Is 7th gen civic faster than 6th gen civics?
Registered!!
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 120
Likes: 1
From: Fairfield County, CT
Rep Power: 0 
The bottom line with tires is make sure you have enough traction to handle your power, without over doing it. I have watched tons of high 15/low 16 second cars use slicks, and it ends up making them slower. My old 2 liter Jetta embarassed a 04 Civic SI with I/E that was running slicks. He was running low 16's with his slicks, while my underpowered Jetta ran high 15's on V-rated tires. If he put my wheels/tires on his car, he would have been in the 15's easily.
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
Rep Power: 0 
OK, my fault this time.
But I never said ABS stops faster than non-ABS.(Saying yes to that is really stupid. Anyway, I didn't say that, my friend did.) ABS is kind of making the tires keep rotating (to maintain handling capability) instead of doing pure translation.
Anyway, let me think about the tires. So tires should have enough traction to handling the power, right? Then it's completely a torque issue not HP issue. But FWD cars tends to transfer COG all the way to the back, so the reaction on the front tire is greatly reduced. How do you determine how many traction you need and what tire can handle that? Or just follow the trend, buying whatever people are buying(I think this is a stupid idea though)?
But I never said ABS stops faster than non-ABS.(Saying yes to that is really stupid. Anyway, I didn't say that, my friend did.) ABS is kind of making the tires keep rotating (to maintain handling capability) instead of doing pure translation.
Anyway, let me think about the tires. So tires should have enough traction to handling the power, right? Then it's completely a torque issue not HP issue. But FWD cars tends to transfer COG all the way to the back, so the reaction on the front tire is greatly reduced. How do you determine how many traction you need and what tire can handle that? Or just follow the trend, buying whatever people are buying(I think this is a stupid idea though)?
Why is my vagina bleeding?
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,582
Likes: 0
From: Montreal
Rep Power: 306
Originally Posted by 04civicvp
The bottom line with tires is make sure you have enough traction to handle your power, without over doing it. I have watched tons of high 15/low 16 second cars use slicks, and it ends up making them slower. My old 2 liter Jetta embarassed a 04 Civic SI with I/E that was running slicks. He was running low 16's with his slicks, while my underpowered Jetta ran high 15's on V-rated tires. If he put my wheels/tires on his car, he would have been in the 15's easily.
Wow I though 2 Litres Jettas were real slow. I guess I was wrong.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 320 
Originally Posted by 82801BA
OK, my fault this time.
But I never said ABS stops faster than non-ABS.(Saying yes to that is really stupid. Anyway, I didn't say that, my friend did.) ABS is kind of making the tires keep rotating (to maintain handling capability) instead of doing pure translation.
Anyway, let me think about the tires. So tires should have enough traction to handling the power, right? Then it's completely a torque issue not HP issue. But FWD cars tends to transfer COG all the way to the back, so the reaction on the front tire is greatly reduced. How do you determine how many traction you need and what tire can handle that? Or just follow the trend, buying whatever people are buying(I think this is a stupid idea though)?
But I never said ABS stops faster than non-ABS.(Saying yes to that is really stupid. Anyway, I didn't say that, my friend did.) ABS is kind of making the tires keep rotating (to maintain handling capability) instead of doing pure translation.
Anyway, let me think about the tires. So tires should have enough traction to handling the power, right? Then it's completely a torque issue not HP issue. But FWD cars tends to transfer COG all the way to the back, so the reaction on the front tire is greatly reduced. How do you determine how many traction you need and what tire can handle that? Or just follow the trend, buying whatever people are buying(I think this is a stupid idea though)?
Yeah, the ABS thing wasn't you, it's just what my physics class claculated, but it came with the for warning that we where not taking into account how a real ABS system works. My point is that what you learn in the class room is always over simplified to teach you the concept. If you start doing research in that area, you will find that what you learn in the class room is just a small portion of a big picture, that's all.
