Just a little history.

The suspension on my 00Ex Sedan has been through a few iterations - first mod was a Suspension Techniques rear swaybar (car was pretty new) - got into autocrossing and eventually installed some 300 lb/in sprigs in Ground Control Coilovers.

After that fad was over, went back to the stock springs. Eventually the swaybar mount did pull though (took years), have gotten plates welded in place and the bar remounted.

However, I did have a front-end collision about 4 years ago that went over the bumper and left the suspension towers a little misaligned - the left front is at +0.1 degrees camber, and I'm having trouble dailing the understeer out of the car (stock EX springs with the rear swaybar still in place) with just the KYB AGX's.

Current equipment:
- Stock Ex Springs
- KYB AGX's
- Suspension Techniques Rear Swaybar
- Kumho SPT's 205/55r15's on Si Rims (Need replacement - probably with something less harsh)
- Neuspeed front suspension tower brace
- Energy Suspension rear trailing arm bushings (the big ones)

Note: the front springs have the Ground Control poly bushings in place instead of the OEM ones - had trouble getting the OEM bushings back in the upper spring seat IIRC.

The goal is to complete the suspension buildout - taking the thing apart one last time. Ride should be as smooth - as close as can be achieved with well balanced turn-in and handling. I'd like to lower it to about Si ride height, but that's merely a nice to have.

So the question is where to source:
- good basic camber kit
- upper spring bushings (I assume just order from Majestic Honda.)
- Si Springs (alternatives welcomed, but I am NOT going for a dropped look)
- Do I need to get the other four suspension braces

I have actually a fair amount of budget to throw at this but would rather not. Powertrain is unmodified and likely to remain that way - honestly down here in Texas, I think upgrading the refrigiant is the best way to get torque out of it in the summer.

I know the supension pretty well (physics degree, have studied suspensions, have taken it apart more than a few times), I have just not been spending money on luxuries like this until lately - so I'm out of the parts sourcing game and am looking for your recommendations.

 

I'm wondering if stiffer rear springs might reduce your understeer? The EM1 springs are about 190F / 95R, and Type R spring rates are 250F / 250R. I've personally ridden in an EX coupe and LX sedan with these springs and Koni sports on the lowest perch. The ride is compliant over moderate bumps... choppy over potholes and severely uneven surfaces.

I have the Ingalls adjustable rear camber kit and have been running it about 130K now. Bushings are quiet and still in good condition. They do need a bit of silicone grease about every 10K or so. Hope that helps.

 

Well for one thing, you need to get those polyurethane trailing arm bushings out of there and put some OEM rubber replacements in. Poly trailing arm bushings are known to bind up and limit the trailing arm's normal range of motion.

Your tire size is a little big. Stock size for Si coupes was 195/55-15, but if you want 205's then go with 205/50-15.

Regarding the positive camber on the left front, if you lower the car just a touch, it should get the camber into the negative side of 0. It's not a problem if the left and right sides aren't exactly the same, just within a few tenths of a degree of each other. Stock Integra Type R springs (or Si coupe springs if they are slightly shorter than stock DX/CX/HX/EX) should put your camber between 0 and -1 all around, and you won't need a camber kit, which could create more problems that it would solve.

Now that rear swaybar, which I'm assuming is the 19mm one, is questionable when running stock spring rates. But if you switch to ITR springs, it would be fine.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Shorthand &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'd like to lower it to about Si ride height</TD></TR></TABLE>
The Si is no lower than the EX. Ride heights are the same.

If you use Si springs, you will actually raise the front and end up with more positive static camber.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PatrickGSR94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Regarding the positive camber on the left front, if you lower the car just a touch, it should get the camber into the negative side of 0. It's not a problem if the left and right sides aren't exactly the same, just within a few tenths of a degree of each other. Stock Integra Type R springs (or Si coupe springs if they are slightly shorter than stock DX/CX/HX/EX) should put your camber between 0 and -1 all around, and you won't need a camber kit, which could create more problems that it would solve.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Since he doesn't want to lower the car, I'd actually recommend adjustable front upper control arms to dial in some more static negative camber. -1.0* just isn't near enough.

 

I just now saw this - thanks for the info.

It is the old 19mm ST (gen 1) rear swaybar.

I have had 300 lb/in and 175 lb/in springs on the car - both too harsh. Probably better on the Konis, but I really am looking for an OE ride.

What do you guys think of the H&R OE springs as a solution - the ones with 0.75" drop? I know that's right in the range I'm looking for.

I agree with the camber, and plan to dail in about -1 in the front. The primary reason for the kit is the accident damage has put in cross-camber of better than half a degree - it definitely affects the balance of the car - with a drop, I'd need to be taking camber out of the right if I wanted to keep my tire budget sane. With camber front and rear, I am spending the money to chase down a cross-rotatable tire - the Sumitomo HTR+. (Have had on other family cars - impressive tire.)

I am well aware of the tire size - I went with the 205/55 for four reasons:
1: 205 to protect the rims
2: 55 to make the ride a little more compliant
3: 55 to bring the spedometer closer to reality
4: 55 to decrease the gap with the fender

Stiffer rear springs will reduce my understeer - no doubt - at the severe detriment of ride quality. Those rear springs are soft because there's no weight back there. Weight split is 65/35 last I weighed it. That's why I'm hoping to fix at least some of the balance issue with front camber instead.

