Does anyone know how much lighter the jdm itr doors weigh compared to regular usdm doors?

 

approximately 13.689 lbs lighter on the south western side of the 3rd panel located in door 2, and approximately 13.986 lbs lighter on the north eastern side of the 19th panel of door 1. Or at least according to lilJDMhb's book of "Stupid **** to Know"

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by liljdmhb &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">approximately 13.689 lbs lighter on the south western side of the 3rd panel located in door 2, and approximately 13.986 lbs lighter on the north eastern side of the 19th panel of door 1. Or at least according to lilJDMhb's book of "Stupid **** to Know"</TD></TR></TABLE>

This is a legit question if someone is looking to possibly save weight

Perhaps the JDM ITR doors don't have all of the bracing the the USDM doors have, or perhaps both are exactly the same. I'm not sure why you're flaming the OP if you have no idea either way.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Todd00 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

This is a legit question if someone is looking to possibly save weight

Perhaps the JDM ITR doors don't have all of the bracing the the USDM doors have, or perhaps both are exactly the same. I'm not sure why you're flaming the OP if you have no idea either way.</TD></TR></TABLE>
ok ok, i appologize. If it helps, i do know for a fact that the JDM doors are lighter. I'm not sure how much lighter, but i'm sure i can find out. Our local shop has the USDM oem doors and i think they still have some JDM ones too, i'll see if i can't figure out how much lighter. I have the JDM ones on my car, and i can tell you for a fact, they are not that much lighter...

 

I thot both doors from type R are the same... owned... good question.

 

All Integras from 97+ (IIRC) have 3 larger beams in the doors for side impact. The 94-96 only have two smaller beams in the doors. I'm not sure if there's much of a weight savings, but there is a difference. If you go with a 94-96 door then you will need to have the holes filled in where the side molding is supposed to go as well.

 

If this is a street car you should go the safe route and stick with the USDM doors.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by walker111 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If this is a street car you should go the safe route and stick with the USDM doors.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I agree. If the doors are lighter because of less robust reinforcement and crash protection, you don't want them on a street-driven car.

 

USDM's have EXTRA crash protection from the other markets in the world. i believe this was to the tune of **** being stuffed into the bumpers and extra bracing in the doors?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tartje &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">USDM's have EXTRA crash protection from the other markets in the world.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I believe in some cases this is true, and that certainly isn't a bad thing.

 

cool, thanks for the info, it would be cool to see how much lighter the jdm doors really are.

 

The doors that I was talking about were all USDM doors.

 

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

I agree. If the doors are lighter because of less robust reinforcement and crash protection, you don't want them on a street-driven car. </TD></TR></TABLE>

that's what i don't understand, if the non-reinforced doors are safe enough for drivers in other countries around the world, why aren't they good enough for us? stupid NHTSA crash safety standards.

 

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

that's what i don't understand, if the non-reinforced doors are safe enough for drivers in other countries around the world, why aren't they good enough for us? stupid NHTSA crash safety standards.</TD></TR></TABLE>

lol, we have higher standards? Apparently other countries dont care if there people die in car crashes?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by YumVTEC &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">that's what i don't understand, if the non-reinforced doors are safe enough for drivers in other countries around the world, why aren't they good enough for us? stupid NHTSA crash safety standards.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The NHTSA standards are "stupid" because they're more stringent and require greater occupant protection? What kind of reasoning is that?

 

i highly doubt other countries care less about the safety and crash protection of their citizens in vehicles authorized for sale in those countries.

i just get frustrated in general with NHTSA because of the barriers they throw out there that were originally designed to protect domestic auto sales and prevent the importation of greymarket vehicles. these hurdles not only largely prevent vehicle importation (because of minor and trivial differences in safety standards), but they also make it too costly for many overseas OEM's to justify bringing many cars for sale here that have great success in Asia and Europe.

Cases in point:

- EK9
- EP3-R
- DC5-R
- 2006+ CTR
- R32, R33, and R34 Body Style Skylines
- etc...

American drivers could be safer by better training, learning to drive better, by making it more expensive to get licensed to drive, or any number of ways.

I wish I had hard stats on the percentage of fatalities in motor vehicle accidents for the US vs Japan or vs the UK, etc... I would be willing to bet money that our percentages are still much higher even though we have "better" safety standards.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by YumVTEC &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I wish I had hard stats on the percentage of fatalities in motor vehicle accidents for the US vs Japan or vs the UK, etc... I would be willing to bet money that our percentages are still much higher even though we have "better" safety standards.</TD></TR></TABLE>


I would think it's higher in the US. It is a big country you know and very populated with automobiles.

 

Just a small fact from someone i know living in Germany, to get your drivers licence costs like alot of money, i forgot how much exactly, but like 2g's or something crazy like that..meanwhile, after u pass that test, your insurance is only a couple bucks...i think thats the smarter way of doing things, have u trained properly from the beginning so u can be a "great" driver and u wont have to worry about insurance as much. So even though european drivers are more aggressive, or drive faster, they are more confident then the ones here that drive slower which somehow still cause accidents.

