Don't buy a honda after year 2k?

Pars wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Pars wrote:
>>
>>>From experience, the bushings for the roll (or sway) bars usually wear
>
> out
>
>>>over time. These bushings have nothing to do with the double wishbone
>>>suspension. In fact, my 98 Civic Hatch does not have any swaybars, which
>>>means no added bushing to worry about. In my setup which consist of
>
> Eibach
>
>>>springs & Tokico shocks, the swaybars would degrade the cars handling
>>>characteristics (especially in poor weather).
>>
>>eh? where'd you get that from????
>
>
> What?. Are you refering to fact that sway bars degrade poor weather
> performance, or 98 Civic Hatch doesn not have sway bars, or bushing failure
> is common to sway bars??? look em up, the facts are online.

bushing failure is common in sway bars, but usually where they're rubber
donuts that split with age. failure of the big bushing in the rear
trailing arm is real common too.

regarding wet weather effects of sway bars, please cite me a reference
from a website that shows theory. i say this because, the ricers i've
met at our local track were all saying bad things about sway bars, but
they were running 18mm fronts, 22mm rears, so one rear was lifting off
the track on hard turns! that's the most ridiculous setup i've ever
seen. now, if you're telling me that a car with a mismatched sway bar
setup like this has poor traction with 3 wheels on the ground, you'd be
dead right. keyword: "mismatched".

>
>>>Also the extra stress on the
>>>suspensions arms, caused by the swaybars, can't be a good thing.
>>
>>the suspension arms are /way/ stronger than the body they're bolted to.
>> if sb's are going to stress anything, it's the frame, not the
>>suspension arms. they're effectively just springs that resist the roll
>>of the body within the freedom afforded by the wishbone linkages.
>>
>
>
> I believe the sway bar is connected directly to the Control arm. I'm sure
> the forces acting on the control arm (by the swaybars) are more dramatic
> then those that are translated to the chassis. I've heard of control arm
> failure for Civics that have been upgraded with larger swaybars. Since my
> Civic does not have any sway bars, I think adding one will cause an
> unacceptable amount of stress on the control arm (and as you pointed out,
> the chassis).

you are right in this for that model civic. the tab that the sway bar
connects to is welded to the lower wishbone in a way that makes the tab
susceptible to fatigue, so they do break off. in the absence of a cheap
nasty kludge like this, [which does not affect the strength of the
control arm by the way] i stand by the principle of my original statement.

>
> The following is tid-bit regarding control arm failu
> http://www.blaszakprecision.com/Control_Arms.html

those are problems caused by lowering taking the control arm pivot
outside it's designed range. nothing to do with sway bars whatsoever.

>
>
>>>Swaybars
>>>are an easy way to tune the car for the race track, but it takes away
>
> from
>
>>>street and bad weather performance.
>>
>>how?
>
>
> Double wishbone suspension will 'lean into' the turn, causing the tires to
> make
> maximum use of available traction (especially when the car is off balanced).
> Sway bars takes away from this effect.

how is that possible? they don't affect suspension geometry.

> However, if the car is a floppy mess
> (from all the swaying), the addion of a sway bar is an acceptable
> compromise.
> In my case, with the lowered springs, heavy duty performance shocks, low
> profile tires on wide rims, the sway bars are not necessary. So, I get to
> have
> my cake and eat it...

you're eating the cake of low-pro tires & decent shocks. if you had
properly matching sway bars on there too, you'd be set.

>
>
>>>The 98 Model Hatch is the only car I've
>>>encountered that has sports car like dynamic without the use of any
>
> swaybars
>
>>did you record the effect on steering both before & after with the same
>>set of wheels/tires?
>
>
> Yep. I have to switch to winter tires. Obviously, they're floppy, but that
> trait is
> acceptable for winter driving.

don't understand. are you saying sway bars don't have an effect?

>
>
>>my 2000 hatch, same body/suspension as yours, is a
>>sloppy piece of junk without sway bars and a slot racer with. and it's
>>great in the wet. same wheels/tires.
>
>
> Yeah, but it would be stupid to make a car track read without upgraded
> wheels/tires first.

and that's why so many people that criticise sway bars don't know what
they're talking about. drive a car with standard tires /with/ sway
bars. they dramatically improve handling. dramatically. even to the
point that you wonder whether it's worth bothering with the tire upgrade.

