Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

"televascular" <televascular@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1156991839.326753.138110@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com:


<snip>


>
> However, I am interested in this method of manipulating rear toe to
> achieve oversteer. I believe I can mess with it easily enough if its
> the thread-type adjustment, but I have no way of measuring the changes.
> Can you elaborate, or is this something I shouldn't try to do myself?
>
>



You certainly seem to have an abundance of suspension knowledge. Why ask
here? Just do what you so obviously know already.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

jim beam wrote:

> what kind of car? if it's a taurus, you're wasting your time. in my
> highly biased opinion, if you have mcphersons, you're wasting your time.
> if you're talking integra, you don't have mcphersons.

I am far from being a suspension guru, so excuse my ignorance. Why am I
wasting my time putting negative camber on MacPhersons? I have read
that they are inferior to double-wishbones, purely as a matter of being
able to control suspension compliance. Are MacPhersons inherently less
adjustable, or harder to get favorable results from?

>From what I've read, the only good things about MacPhersons are their
compact size. It seems Honda used them on the front so they could save
more room for the engine bay, which is already tiny enough as it is!

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

jim beam wrote:

> what kind of car? if it's a taurus, you're wasting your time. in my
> highly biased opinion, if you have mcphersons, you're wasting your time.
> if you're talking integra, you don't have mcphersons.

I am far from being a suspension guru, so excuse my ignorance. Why am I
wasting my time putting negative camber on MacPhersons? I have read
that they are inferior to double-wishbones, purely as a matter of being
able to control suspension compliance. Are MacPhersons inherently less
adjustable, or harder to get favorable results from?

>From what I've read, the only good things about MacPhersons are their
compact size. It seems Honda used them on the front so they could save
more room for the engine bay, which is already tiny enough as it is!

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

jim beam wrote:

> what kind of car? if it's a taurus, you're wasting your time. in my
> highly biased opinion, if you have mcphersons, you're wasting your time.
> if you're talking integra, you don't have mcphersons.

I am far from being a suspension guru, so excuse my ignorance. Why am I
wasting my time putting negative camber on MacPhersons? I have read
that they are inferior to double-wishbones, purely as a matter of being
able to control suspension compliance. Are MacPhersons inherently less
adjustable, or harder to get favorable results from?

>From what I've read, the only good things about MacPhersons are their
compact size. It seems Honda used them on the front so they could save
more room for the engine bay, which is already tiny enough as it is!

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

TeGGeR® wrote:

> You certainly seem to have an abundance of suspension knowledge. Why ask
> here? Just do what you so obviously know already.

I read up a lot on the subject, but what I know is only from what I
read. I have little hands-on experience when it comes to suspensions,
so I go on theory and basic physics.

Also, I do not feel comfortable realigning my wheels without accurate
measurements. I was wondering if you knew anything about that, besides
the "string around the car" method.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

TeGGeR® wrote:

> You certainly seem to have an abundance of suspension knowledge. Why ask
> here? Just do what you so obviously know already.

I read up a lot on the subject, but what I know is only from what I
read. I have little hands-on experience when it comes to suspensions,
so I go on theory and basic physics.

Also, I do not feel comfortable realigning my wheels without accurate
measurements. I was wondering if you knew anything about that, besides
the "string around the car" method.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

TeGGeR® wrote:

> You certainly seem to have an abundance of suspension knowledge. Why ask
> here? Just do what you so obviously know already.

I read up a lot on the subject, but what I know is only from what I
read. I have little hands-on experience when it comes to suspensions,
so I go on theory and basic physics.

Also, I do not feel comfortable realigning my wheels without accurate
measurements. I was wondering if you knew anything about that, besides
the "string around the car" method.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

"televascular" <televascular@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1156993090.888062.99790@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com:

>
> TeGGeR® wrote:
>
>> You certainly seem to have an abundance of suspension knowledge. Why ask
>> here? Just do what you so obviously know already.
>
> I read up a lot on the subject, but what I know is only from what I
> read. I have little hands-on experience when it comes to suspensions,
> so I go on theory and basic physics.
>
> Also, I do not feel comfortable realigning my wheels without accurate
> measurements. I was wondering if you knew anything about that, besides
> the "string around the car" method.
>
>


Well, the first thing you need to do is establish the car's "thrust
centerline". This is determined from the rear suspension toe. Once that is
known, you can then adjust front toe on either side so that it is parallel
to the thrust centerline.

Can you do this with a "string"? I suppose, but I wouldn't want to try it.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

"televascular" <televascular@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1156993090.888062.99790@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com:

>
> TeGGeR® wrote:
>
>> You certainly seem to have an abundance of suspension knowledge. Why ask
>> here? Just do what you so obviously know already.
>
> I read up a lot on the subject, but what I know is only from what I
> read. I have little hands-on experience when it comes to suspensions,
> so I go on theory and basic physics.
>
> Also, I do not feel comfortable realigning my wheels without accurate
> measurements. I was wondering if you knew anything about that, besides
> the "string around the car" method.
>
>


Well, the first thing you need to do is establish the car's "thrust
centerline". This is determined from the rear suspension toe. Once that is
known, you can then adjust front toe on either side so that it is parallel
to the thrust centerline.

