How did you ascertain that the aluminum parts you made are stronger than the OEM steel parts?

Good point about the contact surface on the thru-holes. The aluminum version should use larger bolts and bushings in order to compensate for that.

I'd use 1040 steel and shoot for a 1" drop if I were you. The part will still be lighter than OEM because it will be shorter in height and the shorter drop will reduce the likelihood of half-shaft contact.

When it comes to suspensions, it's best to err on the side of caution.

Your basic concept is inventive.

 

Also, using 1040 steel will allow you to use the OEM hardware and bushings.

The aluminum idea is "trick," but I think 1040 steel is the best way to go here once all things are considered (excluding machining time, which will increase significantly for steel vs. aluminum).

 

Took about one hour to install ready parts and lower rear end for 1.5”. Just like front, springs and shock absorbers are stocks (6MT). Never touched rear seat, of course. Parts are again CNC machined this time out of steel.

Just update, front forks casting is in the process. They will be cast iron like stocks, but once I have mold I will cast few sets out of aluminum too. Comparative crash test will tell if they are strong enough. I would prefer them 2.5 times lighter if it will be safe.

Another think that may interest some of you. Checking front end I was looking at upper wishbones and I think that Caster can be adjusted. Not handy like Toe, but with some effort it seems possible. More Caster would bring better directional stability and smaller turning radius. Not sure yet if it is possible, but I will be soon.

 

That looks really good. How does it handle compared to stock? Also, how's the front end been driving? Any issues?

 

Mishar, major props to you for giving so much thought into a different route everyone is taking. I hope you keep at it until perfection. It's something I'd definitely consider, even if I already have Tein coilovers.

 

I wanna say i have seen a product that like this already. I believe the company was progressive or progress suspension. They made lowering forks for Civics an stuff. Not sure what happened to them. I do like this idea though, because i love how my Type-S handles now, but i would love to have about an inch lower, and raked towards the front by about a half inch.

 

Handling is excellent. Stock was very good but now it is even better. Lower gravity center and more chamber makes quite a bit difference, but what I like most is that ride quality is completely unaffected.

I had to align all four wheels. Fronts were just off, but toe in at rear was disaster when lowered for 1.5” (they were properly aligned before). I think that addressing that problem will be my next project. And I mean addressing it, not just covering it with bigger bump stoppers.

 

very nice work! I'm still very interested once I see some high safety factors showing up!

 

I don’t think that there is anything wrong with conventional lowering. Of course if there is some suspension travel left. I did it so many times myself. I just realised that there is a potential for something different at TL (probably TSX, Accord and some other Hondas). Something cheaper and especially easier to apply, something that would keep most of original suspension characteristics just improving handling and looks of course. And I am really happy with the outcome.

Not sure if you think about combining Tein coilovers and this way of lowering (noname for now). I think that it could be done without any problem, but I am not sure why. May be if you want to lower your car for 3” and steel have some travel.

 

Thanks. Sometimes when you are testing something the best news is no news.

 

Hmm...what happened with this? Over two months since last word. How is it holding up?

 

Test set works perfectly. Unchanged ride quality better handling and looks. Casting tool is delayed, but it will be done soon.

 

just wondering, did you make your own cast? Or did you have a factory do it, over seas or domestic. i find this interesting, you seem to have alot of resources and it sounds like fun really, as long as it is properlly tested.

 

I have some doubts about this. It is a sound concept (not a new one either) for lowering the car. But, even if we assume the parts were quality (I am sure they will be, or I would hope) I would more than a little concerned about the car bottoming out. The oem suspension has a long travel and is really pretty soft. I just see this thing smacking the ground. Part of what makes the coilover system the RIGHT way to do this is the tuned damper length and spring rate. Lowering with the stock springs and shocks is not likely to really improve handling that much, as a damper and spring kit will. Whatever enhancement you got is not likely enough to even compare with conventional means.

Great part for ebay though. I suppose it is an effective and easy way to make the car lower. I just don't see compromising so much just based on cost alone (and installation of 1 hour, when Teins only take 2-3?), which I hardly see being such a draw after you pay for tooling and product.

 

You are right. This is not a new concept. I was driving similar before most of guys on this forum were born.

