will a 95 teg gsr rear brakes and susp fit on a 91 ef sedan? i have someone here local that has some for a very good price and if they fit im goin to scoop them up.

 

I think they will fit, but not worth it imo. I did a rear disk swap in my crx, only to end up spending money and time on something that gained me weight, and no braking performance what so ever

 

i dont think gsr will i think itr brake's and suspension will. atleast for a 91 crx it will but i thinks its the same

 

88-00 civic trailing arms are the same.

i believe 94+ integras are as well the same

 

ya well im getting it for about $10 so im going to just go look at it and c if the look anout the same. yhanks

 

i found out that they will fit so im going to get them. what all do i need to do this swap? im going to replace all the bushings and brakes b4 i put them on but what kind of e brake cable shud i use? a da? and do i have to change the proprtioning valve?

 

DA sedan e brake cables, and a da 40/40 prop valve.

 

the da 4040 valve was one of the best mods i have done so far. keep in mind i have goodridge ss lines.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by efsublime &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the da 4040 valve was one of the best mods i have done so far. keep in mind i have goodridge ss lines.</TD></TR></TABLE>

so u rec ss brake lines? do all the da's have the 4040 valve?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by efsublime &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the da 4040 valve was one of the best mods i have done so far. keep in mind i have goodridge ss lines.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yup, I have a feeling Deetz didn't replace the prop valve, and that is why he has such poor results with the rear disc conversion.

 

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

Yup, I have a feeling Deetz didn't replace the prop valve, and that is why he has such poor results with the rear disc conversion.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Your feeling is wrong, i did replace it. You know its funny, so many people believe what other people say about certain upgrades, yet have never tried the out for themselves.

Did you know that the 88-89 CRX Si models with oem rear drum brakes actually stopped 3 feet shorter than the newer 90-91 models. I have the original write up on the cars when they came out. I'm telling you, there is no performance to be gained.

 

There is performance to be gained when you are running good brake fluid, stainless lines, good rotors and pads. Just gotta know what you are doing. You had to have done something wrong, otherwise you would be stopping better.

 

u dont have to use the upper and lower control arms from the integra, u can just use the sedan ones, make sure u use the sedan toe adjusment because the one on the integra is shorter and ur toe will be like 5 degrees in

 

There have numerous threads from other people who have had the same results. Most people do it just for the looks.

I could have added better fluid and better lines with better results with my original drum set up too, no surprise there.
Remember, your adding more weight too.

The front brakes do 70-75% of the work, not the rear

 

This I know, but disc brakes are better in terms of braking and clamping force, if drums were better, I think Porsche, Ferrari, etc. would use them too! But they don't . . . If you are trying to save weight, why not just remove your rear brakes! LMFAO!

 

In general disk are known to be better, i agree. What i'm saying is, that in this case its not.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Deetz &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">In general disk are known to be better, i agree. What i'm saying is, that in this case its not.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Agree to disagree.

 

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

Oh brother, why not do some research on what your talking about:

https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1847848

https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1793584

https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1661491

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Deetz &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">There have numerous threads from other people who have had the same results. Most people do it just for the looks. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I just did the rear disc swap on my EF hatch. Im not expecting any better braking but it looks better and is much easier to work on. Those are the only gains. You wont notice any difference unless your old setup was in a sad state.

 

88-89 stopped quicker because they are 2-300 lbs lighter. 90-91's are heavy, not just because they have rear disc but because of other stuff. And FYI, GSR brakes are the same as any other integra brakes (except ITR). So don't get too excited when you find some "GSR" calipers. Just my 2 cents.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Red_ED8 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">88-89 stopped quicker because they are 2-300 lbs lighter. 90-91's are heavy, not just because they have rear disc but because of other stuff. </TD></TR></TABLE>

300lb gain in weight in the 1990 CRX? What the hell are you talking about. The 1989 CRX Si wieghts 2130lbs, it do not go to 2400 in 1990, where do come up with this stuff?
The brakes only weight a bit more, the rest is from other stuff? are you kidding me?

The 1990 CRX Si did pick up about 80 lbs which is mostly from the rear disk brakes setup. Most other parts on the car were near identical in weight. Changes for the most part were cosmetic.

Oh yeah, i have owned 8 crx's now, both the 88-89 and the 90-91 styles, they are very similar cars. Best things they improved in the 90-91 was the colour of the seats, and the shape/style of the instrument cluster.

Don't spreed miss information about the crx gaining hundreds of of pounds in the ef generation, its simply not true

 

https://honda-tech.com/zero...56615
Not trying to spreed miss information, just really talking about the the jump in weight from a 88 HF (like 1880 lbs) to a 91 SI (like 2150 lbs). So yes ther is a 2-300 lbs weight diff.

 

We are all aware the 88 model is lighter due to the lower control arms being stamped steel due to the different style rear strut setup very much like the ITR. That weight savings was in the suspension.

However, i was refering to the 89 model which "still" used rear drum brakes as opposed to the 1990 and 1991 models that switched to the rear disk setup. Weight went up by 26 lbs, which like i mentioned in my 1st post, not worth the rear disk swap. You gain weight, and no performance.

Don't start comparing HF to Si models, thats not what we are talking about here. You compare them model to model (HF to HF, or Si to Si), we are talking about brakes, not trim codes

 

To the original poster. Just keep a couple things in mind before you spend your money:

Pro:

-They look good.
- Easy to change rear pads,not that drums are much harder

Con:

- gain wieght
- no performance gained
- spend money on the swap, plus often need new rotors and pads
- will need new ebrake cables as well
- time and effort swapping over

You decide

 

just went to pick up my brakes and it turns out i didnt have to pay nothin for them. but i have had a rear brake swap on my crx and i could tell a world of diff in stoppin power.