96>98 Spec brake upgrades and balance
Thread Starter
Trial User
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Ryde, Isle of Wight, United Kindom
I've posted this on another forum, but thought I'd get an opinion over here as well....
I've been discussing this with a local lad who has a 96 spec with 98 spec front calipers. It seems like a common upgrade, which is fair enough.
My concern is that after reading around here, no one ever seems to fit the uprated rears or fits a bias valve to sort the bias out after it's done.
I'm assuming that with the bigger M/C in the 98 spec, the calipers have bigger pistons and thus, in theory, have a greater braking force - obviously upsetting the brake balance.
I suspect you don't hear more about the issue because that extra dive/weight transfer you see from shifting the balance up front, will often be interpreted as sharper braking and thus shorter braking distances, when in theory it's likely to be causing longer braking distances and instability under braking? Theory aside, I know when I fitted DS2500s initially to just the front on the Clio, there was a noticeable increase in dive and decrease in stability under braking. Fitting matching rears solved it.
I'm by no means an expert in the field, I just have the knowledge I've picked up from various articles, papers and a basic understanding of physics to go on, so I'm just interested what others think - both those with a sound understanding of the physics of brake systems and those that just have the upgrade, using it day to day.
I've been discussing this with a local lad who has a 96 spec with 98 spec front calipers. It seems like a common upgrade, which is fair enough.
My concern is that after reading around here, no one ever seems to fit the uprated rears or fits a bias valve to sort the bias out after it's done.
I'm assuming that with the bigger M/C in the 98 spec, the calipers have bigger pistons and thus, in theory, have a greater braking force - obviously upsetting the brake balance.
I suspect you don't hear more about the issue because that extra dive/weight transfer you see from shifting the balance up front, will often be interpreted as sharper braking and thus shorter braking distances, when in theory it's likely to be causing longer braking distances and instability under braking? Theory aside, I know when I fitted DS2500s initially to just the front on the Clio, there was a noticeable increase in dive and decrease in stability under braking. Fitting matching rears solved it.
I'm by no means an expert in the field, I just have the knowledge I've picked up from various articles, papers and a basic understanding of physics to go on, so I'm just interested what others think - both those with a sound understanding of the physics of brake systems and those that just have the upgrade, using it day to day.
Under hard braking, the weight is biased to the front. The 96 ITR had 262mm front rotors just like all other non-ITR 94-01 Integras. The 5-lug ITR has 282mm front rotors.
Ideally, you would upgrade both the front and rear, since they were offered as a package. I'm not sure of the differences in the proportioning valve and ABS. I thought that all 94-01 Integras with ABS had a 1" bore master cylinder.
Ideally, you would upgrade both the front and rear, since they were offered as a package. I'm not sure of the differences in the proportioning valve and ABS. I thought that all 94-01 Integras with ABS had a 1" bore master cylinder.
I upgraded my 96-spec to 98-spec sized rotors and calipers while retaining 4x114.3. It does not require any machining but possible 3mm wheel spacer up front.
https://honda-tech.com/forums/acura-integra-type-r-8/jdm-96-spec-rear-brake-usdm-98-spec-2764996/
or
http://forums.itrexpo.com/zerothread?id=12051
https://honda-tech.com/forums/acura-integra-type-r-8/jdm-96-spec-rear-brake-usdm-98-spec-2764996/
or
http://forums.itrexpo.com/zerothread?id=12051
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Chris F
Road Racing / Autocross & Time Attack
38
May 24, 2005 08:16 AM



