Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

Joe LaVigne wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2006 10:46:36 -0700, televascular wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> with respect, that means you're not serious. if you were, you'd take
>>> the money you have into the si back out, and put less than half of that
>>> money back into a vehicle that actually has the potential you "say" you
>>> want.
>>
>> jim beam,
>>
>> I'm not a serious tuner, no. I bought the Si for a combination of
>> style, performance, and practicality. But mostly because it's a Honda
>> and it's a K20. I'm not trying to improve slalom times, only to refine
>> my daily driving experience.
>
> But the only thing I would expect would improve the Si for daily driving
> would be increased Torque.
>
> AAMOF, the understeer in the Si is easily corrected in corners by hitting
> the gas, not the brake. Odd as it may sound, I go through some pretty
> drastic on-ramps at 2AM at 60 MPH, accelerating when the understeer
> presents itself.

absolutely. anyone getting freaked by understeer on such a vehicle is
inexperienced and needs to learn how to handle it properly:

1. adjust speed before the curve,
2. power through.

>
> This was also the opinion of almost every reviewer whose work I read before
> buying the car.
>

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

It'd be nice if I could somehow experiment with my toe/camber settings
myself to find what I feel comfortable with. But yes, low torque is a
significant issue in this car (139 lbft @ 6100), although i-VTEC helps
to smooth out the band. The only real way of upping torque is swapping
out my RBC intake runners with the TSX's RBB runners. Or add a
supercharger, which I'm not willing to do.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

It'd be nice if I could somehow experiment with my toe/camber settings
myself to find what I feel comfortable with. But yes, low torque is a
significant issue in this car (139 lbft @ 6100), although i-VTEC helps
to smooth out the band. The only real way of upping torque is swapping
out my RBC intake runners with the TSX's RBB runners. Or add a
supercharger, which I'm not willing to do.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

It'd be nice if I could somehow experiment with my toe/camber settings
myself to find what I feel comfortable with. But yes, low torque is a
significant issue in this car (139 lbft @ 6100), although i-VTEC helps
to smooth out the band. The only real way of upping torque is swapping
out my RBC intake runners with the TSX's RBB runners. Or add a
supercharger, which I'm not willing to do.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

televascular wrote:
> It'd be nice if I could somehow experiment with my toe/camber settings
> myself to find what I feel comfortable with. But yes, low torque is a
> significant issue in this car (139 lbft @ 6100), although i-VTEC helps
> to smooth out the band. The only real way of upping torque is swapping
> out my RBC intake runners with the TSX's RBB runners. Or add a
> supercharger, which I'm not willing to do.
>
"low torque"???

with respect, there's a couple of things you need to check into here:

1. power vs. torque.
2. power vs. weight of the vehicle.

for the price, this vehicle is one of the fastest on the straightaways
that you can buy stock. it sounds like you're shifting too early if
you're not experiencing that. practice revving it up against the red
line before each shift - this motor is almost impossible to over-rev so
you won't hurt it. i can toast any inexperienced honda driver in my
stock civic d15 if they're not using the full rev range [which is often
in my experience].

regarding handling, get some big rubber before you spend a cent on
anything else. do /not/ mess with the toe unless you can afford to
waste tires and want to degrade handling. race hondas run within
factory toe specs unless they're using modified bushings which have
changed suspension compliance. regarding camber, is again set for
optimum on this vehicle, given the constraints of the mcpherson struts.
the only reason to adjust it is to bring it back into spec if you've
lowered it - that's what camber kits are for - they don't "improve"
anything, they simply allow you to adjust out the problems caused by the
other mods.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

televascular wrote:
> It'd be nice if I could somehow experiment with my toe/camber settings
> myself to find what I feel comfortable with. But yes, low torque is a
> significant issue in this car (139 lbft @ 6100), although i-VTEC helps
> to smooth out the band. The only real way of upping torque is swapping
> out my RBC intake runners with the TSX's RBB runners. Or add a
> supercharger, which I'm not willing to do.
>
"low torque"???

with respect, there's a couple of things you need to check into here:

