1 2 3
Matt B
Matt B Reader
1/1/10 1:28 p.m.
xci_ed6 wrote: Didn't the ITR have passive rear steering in the rear lower control arms, similar to the '88 CRX?

Tell me of this "passive" rear steering. IIRC the arms are the same design as the 2nd gen CRX's, and have a different method of mounting the strut at the bottom. However, I just assumed they were picked from the parts-bin because they were shorter and compensated for the camber change due to the 3/4inch lower springs. The lower control arm mounts are the reason you see different strut/coilover models for the Type-R (vs. every other integra)

digdug18
digdug18 Reader
1/2/10 5:48 p.m.
Matt B wrote:
xci_ed6 wrote: Didn't the ITR have passive rear steering in the rear lower control arms, similar to the '88 CRX?

Tell me of this "passive" rear steering. IIRC the arms are the same design as the 2nd gen CRX's, and have a different method of mounting the strut at the bottom. However, I just assumed they were picked from the parts-bin because they were shorter and compensated for the camber change due to the 3/4inch lower springs. The lower control arm mounts are the reason you see different strut/coilover models for the Type-R (vs. every other integra)

If what you mean by parts bin, is they used some of the same parts that they have been using in the CTR, ATR, ITR and SiR in japan for the past 20 or so years. Honda didn't do anything new for honda with the USDM ITR, it just it wasn't the norm for us. This quality of cars has been the norm in JAPAN for 2 decades.

Andrew

Matt B
Matt B Reader
1/4/10 4:46 p.m.

The fact that Japan chose to withhold the best performance models notwithstanding, I still don't understand what makes these RLCA's of a better quality. They weren't forged in the fires of Mount Doom (one rear lower control arm to rule them all) hehe -srry couldn't help it .

xci_ed6
xci_ed6 HalfDork
1/4/10 7:17 p.m.
Matt B wrote:
xci_ed6 wrote: Didn't the ITR have passive rear steering in the rear lower control arms, similar to the '88 CRX?

Tell me of this "passive" rear steering. IIRC the arms are the same design as the 2nd gen CRX's, and have a different method of mounting the strut at the bottom. However, I just assumed they were picked from the parts-bin because they were shorter and compensated for the camber change due to the 3/4inch lower springs. The lower control arm mounts are the reason you see different strut/coilover models for the Type-R (vs. every other integra)

Only the '88 CRX got the passive rear steer arms, and I believe they are different dimensions than the ITR bits. They are stamped steel, instead of cast, the idea being that they flex and cause toe change under cornering loads. That's the rumor anyway. 89-91 CRX's got the normal parts, the rumor there being that the '88 was too twitchy, probably due to the short wheelbase.

xci_ed6
xci_ed6 HalfDork
1/4/10 7:17 p.m.
Matt B wrote:
xci_ed6 wrote: Didn't the ITR have passive rear steering in the rear lower control arms, similar to the '88 CRX?

Tell me of this "passive" rear steering. IIRC the arms are the same design as the 2nd gen CRX's, and have a different method of mounting the strut at the bottom. However, I just assumed they were picked from the parts-bin because they were shorter and compensated for the camber change due to the 3/4inch lower springs. The lower control arm mounts are the reason you see different strut/coilover models for the Type-R (vs. every other integra)

Only the '88 CRX got the passive rear steer arms, and I believe they are different dimensions than the ITR bits. They are stamped steel, instead of cast, the idea being that they flex and cause toe change under cornering loads. That's the rumor anyway. 89-91 CRX's got the normal parts, the rumor there being that the '88 was too twitchy, probably due to the short wheelbase.

redzcstandardhatch
redzcstandardhatch New Reader
1/5/10 7:09 a.m.

the ITR pieces are the same length as regular control arms.

i put a set on my civic, and they were the same length as the stockers.

Matt B
Matt B Reader
1/5/10 10:12 a.m.

Hmmm, I must be mistaken then (insert foot ---> mouth).

So, for the sake of discussion - why is the lower mount different? Why did Honda choose to use these instead of the "normal" USDM arm?

tkm
tkm
1/5/10 11:15 a.m.

The JDM Rear LCA (88 Civic/CRX/ITR unit) is a stronger unit than the USDM version. It is also lighter in weight. With this, it also promotes a touch more oversteer. In lawsuit happy USA, this is why the decision was made to redesign the LCA for the North American Civics/Integras--or so the story goes. (interesting tidbit--all 88 Civics (hatches and 4-doors) and all CRX's had the same style of LCA on them).

As for trying to "clone" an ITR--why bother? Just find a decent GSR and make it what you want it to be. It'll never be ultimately as good as the ITR, though (regardless of what the guy with the non-ITR tells you). You truly don't realize all of the 'tweaks' Honda did to the ITR vs the standard Integra, obviously most important being the chassis tweaks. Heck, even most of the bushings are of a firmer material on the ITR.

