happy!

I have an 88 crx si, and I know theres a lot of debate as to which rear suspension setup is better. I have a set of 91 rear lca's and I am trying to decide which i want to use. So my question is what would you use on your crx.


Modified by happy8301 at 6:17 PM 6/15/2005

ironchef25

i have an 88 hf with tokico illuminas

SiR Inspired ED7

iTrader: (1)

i have 88 Crx Si with Tokico Illuminas with skunk 2 springs

Kwicko

I'd go for the '88 LCAs. I just liked the way my '88 Si handled; it felt more tossable than either my '91 DX or my '90 Si. In fact, I went so far as to buy a set of '88 rear LCAs to put on the DX when I do my rear Si brake swap on it, install a rear swaybar, and replace bushings. Should be a fun little car after that!

The only downside to the '88 rears is the limited choices of rear struts. But Tokico HPs or Illuminas have done just fine by me, so if I can get either of them for the '88 rears, I'd be happy with that.

Mike

Targa250R

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Kwicko &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'd go for the '88 LCAs. I just liked the way my '88 Si handled; it felt more tossable than either my '91 DX or my '90 Si. In fact, I went so far as to buy a set of '88 rear LCAs to put on the DX when I do my rear Si brake swap on it, install a rear swaybar, and replace bushings. Should be a fun little car after that!</TD></TR></TABLE>
The LCAs have nothing to do with the handling/feel of the car. The '88 handled differently because of lesser weight and the more aggressive toe curve found in '88 model CRXes. I'm sorry to say that you wasted your time and money.

Kwicko

Well, it wasn't too much of a waste... Laid out all of $10 for 'em, delivered to my door.

Any idea where the "more aggressive toe curve" comes from, if it has nothing to do with the LCA? I'm just trying to get solid info on this issue. Some say the LCA is all the difference in the world, others say it's no difference whatsoever. My feeling is that my '88 Si was just a lot easier to rotate than my '90 Si, IF you used the lift-throttle behavior to your advantage.

From everything I've seen over the years, Honda did a quickie redesign on the rear suspension for the US-market CRX for '89-'91 because of complaints and issues regarding lift-throttle oversteer, which has widely been attributed to the rear LCAs. CRXs in most other markets kept the '88-style rear LCA throughout the run, and the 3G Integra Type R was still using it during its production run.

Mike

fireant

From the comparison photos Tyson has shown, the big difference on the 88 vs 89+ is the mounting point on the chassis for the rear LCAs. Evidently its higher up, and it causes a slightly different change of toe when the rear is unloaded. The actual design of the LCAs themselves is apparently not a part of the behavior.

Tyson

kwicko, the reason your 88 felt more tossable is because of the increased toe curve. the difference is in the point where the rear toe arm mounts to the chassis. the 88 chassis has the mount a little lower. they just changed the placement of the welded bracket up a bit in 89. change in handling would not be from the LCA. and cannot be changed from the chassis, unless you rewelded the bracket i suppose.

88


89



the change was the result of actual race driver feedback in the american firehawk/escort race series. it was kind of a showroom stock series, modifications were limited and basically they ran at stock ride height. drivers found the rear end very twitchy when braking, too much. as the rear end would TOE OUT as it lifted during braking and nose diving. so they told honda in japan to dial it out. this is fact. i know the drivers who raced the crx then.

also, take note that the difference in chassis and toe curve is minimized as the car is lowered, since the range of toe change is limited. i do agree that my 88 Si seems more tossable in the turns. i still ride at stock height, stock springs, but with an upgraded mugen rear swaybar and illuminas. i like it. (despite the 4x4 rally comments )

also, the difference in the lower control arms seems to be just a weird anomoly and coincidence in the year of change. japanese cars continued to use the box frame control arm. ive heard no valid reason why the change was made in the US. but the general geometry and even the bushing dimensions are the same. i dont think theres any matter of strength to be off issue, as it really doesnt matter.

i have in fact changed from my original 88 rear LCA to 90 LCA so that i can use the complete set of illuminas i had in my garage. i am one to also say i did not notice any difference. no loss in tossability. the only other thing changed at this point was the new shocks.






oh yeah, one last thing. i kinda dig my rear drums for my 88. i got a set of ALUMINUM drums from an 87 HF. MUCH MUCH lighter than cast iron stock ones. and theyre look nicer, theyre finned for cooling. kinda goes with my rims.




Modified by Tyson at 1:35 PM 6/5/2005

Kwicko

Tyson: Thanks for the awesome info. I've actually learned something today!

