OK. But only point is to limit travel. Why? Or why only at the back?
There is an easy way to see exactly what I am talking about. When you have TL on a hoist without rear shocks and springs put wheel back and pushing it up and down check the toe angle. No need for alignment equipment. Use just your eye. I agree that camber and toe should change in order to compensate deformations under stress, but this is too much.
I wouldn’t expect that you can reach anybody who knows anything about that and even if you do that he will tell you anything. You have to figure it yourself:
- People complain about rear tires being worn in few thousand miles under load;
- Acura swaps bump stoppers with longer ones that limits travel and changes tires for free ($600).
For me it is simple as 2 + 2. After I checked toe angle changes I am sure that I am right.

By the way, I have an old Ford Contour with more than 100k miles on it still running original tires at the back. They look as good as new.

 

What's the point here?

 

Interesting. I decided to play it safe and after the rear settled from my subs, I got it aligned. Glad I did after reading this.

 

The point is your posts are hard to read/understand. I would expect more that is all. This coming from the guy whom didn't even think about going to college and skated through HS without ever bringing a book home...


Here is one of the best examples of your misunderstood posts...

BTW, the parts in bold are what I think you meant to say. Maybe I expect a lot more from someone whom claims to have so much knowledge.


Another thing. Since I couldn't post what I wanted since I was at work. This could prove to be very unsafe. I personally would like to see these so called cnc'd forks you are running on your car. I would also like to see the clearence you have with the car on level ground, raised, and one side fully compressed.

 

Yes, so would I. And I am not really clear how he lowered the rear...

 

Marcus I am right there with you on this. The 2 of us have been working on Honda's forever. We have agreed on a lot and disagreed on very little. I will stick with what is known to work (springs/coilovers) even if it does cost more. That's just my though.

 

Not a good guess at all.
Wrong again. I’ve said exactly what I wanted to say. O, yes. I’ve missed one indefinite article. Sorry.

That would be very interesting, but after your perfect point of entrance you are not going to see anything.

By the way, you misspelled clearance. Does it make you also ignorant or you are just rude?

 

Is this question for me or you are just chatting with your buddy?

 

First of all it wasn't a guess. Second of all your posts are hard to read. Third woohoo I misspelled 1 word when compared to your 20+ misspelled words.

Oh, probably just rude.

Go make a buck on ebay with your inexpensive unsafe part. All the other garbage ends up there so why not this.

 

OK. Let’s put aside spelling. This is not an English class so it won’t hurt anybody. Perfect spelling won’t make anybody good engineer or mechanic anyways. More important is understanding and as I can see you do not understand me. Not easy anyway. Now I wonder, which part you do not understand? Perhaps I can help you if it is so important to you.

I can see that not understanding me makes you angry too. Otherwise, I assume, you would not call me eBay Garbage Seller. That’s not good. In your life you will not understand many thinks. Patience and learning can help you there. Being angry all the time will just damage you.

 

OK Dr. Phil.... Now that you have analyzed me. I would like to inform you that you are in fact wrong wrong wrong.

I can't understand some of your previous posts because they are just gibberish.

As far as your product not being garbage meant for eBay. That has yet to be determined because you have failed to show us any pictures proving otherwise. You also apparently want to show us any pics of your products in action. So in otherwords "we" would like to see pics to verify the fact that you say there are no clearance issues. So prove us all wrong. Take some picks of the axles/half shafts while the car is on level ground, jacked up on one side lifting the front wheel and on the other side where the suspension is fully compressed. Maybe "extremes" but you don't think that eibach just makes a spring and sticks it on a car without testing it do you?

 

Sorry, but I don’t think I need you expertise at this moment. I can assure you that all test results are very encouraging even without your help.

 

I think we need to get back on topic.

So, the only disadvantage with this part I can see is the potential for failure. We don't know if it's weaker, stronger, or the same as stock.

The plus is that it does not put you any closer to the bumpstops which any lowering spring will do. Like I already mentioned with good tires and stock suspension I can get the rear to hit the bumpstops in steady state cornering.

 

He he... Watch out Chris. Mishar prefers to post snide and scathing remarks about how much smarter he is than you when threatened, rather than communicate openly and freely, and answering questions.

I'm just watching patiently at this point.


How's that possible? You're now riding 1 to 1.5 inches closer to the bumpstops. If you install this part with the squishy stock suspension you're gonna be bottoming out all over the place.

The suspension has only so much travel to it, and you're moving it in the 1.5 inches closer to the compressed limit...

 

No, my friend. I just can’t communicate friendly with somebody who is not friendly. If you start your post criticizing my spelling in order to discredit my technical knowledge, or bashing whole idea before you even understand what it is about, I don’t think you are looking for friendly discussion. Of course one is always welcome to prove that I am wrong.

