every where i look on the internet every one has the same info on the 88 only crx rear suspension. aparently it has some kind of passive rear steering that gives it tweaky handling. i was just wondering what people who have driven both the 88 and the 89+ thought of the 88's handling. also is it possible to put this rear suspension on ef hatches and 4dr's.
do the back wheels turn?, how is it different? how does it work?

 

i'll be the first to say, search, been covered many times

 

It uses body roll to alter the toe of the rear wheels. Personally I don't really notice a difference on the street. Then again, with an ST swaybar set at full stiff, 450lb GC's, and Koni yellows set one turn from full stiff, I probably don't have enough rear body roll to make a difference. The car does rotate extremely well on an auto-x course though, but I'm comparing that to a longer wheelbase hatchback w/ much softer rear springs :shrugs:

 

aren't all 88-91 crx suspension geometry's the same?? I think the only difference is that the 88's had a stamped lower arm and the shock bottom was an eyelet instead of a fork.

 

It seems to react quicker and I can make large radius turns much quicker.

 

the answer is a difference in the rear toe link attachment point ON THE CHASSIS. (its the chassis thats different, you cant do a swap to convert it) it has nothing to do with the lower control arm that is different, and not really anything to do with the Type-R. unfortunately, most of the answers in the archive are wrong about this. heres the full explanation.

https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=690666
CRX Lee has the correct answer.

 

That is a good thread in the link but it does not explain the entire purpose of (or operation of) the honda civic passive rear steering.
Before i start i'd just like to say that i used to be solely in charge of testing these rear trailing arms for a company over here that makes them and have read a few books on suspension theory so im not just speculating.
The main reason for including passive rear steering is not to induce a turning moment on the wheel, rather to keep it from turning.
Let me explain...
Any normal rear suspension design for a front wheel drive car(that is, one without passive rear steering) will deflect in a way when loaded up with either braking or cornering forces that will produce change in the toe angle of the wheel.
For example, when under heavy braking forces the wheel will try to toe out, reducing grip levels when its most needed.
The deflection is normal and necessary as without some movement in the suspension bushes (and to a lesser degree the metalwork) the ride quality would be awful.
Passive steering suspension is used (in this case at least) to maintain ride quality while avoiding altered toe angles.
The front link that has been mentioned can also be known as a weissack (spelling?) link and was possibly first introduced on the porshe 928, my memory fails me. <U>Its main purpose is to avoid toe out under braking</U> any possible toe adjustment during body roll is a benefit/confusion, depending on how you look at it.
The other main feature of the honda design is the ability to avoid toe changes during cornering forces due to the clever distancing of the links from the hub. They are placed in a manner whereby each end of the tailing arm deflects(transversally) by the same amount when a transverse force is applied to the hub.
This type of suspension design is very good and doesn't like to be altered very much. Its also pretty rare(at least it was at the time), which is why it continued to be used on civics (and rovers over here) for like 10years+ afterwards.
Yes, you heard me, nearly all civics have passive rear steering.
I have seen this design loaded and unloaded in many directions thousands of times on a testbed situation and i know how it reacts. Its a damn good design and doesn't really need altering at all(tho i run mine lowered). I would NEVER change the main bushing out for a solid rubber one, it could only worsen the handling. If you need to change it use a new honda one, that movement in the bush is critical to the suspensions operation. To all those that did: hows your braking performance? especially around a corner? and how about your tyre wear?

Any differences between models are, like previously mentioned, due to slight changes in bush compound and apparently slight changes in link location also. This does not mean that some had it and some dont, just that they react slightly differently.


right, beer time...

 

