetmetal back into place to create more room.
But again, there are physical limitations to everything. And when you start doing custom shock tower enclosures, you could possibly run into problems of not enough movement in the stock upper ball joint, and the axles hitting the frame rails. The ball joint stud can only move so far the higher the UCA goes, and at a certain point it just won't go anymore without breaking. But your CV axles would probably hit the frame rails before you reached the limitations of the ball joints anyway.
So there are always compromises to be made here or there when working with a stock-chassis vehicle. There really is no way to get everything you need/want unless you do a full tube-framed front chassis with custom upper/lower control arms, etc.
I like the drop-fork idea. When i had the bottoming out problem I did alot research to try and solve the problem. I remember reading about the drop-forks, but by the time i found them noone was selling them. So I just did the tophat extention and lowered the shock inside the fork. SO my problem was solved, but its stupid that we have to have a DIY like this just to solve our problem.
Amagine if companys came out with high lift cams, but no improved valve springs. You can install the cam and drive with it, but if you go into to vtec (high lift) you might get valve float, and if you blow ur motor its your problem. Same thing with shocks, yeah our shock are $100 each, and their going on our modified car, BUT if you lower your car pass 1.5" and they blow its all on you. What i mean is, if companies can make proper valve springs for high lift cams, someone should make proper shocks for coilovers/lowering spring. So peoples only option isn't full coilovers.
08-19-2008, 12:29 PM
#10
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: cali
Posts: 13,483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (hondadriver)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hondadriver »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The question should be, WHY THE F don't any shock company's make shorter shocks for us?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
That still doesn't slove the problem of the UCA hitting the upper fender well.
And shorter shocks= less stroke and in general this sucks for honda's.
You can shorten some what but not like the JDM coilover do, at least IMO/E.
It's simple really people just need to run higher spring rates. (hence why most JDM setups run pretty stiff springs, they have NO stroke.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
That still doesn't slove the problem of the UCA hitting the upper fender well.
And shorter shocks= less stroke and in general this sucks for honda's.
You can shorten some what but not like the JDM coilover do, at least IMO/E.
It's simple really people just need to run higher spring rates. (hence why most JDM setups run pretty stiff springs, they have NO stroke.
08-21-2008, 08:25 AM
#11
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Funkstown, MD, USA
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (hondadriver)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hondadriver »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The question should be, WHY THE F don't any shock company's make shorter shocks for us? I know koni can make a custom shock with what ever setting you want and maybe a shorter shock tube. But why is a custom shock our only option. we have bilstein, KYB, koni, tokico, dropzone and monroe. And NO ONE offers a shorter shock housing. I mean do these companies think people are buying their expensive shocks and putting them in their modified cars on stock springs? And everyones warranty is "if vehicle is lowered more then 1.5", warranty is void" WTF. 8 outta 10 modified cars are lowered way pass 1.5", so why can't these shock companies make something that is made for this purpose. You would think after all these years of people driving their slammed cars and having problems with bottoming out SOME company might have a product out there made to solve this problem.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
You haven't seen skunk2's shock? Might not be the best out there but it does have a shorter body. I have skunk2 shocks and springs on my dc2. It does ride pretty rough but doesn't bounce. And I rarely ever bottom out.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
You haven't seen skunk2's shock? Might not be the best out there but it does have a shorter body. I have skunk2 shocks and springs on my dc2. It does ride pretty rough but doesn't bounce. And I rarely ever bottom out.
08-21-2008, 09:28 AM
#12
Honda-Tech Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nowhere and Everywhere
Posts: 29,530
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
46 Posts
Re: (obnoxiousls)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by obnoxiousls »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
You haven't seen skunk2's shock? Might not be the best out there but it does have a shorter body. I have skunk2 shocks and springs on my dc2. It does ride pretty rough but doesn't bounce. And I rarely ever bottom out.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Oh cool I didn't know they had those. Although they are non-adjustable, I would be interested to know how well they hold up with the stiffer spring rates of the coilovers or race springs.