1. power vs. torque.
2. power vs. weight of the vehicle.

for the price, this vehicle is one of the fastest on the straightaways
that you can buy stock. it sounds like you're shifting too early if
you're not experiencing that. practice revving it up against the red
line before each shift - this motor is almost impossible to over-rev so
you won't hurt it. i can toast any inexperienced honda driver in my
stock civic d15 if they're not using the full rev range [which is often
in my experience].

regarding handling, get some big rubber before you spend a cent on
anything else. do /not/ mess with the toe unless you can afford to
waste tires and want to degrade handling. race hondas run within
factory toe specs unless they're using modified bushings which have
changed suspension compliance. regarding camber, is again set for
optimum on this vehicle, given the constraints of the mcpherson struts.
the only reason to adjust it is to bring it back into spec if you've
lowered it - that's what camber kits are for - they don't "improve"
anything, they simply allow you to adjust out the problems caused by the
other mods.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

televascular wrote:
> It'd be nice if I could somehow experiment with my toe/camber settings
> myself to find what I feel comfortable with. But yes, low torque is a
> significant issue in this car (139 lbft @ 6100), although i-VTEC helps
> to smooth out the band. The only real way of upping torque is swapping
> out my RBC intake runners with the TSX's RBB runners. Or add a
> supercharger, which I'm not willing to do.
>
"low torque"???

with respect, there's a couple of things you need to check into here:

1. power vs. torque.
2. power vs. weight of the vehicle.

for the price, this vehicle is one of the fastest on the straightaways
that you can buy stock. it sounds like you're shifting too early if
you're not experiencing that. practice revving it up against the red
line before each shift - this motor is almost impossible to over-rev so
you won't hurt it. i can toast any inexperienced honda driver in my
stock civic d15 if they're not using the full rev range [which is often
in my experience].

regarding handling, get some big rubber before you spend a cent on
anything else. do /not/ mess with the toe unless you can afford to
waste tires and want to degrade handling. race hondas run within
factory toe specs unless they're using modified bushings which have
changed suspension compliance. regarding camber, is again set for
optimum on this vehicle, given the constraints of the mcpherson struts.
the only reason to adjust it is to bring it back into spec if you've
lowered it - that's what camber kits are for - they don't "improve"
anything, they simply allow you to adjust out the problems caused by the
other mods.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

jim beam,

I fully understand the capabilities of my engine. When I refer to "low
torque", I speak in terms of daily driving; the suburbs aren't the
place to be past 5800rpm. Generally, I spend most of my town driving
under 3k, and I would appreciate a bit more torque in that band. And at
nearly 2900 lbs., this beauty ain't the lightest girl at the pageant. I
blame this extra weight on additional safety equipment recently
mandated by the NHTSA/DOT/whoever.

As to your comments on toe and camber settings... I agree with you that
DOT-legal slicks would be the single greatest improvement for handling.
However, a certain somebody at Church Automotive recommends zero toe
front and back, and twice the camber in front than in rear.
Conservatively, I take that to mean -1.5 front and -.75 rear, or
similar. These settings were recommended specifically for the '06 Si
(search Google for "TOV Project Si"), in order to deliver spirited
handling. Personally, I agree with the camber specs, seeing as how the
front tires lose traction first in a corner; in that sense, I feel a
front camber kit is used not only for corrective measures, but to
manipulate camber as the driver sees fit.

When you refer to "race Hondas", are you talking about SEMA competition
or autocross? I guarantee camber and toe are NOT set to factory spec in
those vehicles. Even in the SCCA, they can manipulate those settings as
long as they utilize stock components. I've been trying to learn how
they set up their vehicles so I can gain some direction... but of
course, my setup will be a watered down version.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

jim beam,

I fully understand the capabilities of my engine. When I refer to "low
torque", I speak in terms of daily driving; the suburbs aren't the
place to be past 5800rpm. Generally, I spend most of my town driving
under 3k, and I would appreciate a bit more torque in that band. And at
nearly 2900 lbs., this beauty ain't the lightest girl at the pageant. I
blame this extra weight on additional safety equipment recently
mandated by the NHTSA/DOT/whoever.