Scott Lear
Scott Lear Production Editor
1/5/10 12:10 p.m.

It's quite possible to make a GS-R every bit as fast as a Type R at a track or autocross, but as everybody has said, you can't really clone one. At some point you're better off just saving up for a while longer and getting a real ITR. It's more than the sum of the bits, and there's the potential for it to go up in value (much more than any GS-R).

Side note: took the R out this weekend in the chilly air (sea level density, about 35 degrees and low humidity)...it's rare that Florida provides the B18C5 with such delicous VTEC food. Every time I drive that damn thing I fall in love with it all over again.

David S. Wallens
David S. Wallens Editorial Director
1/5/10 12:22 p.m.
Scott Lear wrote: Every time I drive that damn thing I fall in love with it all over again.

Bah. It's just a gussied-up Civic.

(Scott knows I'm kidding.)

digdug18
digdug18 Reader
1/5/10 4:41 p.m.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/01-INTEGRA-TYPE-R-COUPE-ONE-OWNER-29k-MLS-RARE_W0QQitemZ190361932972QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item2c527494ac

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2001-Acura-Integra-Type-R-41-Stock-RARE_W0QQitemZ160391047268QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item25580d2864

Vigo
Vigo Reader
1/6/10 12:19 p.m.

^ good reality check on buying a REAL ITR. My mother, yes my 55 y/o mom, bought an 01 ls 5spd with 64k for $5k. A very nice car (if significantly slower than the sohc neon i sold around the same time). So that example gives a person somewhere between 6k and 13k $$$$$$$$ to make up the difference. Seriously.

tkm
tkm New Reader
1/15/10 2:32 p.m.
Vigo wrote: ^ good reality check on buying a REAL ITR. My mother, yes my 55 y/o mom, bought an 01 ls 5spd with 64k for $5k. A very nice car (if significantly slower than the sohc neon i sold around the same time). So that example gives a person somewhere between 6k and 13k $$$$$$$$ to make up the difference. Seriously.

A used Type R motor + ITR tranny is north of $5K. Not much potential in the stock B18B (considering the ITR's power output is your goal).

Good suspension is at least $1K, then you'll need to do swaybars, full bushing replacement, and chassis braces (for the larger swaybar, underhood, etc).

Probably should go ahead and upgrade to 5-lug as strength difference is significant if you want to do any track events. Also, go ahead and add in the ITR's larger brakes. Need new wheels, too.

So we're up to what, ~ $8K in upgrades by this point, not including labor? And you're still stuck with the flexible-flyer (plus sunroof) chassis that the LS has. And with all the money that you're spent, you have a car that does nothing better than an ITR does.

If anything, you're better off starting with a GSR and building from there. Still not an ideal way to go about it, though.

Matt B
Matt B Reader
1/16/10 10:52 a.m.

Oooooh - bench building! lol

If I was going to build an integra like a Type-R it makes a lot more sense to start with a GSR. I still don't think it would make sense dollars-wise or especially resale-wise, but sometimes you just fiddle with what ya got.

If I was going to build an integra to beat a Type-R, on a budget, and get waaay OT, I'd start with an RS stripper model, no sunroof, no nothing, listed as 2529lbs stock curb weight - slightly lighter than the lightest USDM ITR. Do the requisite chassis prep (suspension, bracing, brakes, wheels - lots to argue about here for the budget concious) and add a moderate ball-bearing turbo with a 250hp goal and repsonsiveness in-mind (disco potato anyone?). The one budget-variable is the transmission. The base RS/LS/GS tranny is tall in the gear and the "dog" of the bunch compared to the other b-series units, but the gearing might actually be better for 250hp and 200+ft/lbs on certain tracks. Might not - I never tried it. You'd have to do all the labor yourself of course, and the car would lose all OEM reliability, but I think you could give a Type-R a real run for it's money on-track.

93celicaGT2
93celicaGT2 SuperDork
1/16/10 11:10 a.m.
tkm wrote:
Vigo wrote: ^ good reality check on buying a REAL ITR. My mother, yes my 55 y/o mom, bought an 01 ls 5spd with 64k for $5k. A very nice car (if significantly slower than the sohc neon i sold around the same time). So that example gives a person somewhere between 6k and 13k $$$$$$$$ to make up the difference. Seriously.

A used Type R motor + ITR tranny is north of $5K. Not much potential in the stock B18B (considering the ITR's power output is your goal).

Good suspension is at least $1K, then you'll need to do swaybars, full bushing replacement, and chassis braces (for the larger swaybar, underhood, etc).