Can you do this with a "string"? I suppose, but I wouldn't want to try it.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

"televascular" <televascular@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1156993090.888062.99790@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com:

>
> TeGGeR® wrote:
>
>> You certainly seem to have an abundance of suspension knowledge. Why ask
>> here? Just do what you so obviously know already.
>
> I read up a lot on the subject, but what I know is only from what I
> read. I have little hands-on experience when it comes to suspensions,
> so I go on theory and basic physics.
>
> Also, I do not feel comfortable realigning my wheels without accurate
> measurements. I was wondering if you knew anything about that, besides
> the "string around the car" method.
>
>


Well, the first thing you need to do is establish the car's "thrust
centerline". This is determined from the rear suspension toe. Once that is
known, you can then adjust front toe on either side so that it is parallel
to the thrust centerline.

Can you do this with a "string"? I suppose, but I wouldn't want to try it.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

televascular wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> what kind of car? if it's a taurus, you're wasting your time. in my
>> highly biased opinion, if you have mcphersons, you're wasting your time.
>> if you're talking integra, you don't have mcphersons.
>
> I am far from being a suspension guru, so excuse my ignorance. Why am I
> wasting my time putting negative camber on MacPhersons? I have read
> that they are inferior to double-wishbones, purely as a matter of being
> able to control suspension compliance.

if you mean compliance in terms of vertical travel, there's no
difference. if you mean compliance in terms of geometry control and
degrees of freedom, wishbones are the way to go. basically, you can
keep the camber appropriate to lean angle /both/ sides of the car. with
mcpherson, you can kinda-sorta get it ok-ish for the outer wheel, but
the inner one goes to heck. in low traction environs like rallying on
dirt, it doesn't matter, hence subaru dominance in that arena. but on
black top, wishbone is the way to go. somewhere on the web is a table
of cornering g's pulled by different compact sport cars from the 80's &
90's. the crx was [is] better than than any other car in it's
class/tire width. look at any mcpherson vs. wishbone - they all have
wider tires just to keep the thing on the road. better yet, check out
any wide-tired car like bmw in a parking lot with the wheels at full
lock. see how much [how little] rubber is on the road on the inside tire?

> Are MacPhersons inherently less
> adjustable, or harder to get favorable results from?

both.

>
>>From what I've read, the only good things about MacPhersons are their
> compact size.

that's minor. biggest advantage is /significant/ cost saving - much
lower component count and each component that's left is /much/ cheaper
to manufacture. look at the [forged?] knuckle on an integra - that
thing is at least 3 forming operations, each needing very expensive
tooling. a strut just has a cast sub axle bolted on the bottom.

> It seems Honda used them on the front so they could save
> more room for the engine bay, which is already tiny enough as it is!

there's plenty of room. mcpherson is all about cost. end of story.

if you want a car that can be tweaked and really handle on the curves,
get a post 88, pre-2000 civic, a post 88 crx, post 89 integra or a
prelude. the 06 si has a nice motor, but that's about it. seriously,
if you sell that car, you'll have money to spare for a good base car
from the above, /and/ a motor like this:

http://www.theoldone.com/articles/La...rrys_Civic.htm

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

televascular wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> what kind of car? if it's a taurus, you're wasting your time. in my
>> highly biased opinion, if you have mcphersons, you're wasting your time.
>> if you're talking integra, you don't have mcphersons.
>
> I am far from being a suspension guru, so excuse my ignorance. Why am I
> wasting my time putting negative camber on MacPhersons? I have read
> that they are inferior to double-wishbones, purely as a matter of being
> able to control suspension compliance.

if you mean compliance in terms of vertical travel, there's no
difference. if you mean compliance in terms of geometry control and
degrees of freedom, wishbones are the way to go. basically, you can
keep the camber appropriate to lean angle /both/ sides of the car. with
mcpherson, you can kinda-sorta get it ok-ish for the outer wheel, but
the inner one goes to heck. in low traction environs like rallying on
dirt, it doesn't matter, hence subaru dominance in that arena. but on
black top, wishbone is the way to go. somewhere on the web is a table
of cornering g's pulled by different compact sport cars from the 80's &
90's. the crx was [is] better than than any other car in it's
class/tire width. look at any mcpherson vs. wishbone - they all have
wider tires just to keep the thing on the road. better yet, check out
any wide-tired car like bmw in a parking lot with the wheels at full
lock. see how much [how little] rubber is on the road on the inside tire?

> Are MacPhersons inherently less
> adjustable, or harder to get favorable results from?

both.

>
>>From what I've read, the only good things about MacPhersons are their
> compact size.

that's minor. biggest advantage is /significant/ cost saving - much
lower component count and each component that's left is /much/ cheaper
to manufacture. look at the [forged?] knuckle on an integra - that
thing is at least 3 forming operations, each needing very expensive
tooling. a strut just has a cast sub axle bolted on the bottom.