You haven't seen skunk2's shock? Might not be the best out there but it does have a shorter body. I have skunk2 shocks and springs on my dc2. It does ride pretty rough but doesn't bounce. And I rarely ever bottom out.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Oh cool I didn't know they had those. Although they are non-adjustable, I would be interested to know how well they hold up with the stiffer spring rates of the coilovers or race springs.
08-21-2008, 10:13 AM
#13
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (obnoxiousls)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by obnoxiousls »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
You haven't seen skunk2's shock? Might not be the best out there but it does have a shorter body. I have skunk2 shocks and springs on my dc2. It does ride pretty rough but doesn't bounce. And I rarely ever bottom out.</TD></TR></TABLE>
i had a set of the sk2 sports shocks for 2 weeks, depending the drop height if your running any spring rates lower than 6k you'll have bottoming out issues. I paired the sk2 shocks with ground control's w/ OTS civic rates and man did i have bottoming out issues. I was tucking a little more than 2inchs in the front and rear.
Modified by bmoua at 11:23 AM 8/21/2008
You haven't seen skunk2's shock? Might not be the best out there but it does have a shorter body. I have skunk2 shocks and springs on my dc2. It does ride pretty rough but doesn't bounce. And I rarely ever bottom out.</TD></TR></TABLE>
i had a set of the sk2 sports shocks for 2 weeks, depending the drop height if your running any spring rates lower than 6k you'll have bottoming out issues. I paired the sk2 shocks with ground control's w/ OTS civic rates and man did i have bottoming out issues. I was tucking a little more than 2inchs in the front and rear.
Modified by bmoua at 11:23 AM 8/21/2008
08-21-2008, 10:38 AM
#14
Honda-Tech Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nowhere and Everywhere
Posts: 29,530
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
46 Posts
Re: (bmoua)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bmoua »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
i had a set of the sk2 sports shocks for 2 weeks, depending the drop height if your running any spring rates lower than 6k you'll have bottoming out issues. I paired the sk2 shocks with ground control's w/ OTS civic rates and man did i have bottoming out issues. I was tucking a little more than 2inchs in the front and rear.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
TUCKING 2 inches?!?! Well that was your problem. I'm surprised you had ANY suspension travel at ALL.
i had a set of the sk2 sports shocks for 2 weeks, depending the drop height if your running any spring rates lower than 6k you'll have bottoming out issues. I paired the sk2 shocks with ground control's w/ OTS civic rates and man did i have bottoming out issues. I was tucking a little more than 2inchs in the front and rear.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
TUCKING 2 inches?!?! Well that was your problem. I'm surprised you had ANY suspension travel at ALL.
08-21-2008, 11:36 AM
#15
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (PatrickGSR94)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PatrickGSR94 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
TUCKING 2 inches?!?! Well that was your problem. I'm surprised you had ANY suspension travel at ALL.</TD></TR></TABLE>
well the shock did sit quite lower than a regular aftermarket shock and sk2 did state their sport shocks can handle up to a 2.5inchs. I believe the shocks valving was to soft, my spring rates was too soft to run it that low as well.
TUCKING 2 inches?!?! Well that was your problem. I'm surprised you had ANY suspension travel at ALL.</TD></TR></TABLE>
well the shock did sit quite lower than a regular aftermarket shock and sk2 did state their sport shocks can handle up to a 2.5inchs. I believe the shocks valving was to soft, my spring rates was too soft to run it that low as well.
08-21-2008, 12:52 PM
#16
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA, United States
Posts: 7,539
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: (slammed_93_hatch)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
That still doesn't slove the problem of the UCA hitting the upper fender well.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
No, but this does...
That still doesn't slove the problem of the UCA hitting the upper fender well.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
No, but this does...