I had a set of the aluminum HF drums that I was going to put on my autocrosser ('87 Si), but I got lazy about changing out the backing plates and stuff (weird thing - on the first-gen Si, they don't just swap over - you have to use the HF backing plates too! On the 2G, the 1G Al drum just slaps right on.). Anyway, I ended up giving them to davens; he's still rocking them on his '89 Si. I still keep my eye out for them at the 'yards. Funny - if you find one, you usually ONLY find one! It's like the owner had to replace a rear drum, and when faced with the choice of the expensive HF unit or the cheapo cast iron one, they voted for cheap. I've put together a couple pairs of those drums, and always one at a time!

Mike

b20civicboi

go for the 91

rice_classic

88's with Omnipowers??


Why do the ITR's have the same "eyelet" style LCA's as the 88 crx's? Was this just a fluke? Is the mystery of the "passive rear steering" associated withe 88's just a myth?

I love my 88 si but my 88 ITA CRX had the 'standard' LCA's instead of the ITR style lca's.. I bet you can guess why!

EL Vap133

It would be cheaper to go with the 89-91 rear LCAs and the struts.

Tyson

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rice_classic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Why do the ITR's have the same "eyelet" style LCA's as the 88 crx's? Was this just a fluke? Is the mystery of the "passive rear steering" associated withe 88's just a myth?
</TD></TR></TABLE>

did you not read my post? perhaps not understood what i'm talking about? do i need to explain it in different terms?

fireant

Tell me if I'm wrong or not on this:

Dynamic Toe: when a rear wheel unloads (the rear suspension expands, like while you're braking or lifting and the weight goes onto the front wheels) the rear wheels toe out a small amount. If there's too much, this can make the car squirrelly when you try to brake hard from high speed.

Passive Steering: totally the opposite... when you are turning hard while accellerating, and adding extra weight to the outside rear wheel (the rear suspension is contracting in this case) it toes out, adding even more turn.

The EF/CRX RTA setup behaves like the first scenario (more extreme for the 88s), correct?

Tyson

passive steering = dynamic toe. same thing. you just described what happens on each side of the spectrum.

[EDIT]

you know, i gotta say that im pretty damn sure the rears toe IN when theyre loaded. and toe out during braking. if they toed out during hard turning, yeah, you think that would help turning, but WAY too much, youd spin like a top. you want both wheels to point the same way at high speeds.

during low speeds, then its better to point the rear wheels opposite. but low speed turning isnt really a performance issue.

think about turning radius. at a high speed turn, the turning radius is far out there. it would be more ideal to match that radius, than create a radius around the two outside wheels.

so your last statement about "passive steering" or high speed turning, is incorrect. but like i said, the two terms are pretty much the same and you tried to describe both sides of the toe curve.


Modified by Tyson at 11:21 PM 6/6/2005

rice_classic

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">did you not read my post? perhaps not understood what i'm talking about? do i need to explain it in different terms?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Did you read my post?

Is the Dynamic toe (passive steering) DUE to the LCA or DUE to the where the Trailing Toe mounts attaches to the frame?

Is it both?

As for racing... It's ALL about how you drive. Many people have a driving styles that are ONLY fast with a car that can really rotate, other drivers are only fast with a car that tends to "push" a bit. The 88's might fit my driving style where I like a chassis that will "push" if I enter a turn too hot but if I set up the turn correctly the chassis will rotate with a neutral feeling. This way I push the car harder without increased probability of spinning out while at the same time achieving a chassis that will still rotate. Set up correctly to suit the way I race, I can see the 88's allowing me to be faster and safer.

This setup may not suit everyone, but it allows some insight into how one way may not be relatively bad, just not suitable to a particular persons objectives.

None of this, however, applies to your average joe. These dynamic physics are only strongly noticable when experienced at 10/10th's (or in a racing/testing application).

When I HPDE'd my 88's (suspension that is) I noticed that my car would push (neuspeeds/tokicos) but would rotate well when setup in the corner correctly. I also noticed that when I was autocrossing and pushing the car to the limits in very tight turns it wasn't hard to get the car to spin out but if I hurried the corner and entered too heavy the car would understeer.

Now you can still achieve all this without the 88's. It all about how you set your spring rates and rear toe. If you use the 89-91 LCA's you will find MANY more options for Shocks, not many companies appeal to the 88's anymore. Unless you buy rear shocks for an ITR, then you're set.

Tyson. You're post was well stated but I positioned my question wrong. If racers complained about the twitchyness of the 88's suspension then why was it implimented on the ITR which is renouned for it's handling? What was honda's reasoning behind this? Does the 88' style suspension act differenly on the ITR?

Tyson

wow. you really DIDNT read my post.

the difference is NOT in the lower control arm. any difference you might have felt using the 88 box frame lower control arm was all in your head. take a look at the pictures again.

yes, any difference in dynamic toe changes, aka passive steering, is all in the change in the toe link mounting position to the chassis. that changed after 88, and cannot be reverted by replacing the lower control arm.

rice_classic

I purposely didn't read your post.

fireant

what Tyson is saying is that you could take the LCA from an 88 and put it on a 89-91 and it wouldnt change anything (assuming you had equal shocks), because geometrically, they are the same, just constructed from a different material.