> And with the bigger wheels and tires, handling is no
> longer
> sloppy, even on the race track (assuming no swaybars on 2000 Hatch &
> upgraded spring/shock).

sure, it's less sloppy than standard profiles, but that's scoring apples
against oranges - not right.

>
>
>>>(but an upper strut bar, in the trunk, was added in order to dial in a
>
> bit
>
>>>of oversteer).
>>
>>again, did you record the effect on steering both before & after with
>>the same set of wheels/tires?
>
>
> I noticed the difference, the upper rear strut bar was the last of my
> modification.

again, that's hard to understand. just linking the towers horizontally
offers no torsional stiffness to the body, that distortion experienced
in cornering. to improve stiffness, you have to have triangulation -
like you usually see on roll cages.

>
>
>>>This setup allows me to power around a right turn faster then
>>>an rear wheel drive (except for the special few...like the old super
>>>charged MR2...). The Acura Type-S can only dream of achieving the same
>>>result when powering around a sharp turn. And, if the weather is bad,
>
> only a
>
>>>Subaru class 4 wheel drive can compare. In my opinion, a front wheel
>
> drive
>
>>>with a double wishbone suspension on the driving wheel is the best setup
>>>that money can buy
>>>(unless you've got money to waste).
>>
>>we agree, wish bones are the best, but, with respect, i hear the kind of
>>argument you've just presented frequently made by the kids that have
>>whale tails, blue led's etc. but not one of them has ever been able to
>>explain to me exactly why this should be. wishbones basically just
>>control the roll of the body within the freedom afforded by the
>>wishbones. in that respect, they are a very important stability agent,
>>on the race track or off. imagine this scenario; if you make a sharp
>>left turn, the body rolls to the right, but pops back up once you steer
>>straight again. ok so far? now make that a hard left, followed by a
>>hard right precisely as the roll of the body is "correcting" itself
>>after the first manoever.
>
>
> I've done this, in an avoid maneuver on the highway, while zipping
> in between cars, over did it, half the car ended up in the shoulder before
> I could yank it back...shoulder was covered with a solid sheet of black
> ice (I was doing 140km/hr). After surviving that episode (I was sideways in
> my lane while surrounded on each side by slower moving traffic), the next
> day,
> I purchased the Eibach & Tokico in order to increase the car's precision and
> avoid the need to over steer because of the sloppy stock setup. Of all
> my upgrades, the springs/shock returned the biggest results (even more
> then the low profile tires and wider mags).

good shocks make a huge difference. i've experimented with different
grade honda stocks, kyb adjustables & bilstein's. the bilstein's are
easily the best. i was surprised how much difference they made to
steering - a hard turn that would before have caused understeer & a
little sliding suddenly became accurately tracked the whole way through.

regarding springs, if the springs have the same rate, there is going to
be no discernable difference. people replacing shocks/springs together
& then attributing the change in ride their wonderful new springs is
bizarre. spring steels all have pretty much the same modulus.
therefore, the only way you can change the rate is to change either the
diameter of the wire, or the length of wire used in the coil. [one
slight variation on that theme is whether the springs are progressive
rated, ie. they're close coiled at one end so they touch when
compressed, but that's non-linear.] any 2 sets of springs with the same
wire dimensions are going to feel identical, regardless of manufacturer,
heat treatment or paint color!

>
> now you have not only a body rolling to the
>
>>left because of the turn, but a body rolling to the left as it
>>dissipates stored spring energy from the right side being compressed.
>>the two rolling moments add to each other. ever seen an suv flipped
>>over? this is how it happens. if you control the dynamic of the first
>>manoever, you correspondingly control the dynamic of the second.
>>
>>admittedly, this makes not a fig of difference on the quarter mile and
>>not much on an oval track, but if you're lucky enough to live an an area
>>with hard bumpy windy roads, believe me, if your honda can hold the line
>>better than the other guy/girl, they're going to be sucking your tail
>>all the way home, no matter how much horsepower she/he's got.
>
>
> Now, add rain and in the above circumstance and
> your sway bar equipped Hatch will spin, mine wont (assuming similar tires).
> Here in Canada, poor weather performance is an important issue.

disagree. i grew up in rain, snow, black ice, etc. never had a problem
with sway bars then and see no reason why there would be today. spin
implies loss of traction. if all 4 wheels are on the road, as they will
be for a properly matched pair, there is no way it can loose traction.
and if they control roll-induced momentum like that described in the
flipping process, they can /reduce/ your chances of spinning because all
4 wheels are planted. again, the sway bars merely control the degree to
which the body rolls within the freedom of the wishbones.

