itsacivicthing
New Member
looking to lower my 94 ex. i know i wanna go with coilovers but i have no idea what kind i should get and what else do i need to get to lower it the right way. looking to get around a 2 inch drop
lowering help!
- Thread starter itsacivicthing
- Start date
There's loads of different kinds of coilovers
I know skunk 2 is awesome and so is tein
But I'd say look around in the threads at the different ones and find the ones you like the most and sounds like the best for you
---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.877299,-99.509516
I know skunk 2 is awesome and so is tein
But I'd say look around in the threads at the different ones and find the ones you like the most and sounds like the best for you
---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.877299,-99.509516
I would stay far away from Skunk2. Some people don't like to recommend Function and Form but I know friends with them and haven't had issues for years. Type I's are very affordable and are pretty stiff as far as I understand.
Or you can spend more for a Koni / Ground Control setup which is really popular.
Or you can spend more for a Koni / Ground Control setup which is really popular.
itsacivicthing
New Member
so could i just get some coilovers or do i need to get struts, shocks and control arms?
Our cars don't have struts, we have shocks. A strut serves a different purpose. A lot of people use the words interchangeably though it's not technically correct.
If you didn't get coilovers, you would need to get springs and shocks. You don't need rear lower control arms but it usually makes the job a hell of a lot easier because those bolts are known to seize and snap.
If you didn't get coilovers, you would need to get springs and shocks. You don't need rear lower control arms but it usually makes the job a hell of a lot easier because those bolts are known to seize and snap.
itsacivicthing
New Member
So get coilovers,shocks and control arm if I wanna do iteight and not have to take it apart again? Know any good companies?
Blackworks LCA's are on sale in the CC store for $85 shipped, I got those & love them, the Koni Ground Control setup would work great for you IMO but also look at FnF type 1's, compare to see which setup is right for you, I just got the Tokico whites with 1.5 springs & so far loving the feel of the ride, glwb!
itsacivicthing
New Member
Alright thanks. Have you heard of becks control arms?
Read this and come back with questions if you still have them
http://www.clubcivic.com/board/showthread.php?t=206087
http://www.clubcivic.com/board/showthread.php?t=206087
I'd say sure, go ahead and do that only IF you want a crap ride and want to spend more money than is necessary. Putting even OTS Ground-Control coilovers on stock shocks will not be good. He'll spend a lot more money in the long run replacing the stock shocks that blew out, spending the time topull apart the suspension AGAIN and replace them (time=money), or if he can't do them himself paying money to shop to replace them, and then lastly getting ANOTHER alignment since you should get an alignment after suspension work like that.
Even if it is just for looks, if the car is driven on the street, the suspension is being used and abused. Buy a good, solid, reputable suspension setup the first time. It'll last you longer, fit your needs better and save you more money in the long run.
That doesn't mean they don't need replacing and there are many factors to take into consideration such as spring rates, the type of suspension (double wishbone or macpherson), how low you drop the car, mileage put on car, roads driven on, build purpose (ie: racing), etc... It also depends on how many miles are already on the shocks your putting those stiff coilovers on. Which, for his car, every name brand aftermarket sleeve coilover setup I've seen would mean his stock shocks would be waaay under-dampened. For crying out loud the rear spring rates are like 80lbs/in. Put 3, 4 or 5 times the spring rate of that on the rear shock and tell me it's still fine. Which Ground-Controls rear OTS rate for his car is over 3 times that of the OE spring rate. Yeah, OE shock is definitely not meant to handle that..
Just like a motor, there are tolerances for suspension parts. Throw too much boost on a stock motor, you blow it. Get the right parts for your motor and run that same boost level, you'll be good to go..
Just like a motor, there are tolerances for suspension parts. Throw too much boost on a stock motor, you blow it. Get the right parts for your motor and run that same boost level, you'll be good to go..
lethal6
Your Mom's Moderator
Staff member
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
Wait, what? Did someone say that civics don't have struts? Sure they do.
A strut is basically a specific style of a shock absorber. In a way, yes you are correct in that it is a shock, but the correct terminology for our cars is "strut". A strut is a shock absorber with a coil spring mounted on it and a "shock" is mounted by itself and is separate from the spring. In a double wishbone set up like we have and the spring is mounted on a perch, it becomes a strut.
This is debated a LOT. One of the great arguments is that honda calls it a shock absorber unit. Going off what a parts catalog calls something is about as good as trusting Wiki for complete "truth". As a parts advisor I run by this daily. Porsche is terrible for calling stuff something that is no where near the correct terminology used in the States. I would bet Honda being in a different country, the wording of something can get lost in translation.
