Honda D Series Forum banner
21 - 32 of 32 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
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.
Interesting. Do you have any pictures of the differences in material thickness or seam welding? If so I would love to see that.

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.
My problem here is you keep mixing up different things. You keep talking about bolt ons like they are the unibody, you have compared 89Hf to 89Si like they are not VERY different. All the 88 cars were significantly lighter, and the only 89 cars to use the lighter body style were the HF, which you obviously know and are using to skew the comparison. Why wouldn't you compare an 88 Hf to an 88 Si? Or a 90-91 HF to a 90-91 Si? Or better yet an Hf to a DX since neither of those have the sunroof body of the Si that was obviously a different shell?

I am not saying you are wrong, as honestly I have never seen any proof of what you are saying one way or another, but your comparisons and arguments are highly disingenuous.
 

· Formerly weebeastie
Joined
·
2,076 Posts
I am not saying you are wrong, as honestly I have never seen any proof of what you are saying one way or another, but your comparisons and arguments are highly disingenuous.

Ahh, I see the problem now. You thought I was trying to argue? I'm not. Not at all. Because there's no argument to be had. Discussion? Sure. Argument? nope, I don't have time for that. The 88 CRX had many differences and issues. (Including ovalling the cylinders in the d16a6 Si cars, and those bastardized rear lower control arms that are 88 only, to name a few).


There just must be some miscommunication here and you're not understanding what I'm saying, so I'll try again. I literally run a shop that builds/repairs/restores these cars. Not as a side hustle, or so I can pretend to be an interwebs genius as you have postulated. The 88-89 cars were lighter, and for the 90 and 91 model years Honda was forced to build the CRX out of heavier sheet metal and were forced to add more seam welds and seam sealer in order to pass US car manufacturing standards. Those changes were mandated because the 88 and 89 HF cars were deemed to be unsafe and under built for a front end collision.

The 88/89 HF and Si shells with no doors, no dash parts, completely bare, are different. There is still weight disparity. Long ago, I remember reading an article where someone stripped both an 88 HF and 88 SI completely down, weighed both hulls, and the HF was still significantly lighter. Again we're talking about an article from 15-20 years ago. The information that I've stated not only comes from the knowledge I've gained over the past few decades and the other nice gentleman with 30+ years experience who chimed in. It comes from my local Honda parts GM who was at Honda in '90, and the 40 year Honda tech that was there in '88 when they came out. He and I have discussed the differences in the HF and Si chassis's many times. There was even speculation for a while that Honda used an acid dip to lighten the HF shells, but that was debunked and has been proven that they simply used lighter weight/gauge metal to build the 88 and 89 HF cars. The reason it was even discussed was because 88 and 89 HF cars did not fair as well in wrecks as the SI cars did. Those who had seen US manufacturers acid dip cars in the 60's for weight savings thought that Honda must have done the same thing but that was not the case.


Also, if you don't think that door bars and bumper reinforcements have any effect on chassis flex, then you don't understand how unibody cars work. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say there.


Back to the original subject. Use whatever the heck rear sway bar you want to use. The 90-93 Integra bar is a direct bolt on to a CRX and is not too stiff on an HF car. The ST bar can feel a bit stiff on an HF street car. I would suggest using the Honed suspension geometry fixes if you plan to run a stiff rear bar.
 

· Formerly weebeastie
Joined
·
2,076 Posts
Or maybe you just didn't like me grouping similar cars together in the same group..........I don't even know at this point. I'm not going to differentiate between an 88 and 89 HF car because of 15 or so pounds of weight difference and rear lower control arms. The near 200 lb difference between 88/89 and 90/91 HF cars is worth noting. And by the way, the wikipedia weights are wrong. Most 88/89 cars I've weighed are still lighter weight than advertised.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 · (Edited)
Ahh, I see the problem now. You thought I was trying to argue? I'm not. Not at all. Because there's no argument to be had. Discussion? Sure. Argument? nope, I don't have time for that. The 88 CRX had many differences and issues. (Including ovalling the cylinders in the d16a6 Si cars, and those bastardized rear lower control arms that are 88 only, to name a few).


There just must be some miscommunication here and you're not understanding what I'm saying, so I'll try again. I literally run a shop that builds/repairs/restores these cars. Not as a side hustle, or so I can pretend to be an interwebs genius as you have postulated. The 88-89 cars were lighter, and for the 90 and 91 model years Honda was forced to build the CRX out of heavier sheet metal and were forced to add more seam welds and seam sealer in order to pass US car manufacturing standards. Those changes were mandated because the 88 and 89 HF cars were deemed to be unsafe and under built for a front end collision.
For someone who does these cars professionally you seem confused. You do realize all the 89 cars except the HF are the revised and heavier USA specific bodies, right?