>
>
>>>In a rear drive setup a double wishbone up front can be an over kill
>>>(especially if the car has a solid chassis), but when the driving wheel
>
> is
>
>>>up front, the double wishbone setup on the driving wheel is the best
>
> setup.
>
>>>Pars
>>>
>>>"Brubl69" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>i love that vintage civic too. based on what i've seen, including the
>>>>>abandonment of wishbone suspension, there's no way i'd buy a post 2000
>>>>>honda. yes, i know the accords still use wishbones, but when the next
>>>>>gen accord abondons them too, we'll know for sure that honda is now run
>>>>>by bean counters, not car enthusiasts like it used to be.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Honda adopted the wishbone suspension to achieve a low cowl. They
>
> believed
>
>>>>their customers would find it more nearly appealing than the higher cowl
>>>
>>>lines
>>>
>>>
>>>>with which their competitors were stuck. The added bonus was that this
>>>>suspension provided a race-car "feel" and pushed passenger car
>
> suspension
>
>>>>technology forward. Wishbones have their problems, though, not the least
>>>
>>>of
>>>
>>>
>>>>which is the overabundace of bushings that deteriorate with time and
>>>
>>>miles.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Audi's A4 wishbone front end (which was not nearly as well-engineered as
>>>>Honda's) created very much ill-will amongst their customers. The best
>>>
>>>handling
>>>
>>>
>>>>affordable street car I have driven was an old MR2 with struts all the
>
> way
>
>>>>round. We are all aware of the strut suspension's challenges. This
>>>
>>>suspension's
>>>
>>>
>>>>saving grace is its simplicity and robustness. I believe Honda returned
>
> to
>
>>>this
>>>
>>>
>>>>suspension in the Civic's front for this very reason. Their new
>
> iteration
>
>>>is
>>>
>>>
>>>>very well engineered and works as well as a wishbone suspension. Modern
>>>
>>>cars
>>>
>>>
>>>>are apt to have high cowls for aerodynamic and pedestrian impact
>
> reasons.
>
>>>The
>>>
>>>
>>>>Smart Car introduced this strange look and now many manufacturers are
>>>
>>>adopting
>>>
>>>
>>>>it. What no one has mentioned is the new electronic power steering. Its
>>>
>>>not so
>>>
>>>
>>>>good. Almost exactly opposite from old 911's (which have fine steering
>>>
>>>feel). I
>>>
>>>
>>>>believe the blanket condemnation of the new Civic strut front end is
>>>
>>>misplaced.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm glad Honda spent their extra engineering time on the iVtec engine.
>>>
>>>Pulls
>>>
>>>
>>>>like a small block with an AFB in a Camaro.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

jim beam wrote:

<snip>

>> What?. Are you refering to fact that sway bars degrade poor weather
>> performance, or 98 Civic Hatch doesn not have sway bars, or bushing
>> failure
>> is common to sway bars??? look em up, the facts are online.
>
> bushing failure is common in sway bars, but usually where they're rubber
> donuts that split with age. failure of the big bushing in the rear
> trailing arm is real common too.
>
> regarding wet weather effects of sway bars, please cite me a reference
> from a website that shows theory. i say this because, the ricers i've
> met at our local track were all saying bad things about sway bars, but
> they were running 18mm fronts, 22mm rears, so one rear was lifting off
> the track on hard turns! that's the most ridiculous setup i've ever
> seen. now, if you're telling me that a car with a mismatched sway bar
> setup like this has poor traction with 3 wheels on the ground, you'd be
> dead right. keyword: "mismatched".

Flush out your head gear, dude, if both *driving* wheels are on the
pavement, how does another wheel is off the pavement lead to poor traction?

Photos of Integras racing at Lime Rock (CT) in the 80's showed a rear
wheel off the ground - blame it on FWD.