But I agree with guy who hate cars , let’s get back to the subject.

I would not recommend 3” lowering to anybody. Though it is feasible it would be way to low for any normal driving.

This way of lowering is not limiting travel any more than it is already limited. I have not tried this yet, but I have feeling that rear bump stoppers should be some shorter for better handling. That brings back tire issue, but if somebody is not loading his car it might be good. As it is TL has more travel at front and that is not ideal situation.

 

As I see it now you are right. I am driving it around for a few months without any problem. I did my alignment when I installed it and tires look good. Regarding strength, it is irrelevant at the moment because I am using CNC machined forks at the front and they are too expensive. Once I have cast forks I will perform comparative crush tests. I will use hydraulic test press to break OEM and my fork and compare results. Most likely my parts will be stronger because free lengths are shorter and profile a bit stronger. That’s why I believe that it will be possible to use aluminum casts. I’ll try that too.

 

You're moving the whole assembly by 1.5" so you're no closer to the bumpstops than factory. Think of lowering spindles on older RWD cars. Everything remains the same except the ride height. Front suspension travel should remain the same as the factory.

 

Well, this is my principle concern...that people will see part integrity as the only potential disadvantage. I get a lot of customers replacing cheap solutions with real parts only after having bad experiences. Breaking is one this. But what if this part flat out does not compare with a damper and spring change?


Mishar...I hope you also know that lowering the rear, irregardless of travel length, will induce the afore mentioned alignment problems. You cite travel limitation as a cure for the excessive wear (as Acura's response to the issue), but make it clear that lowering the car is what causes the wear, not more or less suspension travel.

Marcus

 

This was never meant as substitute for coilovers, thought with A-spec suspension is very comparable if not better. Generally speaking all this we are doing is quite irrational and I am sure that there will always be people who would prefer coilovers as more racy solution. This way of lowering is definitely better than changing just springs. Price wise should be very close, but installation is way easier and it preserves suspension travel.
Well, as I previously said, if you try what’s happening with toe angle on hoist without springs, you will see too much toe in when wheel is going up. So whenever you lower your car you get excessive toe in angle. That’s why alignment is imperative after lowering. Same thing happens when you load rear seats. With bigger bump stoppers that effect is limited, but I don’t like that solution because limited travel hurts handling on bumpy and uneven surfaces.

 

The lower control arm is rotated some percentage of travel when you shorten the assembly and lower the car. It can only rotate so much... If you remove the strut, and rotate the arm up, does it not bind after so many degrees?...

Shortening the assembly while maintaining the same length of travel means the suspenion will now have more uptravel... which means it will either hit the bumpstops or bind the lower control arm... or am I missing something?

 

Nope I am on the same page as you. BTW, Chris we are probably thinking the same things right now.....

 

Correct me if I'm wrong and I very well could be.... The fork Mishar makes is shorter. It rotates the lower arm up, yes. While I wasn't really paying attention when I swapped in my Koni yellows, it looked like the bumpstop was on top of the shock. The distance from the bumpstop to the frame does not change. If the bumpstop is located on the shock, I'm right. If it's on the lower arm, I'm wrong.

 

I didn't see this one... The suspension won't have more uptravel than stock from it's weighted postition. The lower control arm, however will be in a slightly higher position. As for bind, who knows. I highly doubt it since people have lowered these things much more than 1.5". Then again, they're probably sprung so stiff that the owners wouldn't know the difference if they were binding. On top of that I found that the bushings used in the front suspension have a lot of give. Not nearly as stiff as I would've thought. That combined with what looks like equal length control arms, I highly doubt bind would be a problem.

 

I hate cars, with all do respect... you're wrong here... Yes the suspension will have more available uptravel ( and less downtravel), thus potentially resulting in binding the control arm or the axle when fully compressed.

Hypothetical numbers here, because I haven't measured... but the principal is the same:

Assume the wheel has 10 inches of travel (5 up and 5 down) under weighted conditions. The 5 inches of uptravel is limited by the bumpstops in the strut.

Now if you shorten the assembly by 1 to 1.5 inches (thus "pre-rotating" the control arm up), the OE strut will still allow 5 inches of uptravel... but the control arm and axle aren't designed to to allow 6 to 6.5 inches of relative uptravel.

The length of the strut is engineered/limited to the rotational travel of the control arm and axle. If the lower control arm rotates too far the arm will bind on bushing 10. Who knows the impact on the axle without testing. I stated this on page one of this thread, but I guess my writing isn't clear.



Lowering springs maintain the overall strut length, they just travel at a lower ride height. Coils are usually shorter, but much stiffer and usually progrssively wound to prevent full compression scenarios. That's also an assumption, I'm not sure all lowering coils are physically shorter, and don't follow the OE travel geometry.