08-21-2008, 02:14 PM
#17
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Riverside, Ca
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (TunerN00b)
That really doesn't solve it either. Now the whlole arm bottoms out instead of just the end of it. A custom a-arm with a modified spindle is the answer
08-21-2008, 03:04 PM
#18
Honda-Tech Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nowhere and Everywhere
Posts: 29,530
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
46 Posts
Re: (luciferi)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by luciferi »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">That really doesn't solve it either. Now the whlole arm bottoms out instead of just the end of it. A custom a-arm with a modified spindle is the answer</TD></TR></TABLE>
And neither of those solutions addresses the axle hitting the frame. Once you allow even more movement of the suspension, the next thing to hit is the CV axles.
And neither of those solutions addresses the axle hitting the frame. Once you allow even more movement of the suspension, the next thing to hit is the CV axles.
08-21-2008, 04:16 PM
#19
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA, United States
Posts: 7,539
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: (luciferi)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by luciferi »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">That really doesn't solve it either. Now the whlole arm bottoms out instead of just the end of it. A custom a-arm with a modified spindle is the answer</TD></TR></TABLE>
Actually, the arm won't hit. The tire will fully bottom itself out into the fender before the UCA hits.
We extend the shock upper mount (or move the shock lower mount lower) and while it does create more bump travel, we do change the point of contact from the shock to the UCA.
Then, we cut the shock tower (and hopefully reinforce and box the opening, which that picture I posted does not show) to allow the UCA to move up into the engine bay. Again, we've added additional bump travel, but have now moved the point of contact to the tire itself.
Of course, running a smaller diameter tire could then be used to further increase bump travel, but, yeah.
And yes, a shorter spindle (knuckle, upright) and a relocated UCA (move the pivot point down the same amount of spindle shortening) would partially solve the issue, but not as much as you would think at first. The point of contact would then be the tire, which is only 1/2" from contact from the metal inner fender when the UCA hits anyway. So, now we've moved on to $$$ custom parts for a 1/2" gain in bump travel. We've also potentially ruined the geometry of the suspension, doing lord knows what to the IC, RC, camber curbe, toe curve, etc...
Oh, the joys of trying to force an economy car to do something it was never designed to do...
Actually, the arm won't hit. The tire will fully bottom itself out into the fender before the UCA hits.
We extend the shock upper mount (or move the shock lower mount lower) and while it does create more bump travel, we do change the point of contact from the shock to the UCA.
Then, we cut the shock tower (and hopefully reinforce and box the opening, which that picture I posted does not show) to allow the UCA to move up into the engine bay. Again, we've added additional bump travel, but have now moved the point of contact to the tire itself.
Of course, running a smaller diameter tire could then be used to further increase bump travel, but, yeah.
And yes, a shorter spindle (knuckle, upright) and a relocated UCA (move the pivot point down the same amount of spindle shortening) would partially solve the issue, but not as much as you would think at first. The point of contact would then be the tire, which is only 1/2" from contact from the metal inner fender when the UCA hits anyway. So, now we've moved on to $$$ custom parts for a 1/2" gain in bump travel. We've also potentially ruined the geometry of the suspension, doing lord knows what to the IC, RC, camber curbe, toe curve, etc...
Oh, the joys of trying to force an economy car to do something it was never designed to do...
08-21-2008, 05:00 PM
#20
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Riverside, Ca
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (TunerN00b)
Those who actually get to the point of modifying arms and spindles usually have already cut out where the axle and tire hits. 
. I was just trying to point out you have to modify those, not just cut a hole, if you want full travel.
. I was just trying to point out you have to modify those, not just cut a hole, if you want full travel.
08-21-2008, 08:15 PM
#21
Honda-Tech Member
well i had a good suggestion from my friend. depending on the car you have, this option may not be for you. luckily i own an ek and i run crx's shock which is shorter in the front. only thing need to be done is swapping out the forks and you got yourself a direct bolt on.