> It seems Honda used them on the front so they could save
> more room for the engine bay, which is already tiny enough as it is!

there's plenty of room. mcpherson is all about cost. end of story.

if you want a car that can be tweaked and really handle on the curves,
get a post 88, pre-2000 civic, a post 88 crx, post 89 integra or a
prelude. the 06 si has a nice motor, but that's about it. seriously,
if you sell that car, you'll have money to spare for a good base car
from the above, /and/ a motor like this:

http://www.theoldone.com/articles/La...rrys_Civic.htm

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

televascular wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> what kind of car? if it's a taurus, you're wasting your time. in my
>> highly biased opinion, if you have mcphersons, you're wasting your time.
>> if you're talking integra, you don't have mcphersons.
>
> I am far from being a suspension guru, so excuse my ignorance. Why am I
> wasting my time putting negative camber on MacPhersons? I have read
> that they are inferior to double-wishbones, purely as a matter of being
> able to control suspension compliance.

if you mean compliance in terms of vertical travel, there's no
difference. if you mean compliance in terms of geometry control and
degrees of freedom, wishbones are the way to go. basically, you can
keep the camber appropriate to lean angle /both/ sides of the car. with
mcpherson, you can kinda-sorta get it ok-ish for the outer wheel, but
the inner one goes to heck. in low traction environs like rallying on
dirt, it doesn't matter, hence subaru dominance in that arena. but on
black top, wishbone is the way to go. somewhere on the web is a table
of cornering g's pulled by different compact sport cars from the 80's &
90's. the crx was [is] better than than any other car in it's
class/tire width. look at any mcpherson vs. wishbone - they all have
wider tires just to keep the thing on the road. better yet, check out
any wide-tired car like bmw in a parking lot with the wheels at full
lock. see how much [how little] rubber is on the road on the inside tire?

> Are MacPhersons inherently less
> adjustable, or harder to get favorable results from?

both.

>
>>From what I've read, the only good things about MacPhersons are their
> compact size.

that's minor. biggest advantage is /significant/ cost saving - much
lower component count and each component that's left is /much/ cheaper
to manufacture. look at the [forged?] knuckle on an integra - that
thing is at least 3 forming operations, each needing very expensive
tooling. a strut just has a cast sub axle bolted on the bottom.

> It seems Honda used them on the front so they could save
> more room for the engine bay, which is already tiny enough as it is!

there's plenty of room. mcpherson is all about cost. end of story.

if you want a car that can be tweaked and really handle on the curves,
get a post 88, pre-2000 civic, a post 88 crx, post 89 integra or a
prelude. the 06 si has a nice motor, but that's about it. seriously,
if you sell that car, you'll have money to spare for a good base car
from the above, /and/ a motor like this:

http://www.theoldone.com/articles/La...rrys_Civic.htm

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

jim beam wrote:

> if you want a car that can be tweaked and really handle on the curves,
> get a post 88, pre-2000 civic, a post 88 crx, post 89 integra or a
> prelude. the 06 si has a nice motor, but that's about it. seriously,
> if you sell that car, you'll have money to spare for a good base car
> from the above, /and/ a motor like this:
>
> http://www.theoldone.com/articles/La...rrys_Civic.htm

Thanks for clearing up some of those questions. As for buying an older
car, it's out of the question for me. I don't have the money/know-how
for swaps and total modification, nor do I want to start with a used
chassis. I bought the '06 Si for its styling too, not just for the K20.

I perused through that link (too long for me to read tonight), and I
noticed from the pictures you used an aftermarket closed-jacket block.
Hypothetically, if I were to supercharge my K20, would I *need*
aftermarket pistons/conrods/block? I hear Honda crankshafts are rock
solid, and don't need to be upgraded.

I'm just wondering. I don't plan on supercharging, especially with
11.1:1 compression.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

jim beam wrote:

> if you want a car that can be tweaked and really handle on the curves,
> get a post 88, pre-2000 civic, a post 88 crx, post 89 integra or a
> prelude. the 06 si has a nice motor, but that's about it. seriously,
> if you sell that car, you'll have money to spare for a good base car
> from the above, /and/ a motor like this:
>
> http://www.theoldone.com/articles/La...rrys_Civic.htm

Thanks for clearing up some of those questions. As for buying an older
car, it's out of the question for me. I don't have the money/know-how
for swaps and total modification, nor do I want to start with a used
chassis. I bought the '06 Si for its styling too, not just for the K20.

I perused through that link (too long for me to read tonight), and I
noticed from the pictures you used an aftermarket closed-jacket block.
Hypothetically, if I were to supercharge my K20, would I *need*
aftermarket pistons/conrods/block? I hear Honda crankshafts are rock
solid, and don't need to be upgraded.

I'm just wondering. I don't plan on supercharging, especially with
11.1:1 compression.