My 98 DX hatchback does not have a spot for me to put on front or rear sway bars.
Which is the better route for me?

1) Get the Suspension Techniques's Front and Rear sway bar package for ones without OEM sway bar mount.

2) Change the front and rear LCA from a Si and get the ST's Front and Rear sway bar package for OEM sway bar mount?

Thanks

 

bumpity bump

 

can you also go with aftermarket LCA's and ST bars too?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GloomyX &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">My 98 DX hatchback does not have a spot for me to put on front or rear sway bars.
Which is the better route for me?

1) Get the Suspension Techniques's Front and Rear sway bar package for ones without OEM sway bar mount.

2) Change the front and rear LCA from a Si and get the ST's Front and Rear sway bar package for OEM sway bar mount?

Thanks</TD></TR></TABLE>

the best way is to get a Si front lca and sway bar(26mm fron sway bar is good enough), and rear use whatever u want.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by spoon_ek9 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

the best way is to get a Si front lca and sway bar(26mm fron sway bar is good enough), and rear use whatever u want. </TD></TR></TABLE>

What other parts will I need to match up the Si's front LCA? I think its only the endlinks? Please correct me if i'm wrong.
Rear... I keep forgetting if DX even have a RSB as stock.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by spoon_ek9 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

the best way is to get a Si front lca and sway bar(26mm fron sway bar is good enough), and rear use whatever u want. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Why on earth would you want such a big front sway bar. That induces under-steer for novice drivers you know...

To the OP: Your rear LCAs already have the holes for the sway-bar end-links. All EK civics use the same rear LCAs. You only need to replace the front ones, and you can get those from any EX or other civic with front sway. The front of the Si has special lower control arms, damper forks, end-links, sway-bar & bushings that you need to make the oversize 26mm front bar work. The problem is that there is no reason for such a larger bar in the front.

I'm kinda thinking that Honda knew this car was marketed at crazy kids, so they programed under-steer into it. Of course I never drove one, so I don't know for sure...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94eg! &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Why on earth would you want such a big front sway bar. That induces under-steer for novice drivers you know...

</TD></TR></TABLE>

u can question honda that, if it is such a bad setup, honda wouldnt do it, wouldnt u think?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by spoon_ek9 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

u can question honda that, if it is such a bad setup, honda wouldnt do it, wouldnt u think?</TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94eg! &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I'm kinda thinking that Honda knew this car was marketed at crazy kids, so they programed under-steer into it. Of course I never drove one, so I don't know for sure... </TD></TR></TABLE>

Remember, Honda does things for very specific reasons. They certainly don't want to upset buyers of Type Rs by selling a car that out handles it for less money. And I'm also sure they don't want a loose vehicle that will put inexperienced drivers in a ditch...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94eg! &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Remember, Honda does things for very specific reasons. They certainly don't want to upset buyers of Type Rs by selling a car that out handles it for less money. And I'm also sure they don't want a loose vehicle that will put inexperienced drivers in a ditch...</TD></TR></TABLE>

yea, but why would u think 26 mm front sway bar is dangerous for inexperience driver when honda put both Si and ctr the same size of front anti sway bay?

i return the same "Remember, Honda does things for very specific reasons." to u that ek and eg chassis is not equally same, just because 26mm front sway bar might not be great for eg doesnt mean it is not good in ek chassis

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by spoon_ek9 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

yea, but why would u think 26 mm front sway bar is dangerous for inexperience driver when honda put both Si and ctr the same size of front anti sway bay?

i return the same "Remember, Honda does things for very specific reasons." to u that ek and eg chassis is not equally same, just because 26mm front sway bar might not be great for eg doesnt mean it is not good in ek chassis</TD></TR></TABLE>

No no no. I do NOT think a 26mm front bar is dangerous. In fact the larger front bar was most likely used on the car to help "play it safe". This bar will prevent the over-steer condition that inexperienced drivers cannot cope with.

This over-steer condition can be found on the Integra Type R. But since that particular car wasn't originally marketed to street racing teenagers, Honda didn't have to worry about it so much...

