Well I recently test drove my friends newly fitted buddy club ep3..Handling is top notch thanks to the extreme negative camber the mcphersons are getting in the front..However there seems to be catch-22..Thanks to the steering arm mounted to the strut as negative camber increases so does toe making tire changes a monthly issue..I suggested that possibly using spc crash bolts on the bottom could balance it out, but it seems like a jip being that these coilovers are not cheap and the engineers should have taken this into account(I do realize they are intended for track, but still)..My question is are there any companies out there who make longer steering arms to compensate on folks running extreme negative camber in the front? Also is there any difference between the DC5 steering arms and the EP3 since this seems to be the weakest link.. It seems like nobody makes the perfect coilover set-up..JIC= fine on toe, but not enough negative camber...Buddy Club= Great - camber crappy toe..aaarrgg Also let me make clear that I love negative camber, I just hate inward toe


Modified by Halo at 5:28 PM 1/11/2005

 

Thanks for the feedback! It's times like theses that make me want to keep my Mugen Sport Suspension instead of going with something more agressive. My choice though is to go for the BC's until more research is processed within this matter.

-Victor

 

Nice to hear someone else running the BC..However it is my suspicion your 0 toe setting is due to the length differences between the ep3 and dc5 steering arm..My friend is at -3 degrees in the front with the shock set to max +, ie-toward fenders..He basically used the AJ Power website car as a reference for this position and a little common sense.. I do not know what the exact toe values are in front but it's bad enough to eat through a brand new set of Azenis in literally 4 weeks! Say no to toe! I don't really think too much of aftermarket crash bolts due to their verifiable slippage issues, and lack of strength integrity compared to oem. I am personally using revalved Progress coilovers with 1000 lbs in front and 2000 in the rear. I was using 2 sets of spc crash bolts per strut..Buttom bolt at full positive and top at full negative and was in the neighborhood of -3 degrees in the front, that is until one of the bottom bolts cracked in half Let me add also that the progress setup is very nice just not very serious for someone wishing to graduate from the street..Also it makes me kind of nervous that your steering arm is maxed to the edge, I can't imagine anything worse than that coming undone midturn

 

wow not sure what to say about what thread engagement is safe or not, but I wouldn't mess with it, until someone comes out with a tie rod end

good thread here..

http://www.ephatch.com/forum/s...25153

and

http://www.tein.com/tierod.html


http://www.djmsuspension.com/A...d.htm

and

http://forums.clubrsx.com/show...+ends

 

Part of this thread covers it:

https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=481932

EP3 tierods are different than DC5 tierods. The DC5 seems to have enough adjustment for max camber and normal toe settings. The EP3, however, does not. I went through the same problem although my tierods were too long and I ran out of inboard adjustment (threads maxxed on tierod).

 

so why not use rsx endlinks?

 

Ok, I'm a bit confused. I was under the impression that the EP3 tie-rods were too long and that's why the wheels went toe-in when you dial in more camber (since the tie rod attaches to the back of the strut).

You guys are saying that the tie rod is not long enough??? Confused...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Burgh &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ok, I'm a bit confused. I was under the impression that the EP3 tie-rods were too long and that's why the wheels went toe-in when you dial in more camber (since the tie rod attaches to the back of the strut).

You guys are saying that the tie rod is not long enough??? Confused...</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm not sure what they are saying, but you are correct in where the problem lies. EP3 tierods are too long. If the rod was too short, you'd have toe-out problems in that you could not get the car to 0 degrees toe--you'd constantly have toe out issues. And this is not the case.

The EP3 and DC5 tierod ends are similar. It's the actual rod that is different. And if you are using the car in sanctioned competition (like SCCA SoloII), it is illegal in most classes to swap tierods.

 

Well if I had to choose between toe in and toe out I would for sure pic the second option...How hard would it be to swap the dc5 rods into the ep3?


Modified by Halo at 1:18 PM 1/12/2005

 

On a side note I called and spoke with the people at TEIN and they have no plans on introducing any type of tie rod or end because they have not gotten any demand..I would urge all of you to call tein and have them develop something that in my oppinion is urgently needed! Everytime I look at my suspension I feel like choking the engineer who came up with this design..I wish I still had my EK

 

By the way, what type of racing are you involved in to be running 1000/2000K spring rates, LOL! Did you mean to say that Progress actually revalved their C2 kit to handle these special rates? What sort of camber plates are you running with it? I guess I'm basically asking you to spill the beans about your suspension.