Anyway, to know how much traction you really need, the fastest way is just trial and error and by talking to others that know what they are doing. Talk to the quickest people with similiar car to yours. The reason I say a similar car to your is becasue how much traction you need is determined by many factors, the two biggest being power (yes mainly torque) and your suspension set up. If you have a drag set up, where you basically use rocks in the rear and the front is lowwered, then you cut down on the wieght tranfer from the front to the back, more wieght on the front, you can use more traction. If you are riding on stock mush suspension, you will have lots wieght transfer and hence don't need as much traction. Agian the torque you produce willalso play a big factor. So I could imagine direct correlation that relates how much weight is on the front end during take off to the amount of traction needed. But to devolpe this equation, one would need some major track time and teh ability to measure weight transfer on a car, or better yet the weight on the front tires during a luanch. Seems like a good project, but it would need lots of time and money at the track to do, I just go with first hand experience and what other with the same car and suspension are doing, I look for the fastest guy around with the same car and see what suspension he is running and what tires he has. If you came up with that equation, though, I would be very very impressed. You should publish a paper on that or something.
Registered!!
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by nindoo
Wow I though 2 Litres Jettas were real slow. I guess I was wrong.
If you're talking about MKIV (99-2004) Jettas, you're absolutley right. 112 HP is not enough to pull 2,900lbs, no matter what.
He might have had an old G20 motor in a MKII or III. They were light enough to deal with little power.
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by Jrfish007
Yeah, the ABS thing wasn't you, it's just what my physics class claculated, but it came with the for warning that we where not taking into account how a real ABS system works. My point is that what you learn in the class room is always over simplified to teach you the concept. If you start doing research in that area, you will find that what you learn in the class room is just a small portion of a big picture, that's all.
Anyway, to know how much traction you really need, the fastest way is just trial and error and by talking to others that know what they are doing. Talk to the quickest people with similiar car to yours. The reason I say a similar car to your is becasue how much traction you need is determined by many factors, the two biggest being power (yes mainly torque) and your suspension set up. If you have a drag set up, where you basically use rocks in the rear and the front is lowwered, then you cut down on the wieght tranfer from the front to the back, more wieght on the front, you can use more traction. If you are riding on stock mush suspension, you will have lots wieght transfer and hence don't need as much traction. Agian the torque you produce willalso play a big factor. So I could imagine direct correlation that relates how much weight is on the front end during take off to the amount of traction needed. But to devolpe this equation, one would need some major track time and teh ability to measure weight transfer on a car, or better yet the weight on the front tires during a luanch. Seems like a good project, but it would need lots of time and money at the track to do, I just go with first hand experience and what other with the same car and suspension are doing, I look for the fastest guy around with the same car and see what suspension he is running and what tires he has. If you came up with that equation, though, I would be very very impressed. You should publish a paper on that or something.
Anyway, to know how much traction you really need, the fastest way is just trial and error and by talking to others that know what they are doing. Talk to the quickest people with similiar car to yours. The reason I say a similar car to your is becasue how much traction you need is determined by many factors, the two biggest being power (yes mainly torque) and your suspension set up. If you have a drag set up, where you basically use rocks in the rear and the front is lowwered, then you cut down on the wieght tranfer from the front to the back, more wieght on the front, you can use more traction. If you are riding on stock mush suspension, you will have lots wieght transfer and hence don't need as much traction. Agian the torque you produce willalso play a big factor. So I could imagine direct correlation that relates how much weight is on the front end during take off to the amount of traction needed. But to devolpe this equation, one would need some major track time and teh ability to measure weight transfer on a car, or better yet the weight on the front tires during a luanch. Seems like a good project, but it would need lots of time and money at the track to do, I just go with first hand experience and what other with the same car and suspension are doing, I look for the fastest guy around with the same car and see what suspension he is running and what tires he has. If you came up with that equation, though, I would be very very impressed. You should publish a paper on that or something.
Why is my vagina bleeding?
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,582
Likes: 0
From: Montreal
Rep Power: 306
Originally Posted by 82801BA
I got what you mean. But I don't know how suspension is calculated. Mass-spring-damper system is my weakest point of study. Currently I have RSX-S (stock) suspension in my car, I feel it's a little overdamped, but the spring force is greater (so I got a single bounce by the spring, then the damper absorbs everything and sit firmly back to the ground). My car is kind of tail heavy due to the stereo system sitting at the edge behind the rear support, and due to the fact that RSX-S front spring are longer than Civic's. I don't want too much suface contact because it will affect lateral stability. What do you think is good? 195/60/15 should be better choice, right? I now have 205/60/15 and it makes turns a little unstable. What brand also do you recommend?
