crx steering rack question
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,390
Likes: 1
From: downshifting into 5th,, nyc, usa
crx steering rack question
i'm in the process of installing a quaiffe steering rack gear, and some other threads around got me thinking.
does anyone know what makes the hf rack quicker (which gear is different)?
i'm wondering if it would be beneficial to use the quaife in an hf over the si.
does anyone know what makes the hf rack quicker (which gear is different)?
i'm wondering if it would be beneficial to use the quaife in an hf over the si.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 18,961
Likes: 76
From: I am Tyson
Re: crx steering rack question (rsca_crx)
HF isnt quicker. its the same as DX. you can check helms.
(why does everyone think the hf has a quicker steering rack?? who started this myth?)
Si is variable ratio. they do this by spacing the rack teeth progressively.
btw, you do need the HF/DX rack to install the quaife.
(why does everyone think the hf has a quicker steering rack?? who started this myth?)
Si is variable ratio. they do this by spacing the rack teeth progressively.
btw, you do need the HF/DX rack to install the quaife.
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,390
Likes: 1
From: downshifting into 5th,, nyc, usa
Re: crx steering rack question (Tyson)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">HF isnt quicker. its the same as DX. you can check helms.
(why does everyone think the hf has a quicker steering rack?? who started this myth?)
Si is variable ratio. they do this by spacing the rack teeth progressively.
btw, you do need the HF/DX rack to install the quaife.</TD></TR></TABLE>
i just read it in the hf/si/dx argument thread and went "hmm"
i guess i should have said "quicker than si"
exerpt from other thread
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Every part of the HF's engine is as small and light as possible. The intake pipe could be clogged with a golf ball, the manifold runners are like Slurpee(R) straws and the catalytic converter is nestled up to the exhaust ports--not to improve emissions, but to shrink the heavy, cast iron exhaust manifold. Despite being the same engine family, the HF's engine was 25 lbs lighter than the D16 in the CRX Si. Nothing is impossible, but making power with an HF engine is awfully close.
The quest for mileage also included a comprehensive lightening program. The lightest of all CRXs, the 1988 HF, weighed in at just a hair over 1,800 lbs (with a dry gas tank), almost 200 lbs lighter than the contemporary Si. While this bantam-weight chassis seems like a dream come true, remember that much of this lightness comes from the undersized engine, tiny brakes and light, 13-inch wheels. The HF even went without front and rear anti-roll bars to save weight. Adding performance will naturally involve adding weight. The HF is still the lightest chassis to start from, however, thanks to limited standard equipment (The lack of a sunroof alone saves nearly 50 lbs.), lighter bumpers, a slightly smaller gas tank (by 1.3 gallons), less sound deadening and lighter seats. Because of the skinny, low rolling resistance tires it was equipped with originally, the steering on the HF is actually quicker than on the Si.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
from
http://www.sportcompactcarweb....ojcrx
from njn63 here https://honda-tech.com/zerothre...48324
no more confusion now. i have the dx rack in my si already so everything should be easy.
(why does everyone think the hf has a quicker steering rack?? who started this myth?)
Si is variable ratio. they do this by spacing the rack teeth progressively.
btw, you do need the HF/DX rack to install the quaife.</TD></TR></TABLE>
i just read it in the hf/si/dx argument thread and went "hmm"
i guess i should have said "quicker than si"
exerpt from other thread
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Every part of the HF's engine is as small and light as possible. The intake pipe could be clogged with a golf ball, the manifold runners are like Slurpee(R) straws and the catalytic converter is nestled up to the exhaust ports--not to improve emissions, but to shrink the heavy, cast iron exhaust manifold. Despite being the same engine family, the HF's engine was 25 lbs lighter than the D16 in the CRX Si. Nothing is impossible, but making power with an HF engine is awfully close.
The quest for mileage also included a comprehensive lightening program. The lightest of all CRXs, the 1988 HF, weighed in at just a hair over 1,800 lbs (with a dry gas tank), almost 200 lbs lighter than the contemporary Si. While this bantam-weight chassis seems like a dream come true, remember that much of this lightness comes from the undersized engine, tiny brakes and light, 13-inch wheels. The HF even went without front and rear anti-roll bars to save weight. Adding performance will naturally involve adding weight. The HF is still the lightest chassis to start from, however, thanks to limited standard equipment (The lack of a sunroof alone saves nearly 50 lbs.), lighter bumpers, a slightly smaller gas tank (by 1.3 gallons), less sound deadening and lighter seats. Because of the skinny, low rolling resistance tires it was equipped with originally, the steering on the HF is actually quicker than on the Si.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
from
http://www.sportcompactcarweb....ojcrx
from njn63 here https://honda-tech.com/zerothre...48324
no more confusion now. i have the dx rack in my si already so everything should be easy.
