When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
There is no way to know for sure unless you were a bushing manufacturer. I would only be speculating. I would say the important part is to use the same arm left to right I guess. I doubt you would even notice the difference.
I found this image of the Hardrace versions that really helps illustrate the difference.
Here is a good photo to illustrate the difference. OEM on the left and Spoon/Hardrace/Truhart on the right. The OEM bushing has a void both fore & aft of the chassis connection that allows the trailing arm to actually pull backwards significantly when the brakes are applied and the tire begins to slow the car. Not only does this extend the wheelbase of the vehicle, it forces the compensator arm at the front to pull the nose of the trailing arm inward. This increases the toe-in.
You can see the aftermarket option has no void and most likely has stiffer rubber as well.
I really love this description of how the factory RTA bushings work, very nice description! One part I am struggling with though, is how when the rear brakes are applied, and pull back, effectively lengthening the wheelbase of the car, is how the compesator arms pull the RTA in (increasing toe). In my mind's eye, I see the front of the RTA getting wider, making for a toe-out condition. My mind's eye could be looking at this all wrong however...
If you can elaborate on how the front of the RTA gets pulled in under braking, I would love to learn more.
Thank you for dropping some awesome knowledge in my thread!
Price just depends. MSRP (or list price) is always different for every dealership. Whe have 4 Honda and 2 Acura dealers locally and all have completely different MSRPs.
But when it comes to ordering both Honda-only AND Acura-only parts from one place, you usually can't beat OEMAcuraParts. They sell both. Also they charge a little more for the Honda counterpart (for pieces that cross both brands) since they have to get them from a neighboring partner dealership.
I have good luck with Honda/Acura Online. They will show both the Honda and Acura pricing if you enter a p/n used on both brands. Pricing is hard to beat as well: https://www.hondaacuraonline.com/
Well I think for the rear LCA there is something different besides price between Integra/Civic numbers. Ironically, the Del Sol Si trim (96-97 only, I think the only non-VTEC Del Sols to come with ABS) has the same setup as the Integra but different from the Civic. See below:
Civic Sedan/Coupe/Hatch (ABS) 92/93-95, 95+ Del Sol VTEC
Rear lower arm (R) : 52350-SH3-G21
Outer bushings: 52365-SH3-000
Shock absorber bushing: 52622-SH3-010
Integra (all except Type-R), Del Sol Si (96-97 only)
Rear lower arm (R): 52350-SH3-G31
Outer bushings: 52365-SK7-A02
Shock absorber bushing: 52622-SK7-A02
So that's what I meant by this statement:
At least I *HOPE* the arm geometry is the same. I am not sure I guess.
That is pretty interesting! The rear sway bar for a '94 EX 4-door is the same p/n as for '96 & '97 del Sol Si, but as you point out, the rear LCA is different for del Sol vs. Civics w/ ABS.
One thing that is interesting is that if I check the shock bushing for the rear LCA for my '94 Civic Si w/ ABS, it calls for a Hokushin bushing, and all the others call for a Yamashita.
If I drill into the part, the illustration is wrong, it tries to show a bushing for the compensator arm...
Yes they are different, but they are ALL interchangeable. There are 3 differences between all various part#'s...
- Sway-bar attachments yes/no
- ABS attachments yes/no
- bushing style.
The Integra bushings have extra steel inserts in the rubber portion.
So crazy that at one time they sourced and managed a p/n for ABS that had the boss for sway bar, but it was not drilled & tapped! Now it looks like the rear LCA for my Si w/ ABS is the same as for a 4-door EX w/ sway bar, but my original LCAs are not tapped.
When I look at the rear LCA for DX/LX/VX 5th Gen hatch, there is a different p/n @ $223 and there is no distinction for L vs. R. Wonder if anyone knows anything about those? Maybe they are not equipped for sway bar, and therefore there is no L or R?
I really love this description of how the factory RTA bushings work, very nice description! One part I am struggling with though, is how when the rear brakes are applied, and pull back, effectively lengthening the wheelbase of the car, is how the compesator arms pull the RTA in (increasing toe). In my mind's eye, I see the front of the RTA getting wider, making for a toe-out condition. My mind's eye could be looking at this all wrong however...
If you can elaborate on how the front of the RTA gets pulled in under braking, I would love to learn more.
Thank you for dropping some awesome knowledge in my thread!