As for the rear trailig arm bushings - thanks for the heads up - god those are a bitch to change, though - any recommendations other than having a mechanic do it?

 

After shopping around a little more- the H&R's are out - too harsh - but perhaps it would make sense to get the Si rear springs to even things up. If its still understeering (or turning in oddly) after the first set of upgrades, that's a real easy and cheap tweak to make.

I'll let you know how it turns out.

 

175 lb/in springs too harsh? I'm guessing you had those in the back? Stock springs can't be too much less than that. Stock ITR springs are a little over 200 lb/in, progressive, in the rear I believe.

I'm still wondering why you chose that tire size. 96-00 Civics came with either 185/65-14 tires or 195/55-15 tires on the Si. 205/55-15 are larger than stock. 205/50 is about the same amount smaller than stock than is the 205/55, but at least your speedometer would read faster than actual road speed and give you a little margin when it comes to cops shooting radar, etc.

 

I was aiming for something a litte above 150% of stock spring rate with the 175 lb/in springs on the ground controls. My understanding is that the stock rate is about 105-110 front and 95 rear. A big part of the problem is proper damping - the AGX's are only designed for slightly higher spring rates than stock.

As for tire size: (http://www.miata.net/garage/tirecalc.html)

185/65-14 Diameter: 23.5", Circumfrence: 73.7"
195/55-15 Diameter: 23.4", Circumfrence: 73.7" -0.1%
205/50-15 Diameter: 23.1", Circumfrence: 72.5" -1.7%
205/55-15 Diameter: 23.9", Circumfrence: 75.0" +1.7%

So as you can see, the 205/50 is only marginally coser to stock than the 205/55. Most people are looking to maximize torque / shorten the gearing a little on these cars, so go with the 205/50 - but to say that one is much closer to stock than the other is incorrect. As I said above, I'd be happy to go with 195s if it weren't for all of those damned curbs.

I have had 195/55-15's, 195/50-15's, and 205/50-15's on this car at various times - they all work fine. The 205/55's do show a few rub marks on the inner front fender, though - i.e. will rub a little at full compression and full lock. On the other hand - its nice having the spedometer somewhere close to reality - only reading 1-3 mph high at speed instead of 3-5.

Thanks again for all of your help - especially for the heads up on the trailing arm bushings.

--Stephen

 

Hmm, well if youre looking for something 150% above stock rates, youre still going to be in the 400LB range. I'm fairly sure the non-SI(SIR) rates are still close to 200 in the front stock. I'd think for what you want you should look to neuspeed sof sports, or even integra LS springs. The rates for the LS springs would be easily damped by your agx's, at around 210f 117r. You can pick those up for next to nothing. Also the neuspeed sof sports are firmer than those but still liveable. I think theyre in the 270f 160r range. Either spring rate with the rear bar, should be fairly neutral.

As for your springs still being too rough, consider the fact that it sounds like theyre a straight, linear rate spring (coilover) instead of a progressive spring. Basically if your car encounters a bump, it hits with the full rate of the spring, not with a lesser initial rate of that of a progressive.

As for tires, go with the proper size and your car will be much happier. I use the 195-55-15 on the integra, which is the stock size. Its a good comprimise for steering and comfort. On a 6" wheel the steering response is really sharp, and the footprint is good as well.

 

Well I have found questionable info on stock spring rates.

http://www.superhonda.com/foru...36020

That one says it's 165/90 F/R.

But then again that same site says stock GS-R is 200/95 and ITR is 250/250, but I know the ITR rear springs are progressive in the back. A thread here on H-T listed GS-R as 212/112 F/R, and ITR as 250 front and 140-250 progressive in rear, which seems more correct.

So who knows what source is correct.

B18LS - 150% above stock spring rate would be nowhere near 400 lb/in. If stock is 165, then 150% would be around 250 lb/in.

 

I know that's not right - the 175's needed much MUCH less compression from stock than the stock springs - the 100 lb/in feels about right.

The car weighs 2600 lbs - 65/35 F/R - So a front corner weighs 850 lbs. That means 8.5" of compression from free spring to fully compressed on the ground - which feels a lot closer than 5" - which would be consistent with a 165 lb/in spring rate - you have to compress them 5" just to assemble the coil-over-shock.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PatrickGSR94 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Well I have found questionable info on stock spring rates.

http://www.superhonda.com/foru...36020

That one says it's 165/90 F/R.

But then again that same site says stock GS-R is 200/95 and ITR is 250/250, but I know the ITR rear springs are progressive in the back. A thread here on H-T listed GS-R as 212/112 F/R, and ITR as 250 front and 140-250 progressive in rear, which seems more correct.

So who knows what source is correct.

B18LS - 150% above stock spring rate would be nowhere near 400 lb/in. If stock is 165, then 150% would be around 250 lb/in.</TD></TR></TABLE> LOL, yeah youre right. I shut my math brain off when I leave work on fridays. I was thinking 100% stiffer than stock being twice as stiff. as In.. a 12 pack has 100% more beer than a 6 pack.