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
Rep Power: 0 I said overdamped? Sorry, my bad. I meant underdamped. Spring tends to oscillate only. But the strut is oil damper. If it's underdamped, then there's a boost at the resonance frequency, which, for the car, is basically every bumps on the road (spring dominated). The smaller the damping factor is, the more boost it will be. So what I mean a "bounce" means it has a higher boost than the stock Civic strut. If overdamped (or at least critically damped), the car will run like Legend or whatever, the wheel bonces but the car is stable at a level (damper dominated).
Why is my vagina bleeding?
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,582
Likes: 0
From: Montreal
Rep Power: 306
Originally Posted by 82801BA
I said overdamped? Sorry, my bad. I meant underdamped. Spring tends to oscillate only. But the strut is oil damper. If it's underdamped, then there's a boost at the resonance frequency, which, for the car, is basically every bumps on the road (spring dominated). The smaller the damping factor is, the more boost it will be. So what I mean a "bounce" means it has a higher boost than the stock Civic strut. If overdamped (or at least critically damped), the car will run like Legend or whatever, the wheel bonces but the car is stable at a level (damper dominated).
Autocross Junky
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,211
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Rep Power: 382 NO! an overdampered car will tend to skip through the corners... Much like an over sprung car would. not good for handling. "A tire in the air can make no traction..." Remember, the whole point of your suspension is to keep your tires contact patches as loaded as possible. and if you over dampen the springs they (the springs) wont be able to react to road surface changes as quickly as they need to, increasing the likelyhood of one or more tire coming off the ground when encountering a bump.
Last edited by Zzyzx; Mar 3, 2005 at 01:11 PM.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 320
Originally Posted by 82801BA
I got what you mean. But I don't know how suspension is calculated. Mass-spring-damper system is my weakest point of study. Currently I have RSX-S (stock) suspension in my car, I feel it's a little overdamped, but the spring force is greater (so I got a single bounce by the spring, then the damper absorbs everything and sit firmly back to the ground). My car is kind of tail heavy due to the stereo system sitting at the edge behind the rear support, and due to the fact that RSX-S front spring are longer than Civic's. I don't want too much suface contact because it will affect lateral stability. What do you think is good? 195/60/15 should be better choice, right? I now have 205/60/15 and it makes turns a little unstable. What brand also do you recommend?
Hummm... I think 205/55/15 is stock right? I finally have came to the conclusion (after many trial and errors of my own) that Honda has far more money and reasource than you or I will ever have to spend on this topic. SO I now days go with the stock size tire with a good tire. I like Falkens myself, but there are many good name out there depending on how long you want the tire to last. I have however figured that Honda puts a tire, from the factory, that has been deisnged for quite and comfort and long life, that's what the majority of Honda buyer want. Since you have an RSX-S though, that may not be true. I have never owned a RSX, so I have no real ability to say what I think the perfect tire is for that. On my civic I had the factory tires, snow tires and Hancock (sp?), I never had them and figured I'll try them, not tomention they where dirt cheap. For the price I piad they where okay, not to much grip, just about right, but wore a little to fast for me.
I've tried wider and more narrow tires on a cars for handling and found that wider is generally better because the more traction you have going around a turn will help. Of course proper daming and spring rates I have found to help far more than the tire width, agian look at the S2000 (great handling car, little tires). I normally only go 10mm over the stock is optimal, but that;s just a general rule of thumb, however at 10mm over I have found (in civics) my MPG goes down about 2-3 due to the added rolling friction and wieght in normal driving. Anyway, getting back on topic, more traction = more friction as you siad earlier, but that friction is what is keeping you from sliding all over.
You say you're tail end is heavy due to added weight. I guess you mean understeer right? Honda's are generally prone to understeer no matter what (thanks to laywers of the world). It is consdered to be better to have understeering than neutral or over steering because it is better to turn into the ditch than the person wiating to turn off the road you are going on to. Anyway, the best way to elimante understeer, IMO is a stiffer rear sway bar. You could also do this buy putting smaller tires on the front than the rear (width wise, not diameter), but I have not done this and don't really reccomend this idea. You could get a smaller front sway bar, but that will lossen your front up and probably is not desired unless you are dragging the car. The other idea, if you don't want to play with the suspension, move the speaker forward if possible, maybe put them on the floor in the back seat, assuming you never let any one ride in the back. Of course, the best way is to replace the suspension and get a slightly stiffer spring set in the rear, or change the damping of the rear. But new shock are 400+ with out instalation where as a Neuspeed rear sway bar is only about 200 new, you might even pick one up used for less on clubRSX.com, then sell your stock one on here for about 50-60, making your total loss probably under 100 bucks.