Tyson

just different construction, not material.

TheCheeseWedge

iTrader: (1)

i love my 88 crx best handling car i have ever driven, ive gab sports revo2 rear shocks from a type r modified to fit with tokico illuminas up front. super stiff, who says you cant drift hehehe. and as far as the high speed unstableness goes that is crap, my car is super solid at high speeds. oversteer is a huge advantage in racing if you know how to use it correctly why would they put it on the type r if it was not as good as every other honda? sell the illuminas and get after market type r shocks keep your 88 lca

Tyson

you guys do know that the box frame, eyelet rear shock was used on every honda, NOT JUST THE FRIGGIN TYPE R, everywhere else than the US. because the TYPE R kept the same LCA as every other honda car in japan, doesnt mean anything.

for whatever reason, hondas in the US have CAST LCA. i wouldnt be surprised if the shock was a different valve spec than the US because of the chance for redesign. but when they shipped the TYPE R, they probably didnt want to make another shock just for the limited number of TYPE R's ever made.

theres nothing special about the Type R and 88 CRX sharing the same design. EVERY HONDA SHARED THE LCA DESIGN. the US just didnt get em.... (except in the TYPE R and 88 CRX.)

rice_classic

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">theres nothing special about the Type R and 88 CRX sharing the same design. EVERY HONDA SHARED THE LCA DESIGN. the US just didnt get em.... (except in the TYPE R and 88 CRX.)</TD></TR></TABLE>

Good stuff.

There is SO much good information here that hasn't even been tapped yet. For instance, this topic gives a GREAT deal of insight into why there is such a big debate over Poly bushings for the rear trailing arm versus the Mugen/stock ones.

If you have a honda your rear trailing arm (the front portion with the toe mount) will go up and down in accordance with the wheel. If the rear wheel is loaded (pushed up) the front of the trailing arm goes down (this is because it pivots where the trailing arm bushing is bolted to the frame). This all seems so obvious but here's the ticker!

As the tire loads and the front of the trailing arm goes down it DOESN'T GO STRAIGHT DOWN. Since it is connected to the frame via a toe mount, as it goes down (or up) it actually rotates on an axis. Therefore ALL honda's have a passive rear steering but the reason why the 88's get a reputation is because the toe mount being placed lower causes the front of the trailing arm to move slightly toward the outside of the car as it travels downward (during suspension load - cornering). What happens when you pull the front of the trailing arm toward the outside of the car???? YOU GET TOE'D OUT OF COURSE!

The 89-91 (and every other honda) placed the toe mounts (as TYSON has already stated) higher, THEREFORE the trailing arm is already at the center of it's axis where the toe mounts connect to the frame so as the front of the trailing arm dips and rotates on it axis it's doesn't move toward the outside of the body giving the rear wheels a toe out but instead it moves (unnoticeably) toward the inside giving the rear wheels a bit of toe in.

This is GOOD information for any racer because setting up a 88 crx to fit your racing style is DIFFERENT then setting up a 89-91. (I wish I could have learned this 2 years ago!)

Now about the bushings. You can see how the poly bushings are not going to allow the trailing arm to flex on it's frontal axis as much and in turn reduce the amount of "squirlyness" in the rear on an 88. However, on a 89-91 you would want the mugen bushings because the allow a greater amount of frontal axis rotation with reduced resistance allowing the trailing to do WHAT IT'S SUPPOSE TO DO.

Why is this important! Let's look at the older Preludes with their 4 wheel steering. Under 22 (or is it 25) MPH, the rear wheels turn 5 degree outward (toe out) to help the car rotate in tight, slow turns but at speeds ABOVE 25MPH, the rear tires rotate 5 degrees inward (toe in) which improves corning stability and grip.

When you apply the physics of the 88 rear suspension other honda suspension you will see that in relation to CORNERING, the 88 is like the 4WS Prelude under 25MPH and the other hondas are like the 4WS Prelude OVER 25MPH.

If I was good with MSPaint I'd draw y'all a picture but I'm not so you'll all just have to read this post over and over until it sinks in.

Tyson

i dont think the difference between 88 and 89-91 geometry allows any OPPOSITE or different action, just greater or lessor degrees of the same trend.

rice_classic

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i dont think the difference between 88 and 89-91 geometry allows any OPPOSITE or different action, just greater or lessor degrees of the same trend. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I was trying to say that but so many other words kept coming out.

It is interesting on how this setup could be implemented in a slightly differntly fashion in order to achieve the results of AWS. Although it would only work in one direction (either toe out or toe in) unlike real AWS which works in both directions.

When I design the next best selling sports car I'll be sure to include this.