Honda D Series Forum banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have an 89 CRX HF with the stock front swaybar, it sits at about stock ride height with fairly soft springs, maybe twice as firm as what came from the factory, and Koni Orange shocks. Eventually this will have a B18C1 and it has rear disks out of a 90-91 CRX Si. This is going to stay a street car, and stay about stock height.

I am looking for a rear swaybar recommendation, I dont want want snap oversteer or the back end stepping out constantly on accident, but I do want something fairly aggressive without crossing over into dangerous on the street. Right now I am looking at these because I like the idea of the bracing, but not sure if it is worth the added cost:

The Progress 88-91 CIVIC/CRX, REAR SWAY BAR, BRACE & END LINK SYSTEM for $386.75: https://www.progressauto.com/product...nd-link-system

The ASR 24MM SWAYBAR & REINFORCEMENT KIT - 88-00 CIVIC/CRX / 90-01 INTEGRA for $450.99: https://jhpusa.com/products/asr-24mm...nt=40056509460

Anyone have any personal experience with these or another recommendation? Is the 24mm ASR bar worth the extra $64 over the 22mm Progress? This is an HF body so I don't think I have the stock rear swaybar mounts.

Also any opinion on the ebay front traction bars? I wouldnt normally consider it but some of them look pretty decent, and it is not like they are a complex device. Although I would expect the Heim joints probably would need to be replaced with something better:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/32471163545...Bk9SR6yCo8y1YQ

Lol, looks like the KTuned knock offs are even cheaper:

 

· Brokedick Millionaire
Joined
·
56,944 Posts
ST rear bar for the street, save the ASR bar for race cars.....ASR also makes a tubular setup that came on the car, I think the .095 bar is installed and the .120 is in the box. Front traction bars won't do you any good if the bushings are decent.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,091 Posts
Honestly, any stock civic or integra swaybars are perfectly fine. 99-00 SI rear would be great, and will only need a little bit of fabbing for the D brackets
 

· Formerly weebeastie
Joined
·
2,075 Posts
The Integra rear sway bar works well. 90-93 I believe. Brackets usually work too. Might have to swap them side to side though. I have an ST as well, its currently not on my 89 HF, but works well. Just make sure the bar is on before you put exhaust on the car lol. (Reasons mine is off, need to mod exhaust so they don't touch)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
ST rear bar for the street, save the ASR bar for race cars.....ASR also makes a tubular setup that came on the car, I think the .095 bar is installed and the .120 is in the box. Front traction bars won't do you any good if the bushings are decent.
So you dont see a benefit in bracing the two LCA frame mounts together and tying into the spare tire well at the bottom of the trunk?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,091 Posts
If you have the time and parts, bracing the rear never hurts. Especially with how old these cars are now, and how much the sealant on the unibody is worn out from flexing from suspension movement, heating and cooling, etc...

Does the hatch make any noise around corners at higher speeds? If it does, and the latch is confirmed to be in okay condition, the rear of the car is flexing more than normal.

And since the swaybar is going to try to keep the sides flat, that flex is just gonna find something else that is soft enough to move.
 

· Brokedick Millionaire
Joined
·
56,944 Posts
It will end up ripping Honda Spot welds, esp in the lightweight chassis, like 88-89 HF's.

When the front windshield starts flexing and about to pop out just pulling into a driveway, you might have chassis welds failing.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
It will end up ripping Honda Spot welds, esp in the lightweight chassis, like 88-89 HF's.

When the front windshield starts flexing and about to pop out just pulling into a driveway, you might have chassis welds failing.
Lol, I still think your experience with what felt like a super flexy firewall on an 88-89 HF was a problem with the top support bolt in the pedal assembly. Did I ever tell you my current 89 HF felt exactly like that when I got it? Felt like I was trying to use a brake mounted to a beer can that was folding up under my foot, turned out it was just missing that top bolt for the pedal assembly. Put a new one in and completely fixed the issue.