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 18,961
Likes: 76
From: I am Tyson
Re: crx steering rack question (rsca_crx)
that article also says the HF didnt have a front swaybar...
(but it doesnt say it has a quicker steering ratio, just less resistant tires, READ CAREFULLY!
)
and they are the same damn magazine that has purported that the 88 had mythical "passive rear steering"....
thats why i never read those lame mags.
AND ITS MY MISSION TO CORRECT ALL THEIR MISINFORMATION!!!!!
MUHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
(but it doesnt say it has a quicker steering ratio, just less resistant tires, READ CAREFULLY!
)and they are the same damn magazine that has purported that the 88 had mythical "passive rear steering"....
thats why i never read those lame mags.
AND ITS MY MISSION TO CORRECT ALL THEIR MISINFORMATION!!!!!
MUHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,390
Likes: 1
From: downshifting into 5th,, nyc, usa
Re: crx steering rack question (Tyson)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">that article also says the HF didnt have a front swaybar...
(but it doesnt say it has a quicker steering ratio, just less resistant tires, READ CAREFULLY! )
and they are the same damn magazine that has purported that the 88 had mythical "passive rear steering"....
thats why i never read those lame mags.
AND ITS MY MISSION TO CORRECT ALL THEIR MISINFORMATION!!!!!
MUHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!</TD></TR></TABLE>
i'll cry if we have to go through the rear steering thing again. the real question is did it say it was because of the control arms or the...
you have the numbers on the hf/dx rack vs the si handy just to make my life easier and fill in the missing info of the thread?
(but it doesnt say it has a quicker steering ratio, just less resistant tires, READ CAREFULLY!
)and they are the same damn magazine that has purported that the 88 had mythical "passive rear steering"....
thats why i never read those lame mags.
AND ITS MY MISSION TO CORRECT ALL THEIR MISINFORMATION!!!!!
MUHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!</TD></TR></TABLE>
i'll cry if we have to go through the rear steering thing again. the real question is did it say it was because of the control arms or the...
you have the numbers on the hf/dx rack vs the si handy just to make my life easier and fill in the missing info of the thread?
Trending Topics
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 18,961
Likes: 76
From: I am Tyson
Re: crx steering rack question (rsca_crx)
bingo!
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1496269
the STD/DX/HF rack has 18.6:1 ratio. the variable Si rack has 19.8(18-20.4):1.
i think that means its nominally 19.8:1 but varies from (18-20.4):1
interestingly, my 88 CRX helms manual only states the 18.6:1 ratio. while the above info is quoted from my 91 helms. so i guess 88 Si's didnt get the variable ratio. (ill have to confirm that somehow. SLhonda parts shows the 88 si having the same 90 si steering rack part number...)
turn lock to lock is listed 3.8 DX and 4.1 Si.
also the power rack ratio is 17.7:1 with 3.65 lock to lock.
oh yeah, the JDM/UK SiR/VT has 21.6 (19.6-22.3) : 1, with 4.1 turns lock to lock. but i think the increased turning ratio is simply due to the different steering arm lengths on the knuckle and different tie rods. because lock to lock is the same.
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1496269
the STD/DX/HF rack has 18.6:1 ratio. the variable Si rack has 19.8(18-20.4):1.
i think that means its nominally 19.8:1 but varies from (18-20.4):1
interestingly, my 88 CRX helms manual only states the 18.6:1 ratio. while the above info is quoted from my 91 helms. so i guess 88 Si's didnt get the variable ratio. (ill have to confirm that somehow. SLhonda parts shows the 88 si having the same 90 si steering rack part number...)
turn lock to lock is listed 3.8 DX and 4.1 Si.
also the power rack ratio is 17.7:1 with 3.65 lock to lock.
oh yeah, the JDM/UK SiR/VT has 21.6 (19.6-22.3) : 1, with 4.1 turns lock to lock. but i think the increased turning ratio is simply due to the different steering arm lengths on the knuckle and different tie rods. because lock to lock is the same.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
