Well I spent the better part of this past weekend up under my cars.

*EDIT* Almost forgot to thank William (typer76) for the hook-up on the TEIN S-TECH springs! */EDIT*

This one was by far the biggest PITA:

itr shocks and itr specific TEIN S-Tech spring installation on my 91 si hatch.

I had to use the itr shock forks + itr rear lca's in order for everything to bolt up without a hitch.

The car had intrax lowering springs and stock shocks when I purchased it. I don't know the rates, but measured the drop before I installed the itr/ TEIN setup:

LF - 5.25; RF - 5.25;
LR - 6.25; RR - 6.25
(As measured from ground to the jacking points.) Wheel to fender gap was 1 finger in the front, and 2 fingers in the rear.


Here's the pics:




















I learned that the stock EF front forks don't work, and the itr or similar units must be used. Dimensionally they are the same as far as geometry and bolt pattern/ spacing goes, but they have a larger diameter where the shock body fits into them - to accommodate the larger itr shocks. This was confirmed here on h-t as well. The fronts, however were a SUPER DUPER BITCH to install. Getting the fork bolts lined up was the ultimate PITA. I had people stand on the hub while i jacked up the fork, and twisted the fork with a crowbar while trying to line the bolt up.....

The rear was a little trickier as for whether it would fit without excess positive camber - it was going to be a gamble. BUT it turns out that the dimensions are the same. The itr rear lca's look identical to the crx si units imho - and must be fitted in order to use itr rear shocks. They also have the same geometry/ bolt pattern/ spacing as the stock EF units..... The rear was also a LOT easier to bolt up and get into place with a simple rubber hammer.

I then did the measurements again to see how it compared:

LF - 6.5; RF - 6.5;
LR - 6.5; RR - 6.5
(As measured from ground to the jacking points.) Wheel to fender gap was 3 fingers in the front, and 2.5 fingers in the rear.

The car still isn't stiff enough with these springs imho. I need stiffer. Personally, I don't understand people who say 400lb springs are too stiff. I think 600 is a good starting place, imho.....

Overall, I give the tein s-tech + itr shocks a for SISSIES!

They handle really nice though. And they aren't too low. This is an excellent setup for a daily driven EF, imho.

I give the intrax springs a for the awesome stunna drop sled stylee... (they are for sale, btw... )


Modified by Black R at 1:40 AM 1/28/2004

 

your close up picks made me sick to my stomach

but jod job on the retrofit.

 

looks like you'll lose quite a bit of travel in the front going to the ITR setup.
chris

 

What Ken - no Stuntastic Poses next to the new dump?

Nice retrofit - that thing still leaves me with a slight sense of awe when I hear you at a stoplight 2 miles away.


Modified by Cody at 1:40 PM 1/28/2004

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TeamNextGenChris &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">looks like you'll lose quite a bit of travel in the front going to the ITR setup.
chris</TD></TR></TABLE>


What makes you say that? I actually GAINED about 1 inch of travel all around.

Remember that itr specific springs are higher rates (presumably b/c they are for a heavier chassis), AND it seemed to me that the itr shocks were 1/2" taller than the EF ones..... Although I didn't tighten the nut all the way in that pic, so I wonder.....

 

just judging by the pic above,the ITR setup looks to be a good bit longer overall than the EF setup.at the same ride height,the ITR shock would be further into it's travel.
of course,if the ride height was raised any by the swap,it would make up for the difference.
it may just look longer in the pic because as you said the top hat wasn't fully tightened.
i had always thought that an EF shock/fork combo was about 1"-2" shorter overall than an EG/DC shock/fork combo?in that pic,if the nut were tigtened all the way,it doesn't appear there would be much difference.
chris

 

He's correct--you'll lose a little wheel travel. While the car may sit higher, the shock + fork is longer, hence limiting overall shock travel. This is just in the front. In the rear, it isn't as bad.

I've done this swap many times.

BTW--you can use the EF forks in the front, you just need to open up the part where the shock sets down in it.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Todd00 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">He's correct--you'll lose a little wheel travel. While the car may sit higher, the shock + fork is longer, hence limiting overall shock travel. This is just in the front. In the rear, it isn't as bad.

I've done this swap many times.

BTW--you can use the EF forks in the front, you just need to open up the part where the shock sets down in it.</TD></TR></TABLE>


Oh man, where were you when I was anticipating this install and didn't know if any of it would even work?

The itr shocks seemed to be the same length as the stock EF ones... I didn't measure - just eyeballed them. For that reason, I thought they were effectively the same..... I guess I need to pull out the measuring tape next time. The itr front forks and EF forks looked dimensionally identical as well (as far as how the bolt-holes were positioned and distance of shock to bolt holes).

Bah, who cares! It's close enough. And the higher than stock rates + better dampening itr shocks should keep it from bottoming out. As for the bump stops in the stock shocks... I left them whole. Should I have cut them?

Also, how can I fit the itr rear swaybar on my EF now? Weld some reinforcements in the rear subframe?

 

sell me your intrax... my moon buggy EF needs some springs!