Still, I appreciate your expertise with these cars, so I ordered up the last one of these Summit Racing had in stock this morning: https://www.summitracing.com/parts/stq-51140/make/honda/model/crx

Thanks everyone!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,091 Posts
It will end up ripping Honda Spot welds, esp in the lightweight chassis, like 88-89 HF's.

When the front windshield starts flexing and about to pop out just pulling into a driveway, you might have chassis welds failing.
Wouldnt that be exactly why a thoughtfully executed chassis brace would help?

Or are you saying it would put too much stress on unbraced components?

Honestly, maybe this means that a unibody seam-weld adventure is in order. Not straight up solid welding, but enough spot welds to keep things happy?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Wouldnt that be exactly why a thoughtfully executed chassis brace would help?

Or are you saying it would put too much stress on unbraced components?

Honestly, maybe this means that a unibody seam-weld adventure is in order. Not straight up solid welding, but enough spot welds to keep things happy?
I could be wrong but I think the idea is the Progress and the ASR bars are primarily using the LCA chassis bolt holes for support, and there is already a lot going on there. So yea, they are connecting togose bolts together and bracing against the spare wheel well some, but the force is primarily acting against two already very stressed contact points.

The ST piece adds entirely new mounts to the unibody well outside any suspension points, those spots aren't currently stressed and even if they got seriously messed up or tweaked, it would be little more than a minor inconvenience.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
The ST rear bar was too much for my 89 HF. Felt like it was going to shake itself apart back there
Interesting. What setting did you have it on? And what else did you having going on for rear suspension?
 

· Formerly weebeastie
Joined
·
2,075 Posts
My adjusters/end links were mostly locked up, so mine was in the middle set of holes I think. Basically the ones that would line up.

Car has PCI spherical Rear Trailing Arm bushings, spherical toe lines, updated camber adjusters, updated lower control arms, and at that point it had cheaper coilovers on it. Now has Progress CS2's. I suppose I could try it now again with the better shocks, but it rattled a lot with the sway bar on there. But again, it is an 89 Hf. Super light weight, less welding, no sound deadener, no real stiffness to the chassis.
 

· Brokedick Millionaire
Joined
·
56,944 Posts
bar was set for full stiff, was using H&R race springs (440/340) on Koni yellows. Rear springs were too stiff for the street. Original HF booster had all the bolts, but I think the booster was bad, so no assist.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
But again, it is an 89 Hf. Super light weight, less welding, no sound deadener, no real stiffness to the chassis.
Wait.. what? What makes you think the HF chassis had less welding and less stiffness? Or was any different in any way from all the 88 USA bodies or the 88-91 bodies in the rest of the world besides the lack of a sunroof and which side was the drive side?

bar was set for full stiff, was using H&R race springs (440/340) on Koni yellows. Rear springs were too stiff for the street. Original HF booster had all the bolts, but I think the booster was bad, so no assist.
I meant the top brace bolt on the pedal assembly, not the brake booster, although having a bad brake booster is the worst of all world's, it adds a LOT of effort and slop compared to having no booster at all with the same master cylinder.
 

· Brokedick Millionaire
Joined
·
56,944 Posts
89 HF chassis was a carryover from JDM land and used the thinner 88 sheetmetal until the 89's came in from Canada. Things were updated for crash standards.

EG's were the same way, thinned sheet metal on the JDM's, easy to tell when you shut the hood or door or tap on the roof, they sound tinny and hollow.
 

· Formerly weebeastie
Joined
·
2,075 Posts
89 HF chassis was a carryover from JDM land and used the thinner 88 sheetmetal until the 89's came in from Canada. Things were updated for crash standards.

EG's were the same way, thinned sheet metal on the JDM's, easy to tell when you shut the hood or door or tap on the roof, they sound tinny and hollow.

This man speaks the truth. Where do you think the weight differential comes from?

89 Si: 2,048 lbs
89 HF: 1,834 lbs
 
  • Like
Reactions: slo_eg8

· Formerly weebeastie
Joined
·
2,075 Posts
This man speaks the truth. Where do you think the weight differential comes from?