Why is my vagina bleeding?
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,582
Likes: 0
From: Montreal
Rep Power: 306
Originally Posted by Zzyzx
NO! an overdampered car will tend to skip through the corners... Much like an over sprung car would. not good for handling. "A tire in the air can make no traction..." Remember, the whole point of your suspension is to keep your tires contact patches as loaded as possible. and if you over dampen the springs they (the springs) wont be able to react to road surface changes as quickly as they need to, increasing the likelyhood of one or more tire coming off the ground when encountering a bump.
Last edited by nindoo; Mar 3, 2005 at 01:16 PM.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 320
Originally Posted by Zzyzx
NO! an overdampered car will tend to skip through the corners... Much like an over sprung car would. not good for handling. "A tire in the air can make no traction..." Remember, the whole point of your suspension is to keep your tires contact patches as loaded as possible. and if you over dampen the springs they (the springs) wont be able to react to road surface changes as quickly as they need to, increasing the likelyhood of one or more tire coming off the ground when encountering a bump.
Yes the suspension king is here
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by Jrfish007
yeah spring damping is not my best suit either, infact being that my field is Chemical Engineering, most of this is what I have found from people in tuning cars. Not like Steve the backyard mechanic, I talked to Spoon and Mugen engineers, but the most helpfull in helping me was Progress, those guys know their stuff and will explain in great detial why they give certian spring rate to certian cars and what type of struts to use for what applications and why. Since I come from an engineering backround they actually explained most of teh equation they use to model the car and all that stuff. It was really neat.
Hummm... I think 205/55/15 is stock right? I finally have came to the conclusion (after many trial and errors of my own) that Honda has far more money and reasource than you or I will ever have to spend on this topic. SO I now days go with the stock size tire with a good tire. I like Falkens myself, but there are many good name out there depending on how long you want the tire to last. I have however figured that Honda puts a tire, from the factory, that has been deisnged for quite and comfort and long life, that's what the majority of Honda buyer want. Since you have an RSX-S though, that may not be true. I have never owned a RSX, so I have no real ability to say what I think the perfect tire is for that. On my civic I had the factory tires, snow tires and Hancock (sp?), I never had them and figured I'll try them, not tomention they where dirt cheap. For the price I piad they where okay, not to much grip, just about right, but wore a little to fast for me.
I've tried wider and more narrow tires on a cars for handling and found that wider is generally better because the more traction you have going around a turn will help. Of course proper daming and spring rates I have found to help far more than the tire width, agian look at the S2000 (great handling car, little tires). I normally only go 10mm over the stock is optimal, but that;s just a general rule of thumb, however at 10mm over I have found (in civics) my MPG goes down about 2-3 due to the added rolling friction and wieght in normal driving. Anyway, getting back on topic, more traction = more friction as you siad earlier, but that friction is what is keeping you from sliding all over.
You say you're tail end is heavy due to added weight. I guess you mean understeer right? Honda's are generally prone to understeer no matter what (thanks to laywers of the world). It is consdered to be better to have understeering than neutral or over steering because it is better to turn into the ditch than the person wiating to turn off the road you are going on to. Anyway, the best way to elimante understeer, IMO is a stiffer rear sway bar. You could also do this buy putting smaller tires on the front than the rear (width wise, not diameter), but I have not done this and don't really reccomend this idea. You could get a smaller front sway bar, but that will lossen your front up and probably is not desired unless you are dragging the car. The other idea, if you don't want to play with the suspension, move the speaker forward if possible, maybe put them on the floor in the back seat, assuming you never let any one ride in the back. Of course, the best way is to replace the suspension and get a slightly stiffer spring set in the rear, or change the damping of the rear. But new shock are 400+ with out instalation where as a Neuspeed rear sway bar is only about 200 new, you might even pick one up used for less on clubRSX.com, then sell your stock one on here for about 50-60, making your total loss probably under 100 bucks.