The compensator arm attached to the leading nose of the trailing arm controls the trailing arms yaw angle. The 3 dimensional angle at which the compensator arm sits, as well as it's length, determine exactly how the rear suspension behaves under various loads and positions. Assuming the compensator arms are either perpendicular, or swept rearward to the chassis center-line, they will definitely arc inward under braking pulling the nose of the trailing arm toward the center of the vehicle. If the compensator arm was swept forward, then it would definitely do the opposite. I just had a look and the arms are definitely swept rearward. Additionally they angle upward. The 89 CRX with stock ride height has them angled upward quite a bit more than my lowered-2" 94 Civic which are almost parallel to the ground. This means any rear suspension jacking under braking will causes even MORE toe-in......AND.....the amount of additional toe-in is greater with a stock ride height.
The upward angle of this arm was actually changed after its debute in 1988 where it was more parallel to the ground. The rear toe changes were found to be TOO aggressive. In 1989 The chassis mount point was lowered to reduce the tail-happy-ness of the car: https://honda-tech.com/forums/road-r.../#post32012018
In reality, during braking there is actually a lot of weird effects going on in this rear suspension. As with any car, the rear suspension gets unloaded under braking so the suspension droops (chassis rises)....HOWEVER,....the brakes themselves create a torque effect on the trailing arm that actually counters some of that jacking. If you don't believe me, pull your e-brake handle to slow your car and you'll notice the rear end actually squats?
So crazy that at one time they sourced and managed a p/n for ABS that had the boss for sway bar, but it was not drilled & tapped! Now it looks like the rear LCA for my Si w/ ABS is the same as for a 4-door EX w/ sway bar, but my original LCAs are not tapped.
When I look at the rear LCA for DX/LX/VX 5th Gen hatch, there is a different p/n @ $223 and there is no distinction for L vs. R. Wonder if anyone knows anything about those? Maybe they are not equipped for sway bar, and therefore there is no L or R?
Funny that they picture it with a sway bar:
As time goes on, those part#'s are changing. It's really confusing things. Some parts get discontinued, and they swap to a different part# that is compatible but not the same. The arms that are not distinct left & right are from the Civics without sway bars. They are perfectly straight (no kink) and they don't even have the lump in them where the sway-bar hole would be tapped.
As time goes on, those part#'s are changing. It's really confusing things. Some parts get discontinued, and they swap to a different part# that is compatible but not the same. The arms that are not distinct left & right are from the Civics without sway bars. They are perfectly straight (no kink) and they don't even have the lump in them where the sway-bar hole would be tapped.
There is no way to know for sure unless you were a bushing manufacturer. I would only be speculating. I would say the important part is to use the same arm left to right I guess. I doubt you would even notice the difference.
I found this image of the Hardrace versions that really helps illustrate the difference.
Thanks for this insight. I think I am just going to go with the Integra bushings. I think then maybe I can compare those with some of the Civic ones from 94CivicSi and with my OEM Civic EJ1 bushings to see if visually there's any difference.
The prices I'm seeing are retarded! They were just $70-$90 each about 2 months ago.
The ones without the swaybar/ABS provision were $70-90 a couple months ago? That's nuts. Maybe stock is running low. The ABS/sway ones including for the Integra are still $70-90 each.
I was this close to buying the pair of ABS ones for $140 shipped. :\
I did find some K-Tuned V2 LCAs with rubber bushings today that seemed pretty interesting. I almost bought the Tru-Hart (same as Hardrace) ones except I found out the damn sway holes aren't threaded. WTF?!
The compensator arm attached to the leading nose of the trailing arm controls the trailing arms yaw angle. The 3 dimensional angle at which the compensator arm sits, as well as it's length, determine exactly how the rear suspension behaves under various loads and positions. Assuming the compensator arms are either perpendicular, or swept rearward to the chassis center-line, they will definitely arc inward under braking pulling the nose of the trailing arm toward the center of the vehicle. If the compensator arm was swept forward, then it would definitely do the opposite. I just had a look and the arms are definitely swept rearward. Additionally they angle upward. The 89 CRX with stock ride height has them angled upward quite a bit more than my lowered-2" 94 Civic which are almost parallel to the ground. This means any rear suspension jacking under braking will causes even MORE toe-in......AND.....the amount of additional toe-in is greater with a stock ride height.