During last three months of testing, under average North American city conditions, I did not have any problem with bottoming out. Just for the record, I am not mild tester at all. Main reason for that is that OEM suspension travel is not really too long. As a matter of fact it is barely long enough for normal handling on real world uneven roads. My opinion is that any shorter travel makes handling very limited, virtually just for racing track conditions. Of course if one put too wide tires, or too small offset rims on his car, he might need very limited travel, or no travel at all, in order to prevent rubbing, but I am interested only in real improvements, not crippling car for the sake of fashion.



Regarding tooling and price I must totally disagree. Price of parts will be four to six times lower than any serious competition, even lower than just springs. Price of labour will be easily six times lower. Workshop that can swap complete suspension in three hours will be able to do this in 30 minutes, but main difference is that this lowering can be performed by almost anybody using just set of metric wrenches.



Regarding handling I must disagree too. Every suspension has to be a compromise in order to perform under different conditions. Very stiff suspension with limited travel is excellent for perfectly even roads. On the other hand soft suspension with long travel is better for uneven bumpy roads. My opinion is that OEM suspension is that magic compromise. Honda/Acura invested in it huge money and vast experience. Only shift in that compromise I can propose is lowering it a bit. That definitely imposes necessity for additional care, but gives better handling. In addition to that, everybody can choose from different OEM suspensions. I am pretty sure that A-spec, lowered this way, will outperform any other suspension in any road condition except racing track.

 

I like this idea, I remember the "shorter" part listed as 12/13 being sold for 3rd generation Integras. The rears just had the shock sit lower on the control arm. I believe Suspension Techniques sold them. Why not have the most comfy ride with stock suspension but actually sit lower than stock? Way to go on doing the R/D on your products and thanx for sharing. Let's see how it goes..

 

Sorry for the delayed response. I somehow missed your post.

I am making pattern (casting tool) myself. That is a bit delayed because of other obligations, but it gives me more time for field, or better said street testing.

Casting will be done by one workshop specialized in iron casting and one specialized in aluminum. My plan is to use first casts for a crush testing. Results will be compared with OEM part crush test results that will be performed at the same time. I would prefer aluminum if they are strong enough.

Resources are available all around Greater Vancouver area and most likely around any major North American city. One should just learn how to use them. Being engineer helps there.

Expecting numbers do not justify overseas casting at this point.

 

The necessity for additional care? As in if we go over a speed bump/hump quickly we'll bottom out (immediately after going over it) due to the suspension still having full travel ability, or as in scraping when going in/out of steep driveways due to the car being lower?

I was also going ask about the tensile strength of these parts, but it seems you're going to be addressing that shortly. Aluminum, if strong enough, would save a good bit of weight.

 

I do not have problem with speed bumps, but going in my garage I have to pay some additional attention.

Yes, that’s why I would prefer aluminum. It is not too much difference, but as it is unsuspended weight it counts way more.

 

I definitely think that for the performance minded person the OEM suspension has a lot to be desired. And the travel is an integral part of this. Length of travel is dictated in part by the firmness of the suspension. There is a lower travel requirement with sports suspension, and we have not seen rough roads to suffer from a short-case damper like the Tein offerings.

I am of the opinion that using the standard springs and dampers, while capable of providing a lower stance with a stock ride, will not enhance stability or driver confidence. The standard dampers allow the body to move too much and make the car feel floaty.

Of course, the path of modification should be dictated by driver demand. If performance enhancement is the goal, one should know that spring rate and damper valving are the contributors to achieving the goal. Lowering the car is primarily an act of aesthetic enhancement, which this proposal is an excellent method of modification. A lower center of gravity is beneficial to handling only if the dampers control the roll and pitch of the car's body.

 

Lower center of gravity means better stability, better braking and acceleration (FWD) with same suspension. Lowered double wishbone and multilink suspension has more of negative chamber. That improves tire grip in curves. That’s about all improvement this concept offers. It preserves ride quality and all what goes with it. If it is Auto it will stay soft, just as luxury car should be. It will be just more stable luxury car. If it is 6M it will keep sporty feeling, just being more stable. That goes with Brembo brakes, manual transmission and limited slip differential. If it is A-spec it would be as firm as could be recommended for the real road.

Floaty feeling doesn’t mean bad handling. Just as stiff doesn’t mean good. It is just feeling and it is always better to give less confidence than more. To reduce it one should use more dumping and stiffer sway bars, but not shorter suspension travel.