And the only reason that larger front bar works on a CTR is because it's combined with an oversized rear bar. Either way, if you want a better handling car, the 26mm front bar is not the way to go...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94eg! &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

No no no. I do NOT think a 26mm front bar is dangerous. In fact the larger front bar was most likely used on the car to help "play it safe". This bar will prevent the over-steer condition that inexperienced drivers cannot cope with.</TD></TR></TABLE>

while i might read wrong about you saying 26mm front sway bar is dangerous, i still think your logic behind putting a large front sway bar on purpose to downgrade the handling doesnt really make any sense. to separate handling class between two car, there are many methods, like different suspension rate and bigger rear sway. and i strongly believe increase front sway bar size to some certain degree is beneficial. i am tired of people saying bigger sway bar = handling down the drain(or it is understeer big time) . if that is the case, why would honda increase the front sway bar size in ITR compare to normal integra? and dont forget, before CTR is out, SiR was doing the same job as CTR trying to do in japan, provide a better handling civic for people who wants a more sporty civic.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94eg! &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
And the only reason that larger front bar works on a CTR is because it's combined with an oversized rear bar. Either way, if you want a better handling car, the 26mm front bar is not the way to go...</TD></TR></TABLE>

why a bigger bar is needed on a faster car is because total grip level is increased on the car(bigger tire, different front/rear track, wheelbase), more grip = more roll(assume suspension remain the same), so to reduce the roll(while roll might not be a really bad thing, but it certainly affects driver's feeling of the car), it needs a bigger bar, simple as that. i believe the reason why EK needs a bigger front sway bar is it has a different suspension dimension than eg/dc chassis. the taller body and longer wheelbase of ek could be the main key of that. if you think a bigger front sway bar is not for a good handling setup, why would u think a lower hp ctr can pull a faster section time of last corner of tsukuba circuit than your perfect smaller front sway bar/large rear sway, professionally oversteer ITR? that have been proven again and again in japan that with the same hp and engine, ek chassis out perform DC chassis.

 

I think we are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I personally think that sway-bars reduce body roll at one end of the car by sacrificing grip on the inside tire (lifting inside tire & resisting the springs downward force). As such you would want combat additional body roll from increasing cornering force by increasing spring rate and not roll bar rate. This would help to maximize front grip...

Body-roll is a problem for driver confidence, and is an important thing to address. This should be done with a good combination of spring rate and sway-bar stiffness. Having more sway-bar stiffness will allow lower spring rates and better ride quality on the street, but this will sacrifice overall grip on the inside tire at that end of the car. Ideally you want to run as soft a sway in the front as you can get away with while still keeping body-roll in check.

Now adjusting roll stiffness in the rear is an easy way change how the car behaves at its limits. Increasing rear roll stiffness will induce oversteer, and decreasing rear roll stiffness will induce understeer. This is why everybody adds larger rear bars to stock setups w/ good results. It takes a car that was programed from the factory to understeer, and brings it to a more neutral or oversteer setup like the Type R.

Honda could have easily made the lighter Civic Type R out perform the Integra Type R, but don't you think all the people that bought the more expensive ITR would have been pretty pissed? This is how the politics of manufacturing cars works. Just like Chevy does with Corvettes. They kept the Z06 performance down so the older & expensive ZR1 owners wouldn't get pissed & feel they got ripped off. Only now does the latest Z06 out perform the 15 year old ZR1...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94eg! &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think we are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I personally think that sway-bars reduce body roll at one end of the car by sacrificing grip on the inside tire (lifting inside tire & resisting the springs downward force). As such you would want combat additional body roll from increasing cornering force by increasing spring rate and not roll bar rate. This would help to maximize front grip...

Body-roll is a problem for driver confidence, and is an important thing to address. This should be done with a good combination of spring rate and sway-bar stiffness. Having more sway-bar stiffness will allow lower spring rates and better ride quality on the street, but this will sacrifice overall grip on the inside tire at that end of the car. Ideally you want to run as soft a sway in the front as you can get away with while still keeping body-roll in check.

Now adjusting roll stiffness in the rear is an easy way change how the car behaves at its limits. Increasing rear roll stiffness will induce oversteer, and decreasing rear roll stiffness will induce understeer. This is why everybody adds larger rear bars to stock setups w/ good results. It takes a car that was programed from the factory to understeer, and brings it to a more neutral or oversteer setup like the Type R.