Probably should go ahead and upgrade to 5-lug as strength difference is significant if you want to do any track events. Also, go ahead and add in the ITR's larger brakes. Need new wheels, too.

So we're up to what, ~ $8K in upgrades by this point, not including labor? And you're still stuck with the flexible-flyer (plus sunroof) chassis that the LS has. And with all the money that you're spent, you have a car that does nothing better than an ITR does.

If anything, you're better off starting with a GSR and building from there. Still not an ideal way to go about it, though.

Yeah.... BUT: You can build an LS Vtec using that B18B for more power than the B18C5 at way less than $5k. The 5-lug isn't really necessary... stock brakes with improved rotors/pads/lines are adequate.

A GSR would be easier to start with, for sure. You'd just be bolt ons and a tune away from ITR power, rather than having to build a motor from scratch.

92dxman
92dxman Reader
1/16/10 12:39 p.m.

I'm not real saavy on Integra but did all of the regular 94-01's come with sunroofs? I don't think i've ever seen one without one.

gamby
gamby SuperDork
1/16/10 3:37 p.m.
93celicaGT2 wrote: Yeah.... BUT: You can build an LS Vtec using that B18B for more power than the B18C5 at way less than $5k.

Seems rare that frankenstein motors have the same longevity/durability of the factory stuff.

digdug18
digdug18 Reader
1/16/10 4:20 p.m.
gamby wrote:
93celicaGT2 wrote: Yeah.... BUT: You can build an LS Vtec using that B18B for more power than the B18C5 at way less than $5k.

Seems rare that frankenstein motors have the same longevity/durability of the factory stuff.

I agree completely, if you read team-integra.net , clubintegra.com or honda-tech.com with any regularity, you'll soon notice just how true this statement is. The B18B is no MX6 motor, it just isn't made for the vtec head, and even when all the correct parts are used still has inherent problems that people are faced with. I have seen too many threads over the years of people that spend 3k on their LS only to have it die quickly. For that money they could have had a GSR motor.

I believe that the main problem in the LS, from what I've been told anyway is that the stroke is too long, and when you rev as high as the kids do with vtec, they tend to blow up. Even with upgraded internals, I understand its a common problem. another factor is the oiling system, the LS pan and block weren't designed to have a vtec head, you have to modify it to run, and I've been told that they are prone to oil starvation in the upper revs as well. putting both of these things together doesn't exactly equal a long life.

And the 94-01 integra RS, LS, Special Edition, and GSR all had sunroofs. The 90-93 cars had no sunroof in the rs version, as well as the roll up windows, but that gen had a cable actuated clutch as well.

Andrew

gamby
gamby SuperDork
1/16/10 5:24 p.m.

The old trick to solve the rod ratio problem was to swap in the crank from a B17A (from the DA GS-R). Good luck finding one of those these days--'tis a holy grail.

Even then, they always seemed to have a penchant for self-destruction. The knee-jerk answer was always "well, you just need to build it right". That rarely seems to happen.

digdug18
digdug18 Reader
1/16/10 8:22 p.m.
gamby wrote: The old trick to solve the rod ratio problem was to swap in the crank from a B17A (from the DA GS-R). Good luck finding one of those these days--'tis a holy grail. Even then, they always seemed to have a penchant for self-destruction. The knee-jerk answer was always "well, you just need to build it right". That rarely seems to happen.

What are you talking about, I did a search for one on car-part.com and found 12 in the US in junk yards, cheapest one is in Washington state and is only $500.

Andrew

tkm
tkm New Reader
1/17/10 12:29 a.m.

With knowledge, connections and the right "hook-up" for parts, anything is possible.

But, a guy in a bone-stock ITR can hit the track and run the crap out of the car, then sell it a year or two later for probably exactly what he paid for it. There is a lot to be said about choosing this route.

Still, if I were building a Honda/Acura with the mind of beating an ITR, starting with a lesser DC2 (94-01) chassis is just stupid. Buy a 92-95 Civic hatchback and build that up instead. But in the end, you'll have a car worth less $$$ than the sum of its parts.

And what has been said about B18 and B20's with vtec heads are true. The motors put down great numbers on the dyno, but there is a good chance you'll never finish the race, let alone the season, with one under the hood. Keeps the revs down and you'll be fine, but then you'll miss out on a lot of upper-end HP.

You can also make a normal E30 faster than an E30 M3, But the normal E30 will never be a cool as the M3. Same goes for the ITR.

westsidetalon
westsidetalon New Reader
1/17/10 8:41 a.m.