If I am going to race my TL I would put coilovers. Well. I must admit, if I am 19 I would put them anyways.

 

I would really like to see how these feel. While I am sure it feels better than stock, I have my doubts about it being a viable alternative to dampers and springs. You might be dramatizing the need for coilovers when citing that they would be for if you raced...many coilovers are an excellent and high quality option for the street.

You are right, stiff is not any better than float. You need a balance. Float sucks. Makes the car feel disconnected from the road. I don't see how the float can be reduced with this setup, and I am not sure where you are getting the "coilovers are stiff" thing. The higher rebound rate is what provides the stability, not the lower ride height. Shorter suspension travel really does not apply to the argument either, since with a proper damper the travel is more than adequate.

I don't really see how giving the driver less confidence is good either...

I am not trying to argue, but you are really not convincing me. I guess I need to feel for myself.

Marcus

 

A lot of people put a stiffer bar or shocks and springs and make the statement "my car handles so much better" In reality their car corners flatter and it may handle better but could very well handle worse. They have never pushed the cars past the limit so they don't really know, they just assume since it's flatter it's better. For all most people know it could snap spin every time it's pushed to the limit.

With Mishar's way of lowering the car, you retain the factory suspension balance and compliance. You know the car is going to have a little understeer but it's easy enough to get the tail out by lifting throttle. It's not going to do anything funky at the limit when one end hits the bumpstops because you reduced 1/2 of the suspension travel. It's not going to be a tail happy SOB because of that monster rear bar on an otherwise stock suspension.

 

I agree about arguing. No point. I am not even sure that I should convince you anything. May be I should only explain few points:
Viability depends on preferences. If one is happy with soft suspension and has Auto, or likes has A-spec, but want to ride lower, it is viable, good, low cost handling and aesthetic improvement.
I agree. But I am happy with my modestly lowered 6M suspension and $1000 in my pocket
Yes, but that is only feeling. In fact tires have better contact with road than with stiff suspension.
Both are important, but lowering influence is strait forward and rebound rate has to match the road, so it is always compromise.
I think that it is better to give basic confidence and let the driver build more on his own than giving him more confidence than he or his car can’t handle.
Sure. I’ll send you a set when I get it. You find a guinea pig TL to test it. Installation is children’s game anyways.

 

That would be the boat I'm in...love the ASPEC suspension, but want the car to be lower.

Not that this really has anything to do with the forks, but I would have to agree with this statement...instilling too much confidence in an inexperienced/unaccomplished driver is not a good thing.

I'll volunteer my TL as a guinea pig if you need one...offer some insight as to how these work with the ASPEC suspension .

 

All very good points made. But concerning these two....

These two points, while possibly true, are still not refuting the fact that the float would still be there and this feeling is very disconcerting to drivers who already have the experience needed to appreciate eliminating it.

The level of confidence is also somewhat of a limiting factor. Let's try not to police people really. The fact is, an enhanced suspension should enhance the vehicle dynamics and enhance the car and driver ability to drive better in a more controlled fashion. If someone decides they want to drive over their head, how would that be our responsibility? If you mean to say this method of lowering would be good for the beginner or inexperienced driver you might have a point, but you are not doing much to enable the driver to learn either.

This can go off topic pretty fast here, so don't take it as a debate...I think your points are interesting and certainly are valid.

 

haha this is by far the most interesting thread i've read.. even though the debate between kennedy and mishar was way overmyhead. its been 3 months everythings still good? 1000 bucks.. but then u can spend a couple hundred more for the edfc. you cant do anything like that can you haha jk

 

I am not sure where $1000 came from either. Basics and SS are both well under $1000 for AZ peeps (through me anyway).

Marcus

 

I would rather take this as a debate than as marketing. I hate marketing.

Float, or better say suspension travel, is a crucial part of suspension. It is necessary in order to insure that wheels stick to the road on uneven surfaces. Very short travel, or no travel at all, gives a feeling of superb cornering but any bump can sat car off road if driven close to the limit. That’s giving too much confidence to the driver. Reasonable suspension travel and TL’s is just barely there, doesn’t give that feeling, but it is not any slower in corners and some bumps there will just shake drivers confidence a bit, helping him to learn and improve his driving skills. Any experienced driver knows that some swaying won’t hurt his cornering speed. On the contrary, it just marks the spots where he would have big problems with stiff suspension.