Honda could have easily made the lighter Civic Type R out perform the Integra Type R, but don't you think all the people that bought the more expensive ITR would have been pretty pissed? This is how the politics of manufacturing cars works. Just like Chevy does with Corvettes. They kept the Z06 performance down so the older & expensive ZR1 owners wouldn't get pissed & feel they got ripped off. Only now does the latest Z06 out perform the 15 year old ZR1...</TD></TR></TABLE>

while i dont have much against what u are trying to say about suspension setup, which is personal favorite anyway, but it is not what the op's question about. i totally agree of what u said about the roll stiffness and how bigger sway bar will affect traction and stuff, BUT , all what u are saying is UNDER one assumption that all of the above is done to the SAME chassis. EK have slightly different suspension geometry than dc/eg. and AGAIN, i strongly believe thats why it requires a slightly bigger front bar to make it fresh as/or close to dc/eg handling. i believe thats how honda see it and came out with that idea. the way you are trying to say it is to bring down civic so the integra owner will be happier theory is totally not making so much sense. and btw, you dont need to program a FF car to be understeer, coz it already is. and honda ALREADY use a smaller engine one civic to make itr owner think their $$ spent worthy.

and IF u check the weight between ctr and itr is barely 50kg difference, u think that would be the ONLY reason why ctr with the same hp will outperform itr? like i said before, ctr and itr is different class of car, no matter it is on the market and in the race(1.6 class will never race in the same class as 1.8 in japan), i ,again, strongly believe honda have no reason to do such sand bagging lower class car to please the upper class owner, at least in this case of civic and integra.

and remember, i am not trying to start a war of civic and integra, BUT i think ek chassis civic need a bigger bar than eg/dc to make it nice(which i believe that is also honda's target), but u make it sound like i am pushing op to the hell than giving a fair advice. honestly, i dont give a crap about which one is faster, it is also more depend on driver in road racing anyway.

 

Wouldn't there be a certain benefit from a larger FSB on a car with a not so aggressive camber curve, or a low amount of static negative camber?? For example the EF civics really benefit from a rather small FSB because they gain so much camber in roll compared to an EK civic or even a later model with macpherson struts where they only LOSE camber as they roll....

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EK4civichatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Wouldn't there be a certain benefit from a larger FSB on a car with a not so aggressive camber curve, or a low amount of static negative camber?? For example the EF civics really benefit from a rather small FSB because they gain so much camber in roll compared to an EK civic or even a later model with macpherson struts where they only LOSE camber as they roll....</TD></TR></TABLE>

That makes sense since you would want to keep the outside tire as flat as possible. The only problem with this theory is that the EK gains more camber through the suspension storke than the EG/DC (esspecially in the rear), so I don't know if this applies to this particular debate.

I would have to agree with you on the later strut civic & rsx though. But with the poor geometry on those cars, this would be more of band-aid fix and would require a much larger rear sway in the rear to maintain proper balance (or so I would think). I guess you have to make due with what you got though...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94eg! &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

To the OP: Your rear LCAs already have the holes for the sway-bar end-links. All EK civics use the same rear LCAs. You only need to replace the front ones, and you can get those from any EX or other civic with front sway. The front of the Si has special lower control arms, damper forks, end-links, sway-bar & bushings that you need to make the oversize 26mm front bar work. The problem is that there is no reason for such a larger bar in the front.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Please tell me the Si and the SiR use different damper forks, because I just installed a pair of new-barely-used OEM shocks from 99-00 SiR and it came with forks. But I used the original forks because the SiR forks is wider at where it slides over the LCA. And of course... I chuck the SiR forks because it didn't fit...

Maybe its slightly easier to get the ST package for ones w/o OEM FSB

 

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

Please tell me the Si and the SiR use different damper forks, because I just installed a pair of new-barely-used OEM shocks from 99-00 SiR and it came with forks. But I used the original forks because the SiR forks is wider at where it slides over the LCA. And of course... I chuck the SiR forks because it didn't fit...

Maybe its slightly easier to get the ST package for ones w/o OEM FSB</TD></TR></TABLE>

I don't know about the SiR model, but I can say that the USDM 99-00 Si uses a wider front fork than the other US model 96-00 Civics. I'm also pretty sure they are the same damper forks used on the Type R...

Kinda sucks that you threw them out as there are probably a lot of people that would have paid good money for them...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94eg! &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I don't know about the SiR model, but I can say that the USDM 99-00 Si uses a wider front fork than the other US model 96-00 Civics. I'm also pretty sure they are the same damper forks used on the Type R...

Kinda sucks that you threw them out as there are probably a lot of people that would have paid good money for them...</TD></TR></TABLE>

*SMASH HEAD*!!

Also, I can bolt on ITR RSB directly right?


Modified by GloomyX at 9:55 AM 3/29/2007

 

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

*SMASH HEAD*!!

Also, I can bolt on ITR RSB directly right?</TD></TR></TABLE>


You will need some reinforcement (like ASR) because the NON Type R 96-00 Civic rear sub-frame is known to be very weak and tear.