I've lower my 91 hb 1.75 in front and rear which camber kit should I go with the adjustable or a preset kit and should I go ahead and do new lower and uper control arms or are my stocks good?

 

i would go with adjustable camber kits for the front and buy some washers and bolts for the rear.

this link will go into further detail about the washer and bolt trick for the rear.
http://home.earthlink.net/~civ....html

 

I would not use any camber kit with that mild of a drop. Unless you need the adjustability to dial in an exact camber setting for racing, you'll just be buying parts, adding weight, and reducing the available free space between the front UCA and upper spring perch.

If you're worried about "camber wear", well, I think the fear is completely over exaggerated. My Triumph Spitfire has been running -4.75* rear camber (swing axle suspension) for the last 10k miles (factory spec is -3.75* +- 1*, so actually within spec), without any sign of increased, abnormal, or otherwise funky tire wear. Now, the set of tires before this set I killed in nothing flat due to terrible toe settings.

Get your car aligned, and either have them 0 (zero) out the toe or go with factory toe specs, depending on what you want from the car, and you'll be fine.

 

just a thought, go 2 fire stone lifetime alignment for 150$. If u do any suspension work @ all you gona be aligning ur car ALOT!

 

i drove my car for 10k w/o a camber kit on the front or rear, now new tires are needed.

I would recomend megan cheap and effecive its what I used as well as thir toe kit for the rear.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by speedjunky01 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i drove my car for 10k w/o a camber kit on the front or rear, now new tires are needed.

I would recomend megan cheap and effecive its what I used as well as thir toe kit for the rear.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I would seriously argue with this, but I've previously mentioned my personal experience with massive camber. However, what we can't argue about is the fact that incorrect toe settings will eat tires, and the fact that changing the height of the car will change toe settings.

So no matter what, any car will need to have the toe correctly aligned after a height change.

However, there is absolutely no need for a rear toe kit. The rear toe is adjustable stock, so nothing is needed to align the rear toe.

 

yea you had massive camber but it was within factory spec with that huge camber. he owns a honda and im talking from experience with my honda.

my toe couldnt be adjusted far enough to get the toe right so I went to megan and grabed a toe kit for 55 bucks.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by scrupio &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">just a thought, go 2 fire stone lifetime alignment for 150$. If u do any suspension work @ all you gona be aligning ur car ALOT! </TD></TR></TABLE>

LOL! Firestone by my house told me this:

"Since your car has modified suspension, we are going to charge you double and it comes with NO warranty"...

Fuc-k Firestone & their shitty *** attitude. I can't stand those guys. I went to them once before and they tried to sell me a lower balljoing for $120 (part only). I was like WTF! They came back & said they found the part on dicount for $60 (OEM Honda list is like $35). I called Pep Boys & they had them in stock for $25 each...



I get my alignments at Sears...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by speedjunky01 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yea you had massive camber but it was within factory spec with that huge camber. he owns a honda and im talking from experience with my honda.

my toe couldnt be adjusted far enough to get the toe right so I went to megan and grabed a toe kit for 55 bucks.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Once you lower the car, the ride height, shock travel, roll center, and spring rates are no longer in spec either. Why should the camber be the only thing within factory spec? Why would a factory spec for camber be best, when everything else has been changed?

And the make of the car doesn't matter. The tires don't know if they're on a Triumph or a Honda. They only know the weight they're supporting and their orientation to the road surface.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TunerN00b &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Once you lower the car, the ride height, shock travel, roll center, and spring rates are no longer in spec either. Why should the camber be the only thing within factory spec? Why would a factory spec for camber be best, when everything else has been changed?

And the make of the car doesn't matter. The tires don't know if they're on a Triumph or a Honda. They only know the weight they're supporting and their orientation to the road surface.</TD></TR></TABLE>

i agree totally with your first paragraph.

however, it kinda does matter if its a triumph or honda. because the dynamic suspension geometry is very different between the two. the key is that honda's double wishbone suspension is designed to control camber better than macpherson strut for ultimately better handling. thats why they bother. it takes more space and costs more in parts. and it goes back to your first paragraph. the original camber range was designed at stock height and spring rates. increasing the spring rate and lowering the ride height, youve thrown out the static camber adjustment spec out the window. but keep in mind that honda designed that under cornering load, with stock spring rates the suspension was designed to have negative camber for better handling. so it makes sense that you WANT to keep that negative camber. and empirically, tire wear is much less sensitive to negative camber than it is offset toe angle, so static camber and tire wear is not an issue.