I have one of the slotted inner upper control arm pivot Ingalls camber kits on my E Production CRX but as everyone knows it has yet to turn a wheel under its own power. I have been concerned about whether or not the sliding bolt will be able to withstand the sideloading of the 9.50 inch road racing slicks in cornering but the only way to know is to try. The lower control arm is going to bear more sideways load than the upper so hopefully it will be okay. I have researched and seen the replacement upper control arms with the rotating upper ball joints but I have never seen them for the CRX, only later Civics and Integras.
The problem on the CRX with elongating the upper control arm to reduce negative camber is that the upper frame rail can come in contact with the end of the upper arm with very little elongation. The Ingalls kit that I have allows the greatest amount of camber return (about 3 degrees) and I had to take a sledge hammer and roll flat the welded seam lip of the frame rail to just barely squeek enough clearance for the upper control arm to pass through. Okay on the race car but not my choice for a nice street car. Once the car runs we'll see if it remains clear and if the adjuster can stay in place. I don't think shortening the lower control arm much would do much good because the track (wheel centerline to wheel centerline) of the car would be narrower inducing more roll tendency and also the drive axles would need to be shorter. It is okay to stretch the CVs out just a little bit I would be really concerned about compressing them too much. I think the best answer is to do what Ryane Motorsports did a few years ago and fabricate new hubs uprights that left the ball joint to ball joint height basically the same so geometry and camber curves would not be effected but instead moved the placement of the wheel bearing and axle higher than stock functionally lowering the car without screwing up the geometry. They also made a tubular rear trailing arm that lowered the car with its proper geometry as well. I was and still am very interested in these parts but never had the money to follow up. Unfortunately I heard that the Ryane company broke apart and at least part of it was sold off. I don't know what became of the the Honda parts side of the business. I have on several occaisions looked into having the stock uprights changed or shortened to reduce height but the way the arm curves inboard, lowering the ball joint in the arc in some ways would help but the upper control arm would have to get so short that the camber change would be really bad. There is a drag race group out of Southern Cal (RPM?) that has a shortened upper height hub upright but what I saw would not apply to anything that turned corners or went through much of any suspension stroke. Other than the pricey Ryane system that may no longer be available, I haven't found a really good answer yet so the best answer is not to lower the car too much that your camber gets too out of hand or if you must have the negative camber, be ready to feed it a steady diet of tires. Less lowering will also help reduce the power loss from too large CV angles, etc. Our cars don't have very much suspension stroke to begin with so much lowering will quickly diminish what we do have leaving us with a car that really doesn't handle that well. I like my cars at about 1.5 to 1.75 inches of lowering and I have never had a need to use camber compensators on the street. However my own combination of springs, driving style and regular tire inspection and rotation tend to give me slightly advanced inner edge wear compared to the outer edge but nothing that I can't deal with. You just have to decide what you want (low look, good, ride, great handling) and what you'll trade for it (big money, fender gap, handling and ride, periodic part damage, lost power, etc.). My old Omni GLH Turbo ran stock springs and 2.25 degrees negative camber and my street wear was dead perfect down beyond the point where ther was no sign of any tread paterns on any part of the tire but I worked at a tire store and could rotate, align or install new tires on about 5 minutes of notice. The springs weren't too stiff so the car had a bit of roll and I tended to corner very hard with lots of grip so the car rolled over and used the outer edge of the tire. That was back when I fancied myself as a future rally driver and my partner and I would go out and drive 150-200 miles per night several nights per week in the rolling roads of rural Kentucky. A car with the same tires and camber but stiffer springs, more roll stiffness, and not as really hard cornering or less attention to maintainance would burn the inner edges off the tires in a very short time. You just need to find a good balance for yourself. Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Humphreys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 2:27 PM Subject: RE: CRX: Camber kit question (long) Ken, there is one other design that I have seen that you remove the factory upper "A" arm to replace it with one that adjusts the location of the upper ball joint: moving the upper ball joint in/out is what adjusts the camber, the only problem I had besides from the kit allowing the camber to get "bumped" out of place is that taking out the negative camber involves essentially elongating the upper control arm which 1) changes the suspension geometry more than you would imagine, and 2)once the arm is pushed out it can, and will hit the shock towers. there are "fingernail" shaped dents in the shock towers on my GSR where just that has happened. Also, I have heard some stories of enthusiasts having the upper A arm get stuck in the shock tower if they hit either a big dip, or bump. IMOP, the ideal kit would actually shorten the lower control arm, to bring the tire more "under" the car, to reduce fender rubbing, the A arm hitting the shock tower, and it will allow for slightly more positive offset wheels, and tires..Either that, or a steering knuckle that has a longer (I don't know what the "vertical bar is called that meets the upper A arm is called??) that would push out the top of the tire, and reduce negative camber, but at the cost of possibly affecting the castor (if it's weak), and moving the upper A arm back higher. As you can see, I have put a lot of thought into the matter, and when I do upgrade to stiffer springs, and shocks in my CRX, I will be very meticulous in selecting the ride height, to try and avoid the possible problems that I had mentioned above. I believe that a 1.25-1.5" drop would be more than suffeciant for the look, and I intend on selecting my spring rates for autocross, and road course usage (primarily autocross, where one wants ample suspension travel) I intend on using sway bars to give my CRX the handling tendencies that suit my driving style the best, along with some high quality adjustable shocks, and urethane bushings. I hope this has been educational, and if anyone has any disagreements, let's discuss this very critical issue. -M _________________________________________________________________ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
