Stop the Beast

I searched this topic very well before posting. I've seen post saying that Skunk 21mm and ITR 22mm can tear the Civic's sub-frame and/or I-Beam. I need to know exactly what the I-Beam is for clarification? Does a CTR use a 22mm sway-bar? Does Honda give a USDM Civic Si and/or JDM CTR any extra sub-frame support to accomidate the strain of a swaybar? What are these supports I've heard of: "beaks" and something available from King Motorsports? What size is a factory USDM Civic Si swaybar? I know it's a lot of questions but you people are smart

B18C-EJ1

There is a LOT of information on this subject, just use the https://honda-tech.com/zerosearch button.

kefka

iTrader: (1)

not sure about the i-beam,but the usdm si,canadian sir and the ctr all have 26mm front sways....


[Modified by madeinjapan, 12:43 PM 2/17/2002]

Stop the Beast

I got it, they use a 26mm front and the question is rear, they use a 22mm rear. I still can't find out why an Si or a CTR can use a big ol' rear sway bar but all the post I read say a 22mm bar can tear my sub-frame.


[Modified by brokstar, 8:46 PM 2/17/2002]

kefka

iTrader: (1)

my bad, i was talking about the fronts for some reason...itr have stock 22mm sways so maybe they are the same or smaller

kefka

iTrader: (1)

i might be wrong but the rear sway on the 99-00 si's is a 13mm...

HENRY

The USDM ITR rear sway is 22mm while the JDM ITR is 23mm. The sub-frame that everyone refers to is the cross-member that connects the two rear lower control arms. That is where you would mount the d-brackets for the sway bar. Honda prvides extra support for the ITR/CTR, beefing up the sub-frame. That is why people here use the beaks kit. They are just beefy reinforcement plates that would distribute the force of a thicker swaybar. The link for the beaks site is...
http://www.geocities.com/beaksproducts/main.html

BTW, the Si doesn't have a very thick rear sway bar...something like 14mm.


[Modified by HENRY, 9:00 PM 2/17/2002]

Halo

I have had the rear I beam torn from my 97 CX(thanks to Suspension Techniques) and I can tell you from experience it is a nightmare, the 97+ up Civic hatches are the only Civics that have welded in I beams, I had to pay $1000 to get it fixed. Don't try to save money when choosing a rear swaybar, get the best. I am saving my money for the Comptech rear set-up

Jackson

this is my 2000 ek with the itr rear sway with the beaks srk. this kit greatly strengthens the subframe and i would highly recommend it. the beaks kit is the gold plate behind the d-bracket.

Beaks

This is the Beaks SRK-EK and its available at http://www.geocities.com/BeaksProducts/srk-ek.html



A similar kit for EG's has been "on the market" for over a year and recently I expanded it to cover the EK's. The idea for the kit is to minimize the chance of a subframe sheet metal tear-out often seen with a rear anti-sway bar upgrade (like the ITR's 22mm dia. bar).



About the King's setup, some people have good results and some haven't. While I'm not trying to bash King's setup, my opinion is that it doesn't reinforce the subframe sheet metal effectively because the forces that contribute to the tear out problem mainly comes thru the top and from the back side (pulling). King doesn't provide any parts for the back side as I understand. The fact that it connects to the LCA pivot bolt has nothing to do with reinforcement. In fact, some people already have experience tears outs and broken parts with King's plates.



To reinforce the subframe properly, it must be done on the back side. The Beaks' SRK's nut plates which are threaded and mount from the inside of the subframe. This plate is about 3 times larger than the O.E. steel nut-plate that's welded on the Si. The nut plates is bolted to the bushing bracket and the SRK's support plates. The whole assembly sandwiches the sheet metal and distribute the load over a greater "shear area" and minimize tear-outs. The SRK provides better subframe protection on the Si and even more so on non-Si EK's.

-Wil


[Modified by Beaks, 8:21 PM 2/17/2002]


[Modified by Beaks, 8:39 PM 2/17/2002]