IanBlake

^
hater + retard ...

don't even know how things work ... like alot of people said dont know why this is sticky

IanBlake

this are facts

great post

DA92TEGg

i jus purchased a 92 rs integra for 450 off some kid and he cut the springs all around the back isnt all that bad jus dont like the bounce in the ride.. and the front is so bad its not funny cant pull in drive way and bumps in the road make it bottom out the bottom hits the ground.. i dont drive it since i bought it cuz that reason.... but im buyin tokico blues all around and skunk 2 coil overs for 150 off some kid partin out his teggy.. is this a good idea or no and will that change the camber on my car cuz the front tires are really bad on the inside the tires? new to this site and not new to the game of cars but tryin to do work myself instead of payin ppl jus lookin for ideas and opinions??



1992 integra rs all stock all original. original miles 220 on meter never modified nothin engine runs strong. lookin to fix up and build on it.. 450$ cant go wrong wit this buy i was pretty happy

jr_deleon

iTrader: (1)

I like alot of the information in the thread whether it is pro-camber kit or con-camber kit. Here are my experiences...

I have driven on both scenarios. With the camber kit (Skunk2 Pro Series) yes i was able to get the tires straight and aligned, but for whatever reason (and my car is a little less than 1.8" lower than factory) those damn ball joints kept getting excessive play so i had to change them over and over and over. And i slow all the way down for speed bumps, potholes and the like yet those ball joints kept crapping out (Koni Yellows/ Ground Control 425lb front springs and 350 rear, Buddy Club lower ball joints)

Now without a camber kit and factory UCAs after the alignment i like the way the car handles more so. And i havent had any issues with the upper ball joints. And i havent seen any crazy wear patterns either (6,000+ miles) Same height and everything. (Anyone that has the extended lower ball joints know that you can't slam the car anyway or the upper arm will smack the inner fenderwell anyways so I cant tamper with the variables to make one outcome more favorable than the other)

Now i would've kept the camber kit had it not been for the fact that since i got the kit on i've went through more ball joints than anyone would ever want to. And I'm all for camber kits. Those were my experiences and not taking any sides. I would still like the fine-tuning ability of the camber kit but oh well. Maybe in the future i'll experience with other brands of camber kits (I have Ingalls in the rear and I still love them never had a problem)

DA92TEGg

so dont really have to buy camber kit just alignment and i should be good with tokico blues and skunk2's for atleast 5k+

speedfreak44

iTrader: (1)

anyone has pics or diagrams as to how to adjust the toe????

TunerN00b

Is this a joke?
Without listing the year and model, how can it be answered?

For (nearly) all cars, the front toe is set through changing the length of the tie rods. For the rear, it depends on the suspension design.

And even if you know how to adjust it, how will you know what setting to adjust it to?

jr_deleon

iTrader: (1)

I was going to say that yesterday, but when i thought about it, i didnt even bother.

speedfreak44, unless you have an alignment machine at your home or are willing to pay for an accurate alignment, there's no way you can adjust it to perfection.

speedfreak44

iTrader: (1)

its 94 eg9..

B16A1-EF9

This is 100% true!
I only use Falken RT615 tires for daily use and my car is also driven in the winter with a dedicated winter tire setup. I've pushed the same Falkens for 2 years of summer driving, with atleast 20,000 kms. on each season.

Toe is the most important thing. None of my cars have camber kits. I hate them

mewk

good info in this thread,..

ej1allstar

my eg coupe has a really bad suspension problem its lowered on just coils with stock shocks everything else on it is completely stock,but its a ruff ride every time i drive over any bumps you can feel them bad.what can anyone recommend for this?

. r i c h 9 9 0

get better shocks, oem shocks + shorter / stiffer spings = baaaad ride

ken9

Interesting..

llantaguy

Negative camber helps the tire maintain full contact patch under cornering load. Running more negative in the front should give more bite and help the back end rotate. Zero camber is good for tire wear. A good example is the rear tires on a truck, straight axel suspensions have no camber adjustment and always wear tires dead even.