My SCCA ITS road race GSR + Ground Control + Quaife/4:88 fd = great value and just as much fun. I have always been amazed at how well it works. Stock 120k motor, this thing has never let me down, unless I crash

93celicaGT2
93celicaGT2 SuperDork
1/17/10 8:56 a.m.
digdug18 wrote:
gamby wrote:
93celicaGT2 wrote: Yeah.... BUT: You can build an LS Vtec using that B18B for more power than the B18C5 at way less than $5k.

Seems rare that frankenstein motors have the same longevity/durability of the factory stuff.

I agree completely, if you read team-integra.net , clubintegra.com or honda-tech.com with any regularity, you'll soon notice just how true this statement is. The B18B is no MX6 motor, it just isn't made for the vtec head, and even when all the correct parts are used still has inherent problems that people are faced with. I have seen too many threads over the years of people that spend 3k on their LS only to have it die quickly. For that money they could have had a GSR motor.

I believe that the main problem in the LS, from what I've been told anyway is that the stroke is too long, and when you rev as high as the kids do with vtec, they tend to blow up. Even with upgraded internals, I understand its a common problem. another factor is the oiling system, the LS pan and block weren't designed to have a vtec head, you have to modify it to run, and I've been told that they are prone to oil starvation in the upper revs as well. putting both of these things together doesn't exactly equal a long life.

And the 94-01 integra RS, LS, Special Edition, and GSR all had sunroofs. The 90-93 cars had no sunroof in the rs version, as well as the roll up windows, but that gen had a cable actuated clutch as well.

Andrew

Ah... for the record, i'm not talking about just dumping a B16a head on an assembled stock B18B block, though i have seen those go personally for well over 60k miles, and take 125 shots of nitrous with no ill effects.

If you want to make power on the cheap, and i've said this before, maybe even in this thread, you need the following, and all can be had for cheap:

B18B block
LS crank
GSR Rods
CTR 12.5:1 pistons
B16 head
CTR springs and retainers
ITR cams
Golden Eagle LS-V kit

This setup is good for a nice chunk over 200whp, and the revving characteristics of it are flat out INSANE. I have a buddy here locally that had this setup on his last EK coupe, and it was stupidly fast, lasted for 50k miles before he was rear ended, and it also survived a few bottles of a 75 shot. When it was torn down, it still looked new. The motor was revving to 9200rpms with no issues whatsoever, and it felt like it would have kept going with no problems.

The oiling issues are solved quite nicely with the Golden Eagle kit.

I'm familiar with all this... i started out in Hondas before i got sick of everyone else doing the same things, nothing fresh, and went to Toyotas, and more recently, Mazdas.

I've seen some weird stuff. I will stand behind a properly assembled LS Vtec. I will NOT stand behind a B20vtec of any kind.

But good point, the B18B is no MX6 motor. Got one more cam, 4 more valves, and probably 2 more compression points.

93celicaGT2
93celicaGT2 SuperDork
1/17/10 8:58 a.m.
gamby wrote: The old trick to solve the rod ratio problem was to swap in the crank from a B17A (from the DA GS-R). Good luck finding one of those these days--'tis a holy grail. Even then, they always seemed to have a penchant for self-destruction. The knee-jerk answer was always "well, you just need to build it right". That rarely seems to happen.

Screw just the crank, i want the whole damn motor. The B17 is one of Honda's not so well known gems. I would give my left testicle for a clean DA GSR. We used to mess around with one that was stock save for a chipped ECU, and the thing was WAY fast, even with 212k miles on it.

Vigo
Vigo Reader
1/17/10 12:52 p.m.

I get the impression in this thread that many people can read webpages better than they read cars. I have NO honda experience, and i can make my mother's integra go around the track JUST AS FAST as a real ITR for less than the price difference, and at that point whatever qualms are still to be had are to be defined as 'fanboi syndrome', wanting the better trim level because its rarer, you think its cooler, its give you more to talk/brag about, or makes you more popular with other fanbois. To me, paying 13 grand more to get the real thing is just paying 13 grand more to get 5grand more performance and to get your car stolen, possibly 3 times.

I mean, i like integras.. a LOT. But i will never pay large sums of money for something where the price is 50% higher than the nuts and bolts can justify, just because its popular. This is the same reason i WOULD have considered buying a TT Supra BEFORE fast and furious 1 (back when they were priced according to what they were worth), and will not now.

When my mom was thinking about buying hers, i said: I think its one of the best car designs of the 90s.. anything between 3 and 4k will be a smoking deal (01 ls 5spd, 64k no known issues). She ended paying 5, which i was ambivalent about, and having driven the car (and other integras), i still think based on what it does, its worth 3-4k of real money, i.e. NOT considering the popularity tax.

1 2 3
Our Preferred Partners
MKclUdmJeI4fI7C35ILJso41GauATNhWFCz8mz8kGoXaFacOTbGYUqNVS4wNofiw