I agree about policing people. They has to be fully entitled to make their own judgement. I just think that unpredictable suspension makes it very difficult.

 

Will this work the TL-S suspension?

 

Float and travel are two different things though. The TL, in my opinion, is not lacking in either.

While you are right about stiff suspension resulting in a loss of contact with the ground I highly caution against over estimating the stiffness factor. Tein SS and Basic are a short case damper design which means the travel available is nearly what it is on the stock suspension.

Likewise, the valving is speed-sensitive (meaning speed of damper movement) but in no way is it stiff. The Tein dampers work because they control body motions that can get out of control in transitions and mid-corner corrections. If the car were driven perfectly on a track, I could see float being less of an issue. But since on the street there are more opportunities to make corrections and contend with bumps I would rather have more control of the car's body motions to prevent momentum from helping steer the car off course.

Travel = good. We agree on this.
Stiff = bad. We are here also.
Floaty, disconnected feeling = Somehow you think it is fine, but I think it is the devil.

 

I agree. Travel would be a road and float a journey. Thou we need longish road we do not want easy journey back and fort. But it is better to have both than none. TL has proper travel at the front, but it is quite limited at the rear. Remember that issue with eating rear tires and way Acura dealt with it?

It is good information about Tein’s travel. That’s how it should be. Good dumping rate is important, but adjusting it to hard is same like not having suspension at all and I saw so many guys doing that. On the other hand, there I do not agree with you, even very soft suspension, with dumping rate just enough to keep wheels on the road, can have superb handling. French cars are often like that. Feeling is sometimes awful, but they would stick to the road like glued.

I am signing this, with addition above.

 

The rear tire issue is not an indicator of a lack of travel. That was due to improper alignment. Excess toe.

Otherwise, I guess we reach a dead end with the debate! Agree to disagree.

Marcus

 

No. Lack of travel came as Acura’s resolution of that issue. Rear suspension geometry has a major flow. When it goes down under load it brings extensive toe in and eats rear tires in a few thousand miles. Acura than changed bump stoppers and limited travel. That’s poor solution, but I guess real one would be too expensive. I just hope that they will correct that on a new model.

 

That's interesting. Although I did not know about this at the time, I can testify to what it does in real world situations. With the stock tires I could slide the car around and manhandle it through corners and it was very predictable. Once I got the wider and stickier tires, it was a bit of a handfull.

What I experienced when getting near the limit, the tail would snap out quickly and without warning as if it was hitting the bumpstops and the rear stiffness was going infinate. Then it would stick again and slide again. Very unpredictable as it hit the stops, lost traction, unloaded and caught traction again.

I never came close to losing control but I was having to put nearly 3/4 turn of the wheel to catch the slides and then straighten it instantly when the rear caught. If this was on a regular street trying to avoid an accident it would be bad news.

 

That’s exactly what I am talking about. Whenever you hit a bump stopper it launches that end up a bit and next moment you loose grip on that wheel. If you are close to the limit you can easily end off road or face a tree beside it.

 

Hmmm, interesting. I did not know that.

I think installing a longer bump stop is a questionable solution as well, although consider that the bump stops are not one compound, and the added length is not going to be hard, or as hard as the middle or top.

And I would hesitate to say there is a flaw with the geometry. This seems presumptuous. Toe and camber change with suspension travel to enhance the handling of the car. If people were loading the car too much (much more likely the case than they were driving too hard) it should be expected that the alignment would be off.

I am going to call a friend at Honda about this one. Seems really interesting.

 

^^^It's true; there was a TSB for the issue. The cars that experienced it weren't overloaded...simply putting two people in the back often enough caused it.

 

For someone whom is 56 and claims this and that he can't type or proof read for shit....


Like Kennedy and Marcus have said I would seriously advise against this. Plain and simple.

 

Although this whole discussion is way over my head I have to admit this is the first time in Azine that I have read from post 1 all the way to page number 4. This is so interesting.

When you put a team of engineers in one room, disagreement is bound to happen. It doesn't necessarily one person is wrong it just so happens he has a different opinion.

Way to go guys. Good luck.