B16_R

thanks TS..

no need for camber kits..

waste of bucks...

steveDC2

wait what do u guys mean by running no camber kit? do u take off the stock ones? damn i new, please go easy on me haha

FAMgarage

you leave the stock parts on but you ride dumped. what the thread is saying is that there is no need for aftermarket parts such as skunk2, ingallls, blox, ect... it does not apply to everyone. some may require aftermarket camber kits though.

s13hero

IDK if this is the place for this question but, I was wondering what to ask for when I have my car aligned? Just set the toe to zero? Don't ask for anything just tell them to align it? its a DD EG hatch dropped about 1.5 to 2 inches.

BORICANO

i'm not sure about on a DA, but i have a EG hatch on Skunk 2's and it's real bouncy so i don't think you would want to go with those coilovers.

meb58

I just read this...interesting.

My experience has taught me that contact patch surface area is controlled by weight over a given tire and tire psi, all else equal. However, the shape of the contact patch will change (with tire width as well) if camber changes and this is necessarily the reason behind adding more static negative camber - this comment relates to static tire postion...two identical cars with the same amount of added neg camber...one driven only on the highway and one only on twisty back roads...the highway car's tires will wear faster than the other because the patch shape has changed and is not taking full advantage of new camber 'environment'. Also, SAI/King Pin and scrub are affected by more neg camber because SAI vectors forces to the contact patch and this defines and affects scrub - the most obvious of these is steering feel; SAI axis - at the contact patch - moves farther from the tire's centroid axis. For most cars SAI angle and camber angle are the same. Tire wear with say 4 deg neg camber on a mac strut vs SLA set up will be different because their camber/toe curves are different. So we cannot compare tire wear across the board and use this as a rule of thumb.

Regarding the SLA - Short and Long Arm suspension...the SLA suspension is designed to gain camber in bump and roll. So although static camber should be adjusted based upon examining the entire suspension stroke for SLA & mac struts, AND, the driving venue, the two require a differnt approach. Also, but not finally, roll and the rate of roll for a given venue should also be examined since this also affects how much camber can be used at any given time.

Mac Struts...this design essentially runs out of camber at some point during the compression stroke. So - and this is very general - mac struts typically need more static neg camber than a SLA set up for a given venue...but that depends on everything else as well. In other words, generalizations are typically very poor guidelines, and the general comparison between a mac strut and SLA is almost not useful at all.

You have to pay attention to what the tire sees and needs since the tire is performing the work. How you set the car up will determine if you have maximized a given tire's performance or diluted it. If you go with the notion that 4 deg neg camber is good for your SLA design because someone else used it - on a mac strut - you may well find you have the exact oppsite struggles inherent in a mac strut; too much camber gain causing the inside shoulder of the tire to be the only portion of the tire in contact with the road exactly when you should have optimum tire contact patch - thru a corner.

And I agree, toe out literally drags a tire along the road. For what its worth, toe out does not add to initial cornering grip per se. As the car is turned, the inside tire continues to drag relative to the outside tire and this drag or friction biased to the inside tire is what helps turn-in or rotation.

I believe that camber kits can be useful especially when applied to a mac strut design that sees a track a few times a year. But you have to balance those track environments with the rest of yuor daily drive. If you are planning to build a track only car, then you you may well be advised to consider a camber kit based on the design of the suspension, spring and damping rates...weight of the car and track layout...and maybe a few other elements.

As an example...I increased track width on my 05 JCW Mini - mac strut - and this helped soften the front camber curve which in turn helped the tire to stay in the meat of the camber curve for a majority of corners on a few different tracks. I tried this in lieu of adding a camber kit...it worked very well. The wider stance was a bonus that reduced weight transfer and increased grip without the aid of additional neg camber. I also used a camber kit with very good results but the two set ups were very different. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

An aecdotal thought...aside from crapy steering feel, the SLA setups 96-2000 have incredible potential but can be absoluetly ruined with a careless approach. Lowering this design too far is by far the most common unsult.

freydaddy

i somewhat agree to the fact that you do not 'NEED' a camber kit.
and i also agree that it is not what prematurely wears out your tires. For instance: look at all the old BMWs out there. their tires wear evenly with a wacked out camber setting from factory.