The upward angle of this arm was actually changed after its debute in 1988 where it was more parallel to the ground. The rear toe changes were found to be TOO aggressive. In 1989 The chassis mount point was lowered to reduce the tail-happy-ness of the car: https://honda-tech.com/forums/road-r.../#post32012018
In reality, during braking there is actually a lot of weird effects going on in this rear suspension. As with any car, the rear suspension gets unloaded under braking so the suspension droops (chassis rises)....HOWEVER,....the brakes themselves create a torque effect on the trailing arm that actually counters some of that jacking. If you don't believe me, pull your e-brake handle to slow your car and you'll notice the rear end actually squats?
Wow, I have given the rear suspension so little thought (up until now).
You gave a great description - thank you!
I am looking forward to taking apart the rear, probably just LCAs - so I can install rear sway bar - and RTAs to get rid of squeak/clunk. I am half thinking of asking Honda if they will warranty the RTA bushings...
If I do the RTAs myself I will play with the compensator arms some so I feel more comfortable with them.
Found this picture in that thread as well - the bolt for the sway bar is longer than I thought it would be! And shouldered... I should plan on sourcing OEM bolts for the sway bar install:
The most interesting thing about those numbers I can see is that the type R am connects the shock further inward than the others. Moving that connection inward by itself would make any given shock/spring setup softer.
Multiple LCA shock connection options is one of the ways that rc car suspensions are tuned. Here is an illustration showing 3 options for shock mounting. The outermost being the stiffest.
Crazy that the price is so much higher given the seemingly simplistic design compared to sway/ABS provisioned arms.
That is a great link as well! We are putting together some great knowledge in here - thanks guys!
Not sure what service manual @Former User was referencing in that thread, but this is a useful scan:
When they reference silicone grease, is that the same as plumber's grease for faucet washers? I don't recall seeing silicone grease at the parts store...
None of this explains why Honda would pay for a LCA with a boss for a sway-bar, unless the cost to tap the arm was significant enough that Honda opted not to pay for that on a hatch that would not be equipped w/ a sway bar..
Last thought, I wonder if those ambidextrous arms are cast aluminum? And thus the price difference?
Last edited by 94 Civic Si; Dec 31, 2017 at 12:18 PM.
the non-sway arms are definitely not aluminum. Mine weighed just as much as the Integra ones I replaced them with.
Silicone grease is also called disc-brake grease at the parts store. Typically used for brake caliper slide pins. Sil-Glyde is the one I have. It's just the large tube of the stuff they sell in tiny packets at the register. It's greate stuff. Actually has many uses. Other great options are both 3m and Mission brand Silicone Paste (available on Amazon). Honda even sells their own silicone grease 08C30-B0234M, but I can't bring myself to pay $43+ for a 100g tube.
Also....there is yet another version of these arms that ARE directional (due to a kink), but do not have sway-bar bosses or ABS holes. That makes at least 5 versions of geometrically identical arms...
That is pretty interesting! The rear sway bar for a '94 EX 4-door is the same p/n as for '96 & '97 del Sol Si, but as you point out, the rear LCA is different for del Sol vs. Civics w/ ABS.
One thing that is interesting is that if I check the shock bushing for the rear LCA for my '94 Civic Si w/ ABS, it calls for a Hokushin bushing, and all the others call for a Yamashita.
If I drill into the part, the illustration is wrong, it tries to show a bushing for the compensator arm...
Still curious as to why my Si w/ ABS calls for the same LCA as a 4-dr EX (w/ ABS) but then lists the different shock bushing - Hokushin of my Si vs. Yamashita for EX.
I thought I would check the shock bolts to see if they were different? If yes, then maybe there was a different ID for the inner bushing? It turns out both applications call for the same lower bolt to join the shock to the LCA.
Then I thought I would check the shocks themselves - those are different! The rear shock absorber unit for my Si is still available. For the EX, it shows they used a Showa rear shock - those are NLA...
Last edited by 94 Civic Si; Jan 21, 2018 at 02:08 PM.
Still curious as to why my Si w/ ABS calls for the same LCA as a 4-dr EX (w/ ABS) but then lists the different shock bushing - Hokushin of my Si vs. Yamashita for EX.
I thought I would chech the shock bolts to see if they were different? If yes, then maybe there was a different ID for the inner bushing? It turns out both applications call for the same lower bolt to join the shock to the LCA.
