Megan & Function7 LCA's
Thread Starter
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
From: MN, USA
Megan & Function7 LCA's
I see someone is selling both the Megan and Function7 LCA's on eBay. Besides the brief post on H-T so far...anyone picked these up before. There's a 100 bones difference in them. Yes, I know SRR! Woo-hoo! I need to put new bushings in my LCA's on my REX and figured I'd get some new LCA's at the same time. Any feedback on the Megan's or Fucntion7's would be great. 
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 2
From: Salem, OR, USA
Re: Megan & Function7 LCA's (whole9)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by whole9 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I have the function 7's.. Better built IMHO.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Function 7 EF and EG LCAs are pretty good but the 88 CRX/ITR LCAs defeat the purpose of the special LCA that was designed to flex for passive rear steering. Having the company design them this way makes me wonder how much research went into the designs.
(OEM 88 CRX and ITR LCAs have the same part number)
SRR looks exactly like the SPC one and both look excellent to me. I think the SPC one changes rear camber on a lowered car but the SRR one does not.
Megen popped outta nowhere anyone try them yet?
Function 7 EF and EG LCAs are pretty good but the 88 CRX/ITR LCAs defeat the purpose of the special LCA that was designed to flex for passive rear steering. Having the company design them this way makes me wonder how much research went into the designs.
(OEM 88 CRX and ITR LCAs have the same part number)
SRR looks exactly like the SPC one and both look excellent to me. I think the SPC one changes rear camber on a lowered car but the SRR one does not.
Megen popped outta nowhere anyone try them yet?
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 2
From: Salem, OR, USA
Honda-Tech Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 18,961
Likes: 76
From: I am Tyson
Re: Megan & Function7 LCA's (Mr.Saturn)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mr.Saturn »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Function 7 EF and EG LCAs are pretty good but the 88 CRX/ITR LCAs defeat the purpose of the special LCA that was designed to flex for passive rear steering. </TD></TR></TABLE>
the 88 control arms were NOT designed to induce any more flex to foster any extra toe changes, or "passive rear steering". the change in toe settings was made on the chassis anchor point of the toe link at the front of the rear trailing arm. in function, the 88 and 89-91 lower control arms are identical.
i asked about the change in rear suspension design myself and learned my answer from some very knowledgeable persons.
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=690666
Modified by Tyson at 1:00 PM 12/27/2003
Function 7 EF and EG LCAs are pretty good but the 88 CRX/ITR LCAs defeat the purpose of the special LCA that was designed to flex for passive rear steering. </TD></TR></TABLE>
the 88 control arms were NOT designed to induce any more flex to foster any extra toe changes, or "passive rear steering". the change in toe settings was made on the chassis anchor point of the toe link at the front of the rear trailing arm. in function, the 88 and 89-91 lower control arms are identical.
i asked about the change in rear suspension design myself and learned my answer from some very knowledgeable persons.
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=690666
Modified by Tyson at 1:00 PM 12/27/2003
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
