86 Rear Camber

[honda41]

I am getting ready to do my annual winter teardown of the civic and have a quick question. With the solid beam rear axel of the 84-87 civics’, How do you get any rear camber? I have been told shims can be placed on the spindles at the end of the axel to give a little be of camber. Is this worth it? Does anyone see any benefit?

Also, what are your thoughts on my front settings? 2.5 degrees camber, 1/8 toe in with Hoosier. Any feedback would be great.

From the previous post about the hot itc ride. My 86 is quick, but does not like tight corners and likes to understeer. I have driven my friends 89 itc and it handles much better than my car. A lot less effort to go fast. No trail braking to get the tail around...just point and shoot.

[racer-025]

Well, you can't compare the handling of the 84-87 CRX that has front Torsion bars and a rear solid axle with the 88-91 CRX that has coil over independent double wish bone suspension. I've raced them both for many years. In order to determine your understeering problem, what spring weights, torsion bars, shocks and sway bars are you using?

I did have -2.5 to -2.8 in the rear of the old car and that worked well. You can get it by using proper alignment shims. These shims can also be rotated that will allow toe out.

[honda41]

Thanks. I guess that the proper alignment shims can be purchased at the dealer? Where do the shims go?


As for my setup..I am running the 27mm bars and 500lbs springs in the rear. Still trying to find the proper setup. Illuminas at full soft front and hard in rear????

[racer-025]

No, the dealer wont have these type of shims. Thats because -2.5+ is way beyond the factory specs. You need to go to a decent alignment shop. If you can find one that has race cars as customers - thats even better. They won't have a single shim that can give you that much neg camber. It is usually combined by using at leat 2 shims per side with one of them rotated to give the proper toe. Some guys have used washers as shims - but I don't recommend that. They fit between the backing plate (hub) that has 4 bolts. Your spring weight is a little soft. Try #600 in the rear.

Torsion bar seems OK. You can lower the front by loosening the torsion bar bolt. We found that we could not get the front low enough, so we reposition the torsion bars by rotating them in the front. Dont use the factory alignment in the front. You have to drive them in with a hammer making a "new" alignment key, thus keeping the same spring weight, but allowing more adjustment on the bolt that will now allow the front end to be lowered to a more disireable position. What sway bar setting are you using in the front & rear?

[uscrew96]

I would set a little toe out 1/16 help with turn in.

------------------
Mike Machi crew chief USGUYS RACING

[SMSP]

yeh, get away from the 1/8" toe in

[Greg Gauper]

You shouldn't need much camber in the rear due to the beam axle, since the axle stays planted as the car leans. Leave it alone for now.

Up front -2.0 to -2.5 degrees camber should work ok but will vary with different brands of tires.

If you are running a rear sway bar, try 600# for rear springs. If you don't have a rear bar, you may have to go higher yet.

Regarding a front bar, my suggestion would be to disconnect the front bar. You get a lot more front end bite without making the car too terribly tail happy. If you feel you must run a front bar, use a stock bar from a Civic instead of a CRX since it is thinner. But you can easily disconnect the front bar by removing one link (10mm wrench) in less than 30 seconds from either side. So if you want to experiment in a practice session, go out for half a session with the bar connected, pit, have your crew whip off the link and go back out for the rest of the session. I suspect once you try it, you'll never run a front bar again.

Regarding front toe, don't go more than 1/16th toe out up front. If you have a track with long straights (like Road America) consider runing zero toe for less rolling resistance. The ITC cars need all the help they can get.

[This message has been edited by Greg Gauper (edited February 14, 2004).]