The 88/89 HF and Si shells with no doors, no dash parts, completely bare, are different. There is still weight disparity. Long ago, I remember reading an article where someone stripped both an 88 HF and 88 SI completely down, weighed both hulls, and the HF was still significantly lighter. Again we're talking about an article from 15-20 years ago. The information that I've stated not only comes from the knowledge I've gained over the past few decades and the other nice gentleman with 30+ years experience who chimed in. It comes from my local Honda parts GM who was at Honda in '90, and the 40 year Honda tech that was there in '88 when they came out. He and I have discussed the differences in the HF and Si chassis's many times. There was even speculation for a while that Honda used an acid dip to lighten the HF shells, but that was debunked and has been proven that they simply used lighter weight/gauge metal to build the 88 and 89 HF cars. The reason it was even discussed was because 88 and 89 HF cars did not fair as well in wrecks as the SI cars did. Those who had seen US manufacturers acid dip cars in the 60's for weight savings thought that Honda must have done the same thing but that was not the case.
Again the 88 and 89 bodies are different on all but the HF. The HF and Si shells are obviously different. I would be more interested to know what differences there were between the unibodies shells on the two non sunroof models the 88/89 HF and the 88 Base/DX as I was under the impression those bodies were the same, although I have never done any close comparisons between them.

Also, if you don't think that door bars and bumper reinforcements have any effect on chassis flex, then you don't understand how unibody cars work. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say there.
I never claimed they didn't.
 

· Formerly weebeastie
Joined
·
2,076 Posts
For someone who does these cars professionally you seem confused.

After reading through some of your other threads, trying to gain an understanding of who you are and why you would act like this, I think I now understand. You've been not listening to others tell you there was a difference in the unibodies/shells of the 90 Si you formerly owned and this 89 HF. And that's ok. I'm not confused about anything that I said in the posts above that I know of, I just think you're choosing not to listen. So if you think I'm confused, I'd love for you to tell me what I'm confused about since you know and I don't.


Also, you asked a question. People put out answers, you don't agree with those answers without any data or, it would seem, experience to back your thoughts, but instead you use big words to insult someone else who does have experience.

So, yeah......
 
  • Like
Reactions: slo_eg8

· Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 · (Edited)
After reading through some of your other threads, trying to gain an understanding of who you are and why you would act like this, I think I now understand. You've been not listening to others tell you there was a difference in the unibodies/shells of the 90 Si you formerly owned and this 89 HF. And that's ok. I'm not confused about anything that I said in the posts above that I know of, I just think you're choosing not to listen. So if you think I'm confused, I'd love for you to tell me what I'm confused about since you know and I don't.

Also, you asked a question. People put out answers, you don't agree with those answers without any data or, it would seem, experience to back your thoughts, but instead you use big words to insult someone else who does have experience.

So, yeah......
So you do understand the unibody change happened in 89 for all the bodies except the HF then? Or you dont? Because either you dont understand that or your way of phrasing things is incredibly confusing and misleading.

Also, not sure what you read but I have never owned a 90 Si, so if I wrote that somewhere I apologize for my mistake. My first CRX was a thrashed stock 88 Base/Dx, then I got an LS swapped 88Si with a ton of problems, that was my last Si because I have a long torso and I couldnt stand the sunroof. After that was an 88 Base/Dx I did a B16 swap into, a... hell I dont remember if it was an 88Dx, 88Hf or 89Hf, it was a fully stripped fiberglass front end track toy, an 86 Si, another 89Hf, a totaled 88 for parts, dont remember if it was a DX or HF, a 90 either Dx or Hf, it was my only car with the door mounted seatbelts, another very stripped 88 or 89Hf and my current relatively complete 89 Hf.

So mostly I have had either 88Hfs or 89Hfs, a couple 88 Base/DX cars, the 88Si and the one 90 with the door mounted seatbelts, never noticed much of a difference in body rigidity personally, but not saying there isnt some minor difference.

I put in the 22mm ST sway bar today on the medium setting, it makes a nice difference but I will probably change it to the firmest setting and try that.

The ST rear bar was too much for my 89 HF. Felt like it was going to shake itself apart back there
I assume something must be wrong with your car or bar install, mine has literally no extra noise or shaking from the back of any kind. I wouldnt have known anything changed at all except it was flatter in corners and more neutral turning, and I dont have any interior in the back to mask anything.
 

· Formerly weebeastie
Joined
·
2,076 Posts
Water Primate Organism Travel Japanese macaque


I do suppose I should have interjected that everything in my car besides lower control arms has spherical bearings, and that I am running Progress CS2's with 550 springs on them. And with all of that the ST bar that I put on my car was a bit much at track speed, with the car rotated fully.



Conversations like this are what killed the forums. Go back to Facebook. I apologize for adding the bit of knowledge that I tried to add to your conversation, since we have the same year and submodel car and sway bar. I did negate to ask what else was done to your car. I duly apologize for that....
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
Lol, you are a funny dude.

Best of luck to your car learning journey and beginning to learn how to read and communicate. 👍

I'm out, thanks for the recommendation Bone.
 

· Brokedick Millionaire
Joined
·
56,944 Posts
@JoelEspinoza you can run split settings on the bar like 2-3 before going 3-3.

Also before going full stiff on the bar, check the Throttle off oversteer first. Thankfully I had a Quafie.
 
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
Top