Hummm... I think 205/55/15 is stock right? I finally have came to the conclusion (after many trial and errors of my own) that Honda has far more money and reasource than you or I will ever have to spend on this topic. SO I now days go with the stock size tire with a good tire. I like Falkens myself, but there are many good name out there depending on how long you want the tire to last. I have however figured that Honda puts a tire, from the factory, that has been deisnged for quite and comfort and long life, that's what the majority of Honda buyer want. Since you have an RSX-S though, that may not be true. I have never owned a RSX, so I have no real ability to say what I think the perfect tire is for that. On my civic I had the factory tires, snow tires and Hancock (sp?), I never had them and figured I'll try them, not tomention they where dirt cheap. For the price I piad they where okay, not to much grip, just about right, but wore a little to fast for me.
I've tried wider and more narrow tires on a cars for handling and found that wider is generally better because the more traction you have going around a turn will help. Of course proper daming and spring rates I have found to help far more than the tire width, agian look at the S2000 (great handling car, little tires). I normally only go 10mm over the stock is optimal, but that;s just a general rule of thumb, however at 10mm over I have found (in civics) my MPG goes down about 2-3 due to the added rolling friction and wieght in normal driving. Anyway, getting back on topic, more traction = more friction as you siad earlier, but that friction is what is keeping you from sliding all over.
You say you're tail end is heavy due to added weight. I guess you mean understeer right? Honda's are generally prone to understeer no matter what (thanks to laywers of the world). It is consdered to be better to have understeering than neutral or over steering because it is better to turn into the ditch than the person wiating to turn off the road you are going on to. Anyway, the best way to elimante understeer, IMO is a stiffer rear sway bar. You could also do this buy putting smaller tires on the front than the rear (width wise, not diameter), but I have not done this and don't really reccomend this idea. You could get a smaller front sway bar, but that will lossen your front up and probably is not desired unless you are dragging the car. The other idea, if you don't want to play with the suspension, move the speaker forward if possible, maybe put them on the floor in the back seat, assuming you never let any one ride in the back. Of course, the best way is to replace the suspension and get a slightly stiffer spring set in the rear, or change the damping of the rear. But new shock are 400+ with out instalation where as a Neuspeed rear sway bar is only about 200 new, you might even pick one up used for less on clubRSX.com, then sell your stock one on here for about 50-60, making your total loss probably under 100 bucks.
185/65/15 was my factory size. Anything between 185 and 205 with 60 for 195 and 205 will be fine, but just wondering what brand of tire is good to use.
Also, my sway bar setup is 15mm front 03 EX bar and 19mm rear RSX sway bar.
Wonder what will happen if I use RSX damper with Civic spring.
Last edited by 82801BA; Mar 3, 2005 at 01:57 PM.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 320
Originally Posted by 82801BA
I don't own a RSX-S, just a Civic with RSX-S suspension. That's about it.
185/65/15 was my factory size. Anything between 185 and 205 with 60 for 195 and 205 will be fine, but just wondering what brand of tire is good to use.
Also, my sway bar setup is 15mm front 03 EX bar and 19mm rear RSX sway bar.
Wonder what will happen if I use RSX damper with Civic spring.
185/65/15 was my factory size. Anything between 185 and 205 with 60 for 195 and 205 will be fine, but just wondering what brand of tire is good to use.
Also, my sway bar setup is 15mm front 03 EX bar and 19mm rear RSX sway bar.
Wonder what will happen if I use RSX damper with Civic spring.
You siad the RSX front springs are longer than the civic. Is this true for the rear spings also? If the rear are the same, is it possible that the front springs are more compressed than the rear? That would make the front spring really stiff compared to the rear, I think.
Sorry for the long post above, sometime I just bable away.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 320 Yokohama AVS 100 are good, less expensive than the Falken, not as good either, but a little better for tire ware
Dunlop Sp 4000 I liked alot, they are really not in the same catagory as the FAlken or Yoko, but they have just a tad bit less traction than the Yokos, but 1.5 times the tread life. I found these to be the best comprimise between high traction for turning, tire life and MPG. These will be the next set on my Accord.
Dunlop Sp 4000 I liked alot, they are really not in the same catagory as the FAlken or Yoko, but they have just a tad bit less traction than the Yokos, but 1.5 times the tread life. I found these to be the best comprimise between high traction for turning, tire life and MPG. These will be the next set on my Accord.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 320
Originally Posted by nindoo
what about Ecsta Supra 712? Are those good in terms of wear and performance?
never had them, heard they go about 30k, the Dunlop 4000 usually go about 40k. Not much help,
Guessing they are a little more stick than the Dunlops though, not sure. Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by Jrfish007
Like I siad, Falken Azenix are good, high traction, don't last long, thus in the 205's what I ran on my civic, I would have preffered a 195, but they don't make a 195.