Sparky wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> What?. Are you refering to fact that sway bars degrade poor weather
>>> performance, or 98 Civic Hatch doesn not have sway bars, or bushing
>>> failure
>>> is common to sway bars??? look em up, the facts are online.
>>
>>
>> bushing failure is common in sway bars, but usually where they're
>> rubber donuts that split with age. failure of the big bushing in the
>> rear trailing arm is real common too.
>>
>> regarding wet weather effects of sway bars, please cite me a reference
>> from a website that shows theory. i say this because, the ricers i've
>> met at our local track were all saying bad things about sway bars, but
>> they were running 18mm fronts, 22mm rears, so one rear was lifting off
>> the track on hard turns! that's the most ridiculous setup i've ever
>> seen. now, if you're telling me that a car with a mismatched sway bar
>> setup like this has poor traction with 3 wheels on the ground, you'd
>> be dead right. keyword: "mismatched".
>
>
> Flush out your head gear, dude, if both *driving* wheels are on the
> pavement, how does another wheel is off the pavement lead to poor traction?

ok, traction is the wrong word. call it adhesion.

>
> Photos of Integras racing at Lime Rock (CT) in the 80's showed a rear
> wheel off the ground - blame it on FWD.

you raise a good point. rwd folk /have/ to deal with lifting problem
because losing a drive wheel forces them to. i think the fwd folk tend
to misinterpret a lowered car riding on the bump stops as "stability"
and therefore get themselves all messed up as above.

jim beam wrote:

> Sparky wrote:

<snip>

>>> regarding wet weather effects of sway bars, please cite me a
>>> reference from a website that shows theory. i say this because, the
>>> ricers i've met at our local track were all saying bad things about
>>> sway bars, but they were running 18mm fronts, 22mm rears, so one rear
>>> was lifting off the track on hard turns! that's the most ridiculous
>>> setup i've ever seen. now, if you're telling me that a car with a
>>> mismatched sway bar setup like this has poor traction with 3 wheels
>>> on the ground, you'd be dead right. keyword: "mismatched".
>>
>> Flush out your head gear, dude, if both *driving* wheels are on the
>> pavement, how does another wheel is off the pavement lead to poor
>> traction?
>
> ok, traction is the wrong word. call it adhesion.

???

>> Photos of Integras racing at Lime Rock (CT) in the 80's showed a rear
>> wheel off the ground - blame it on FWD.
>
> you raise a good point. rwd folk /have/ to deal with lifting problem
> because losing a drive wheel forces them to. i think the fwd folk tend
> to misinterpret a lowered car riding on the bump stops as "stability"
> and therefore get themselves all messed up as above.

Ricers might, racers don't, they're out to WIN! Can't remember seeing
anything for show (except decals) at SCCA races thru F-1.

jim beam wrote:

> SoCalMike wrote:
>
>> Sam Steele wrote:
>>
>>> Mechanics I talk to say not to get a Honda after model year 2000.
>>> That Honda really cheapened their cars and did away with a lot of the
>>> things that made them uniquely Honda and different in a better way.
>>>
>>
>> i just dont care for the styling or suspension, myself. im keeping my
>> 98. i do like the older, 88-91 civics. low cowl, nice styling.
>
>
> i love that vintage civic too. based on what i've seen, including the
> abandonment of wishbone suspension, there's no way i'd buy a post 2000
> honda. yes, i know the accords still use wishbones, but when the next
> gen accord abondons them too, we'll know for sure that honda is now run
> by bean counters, not car enthusiasts like it used to be.

It always amuses me when Honda fanatics get so hung up on this "double
wishbone" mantra. BMW and Porsche both use MacPherson struts up front,
but hey, what do *they* know about handling, right? <snicker>

--
Mike Smith

Mike Smith wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> SoCalMike wrote:
>>
>>> Sam Steele wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mechanics I talk to say not to get a Honda after model year 2000.
>>>> That Honda really cheapened their cars and did away with a lot of
>>>> the things that made them uniquely Honda and different in a better way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> i just dont care for the styling or suspension, myself. im keeping my
>>> 98. i do like the older, 88-91 civics. low cowl, nice styling.
>>
>>
>>
>> i love that vintage civic too. based on what i've seen, including the
>> abandonment of wishbone suspension, there's no way i'd buy a post 2000
>> honda. yes, i know the accords still use wishbones, but when the next
>> gen accord abondons them too, we'll know for sure that honda is now
>> run by bean counters, not car enthusiasts like it used to be.
>
>
> It always amuses me when Honda fanatics get so hung up on this "double
> wishbone" mantra. BMW and Porsche both use MacPherson struts up front,
> but hey, what do *they* know about handling, right? <snicker>
>
> --
> Mike Smith

c(T) = 1.0

you /do/ know about degrees of freedom, right? you /do/ know about
maintaining geometry through the range of suspension travel, right? how
about sharing the background to your no doubt exhaustive technical analysis?