08-21-2008, 09:06 PM
#22
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (tienzien)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tienzien »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">well i had a good suggestion from my friend. depending on the car you have, this option may not be for you. luckily i own an ek and i run crx's shock which is shorter in the front. only thing need to be done is swapping out the forks and you got yourself a direct bolt on.</TD></TR></TABLE>
can anybody vouch for this?
isn't the different shock valving going to make any aftermarket shock underdampened with the extra weight put on.
can anybody vouch for this?
isn't the different shock valving going to make any aftermarket shock underdampened with the extra weight put on.
08-28-2008, 04:25 AM
#24
Re: Why do people spend so much money on lowering/suspension but...? (dfoxengr)
so then why dont people who know about this issue just do the quick cheap fix of top hat extension?
08-28-2008, 04:43 AM
#25
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (TunerN00b)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TunerN00b »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Actually, the arm won't hit. The tire will fully bottom itself out into the fender before the UCA hits.
We extend the shock upper mount (or move the shock lower mount lower) and while it does create more bump travel, we do change the point of contact from the shock to the UCA.
Then, we cut the shock tower (and hopefully reinforce and box the opening, which that picture I posted does not show) to allow the UCA to move up into the engine bay. Again, we've added additional bump travel, but have now moved the point of contact to the tire itself.
Of course, running a smaller diameter tire could then be used to further increase bump travel, but, yeah.
And yes, a shorter spindle (knuckle, upright) and a relocated UCA (move the pivot point down the same amount of spindle shortening) would partially solve the issue, but not as much as you would think at first. The point of contact would then be the tire, which is only 1/2" from contact from the metal inner fender when the UCA hits anyway. So, now we've moved on to $$$ custom parts for a 1/2" gain in bump travel. We've also potentially ruined the geometry of the suspension, doing lord knows what to the IC, RC, camber curbe, toe curve, etc...
Oh, the joys of trying to force an economy car to do something it was never designed to do...</TD></TR></TABLE>
Doesn't cutting the shock tower reduce the integrity of the shock tower? I would be afraid to do that. Not only for safety/insurance issues, but u have the UCA mounts right there- when you go over a bump or load the chassis u get even more geometry deformation than stock
Best bet IMO is to do two things- 1, run a shock with a shorter shaft like the Koni Yellows or Skunk2s, 2- do a top hat mod or use some funky combination of parts like the EK shocks and EF fork, etc
It would be cool if someone could get a bunch of stock suspensions to compare what fits on what and what setup creates the most travel
Actually, the arm won't hit. The tire will fully bottom itself out into the fender before the UCA hits.
We extend the shock upper mount (or move the shock lower mount lower) and while it does create more bump travel, we do change the point of contact from the shock to the UCA.
Then, we cut the shock tower (and hopefully reinforce and box the opening, which that picture I posted does not show) to allow the UCA to move up into the engine bay. Again, we've added additional bump travel, but have now moved the point of contact to the tire itself.
Of course, running a smaller diameter tire could then be used to further increase bump travel, but, yeah.
And yes, a shorter spindle (knuckle, upright) and a relocated UCA (move the pivot point down the same amount of spindle shortening) would partially solve the issue, but not as much as you would think at first. The point of contact would then be the tire, which is only 1/2" from contact from the metal inner fender when the UCA hits anyway. So, now we've moved on to $$$ custom parts for a 1/2" gain in bump travel. We've also potentially ruined the geometry of the suspension, doing lord knows what to the IC, RC, camber curbe, toe curve, etc...
Oh, the joys of trying to force an economy car to do something it was never designed to do...</TD></TR></TABLE>
Doesn't cutting the shock tower reduce the integrity of the shock tower? I would be afraid to do that. Not only for safety/insurance issues, but u have the UCA mounts right there- when you go over a bump or load the chassis u get even more geometry deformation than stock
Best bet IMO is to do two things- 1, run a shock with a shorter shaft like the Koni Yellows or Skunk2s, 2- do a top hat mod or use some funky combination of parts like the EK shocks and EF fork, etc
It would be cool if someone could get a bunch of stock suspensions to compare what fits on what and what setup creates the most travel