You siad the RSX front springs are longer than the civic. Is this true for the rear spings also? If the rear are the same, is it possible that the front springs are more compressed than the rear? That would make the front spring really stiff compared to the rear, I think.
Sorry for the long post above, sometime I just bable away.
You siad the RSX front springs are longer than the civic. Is this true for the rear spings also? If the rear are the same, is it possible that the front springs are more compressed than the rear? That would make the front spring really stiff compared to the rear, I think.
Sorry for the long post above, sometime I just bable away.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 320
Originally Posted by 82801BA
The front spring I think is the same. The rear spring has 1 1/2 more loop than Civic, therefore I believe it is more compressed. RSX dampers are made in Japan though (says on the label), while the Civic's is made in Mexico(?)(Like the headlight does?). But my car's front is sitting a little higher than the rear(by the gap), that's why I think the front damper/spring has to do something with it.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 320
Originally Posted by 82801BA
Falken don't make 15" I guess.
http://www.falkentire.com/tires_rt215.htm (hit the yellow spec button on the left)
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by Jrfish007
Humm.... unless the dampers are maxxed out, I don't think they should affect your cars hieght, setting still anyway. But if your front is higher than your rear, then you have "loaded" the wieght to the rear of your car, that's usually bad for FWD car handling abilty.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 320
Originally Posted by 82801BA
I was thinking the front of the car doesn't have enough weight to depress the spring so the damp becomes higher (spring dominated), that's why i come back to ask what happen if i put civic spring on rsx-s damper. I know the spring rate of RSX-S is high.
Yeah, your right about the springs. But I was thinking in a static situtation, when the car is not moving, the dampers play little role of hieght. If you say the car is setting high in the front jus tsetting still, my guess is that when you approach a corner, but still striaght, the car is really loaded in the rear, so you have little traction in the front, where you want it when you start to turn. Then when you accelerate through the turn you will be loading even more to the rear. You can see I haven't even gotten to the dampers, just assume your shock are perfect for a second and imagine the car going through the turn and see if you can catch what I am saying.
An interesting thing would be to put the front civic spring back on while having the RSX's rears on. This is hard to predict because the center of balance has moved from Factory setting due the the extra stereo equipment you mentioned. My thought is that the RSX spring will hopefully compinsate for the added rear weight, while the civic springs will work good with the front. Not sure thoguh.
Getting back to your question of shocks though, Zzyzx can answer it better than I becasue he has far more experience with this stuff. And I'm not sure just how RSX is damped.
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by Jrfish007
Yeah, your right about the springs. But I was thinking in a static situtation, when the car is not moving, the dampers play little role of hieght. If you say the car is setting high in the front jus tsetting still, my guess is that when you approach a corner, but still striaght, the car is really loaded in the rear, so you have little traction in the front, where you want it when you start to turn. Then when you accelerate through the turn you will be loading even more to the rear. You can see I haven't even gotten to the dampers, just assume your shock are perfect for a second and imagine the car going through the turn and see if you can catch what I am saying.
An interesting thing would be to put the front civic spring back on while having the RSX's rears on. This is hard to predict because the center of balance has moved from Factory setting due the the extra stereo equipment you mentioned. My thought is that the RSX spring will hopefully compinsate for the added rear weight, while the civic springs will work good with the front. Not sure thoguh.
Getting back to your question of shocks though, Zzyzx can answer it better than I becasue he has far more experience with this stuff. And I'm not sure just how RSX is damped.
An interesting thing would be to put the front civic spring back on while having the RSX's rears on. This is hard to predict because the center of balance has moved from Factory setting due the the extra stereo equipment you mentioned. My thought is that the RSX spring will hopefully compinsate for the added rear weight, while the civic springs will work good with the front. Not sure thoguh.
Getting back to your question of shocks though, Zzyzx can answer it better than I becasue he has far more experience with this stuff. And I'm not sure just how RSX is damped.
BTW, before I install front RSX-S shocks, I had them on hold by putting just the rear shocks on the car (was waiting for the outer ball joint). The result: It looks very sporty though, lower front and high rear.