 

I am not running any events just always liked the skateboard feel...Progress can revalve their shock to just about any spring made..which is why I chose them (Now selling by the way for buddy clubs &lt;----camber *****) + progress front and rear sways), hotchkis camber plates) and D3 X-brace...Despite the camber plates getting any negative camber has been a nightmare with the macs..I was able to acheive nearly -3 degrees of neg camber by using 2 sets of spc crash bolts per strut..bottom full positive, top full negative..(don't do this by the way)
I am also looking into just swapping out the ep3 steering arms in favor of the dc5

 

 

notice the front is dropped over 3 inches and still such positive camber Tires 205/55 16 Azenis Sports

 

How much camber were you able to get with the progress kit + camber plates without the spc bolts? I'm guessing not more than 2 degrees? How come? Not enough adjustment on the camber plate or toe problems?

 

exactly right, hotchkis plate is not suited for that..Thats why I am selling them and going for a complete setup like BC


Modified by Halo at 1:45 PM 1/13/2005

 

Just to make sure I have everything clear...

RSX----more negative camber =more toe out since steering arms are shorter
EP3-----more negative camber =more toe in since steering arms are longer

If this is the case and from a handling and tire wear issue toe out is better than toe in..why not just swap out the ep3 steering rack and arms for the rsx?

Hard to tell from the pic but the rear is at like -4 degrees

 

I knew that the DC rods were shorter, but I didn't realize that they were THAT much shorter.

Not sure if this related to a similar issue, but there is an HKS coilover for the DC/EP that is basically the same kit except that they specify the use of RSX tie rods if you're going to put it on the EP.

Halo: What was it about the Hotchkis plates that did not let you adjust camber? Was a lack of adjustment up top?

 

yes the sliding mechanism under the metal plate is too small...I will try to post pics comparing it against the BC camber plate...The more I look at the BC kit, the more sexy it looks and allot of engineering went into it..

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by blackdc5 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Nice Car. So on the EP3 w/ BCs, contrary to the DC5 w/ BCs, your tie rod arms are too long? I know an option for my car would be either to dial in more camber (so the strut will lean inwards up top so I can shorten the tie rod arms a little bit for more thread engagement) or invert the tie rod end so the arm itself doesn't have to extend so long...but it's pretty low as is and might hit the frame during decompression. But re: the first option, I already have -2.25 degrees of camber and although I haven't had too much problems w/ tire wear (0 to 1/32" total toe out) I don't know how much more neg. camber a primarily street car can take (don't want to lose straight line traction either). </TD></TR></TABLE>

When I lower my car I get allot more toe in..when you lower yours you get allot more toe out..I would rather be in you position..

 

Anyone ever tried or looked into trying to invert the tie rod ends like so...?



http://forums.clubrsx.com/show...+ends

EDIT: Just realized this thread was already linked here. Sorry


Modified by Tomek at 4:29 PM 1/20/2005

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tomek &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Anyone ever tried or looked into trying to invert the tie rod ends like so...?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah, there have been a few threads mentioning this as a possibility. I don't see how this would work for the EPs though. You've already got a problem with the arms being too long. Now if you mount them upside down, the angle decreases but the effective length of the arm *increases* giving you even more toe-in problems. Someone correct me if I'm thinking about this the wrong way.

 

your right burgh

 

burgh is always right...

the rsx/dc5 should have the same problem the si/ep3 has, not the opposite. if the tie rods are shorter it would just allow more negative camber before the toe-in was forced.

if the rsx/dc5 tie rods are really shorter wouldn't it be a good thing to swap for si/ep3's? then you could flip the tie-rod ends to the bottom...

any rsx/dc5 owners care to measure the length of their tie rods?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Burgh &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yeah, there have been a few threads mentioning this as a possibility. I don't see how this would work for the EPs though.
You've already got a problem with the arms being too long.
Now if you mount them upside down, the angle decreases but the effective length of the arm *increases* giving you even more toe-in problems.
Someone correct me if I'm thinking about this the wrong way. </TD></TR></TABLE>
you are correct