 

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

- EK9
- EP3-R
- DC5-R
- 2006+ CTR
- R32, R33, and R34 Body Style Skylines
- etc....</TD></TR></TABLE>

To begin with, every car on your list (with the exception of the Skyline) has some form of U.S. counterpart. It should therefore be clear that meeting U.S. safety standards is not the obstacle here, since different variations of these vehicles have already done so, without suffering any real economic disadvantage. If you want to place blame, it would be better placed with Honda, and the American public as a whole. If Honda believed that these cars would be financially viable in the U.S. market, they'd be here, plain and simple. The reasons for withholding the cars may be slightly different for each model, but in the end it boils down to sales.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by YumVTEC &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">American drivers could be safer by better training, learning to drive better, by making it more expensive to get licensed to drive, or any number of ways.</TD></TR></TABLE>

You're absolutely correct, though the same can be said for any other country, to varying degrees. Nevertheless, having safer drivers does not negate the need for safer cars, and I doubt very much that many people would prefer less stringent safety standards for their cars if given the choice.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by YumVTEC &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I wish I had hard stats on the percentage of fatalities in motor vehicle accidents for the US vs Japan or vs the UK, etc... I would be willing to bet money that our percentages are still much higher even though we have "better" safety standards.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Without knowing the exact figures, I'd rather not speculate, but "much higher" is in all likelihood an exaggerated term in this case. It's also a difficult and inaccurate comparison to make here, because there are many different factors that affect motor vehicle fatality statistics, not just the cars themselves.

 

your points are well taken. and i don't care to start an argument, but I do like intelligent and respectful debate.

you mention that the OEM's decided not to sell the cars on my list becuase it would not be financially viable. one of the reasons this is true is because they have to not only safety certify each and every model of car they sell with NHTSA but they also have to emissions certify every car they sell here with the EPA.

it's not like they can crash test a single EK and be clear with NHTSA and then have the CX, DX, EX, LX, Si, VP, SiR, VTi, Type R, hatch, coupe, and sedan all approved for importation. they have to crash test every single body style and I'm pretty sure they also have to crashtest every trim level since there are major differences for different models.

for example... the suspension and body reinforcements on DC2 ITR chassis are very different than a DC2 GSR chassis, which could potentially make it perform very differently in different crash test configurations (ITR is lower, so front impacts would be different) for Honda to sell the Acura Integra Type R, they had to crash test it as a completely separate vehicle, apart from any previous results of crashtesting an LS, or GS-R. the same would have held true for the EK9 or the EP3-R. they would have had to crash test the ek9 separately from other EK body style and trim level Civics that Honda previously crash tested.

so honda had to look at that requirement and recognize that making the ek9 available here would cannibalize sales from the DC2 ITR here in North America, and then the additional cost of safety and emissions certifying the EK9 to US standards, and then the projected sales they anticipated making for the EK9 and DC2 combined. they realized that to maximize profit, they should only sell the DC2-R here and not the EK9, so they didn't.

they made the decision not to sell the ek9 based on all of these factors.

the same decision process was followed for the EP3-R, DC5-R, 2006+ CTR.

Honda isn't alone. Toyota never sold the Chaser here. Mitsubishi didn't sell the Evo here until 2003. Subaru didn't sell the WRX here until 2002. The list goes on...

 

As do I - it's a refreshing change of pace.

That's true (to the best of my knowledge), but I don't think it's unreasonable. Requiring each model to meet the same minimum safety and emissions standards makes perfect sense.

Again, I'm not completely familiar with the nuances of the tests, but I believe there is a minimum number of each model that must pass. Unless the trim levels differ structurally or mechanically, or would otherwise be expected to perform differently in testing, I'm not sure individual testing would be required.

Yes, I'd imagine that's true, though again, that doesn't seem unreasonable. Also keep in mind that Honda is permitted, as far as I'm aware, to submit qualified test data indicating that a particular vehicle complies with regulations. I would assume that this is true for many countries, and that Honda does not have to pay for specific tests in each and every country a particular car is sold in. The point being that most, if not all, of the cost of testing each model has already been incurred, regardless of whether or not the model will be imported into the US. The additional costs might come in the form of adding reinforcements, perhaps different bumpers or other equipment, as well as engine tuning, but many of these modifications would be similar or identical to those required for the different models of that car already be sold in the US.

Yes, you're on to something here, but primarily with your discussion of sales decisions. While I don't pretend to know what exactly the Honda executives were thinking when making each decision, it's not all that difficult to hypothesise. Certain models might cannibalise sales of existing models (either in the Honda or Acura line). Others might simply not generate enough buying interest with the American public to justify importing them. Tastes can vary widely depending upon the market, and the American public has continually demonstrated that it does not prefer many of the types of vehicles that European or Asian drivers do.

I agree, it certainly isn't only Honda. There is an extensive list of vehicles from nearly every manufacturer that haven't, and most likely never will, reach our shores. However, with each of these, the factors influencing that decision are certainly not primarily driven by our required crash test standards (with perhaps a very few notable exceptions).

 

i think part of the reason for the cars requiring extra crash protection is the American obsession with driving about in quite frankly RIDICULOUSLY sized vehicles for doing such mundane things as shopping and dropping the kids off to school.


if a large truck or SUV or 4x4 or whatever you choose to call it thumps into the side of you, you need every bit of help you can. and i'm guessing the higher proportion of the gargantuan vehicles driving around on your roads means you can't ignore the possibility of being hit by one.

oh and by the way, a friend of mine from colorado was telling us the details of whats necessary for passing your driving test. take the test in an auto and it means you're licensed for a manual? wtf?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tartje &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
oh and by the way, a friend of mine from colorado was telling us the details of whats necessary for passing your driving test. take the test in an auto and it means you're licensed for a manual? wtf? </TD></TR></TABLE>

yea thats true also here in ontario and im sure all of canada, u pass your test in an auto car, and u can drive standard too....doesnt make sense, but yea..i know where i come from its not like here either, lol

 

in Maryland where I got my license at age 16, they don't care what kind of car you take your driving test in (auto or manual). if you pass you are certified to drive anything.