Hello everyone, I am new here, I have a 95 integra, I have a fair knowledge about it now. I dumped it to the ground with some cheap springs on stock shocks, I knew the shocks would blow but i liked the look better at the time so i didnt mind it bouncing all over, but now it has gotten annoying boncing everywhere.
It is lowered four.5 in. all around.
I have been doing some research and asking people on what shocks& springs to get to have a good ride quality.
Ive heard koni yellows and GC springs make a good combo, but the only konis i found were for a 3 in drop.
Another guy told me that anything lower than 3 in wont give a shock enough space to rebound.

Can anyone point me in the direction of what shocks to get or what to do?
I still want to keep my low look, i know ill never have stock ride quality but i want something better than now.
Thanks in advance.

 

Here is a pic of my car.

 

Koni GC is a good combination that should work for you. ^^ that's not a 4" drop anyways, more like 3" or maybe even a little less from what I can see in the pic.

 

first off koni sports and ground controls can ride at stock height or very close to it if need be. they also can go down around 3" at max before the system starts loosing it's effectiveness. then again dumping cars is about as retarded as a gang member robbing the police station.

anyway, as a rule of thumb, setups like the skunk pro-c are ideal for excessive lowering due to their design. for normal people cars the koni/gc package is wonderful and the koni str.t is very good up to roughly 350lb front and 250lb rear spring rates.

 

That's no where near a 4.5" drop, I've never even heard of an OTS lowering spring capable of that, it looks more like a 2.5" drop.

Aside from that, you won't find a better shock than koni yellows for slamming the car, they're OTS performance is outstanding and they'll do the job as well as can be expected on an abusively low set-up.

 

I agree!!!

And

 

well stock ride height is meausred from the center of the rim to the start of the fender, stock is 16.5 in.
I measured mine at 11.5 or 12.5 i cant remember, I'll re measure when I get home.
but i think 4.5 in is a little dramatic, maybe its like 3.5 in.

 

Stock in the front is 14.5 front, 14 rear. If it was 16.5 there'd be almost 5" of wheel gap! I'd have guessed you were at 11.5-12", which would be a 2.5-3" drop. Even 3.5" drop means about 1-1.5" of tuck, which is quite slammed.

 

really? I got the 16.5 number from an alignment machine that gave me the specs of the car.
So the fourteen.5 is measured from the center of the rim to the fender right?
Also the current rims are fourteen in.
I have some GSR snowflakes but i need to get some tires for them

 

here is a stock pic, this thing was high!!


I think its a 3.5 of four in drop.

 

I normally don't go for slammed cars but that thing doesn't look terrible.

 

LOL that integra looked ridiculous at stock height with 14's...

Yeah, it's center of the hub to top of wheel arch on fender. 14.5" in front, 14" in back. So if your fender to hub is 11" in front and 10.5" in back then it's a 3.5" drop.

 

Damn my gang hit that evidence locker again! Dumbasses, I need a new gang.

 

thanks man, i like the slammed look instead of it all stock.

 

it did! i think because of the rims&tires, i wonder what the previous owner was thinking when he bought the rims. I am gonna hit up the casino this weekend &maybe i can make enough money for tired for the other rims&maybe enough for koni yellows!

but if it is a 3.5 in drop will koni yellows help? well the change to a 15 in rim change that 3.5?

 

HOLY 4X4!!

Screw shocks and springs..save up 550 bucks and get some F&F type 1's..

they will go to "ricer low" status and retain a decent ride.

 

at 1 point i had 17s on it, it filled the fender gap more but was high haha.
and f&F type 1s for 550?
Can you point me in thier direction.
550 isnt bad, considering i am gonna pay 600 for shocks and 300 for springs.
& when did a low car become ricer?

 

Here is a pic with it with the 17s, back in its silver days.

 

Changing the wheel size will not change the height of the car, nor the tire to fender gap.

Of course, that is only true under the assumption that there wasn't an idiot putting the wrong sized tires on the wheels...

A dumped/slammed car has always been "ricer". You're tucking tire, that's "slammed", which is "ricer".

I love how it looks, but that is way too low in the front for the suspension to actually do what it is intended to do, and is detrimental to performance.

 

oh alright. & i had never heard that ricer was dumped cars.
but your car looks pretty low, what do you use?

and by suspension you mean..? sway bars? control arms?

 

Yes, the suspension geometry is altered so severely that the ball joint is angled poorly and the control arm is acting improperly, to name a few.

The car will handle unpredictable under hard turning, and off-camber turns will be even more disastrous than they are with a properly set up car:

 

all i have is control arms to adjust my camber which has been set back to 0

 

My avatar photo isn't my car. It's the closest to a Milano Red stock looking Integra I could find on Google.

By suspension, I mean mostly the front shocks. The Integra is rather lacking in front suspension bump travel stock. Lacking enough that a 100% stock car has no issue pushing the shocks into the bumpstops during hard cornering and braking. This is fine for braking (adding spring rate help prevent even more brake dive), but not cornering.

This is my car, and that's with some brake dive so the front is actually slightly higher:


1) Adjustable UCAs make the lack of bump travel worse. Now, instead of the suspension working as intended and using the bumpstop to help prevent hard bottoming, you'll hit the UCAs into the shock towers. The dents in my shock towers showed me exactly how bad of an idea "camber kits" are on these cars.

2) 0* camber is a terrible setting. In addition to ruining the car's handling from the static camber alone, the camber curve is entirely messed up with the extended length UCA. The toe curve and bumpsteer is also effected adversely. The car came with -1* of front camber for a reason.

 

[QUOTE=TunerN00b;46404004]My avatar photo isn't my car. It's the closest to a Milano Red stock looking Integra I could find on Google.

By suspension, I mean mostly the front shocks. The Integra is rather lacking in front suspension bump travel stock. Lacking enough that a 100% stock car has no issue pushing the shocks into the bumpstops during hard cornering and braking. This is fine for braking (adding spring rate help prevent even more brake dive), but not cornering.

This is my car, and that's with some brake dive so the front is actually slightly higher:




1) Adjustable UCAs make the lack of bump travel worse..


Well I dont actually have 0 camber, the camber kits did not allow for me to set it to 0.
I have 1.4 of camber on each side.
& before with stock UCAs they did not hit the shock tower&my toe was even. Once I installed the UCA my toe was off, i felt like i had very little control over the car, the steering wheel would go crazy&my tires were eaten up in 2 weeks or so &i started to see the dents from the UCA on the shock tower, after this I aligned my car at school, then the UCA stopped hitting the tower, they still hit but like on deep holes, before the UCA would hit the tower on any bump, not now.
I think the only reason it still hits is because i have no shocks&that getting shocks would also help this tower hitting.
As for spring rates I have no clue how the numbers work or stuff like that, i will have to research more on that stuff.
Idk if any of you guys have driven a new car lately but i have a 2008 yaris& i like the way it feels. Koni yellows&GC springs will give me a similar ride to it?

 

btw your car looks milano red, why not have that as your default?
&you look lower in the front but maybe you were braking in the pic..?
&if it should be a little higher in the front to feel better when braking that is bad news for me. i wanted to raise the rear up&have it higher.