interesting.....very informative

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by UK CIVIC B16A2 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">That is a good thread in the link but it does not explain the entire purpose of (or operation of) the honda civic passive rear steering.
Before i start i'd just like to say that i used to be solely in charge of testing these rear trailing arms for a company over here that makes them and have read a few books on suspension theory so im not just speculating.
The main reason for including passive rear steering is not to induce a turning moment on the wheel, rather to keep it from turning.
Let me explain...
Any normal rear suspension design for a front wheel drive car(that is, one without passive rear steering) will deflect in a way when loaded up with either braking or cornering forces that will produce change in the toe angle of the wheel.
For example, when under heavy braking forces the wheel will try to toe out, reducing grip levels when its most needed.
The deflection is normal and necessary as without some movement in the suspension bushes (and to a lesser degree the metalwork) the ride quality would be awful.
Passive steering suspension is used (in this case at least) to maintain ride quality while avoiding altered toe angles.
The front link that has been mentioned can also be known as a weissack (spelling?) link and was possibly first introduced on the porshe 928, my memory fails me. <U>Its main purpose is to avoid toe out under braking</U> any possible toe adjustment during body roll is a benefit/confusion, depending on how you look at it.
The other main feature of the honda design is the ability to avoid toe changes during cornering forces due to the clever distancing of the links from the hub. They are placed in a manner whereby each end of the tailing arm deflects(transversally) by the same amount when a transverse force is applied to the hub.
This type of suspension design is very good and doesn't like to be altered very much. Its also pretty rare(at least it was at the time), which is why it continued to be used on civics (and rovers over here) for like 10years+ afterwards.
Yes, you heard me, nearly all civics have passive rear steering.
I have seen this design loaded and unloaded in many directions thousands of times on a testbed situation and i know how it reacts. Its a damn good design and doesn't really need altering at all(tho i run mine lowered). I would NEVER change the main bushing out for a solid rubber one, it could only worsen the handling. If you need to change it use a new honda one, that movement in the bush is critical to the suspensions operation. To all those that did: hows your braking performance? especially around a corner? and how about your tyre wear?

Any differences between models are, like previously mentioned, due to slight changes in bush compound and apparently slight changes in link location also. This does not mean that some had it and some dont, just that they react slightly differently.


right, beer time...</TD></TR></TABLE>

Good information. I guess Ill switch over to the 88 CRX SI Rear Disc Conversion and buy my Ground Controls/Koni for this suspension. Thank you again.

 

is this suspension unique to the 88 crx or is it the same for 88 hatches as well

 

It applies to all 1988 Civics.

 

If I read right...

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by UK CIVIC B16A2 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yes, you heard me, nearly all civics have passive rear steering.</TD></TR></TABLE>

This would include those after 1988. I think UK CIVIC's post was regarding the suspension design for all of our civics. I might be wrong though

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CRX Lee &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...on the rear of the '88 and '89. The issues are actually not based on any parts that you can move from one car to another. The difference is in the location on the body shell where the mounting point is located slightly differently on a vertical plane...</TD></TR></TABLE>

The 88 and 89 just have a "tweak" that is designed into the chassis that increases bump steer. Correct me if I'm wrong

 

thats correct. i think fluffy doesnt understand theres nothing changed in the suspension when he changes to later rear disc.

 

Learn something new everyday.

 

So does that mean I lost the passive rear steering since I went with 90-91 crx si rear disc brakes and LCAs?

 

man, cant you read? no, nothing is lost. the only difference between the 88 and 89+ is the DEGREE of passive steering effect is reduced in later models, and it is part of the CHASSIS, not the suspension components.

 

Great info guys!!!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">man, cant you read? no, nothing is lost. the only difference between the 88 and 89+ is the DEGREE of passive steering effect is reduced in later models, and it is part of the CHASSIS, not the suspension components.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Man, I'm not gonna read all thatm calm down.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">thats correct. i think fluffy doesnt understand theres nothing changed in the suspension when he changes to later rear disc.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah, I know that it's the chassis itself where it's connected that switches the degree of it. Now I know I can safely switch to the 90-91 suspension (via while doing the Rear Disc Brake conversion) - Kinda want to use KYB AGX All around heh. Thanks for the tip ty.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by notfastenough &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">This would include those after 1988. I think UK CIVIC's post was regarding the suspension design for all of our civics. I might be wrong though </TD></TR></TABLE>

Yea, not just 4th gens either.
Glad to be of help.

 

if you plan on upgrading the suspension on an 88 its dangerous, back end will slide out 100 percent of the time. be careful

 

so whats the ideal setup for an 88 for very good handling, like how far to lower, sway bars ect.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 4g4drb17 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">so whats the ideal setup for an 88 for very good handling, like how far to lower, sway bars ect.</TD></TR></TABLE>

check out my setup in my Bio. I'm very happy with it. Excelent rotation and very neutral handling (OK, maybee it leans a little to the oversteer side of things)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by crx si 2004 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">if you plan on upgrading the suspension on an 88 its dangerous, back end will slide out 100 percent of the time. be careful</TD></TR></TABLE>

was this sarcasm?

i'm hoping so

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by crx si 2004 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">if you plan on upgrading the suspension on an 88 its dangerous, back end will slide out 100 percent of the time. be careful</TD></TR></TABLE><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by iain &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

was this sarcasm?

i'm hoping so</TD></TR></TABLE>
Glad someone said it, i thaught it was just me...
Any suspension system can be improved upon, to the best of my knowledge no-one has ever made a 'perfect' suspension system.