As to your comments on toe and camber settings... I agree with you that
DOT-legal slicks would be the single greatest improvement for handling.
However, a certain somebody at Church Automotive recommends zero toe
front and back, and twice the camber in front than in rear.
Conservatively, I take that to mean -1.5 front and -.75 rear, or
similar. These settings were recommended specifically for the '06 Si
(search Google for "TOV Project Si"), in order to deliver spirited
handling. Personally, I agree with the camber specs, seeing as how the
front tires lose traction first in a corner; in that sense, I feel a
front camber kit is used not only for corrective measures, but to
manipulate camber as the driver sees fit.

When you refer to "race Hondas", are you talking about SEMA competition
or autocross? I guarantee camber and toe are NOT set to factory spec in
those vehicles. Even in the SCCA, they can manipulate those settings as
long as they utilize stock components. I've been trying to learn how
they set up their vehicles so I can gain some direction... but of
course, my setup will be a watered down version.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

jim beam,

I fully understand the capabilities of my engine. When I refer to "low
torque", I speak in terms of daily driving; the suburbs aren't the
place to be past 5800rpm. Generally, I spend most of my town driving
under 3k, and I would appreciate a bit more torque in that band. And at
nearly 2900 lbs., this beauty ain't the lightest girl at the pageant. I
blame this extra weight on additional safety equipment recently
mandated by the NHTSA/DOT/whoever.

As to your comments on toe and camber settings... I agree with you that
DOT-legal slicks would be the single greatest improvement for handling.
However, a certain somebody at Church Automotive recommends zero toe
front and back, and twice the camber in front than in rear.
Conservatively, I take that to mean -1.5 front and -.75 rear, or
similar. These settings were recommended specifically for the '06 Si
(search Google for "TOV Project Si"), in order to deliver spirited
handling. Personally, I agree with the camber specs, seeing as how the
front tires lose traction first in a corner; in that sense, I feel a
front camber kit is used not only for corrective measures, but to
manipulate camber as the driver sees fit.

When you refer to "race Hondas", are you talking about SEMA competition
or autocross? I guarantee camber and toe are NOT set to factory spec in
those vehicles. Even in the SCCA, they can manipulate those settings as
long as they utilize stock components. I've been trying to learn how
they set up their vehicles so I can gain some direction... but of
course, my setup will be a watered down version.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

televascular wrote:
> jim beam,
>
> I fully understand the capabilities of my engine. When I refer to "low
> torque", I speak in terms of daily driving; the suburbs aren't the
> place to be past 5800rpm. Generally, I spend most of my town driving
> under 3k, and I would appreciate a bit more torque in that band. And at
> nearly 2900 lbs., this beauty ain't the lightest girl at the pageant. I
> blame this extra weight on additional safety equipment recently
> mandated by the NHTSA/DOT/whoever.

so get a mustang! it sounds like you're saying that it doesn't pick up
fast when you try flooring it from low revs. if that's the case, you're
not using the clutch/gears enough - no honda motor will pick up much
below 4k. revs, gears and clutch - don't be afraid to use them.

>
> As to your comments on toe and camber settings... I agree with you that
> DOT-legal slicks would be the single greatest improvement for handling.

whatever tire you choose, you want wide, low-pro sticky rubber mounted
on lightweight wheels if you want to start working on handling. be
careful about how low-pro you go for road wheels - rim dents are common
around my neck of the woods because surface conditions are so bad.

> However, a certain somebody at Church Automotive recommends zero toe
> front and back, and twice the camber in front than in rear.

which is how far from factory? factory front toe on my civic is 0, +/-
2. that's a wide spec!

> Conservatively, I take that to mean -1.5 front and -.75 rear, or
> similar.

see above.