Hopefully you can see the concern I'm articulating, and why the stock squishy suspension COULD be a problem here.

... and yes, I'm Monday morning quarterbacking this. My concern may not be of any matter until testing demonstrates otherwise, which Mishar will clearly disclose when he's ready.

 

I see what you're saying but I don't think it will be an issue. It's doubthful an extra 1.5" upward will cause a problem. That's 1.5" at the wheel which is almost nothing at the bushing. With all the rubber and no urethane in our suspension, binding is very unlikely. It's easy enough to find out though. Pull the spring out, reassemble, and push it to the bumpstop by hand to see if it binds.

Yes, you don't have to worry about this potential but not likely problem with shorter coils but every inch you lower the car with coils is an inch you lose in travel.

 

I see what is your concern and I can assure you that there is no problem there. Control arm and axle are free to go way higher than any lowering would require.

 

Kennedy, I think I see your point here as well.

The travel available, while exceptional, is available with the use of a spring and shock combo that will initiate bushing limitations. This would likely result in advanced bushing wear.

Mishar, yes with A-spec sus the wear would be reduced. With my method, shortened and firmer dampers would allow the travel but would excess of it though the use of firmer springs. And no this would not be reserved for the racy types. Your method is an alternative to the "cheap way" of getting springs only.

Likewise, the stock suspension while allowing excess travel and wear on the bushings, would likely have the complimentary effect of risking vehicle bottoming. I touched on this before and I still consider it an issue.

This method of lowering would only be considered for the mildest drivers looking to lower only. Anyone looking to drive the car spiritedly would likely find disappointment unless they upgrade the springs and shocks as well. And they should keep in mind that the additional drop provided with mild springs and these forks would likely result in a very low ride.

Mishar...how did you lower the rear?

Marcus

 

Bushings are designed for that travel.
I think it is more important that A-spec lowered this way would outperform other lowering solutions.
I would say that it is low cost, way superior alternative to the springs only and viable alternative to coilovers, depending on preferences.
I would rather be careful when entering my garage than count every bump with firm suspension. But that is matter of preferences too.
On the contrary. This method of lowering is for real spirited drivers who are driving on real world roads. Wannabe racers have to nurse their backbreaking cars nice and slowly from showing spot to showing spot.
Idea is the same. Unfortunately it is way easier because there are no axles there.

 

Without any pics of these so called CNC'd parts I will say this is how he lowered the entire car....

 

He probably made a new rear knuckle with a relocated ( lower ) mounting point for the damper.

 

No. I always use Corel PHOTO-PAINT.

 

I fail to see this being any sort of low cost effort if this is the case...

 

I still would like to know what stiff suspension you are talking about man...you are speaking of one extreme here and countering it with another.

"We don't want race car suspension on the road so we designed a totally shortcut inexpensive way of lowering as an alternative to getting springs only." That's basically what you are saying, and it doesn't make any sense. That's like saying you don't like pumpkin pie so you are going to have a chocolate cake for thanksgiving instead of a white cake. What's the point of mentioning race suspension if you do not consider your product comparable to it?

So, what is this racy, track only, short travel, dangerous-for-the-street suspension system you are referring to? You are being really light on the details here and it is getting to be aggravating. If you simply took some pics of what you made you'd be a lot farther ahead. I am beginning to think you did not actually make anything yet.

Marcus

 

This is exactly my point. Hence the reason I said it was lowered using Photoshop. I guess at least he has a good sense of humor seeing that he said he always uses Corel... but whatever, this is one long dragged out thread without any pics/proof. At least when I did mods I posted pics for those that would like to know what exactly was done.


BTW, Marcus I am sending you a PM now!

 

One with firm springs that preserves bushings.
I think it would be quite unusual to post pictures of product under development. I know few reasons why I shouldn’t do that and none why I should.

 

I don't know of any non-custom suspension available that would perform the way you indicate. The ones I am aware of are all perfectly viable for street driven cars without any of the drawbacks being as severe as you are indicating. Maybe for a Civic or Integra you will have an issue with people being duped into track suspension, but not here. It simply is not available.

And while you might have a point in being secretive about the product image, you sure are not hesitant to tease with descriptions. Suspension Techniques did a similar part in the past. You really are not breaking new ground here. I am just saying it would do wonders for your credibility.

Marcus

 

What kind shock did you use?

 

I think you need to go through and read the thread in it's entirety. He claims to have manufactured his own front drop forks and he is using them in conjunction with the A-spec suspension setup.

 

I’ve just came back from a 500 mile trip. Four persons, including two ladies with insane amount of luggage. Performance was perfect.

 

pictures?