89 Si: 2,048 lbs
89 HF: 1,834 lbs

Less seam welds, no door bars, no real front bumper crash bar just like its JDM counter parts, the rear bumper support is basically useless in a crash as well.

Having owned both Si and HF cars, there is definitely a difference in how the cars feel in stock form. It doesn't take much to make an HF "feel" better, but there is definitely a difference. Always feel like I'm rolling in a tin can in the HF, especially with the cargo covers out of it.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
89 HF chassis was a carryover from JDM land and used the thinner 88 sheetmetal until the 89's came in from Canada. Things were updated for crash standards.

EG's were the same way, thinned sheet metal on the JDM's, easy to tell when you shut the hood or door or tap on the roof, they sound tinny and hollow.
Unless I am mistaken that was just for the US, pretty sure the rest of the world kept the 88 style body and the more exciting rear LCA through the whole 88-91 run.

This man speaks the truth. Where do you think the weight differential comes from?

89 Si: 2,048 lbs
89 HF: 1,834 lbs
Well that just isn't a valid comparison at all and not accurate from what I am seeing, what I am seeing is:

88 CRX Si manual: 2017lbs
89 CRX Si manual: 2138lbs

Since I am pretty sure Honda slapped together the newer body and LCAs just for the USA to meet regulations and quell complaints from Americans, I always assumed they just didn't bother trying to put in the same engineering effort to lighten it, which is why our CRXs got so much heavier. Is there any actual evidence that the older body style is less rigid?

Less seam welds
What evidence is there the 88 bodies had less seam welding?

no door bars, no real front bumper crash bar just like its JDM counter parts, the rear bumper support is basically useless in a crash as well.
Those are safety measures, I am asking about the unibody rigidity.

Having owned both Si and HF cars, there is definitely a difference in how the cars feel in stock form. It doesn't take much to make an HF "feel" better, but there is definitely a difference. Always feel like I'm rolling in a tin can in the HF, especially with the cargo covers out of it.
That is just a tactile thing, which has nothing to do with rigidity and strength. The Si had more sound deadening and insulation.
 

· Formerly weebeastie
Joined
·
2,075 Posts
Unless I am mistaken that was just for the US, pretty sure the rest of the world kept the 88 style body and the more exciting rear LCA through the whole 88-91 run.



Well that just isn't a valid comparison at all and not accurate from what I am seeing, what I am seeing is:

88 CRX Si manual: 2017lbs
89 CRX Si manual: 2138lbs

Since I am pretty sure Honda slapped together the newer body and LCAs just for the USA to meet regulations and quell complaints from Americans, I always assumed they just didn't bother trying to put in the same engineering effort to lighten it, which is why our CRXs got so much heavier. Is there any actual evidence that the older body style is less rigid?



What evidence is there the 88 bodies had less seam welding?



Those are safety measures, I am asking about the unibody rigidity.



That is just a tactile thing, which has nothing to do with rigidity and strength. The Si had more sound deadening and insulation.
From the sound of it, you've already decided in your mind that the HF isn't lighter or whatever it is you have decided, its not super clear, so I'm not sure you will believe anything I have to say at this point, but here goes.

20+ years of working on these cars, taking them apart, cutting them apart, seeing them wrecked, putting them back together. Both race cars and plain stock style street cars. Seam welding too many of them to count. Researching. Seeing what others have done. The measured weight of their cars, (not the wikipedia weight that you quoted but actual weight), material removed, and comparing that to a stock HF car. That's where I got my info from. Tons of research and my own experience. The HF is a much lighter car, specifically the 88-89 variety. Most are in the 1800 lb range or less When seam welding a chassis, it's fairly obvious that the HF requires more to equal the Si.

I'm thinking that you are assuming all CRX's went down the same assembly line and some were dubbed HF and others were dubbed Si, and then received the appropriate add ons, much like an American assembly line works, but that wasn't the case exactly for the CRX. The HF is a different animal. Different and smaller dash bracing in 88-89, the list goes on and on, and literally almost everything is different (brake booster, front brakes, struts, etc.). Including the actual thickness of the metal in the shell itself.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top