> These settings were recommended specifically for the '06 Si
> (search Google for "TOV Project Si"), in order to deliver spirited
> handling. Personally, I agree with the camber specs, seeing as how the
> front tires lose traction first in a corner; in that sense, I feel a
> front camber kit is used not only for corrective measures, but to
> manipulate camber as the driver sees fit.

dude, like i said before, that car has been modified and the camber kit
it to bring the tires back to a spec where they stay in touch with the
ground. if you modify your suspension, you /will/ need a camber kit.
if you don't, you won't!

>
> When you refer to "race Hondas", are you talking about SEMA competition
> or autocross?

there's a multitude of classes. go to your local track and talk to the
people there if you want real deal, not internet posing. nasa is about
the cheapest and easiest to get into.

> I guarantee camber and toe are NOT set to factory spec in
> those vehicles. Even in the SCCA, they can manipulate those settings as
> long as they utilize stock components. I've been trying to learn how
> they set up their vehicles so I can gain some direction... but of
> course, my setup will be a watered down version.

go ahead and play around with this stuff since you want to experiment.
but like i told you right at the start, if you're serious about
handling, you'll get a car with wishbones. the dilemma any low end
performance enthusiast has is how to get a car that handles and goes
fast. mustangs are plenty fast, but lack handling. wishbone hondas
handle, but aren't that fast, stock. it is however much easier to get a
wishbone honda to go fast than it is to get a mustang to handle, which
is why so many people go for the wishbone honda. with respect to your
mcpherson civic, it's tough to do either. again, if i were faced with
your situation, i'd sell the 06 and go for the larry widmer solution.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

televascular wrote:
> jim beam,
>
> I fully understand the capabilities of my engine. When I refer to "low
> torque", I speak in terms of daily driving; the suburbs aren't the
> place to be past 5800rpm. Generally, I spend most of my town driving
> under 3k, and I would appreciate a bit more torque in that band. And at
> nearly 2900 lbs., this beauty ain't the lightest girl at the pageant. I
> blame this extra weight on additional safety equipment recently
> mandated by the NHTSA/DOT/whoever.

so get a mustang! it sounds like you're saying that it doesn't pick up
fast when you try flooring it from low revs. if that's the case, you're
not using the clutch/gears enough - no honda motor will pick up much
below 4k. revs, gears and clutch - don't be afraid to use them.

>
> As to your comments on toe and camber settings... I agree with you that
> DOT-legal slicks would be the single greatest improvement for handling.

whatever tire you choose, you want wide, low-pro sticky rubber mounted
on lightweight wheels if you want to start working on handling. be
careful about how low-pro you go for road wheels - rim dents are common
around my neck of the woods because surface conditions are so bad.

> However, a certain somebody at Church Automotive recommends zero toe
> front and back, and twice the camber in front than in rear.

which is how far from factory? factory front toe on my civic is 0, +/-
2. that's a wide spec!

> Conservatively, I take that to mean -1.5 front and -.75 rear, or
> similar.

see above.

> These settings were recommended specifically for the '06 Si
> (search Google for "TOV Project Si"), in order to deliver spirited
> handling. Personally, I agree with the camber specs, seeing as how the
> front tires lose traction first in a corner; in that sense, I feel a
> front camber kit is used not only for corrective measures, but to
> manipulate camber as the driver sees fit.

dude, like i said before, that car has been modified and the camber kit
it to bring the tires back to a spec where they stay in touch with the
ground. if you modify your suspension, you /will/ need a camber kit.
if you don't, you won't!

>
> When you refer to "race Hondas", are you talking about SEMA competition
> or autocross?

there's a multitude of classes. go to your local track and talk to the
people there if you want real deal, not internet posing. nasa is about
the cheapest and easiest to get into.