However, it WAS a little boucy in the rear vs. the front. It shouldn't happen now because the suspension is now like 30,000 miles now.I have a complete RSX-S suspension in my car (beside front sway and front tower).
The total stereo equipment weight is nothing more than 70 lbs, and the spoiler is another 40 lbs?
Last edited by 82801BA; Mar 3, 2005 at 07:23 PM.
Registered!!
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 120
Likes: 1
From: Fairfield County, CT
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by senseiturtle
If you're talking about MKIV (99-2004) Jettas, you're absolutley right. 112 HP is not enough to pull 2,900lbs, no matter what.
He might have had an old G20 motor in a MKII or III. They were light enough to deal with little power.
He might have had an old G20 motor in a MKII or III. They were light enough to deal with little power.
Yes, I had a 97 Jetta with the 2.0 8v. BTW, the 2.0 8v is 115 hp. My car also weighed 2720 lbs with me and 1/4 tank of gas, had a GIAC chip, Eurospec 262 cam, custom CAI, Techtonics cat-back, and lightweight Enkei Racing rims. When I last dyno'd the car is put 121 hp, and 125 tq to the wheels. Not your typical 2 liter Jetta.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 320
Originally Posted by 82801BA
I'll try, but my hope is still on the spring rate since the damper really has nothing to do on supporting the car. So if my car is not heavy enough, the spring will elongate and it makes the car higher on that part. Putting the Civic spring will make it "look" right I think, but how it will work with RSX damper is another story.
BTW, before I install front RSX-S shocks, I had them on hold by putting just the rear shocks on the car (was waiting for the outer ball joint). The result: It looks very sporty though, lower front and high rear. However, it WAS a little boucy in the rear vs. the front. It shouldn't happen now because the suspension is now like 30,000 miles now.
I have a complete RSX-S suspension in my car (beside front sway and front tower).
The total stereo equipment weight is nothing more than 70 lbs, and the spoiler is another 40 lbs?
BTW, before I install front RSX-S shocks, I had them on hold by putting just the rear shocks on the car (was waiting for the outer ball joint). The result: It looks very sporty though, lower front and high rear.
However, it WAS a little boucy in the rear vs. the front. It shouldn't happen now because the suspension is now like 30,000 miles now.I have a complete RSX-S suspension in my car (beside front sway and front tower).
The total stereo equipment weight is nothing more than 70 lbs, and the spoiler is another 40 lbs?
70 lbs and 40lbs (I don't know what kind of spoiler you have, but I think the stock fiberglass one is only about 15lbs) is far from the center of gravity of the car. When you're turning, think of you car in the angular direction. SO while they may only way 70 and 15-40lb (we'll call it all 100 lbs for simplicity) is actually creating a torque about the center of gravity of your car. The the angular momentum on those is going to be their weight times the length (probably about 5 feet from the center of gravity, because the front is far heavier than the rear, so the COG is shifted front ward) time force, we'll say you are pulling 0.80g's (0.80G = 25.7 ft/sec squared) I'm sure you can do the calculation, but for the rest, T=F*L 100lb*5feet*25.7 ft/sec2 = 12850 ft-lb. Now agian is I siad earlier, this is textbook approach and is off because I don't the exact COG, I also am not sure how the fact that tires are between the added weight and the COG. I think 12,000 is a bit high, I would guess it's probably closer to 500 ft-lb, which is still enough to make the car a little tail happy. But an ME could verify this these number much better than I, but you get the concept I am tring to convey, I hope.
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
From: Austin, TX
Rep Power: 0 Exact COG needs finite element method, may be we don't know how to do it, but I will eventually do. BTW, F*L is not angular momentum. That's the turning moment. Angular momentum is "moment of moment", kind of like Rx(RxF). Well, a pure Dynamics book is very much different than Physics book anyway.
Remembering those days when I took dynamics, it has all kind of rotation and translation problems. We actually had the ABS thing for homework but it turned out that ABS takes much more distance to stop the car (rotation+translation vs. pure translation)!! And all kind of "curve grade" involved in the problems.
Physics is easy, but "Applied Physics" is not that simple.
Remembering those days when I took dynamics, it has all kind of rotation and translation problems. We actually had the ABS thing for homework but it turned out that ABS takes much more distance to stop the car (rotation+translation vs. pure translation)!! And all kind of "curve grade" involved in the problems.
Physics is easy, but "Applied Physics" is not that simple.