Then I thought I would check the shocks themselves - those are different! The rear shock absorber unit for my Si is still available. For the EX, it shows they used a Showa rear shock - those are NLA...
I always thought that when I was looking at the parts sites, sometimes it would be one manufacturer vs. another but the part is identical hence the same number. I always figured this was just where they sourced the part from (supplier for example) but maybe they are different. Maybe 94eg! has some insight though.
I kinda assumed they were different manufactures of parts for cars built in different countries. They at least will be interchangeable/compatible if you insist on sticking with OEM. Originally there was also be different shock/spring setups for the various vehicles.
I can definitely say that just because it "appears" in available to purchase, doesn't mean it actually is. The parts for these cars are disappearing daily. If you are really interested in purchasing OEM, I highly recommend you contact your parts person right away to confirm availability of anything you want. In the last few months of parts searching, I would say less than 50% of the parts I requested for the 5th gen Civic were still available between Canada and USA. Almost all the interior stuff is already gone. Lots of the exterior stuff is getting harder to find too and the prices are already jacking up.
Some great information in that link! It sounds like there are some slight size differences on the OD of the different bushings. I will measure mine and see how they compare.
It is funny when I search the 52385-SR3-003 it comes up with no fitment info - $29.85
52385-S21-003 $34.89
52385-SR3-000 $54.44
I saw mention of a warranty from 2006, I am guessing Honda would tell me to get bent now if I tried to get some of that warranty love...
Before I order the RTA bushings, I thought I would check with Honda and see if they would replace under warranty - NO.
Local dealer said it would have been replaced under the original vehicle warranty of 3 yr/36k miles. Not sure how that works on a campaign from '06 and a vehicle from '94, but I could tell I was getting nowhere.
So off I go to buy bushings, hoping the 52385-SR3-003 size agrees w/ my RTAs...
The most interesting thing about those numbers I can see is that the type R am connects the shock further inward than the others. Moving that connection inward by itself would make any given shock/spring setup softer.
Multiple LCA shock connection options is one of the ways that rc car suspensions are tuned. Here is an illustration showing 3 options for shock mounting. The outermost being the stiffest.
That makes sense, the further out the attachment point for the shocks, the less of a moment arm the tire assembly has to compress the shocks - good visual! Thanks...
the non-sway arms are definitely not aluminum. Mine weighed just as much as the Integra ones I replaced them with.
Silicone grease is also called disc-brake grease at the parts store. Typically used for brake caliper slide pins. Sil-Glyde is the one I have. It's just the large tube of the stuff they sell in tiny packets at the register. It's greate stuff. Actually has many uses. Other great options are both 3m and Mission brand Silicone Paste (available on Amazon). Honda even sells their own silicone grease 08C30-B0234M, but I can't bring myself to pay $43+ for a 100g tube.
Thanks! I am going to pick some up for the rear LCA project, and for the brake slide pins.
I decided to get brake pads as well and will do those while I am in there. I have not done the rear pads in years, and I do not like the fronts. I saw in a different thread that the OEM pads are Nissin, which were the last set of front pads that I liked...
I always thought that when I was looking at the parts sites, sometimes it would be one manufacturer vs. another but the part is identical hence the same number. I always figured this was just where they sourced the part from (supplier for example) but maybe they are different. Maybe 94eg! has some insight though.
Originally Posted by 94eg!
I kinda assumed they were different manufactures of parts for cars built in different countries. They at least will be interchangeable/compatible if you insist on sticking with OEM. Originally there was also be different shock/spring setups for the various vehicles.
I can definitely say that just because it "appears" in available to purchase, doesn't mean it actually is. The parts for these cars are disappearing daily. If you are really interested in purchasing OEM, I highly recommend you contact your parts person right away to confirm availability of anything you want. In the last few months of parts searching, I would say less than 50% of the parts I requested for the 5th gen Civic were still available between Canada and USA. Almost all the interior stuff is already gone. Lots of the exterior stuff is getting harder to find too and the prices are already jacking up.
We will see what I get! I went ahead and ordered the rear LCAs for a '94 EX 4-dr. My guess is that it is an random error for the Civic Si, but if they actually have the arms, I will report on how the shock bushings fit my set-up.
Re: Refresh of 94 Civic Si w/ ABS after accident