> I guarantee camber and toe are NOT set to factory spec in
> those vehicles. Even in the SCCA, they can manipulate those settings as
> long as they utilize stock components. I've been trying to learn how
> they set up their vehicles so I can gain some direction... but of
> course, my setup will be a watered down version.

go ahead and play around with this stuff since you want to experiment.
but like i told you right at the start, if you're serious about
handling, you'll get a car with wishbones. the dilemma any low end
performance enthusiast has is how to get a car that handles and goes
fast. mustangs are plenty fast, but lack handling. wishbone hondas
handle, but aren't that fast, stock. it is however much easier to get a
wishbone honda to go fast than it is to get a mustang to handle, which
is why so many people go for the wishbone honda. with respect to your
mcpherson civic, it's tough to do either. again, if i were faced with
your situation, i'd sell the 06 and go for the larry widmer solution.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

televascular wrote:
> jim beam,
>
> I fully understand the capabilities of my engine. When I refer to "low
> torque", I speak in terms of daily driving; the suburbs aren't the
> place to be past 5800rpm. Generally, I spend most of my town driving
> under 3k, and I would appreciate a bit more torque in that band. And at
> nearly 2900 lbs., this beauty ain't the lightest girl at the pageant. I
> blame this extra weight on additional safety equipment recently
> mandated by the NHTSA/DOT/whoever.

so get a mustang! it sounds like you're saying that it doesn't pick up
fast when you try flooring it from low revs. if that's the case, you're
not using the clutch/gears enough - no honda motor will pick up much
below 4k. revs, gears and clutch - don't be afraid to use them.

>
> As to your comments on toe and camber settings... I agree with you that
> DOT-legal slicks would be the single greatest improvement for handling.

whatever tire you choose, you want wide, low-pro sticky rubber mounted
on lightweight wheels if you want to start working on handling. be
careful about how low-pro you go for road wheels - rim dents are common
around my neck of the woods because surface conditions are so bad.

> However, a certain somebody at Church Automotive recommends zero toe
> front and back, and twice the camber in front than in rear.

which is how far from factory? factory front toe on my civic is 0, +/-
2. that's a wide spec!

> Conservatively, I take that to mean -1.5 front and -.75 rear, or
> similar.

see above.

> These settings were recommended specifically for the '06 Si
> (search Google for "TOV Project Si"), in order to deliver spirited
> handling. Personally, I agree with the camber specs, seeing as how the
> front tires lose traction first in a corner; in that sense, I feel a
> front camber kit is used not only for corrective measures, but to
> manipulate camber as the driver sees fit.

dude, like i said before, that car has been modified and the camber kit
it to bring the tires back to a spec where they stay in touch with the
ground. if you modify your suspension, you /will/ need a camber kit.
if you don't, you won't!

>
> When you refer to "race Hondas", are you talking about SEMA competition
> or autocross?

there's a multitude of classes. go to your local track and talk to the
people there if you want real deal, not internet posing. nasa is about
the cheapest and easiest to get into.

> I guarantee camber and toe are NOT set to factory spec in
> those vehicles. Even in the SCCA, they can manipulate those settings as
> long as they utilize stock components. I've been trying to learn how
> they set up their vehicles so I can gain some direction... but of
> course, my setup will be a watered down version.

go ahead and play around with this stuff since you want to experiment.
but like i told you right at the start, if you're serious about
handling, you'll get a car with wishbones. the dilemma any low end
performance enthusiast has is how to get a car that handles and goes
fast. mustangs are plenty fast, but lack handling. wishbone hondas
handle, but aren't that fast, stock. it is however much easier to get a
wishbone honda to go fast than it is to get a mustang to handle, which
is why so many people go for the wishbone honda. with respect to your
mcpherson civic, it's tough to do either. again, if i were faced with
your situation, i'd sell the 06 and go for the larry widmer solution.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

jim beam wrote:
> so get a mustang! it sounds like you're saying that it doesn't pick up
> fast when you try flooring it from low revs. if that's the case, you're
> not using the clutch/gears enough - no honda motor will pick up much
> below 4k. revs, gears and clutch - don't be afraid to use them.

A bit impractical. Aside from the fact that I would never buy a Ford,
I'm not looking to get a new car just because it has more torque. And
again, I'm not talking about "flooring it", I'm talking about
run-of-the-mill town driving. I also understand Honda motors inherently
have all their power in the high-rev ranges, so consider my complaints
rhetorical.

> whatever tire you choose, you want wide, low-pro sticky rubber mounted
> on lightweight wheels if you want to start working on handling. be
> careful about how low-pro you go for road wheels - rim dents are common
> around my neck of the woods because surface conditions are so bad.