Otherwise, I do think that getting your car back to factory specs on camber settings will increase straight line grip for acceleration and braking. Not to mention traction in wet conditions.

te92

so im lookin to dump my ride this summer its a 00 ek hatch. from what i can get is that i need a rear camber kit but not front and my question is, is that could my front toe be knocked off by bumps potholes ect.. even with with stock stuff on the front?? just cuz i kinda wanted to replace them anyway since i have quite a few K on my car

meb58

You cannot compare a BMW to a Honda...or a 2002tii BMW to a 2010 BMW M3. You have to understand the limitations in the car you are driving. AS pointed out way above and in my post, the 96 -2000 Civics REQUIRE rear camber correction after lowering say more than an inch. The camber curve is very aggressive. Lower one of these by 2" and rip around a wet rolly polly road course and you will find that you will spend a lot of effort trying to chase a back end that essentially has no grip.

Correcting camber isn't an opinion, it is geometry and it is vehicle specific and then setup specific.

...if you are referring to early BMW like the 2002 or 320 they used a semi trailing arm setup. Investigate those for a while...and at the same time understand that the automotive world is technically more advanced today.

PatrickGSR94

iTrader: (1)

Huh? How is this thread biased? It's based on my experiences w/o camber kits and those with camber kits whom I have spoken with locally and the pics and threads I have seen on this site and other discussion forums. It's not like I'm trying to peddle a certain product. I'm trying to keep people from wasting money where it's not needed for their application.

1. You will still have the high cost of alignment every time (should be done at least once a year or more to maximize tire life). Not to mention sub-$140 kits are the "cheap" ones you mention elsewhere.

2. Good for you. IMHO 2 years is nothing compared to how long OEM arms and ball joints last. I replaced my OEM upper arms about 2 years ago, which made the original ones 13 years old. I replaced them with cheap eBay OEM replacements for under $70/pair (bushings and ball joints included), and those went to crap after less than a year. Since then I have installed brand new OEM upper arms and would fully expect those to last another 10+ years. If an aftermarket company can come up with adjustable arms that will last 10+ years then I might recommend them.

3. When I was lowered on GC's I was at least 3" dropped or more, and had ZERO clearance issues with stock upper arms. Try that with any adjustable arm on the market - not gonna happen.

5. Those cheap upper arms I put on my car had ball joints that crapped out in under a year. I've heard of similar things happening on aftermarket adjustable upper arms. Again, until aftermarket companies start using OEM-quality ball joints capable of lasting 10+ years then I won't recommend them.

6. Again, heard several reports of adjustable UCA kits slipping, which is why I listed it as a "con". I have seen newer designs that may be less prone to slipping, but at the same time take up even more of your precious suspension travel clearance.

Note that this thread is geared towards daily-driven street cars. Track vehicles need not apply, since they often need to dial in more negative camber than achieved from ride height alone, and many parts used on track vehicles are replaced quite often anyway. I made this thread mainly from the perspective of reliability and long-lasting parts so that you don't have to keep spending excessive amounts of money on it over and over again.

For the suspension design and application they are showing, yes a blanket statement like that saying that negative camber results in poor handling is FLAT OUT WRONG, and as such I do not care to use any products from a company making such bogus claims.

FWIW I had new 16" tires installed back in July 2007. I just swapped them out with my OEM wheels a couple months back because they were worn out - so that's nearly 2 1/2 years of use, over 30K miles, with at least -2* camber up front. They were Kumho Ecsta SPT 205/45-ZR16 so 30K miles is definitely a good amount of life for them IMHO.