Well im really into the handling buisness with vehicles and i know the wheel base length is 90.6 and the width is 57.10 in front and 57.30 in the rear. But im wondering what the lateral force is on these little cars. My guess maybe since the year being so old .82G's? the mini is .87 but has newer technology that makes it better. Anyone know? i want to get my lateral force up in mid .95 or possibly 1.0....

 

you might get better responses in the new suspension forum...

 

No. A good setup like GC coilovers and Koni Yellows can net you up to 1.2 Gs. The G-Tech says I'm at 1.1, and that's with ST Sways, Tokico Blues, and Tokico matched springs.

 

Sweet, nice set-up thats exactly the same i WAS going to do but now im doing OMNI full coil over/struts, ST sway in the rear 205 azenis tires. Possibly after clearance checks H&R spacer kits. I heard the G-techs werent to accurate?? Hell i was thinking of calling up car and driver and having them test it all and put it in the magazine. Id really like to see the specs tho Jdm B16 rex Vs. US D16A6 lateral force OEM

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tRex99 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Sweet, nice set-up thats exactly the same i WAS going to do but now im doing OMNI full coil over/struts, ST sway in the rear 205 azenis tires. Possibly after clearance checks H&R spacer kits. I heard the G-techs werent to accurate?? Hell i was thinking of calling up car and driver and having them test it all and put it in the magazine. Id really like to see the specs tho Jdm B16 rex Vs. US D16A6 lateral force OEM</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah. Gtech isn't accurate. I was also on Azenis race tires. I'm assuming that it was pretty close to that. But at that force, you really can feel the chassis flex, and it's kind of a frightening thing when you first feel it.

 

[quote[...the mini is .87 but has newer technology that makes it better.[/quote]

Not necessarily "better" just because "newer". The Mini is supposed to be a hoot on a tight road, but I've seen comparisons to the CRX in a few reviews (as in, "the New MINI has handling that reminded me of my '88 CRX Si..."). At any rate, I don't know how much newer technology it has, but it definitely has more weight to throw around. It's running right around 2650 pounds curb weight, versus a '91 CRX Si's 2214 lbs, and it's not on significantly wider tires, I don't think. And if someone's come up with a better all-around suspension setup than the double-wishbone that the 2G CRX used, I haven't seen it. Mind you, I like the simpler torsion bar/McPherson strut front and beam-axle/Panhard Rod rear of the 1G CRX better for an autocross car, but that's because it's easy to set up and tune, and that's only for a glass-smooth parking lot. For a daily-driver, I'll take the 2G suspension any day. Comfort has its place.

I'll see if I can dig up some specs from the US road tests back in the day... I *do* remember the cover story on the first CRX ('84 in the US) when it came out: it beat the Lotus Esprit through the slalom! And that was a carb'd 1500 CRX, not even an Si, which hadn't come out yet.

And I'm told by GrassRoots Motorsports magazine that the '85 CRX Si was forced to run in A Stock when it came out - against such cars as Corvettes, Ferraris, and Lotuses (Loti?). They musta been doing *something* right over at Honda...

Hmmm... Looking at my old "CRX Road Test Digest" - which only covers the magazine tests on the first-gen CRXs () - the best they showed for a stock 1G CRX was lateral g of .82. However, they did test Oscar Jackson's turbocharged 1G and pulled .91g with it - on street tires. It doesn't sound hard to accept that meeting or surpassing 1.0g would be pretty easily do-able in a CRX with a little suspension help and some meatier, stickier rubber.

Mike

 

Sweet. I really wasnt sure how fast the G numbers go up so i was like hmm throwing meatier tires on there could only set me up.02...i mean if i can out handle a stock lancer, im happy. those are .94 and the porche averages around .96 besides the high models up in the 1 g's..

 

Yup, and pretty much all of those are on some kind of street tire - usually ones less grippy than Azenis, too. Put some R-compound tires on it, or full race slicks, and 1.0g should be easy.

A few years back, I put a set of 13x8" Goodyear Eagle racing slicks on my '87 Si. They were a "soft" compound, not even the super-soft that was the grippiest available. With those tires on the car, I tried it out in a deserted warehouse district near my house on a Sunday morning. Going down the streets, I could throw it through the 90-degree corners at 55mph without losing grip at all. It was fast enough that it scared me, and I didn't want to push it beyond that.

I threw it into a tight circle on a big pad behind a warehouse, and just kept on the gas to see where it would lose traction. I was getting light-headed before it lost grip. Never had a GTech at the time, or any kind of g-meter, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it was pulling more than 1.0g.

Mike

 

sweet. Well what about the V rated? or VR i cant member? I use to have the falken ziex 512's V rated 205 45 R 16 and the tread wear was 360 which is damn good for a performance tire. most of them i see now are H rated not V i foget there use to be a site with all the ratings of tires. See im not sure about R beause the wear on there is quick. Whats some decent tires, good traction, but up in the around 330 possible 300 for treadwear? Cause i mean i dont do burnouts much or anything. i like the azenis but they got a bad rating on standing water. Maybe i'll just get some good performance tires for driving on my fno1Rc's and buy some light 15's that will clear my 12.2 rotors. and get like a 50 series 205.