I considered wider wheels/tires but decided against it because of the
decreased gas mileage and increased risk of hydroplaning. I also don't
have hundreds of dollars to blow on nice 18 inchers, though that would
be nice. I, too, have heard horror stories about dented rims... the
local shops around me sell insurance policies for rims 19" and over for
this reason.

> which is how far from factory? factory front toe on my civic is 0, +/-
> 2. that's a wide spec!

Total OEM front toe is 2mm (0.08in), but makes no specification about
max allowance. Front camber is 0°, +/- 3' and rear camber is 1° 3',
+/- 3'.

> go ahead and play around with this stuff since you want to experiment.
> but like i told you right at the start, if you're serious about
> handling, you'll get a car with wishbones. the dilemma any low end
> performance enthusiast has is how to get a car that handles and goes
> fast. mustangs are plenty fast, but lack handling. wishbone hondas
> handle, but aren't that fast, stock. it is however much easier to get a
> wishbone honda to go fast than it is to get a mustang to handle, which
> is why so many people go for the wishbone honda. with respect to your
> mcpherson civic, it's tough to do either. again, if i were faced with
> your situation, i'd sell the 06 and go for the larry widmer solution.

Again, I'm not looking to turn my car into a performance machine. I
just wanna optimize the equipment I have right now, and possibly do
some low-cost modification. If I wanted a full double-wishbone car with
serious power, I'd buy an S2000... Mustangs can't hold a candle to the
overall package the S2000 offers. Their V8 GTs are powerful, but have
nothing else going for them.

Re: Need Alignment After Camber Adjustment?
 

jim beam wrote:
> so get a mustang! it sounds like you're saying that it doesn't pick up
> fast when you try flooring it from low revs. if that's the case, you're
> not using the clutch/gears enough - no honda motor will pick up much
> below 4k. revs, gears and clutch - don't be afraid to use them.

A bit impractical. Aside from the fact that I would never buy a Ford,
I'm not looking to get a new car just because it has more torque. And
again, I'm not talking about "flooring it", I'm talking about
run-of-the-mill town driving. I also understand Honda motors inherently
have all their power in the high-rev ranges, so consider my complaints
rhetorical.

> whatever tire you choose, you want wide, low-pro sticky rubber mounted
> on lightweight wheels if you want to start working on handling. be
> careful about how low-pro you go for road wheels - rim dents are common
> around my neck of the woods because surface conditions are so bad.

I considered wider wheels/tires but decided against it because of the
decreased gas mileage and increased risk of hydroplaning. I also don't
have hundreds of dollars to blow on nice 18 inchers, though that would
be nice. I, too, have heard horror stories about dented rims... the
local shops around me sell insurance policies for rims 19" and over for
this reason.

> which is how far from factory? factory front toe on my civic is 0, +/-
> 2. that's a wide spec!

Total OEM front toe is 2mm (0.08in), but makes no specification about
max allowance. Front camber is 0°, +/- 3' and rear camber is 1° 3',
+/- 3'.

> go ahead and play around with this stuff since you want to experiment.
> but like i told you right at the start, if you're serious about
> handling, you'll get a car with wishbones. the dilemma any low end
> performance enthusiast has is how to get a car that handles and goes
> fast. mustangs are plenty fast, but lack handling. wishbone hondas
> handle, but aren't that fast, stock. it is however much easier to get a
> wishbone honda to go fast than it is to get a mustang to handle, which
> is why so many people go for the wishbone honda. with respect to your
> mcpherson civic, it's tough to do either. again, if i were faced with
> your situation, i'd sell the 06 and go for the larry widmer solution.

Again, I'm not looking to turn my car into a performance machine. I
just wanna optimize the equipment I have right now, and possibly do
some low-cost modification. If I wanted a full double-wishbone car with
serious power, I'd buy an S2000... Mustangs can't hold a candle to the
overall package the S2000 offers. Their V8 GTs are powerful, but have
nothing else going for them.