Also I have been running Skunk2 for over 4 years with NO problems. Now that doesn't mean that others have the same luck, I just want to throw that out there to show that there are good examples.
A strut is basically a specific style of a shock absorber. In a way, yes you are correct in that it is a shock, but the correct terminology for our cars is "strut". A strut is a shock absorber with a coil spring mounted on it and a "shock" is mounted by itself and is separate from the spring. In a double wishbone set up like we have and the spring is mounted on a perch, it becomes a strut.
This is debated a LOT. One of the great arguments is that honda calls it a shock absorber unit. Going off what a parts catalog calls something is about as good as trusting Wiki for complete "truth". As a parts advisor I run by this daily. Porsche is terrible for calling stuff something that is no where near the correct terminology used in the States. I would bet Honda being in a different country, the wording of something can get lost in translation.
Also I have been running Skunk2 for over 4 years with NO problems. Now that doesn't mean that others have the same luck, I just want to throw that out there to show that there are good examples.
Year 2000 Civics and older use shock absorbers, and are simply called so, mainly because of the use of an upper control arm which works to support lateral loads. This is why it's called a double wish bone suspension and not a form of a MacPherson strut. Wether or not the spring is over the shock or the shock and spring are mounted separately doesn't matter. The shock absorber is still a shock absorber. The definition is within it's own name. Struts are designed to be stronger to bear more weight and lateral loads when you remove an UCA which is part of the reason why there is no use of an UCA. But, there is still a shock absorber within the strut. Which is why you can "gut" a strut when it fails or for better performance and insert a new shock cartridge. You still use the same strut body and design but replace the shock absorber within. I suppose this is why there is some confusion with the 2. If you want to think of it differently, think outside of automotive related fields. Struts are used to support some sort of load. They cannot inherently absorb and dissipate any energy.
Still, a shock absorber like that on the older civics is just that, a shock absorber. Yes it has a spring perch attached, but it utilizes a double wish bone suspension design. It is not a strut because it is not designed to bear other loads like a MacPherson strut does. Look at the geometery of say a '95 civic suspension vs a '03 Civic suspension. Lateral loads on the '95 can transfer through the knuckle to the lower control arm and up the knuckle to the UCA. They don't go directly through to the shock/spring. The '03 transfers lateral loads through the knuckle to the lower control arm and directly through the strut body, up the strut and to the top mount. This is why the camber curves on the older civic is much better than on the newer civic. Which in turn is why the older civics handle better than the newer ones (well, just one part of the reason).
Take a shock absorber from an older civic, without the spring attached, and sit it next to a MacPherson strut cartridge(or insert as some people call them) and you'll notice they look nearly identical and function exactly the same way when on their own (like when you put them on a shock dyno to test).
Still, a shock absorber like that on the older civics is just that, a shock absorber. Yes it has a spring perch attached, but it utilizes a double wish bone suspension design. It is not a strut because it is not designed to bear other loads like a MacPherson strut does. Look at the geometery of say a '95 civic suspension vs a '03 Civic suspension. Lateral loads on the '95 can transfer through the knuckle to the lower control arm and up the knuckle to the UCA. They don't go directly through to the shock/spring. The '03 transfers lateral loads through the knuckle to the lower control arm and directly through the strut body, up the strut and to the top mount. This is why the camber curves on the older civic is much better than on the newer civic. Which in turn is why the older civics handle better than the newer ones (well, just one part of the reason).
Take a shock absorber from an older civic, without the spring attached, and sit it next to a MacPherson strut cartridge(or insert as some people call them) and you'll notice they look nearly identical and function exactly the same way when on their own (like when you put them on a shock dyno to test).
lethal6
Your Mom's Moderator
Staff member
Registered VIP
Registered OG
5+ Year Member
10+ Year Member
A strut doesn't have to bear the main load to be a strut, though.
This debate can go on longer than the regular vs. synthetic oil debate. I guess it has to do with how one defines what a strut is or how many types you choose to let into your definition. True you can get outside of automotive thinking, but in this sense I still believe that it is a strut. Not a MacPherson (as it doesn't bear the load like one nor does it turn as the wheel does), but definitely a type of strut.
This debate can go on longer than the regular vs. synthetic oil debate. I guess it has to do with how one defines what a strut is or how many types you choose to let into your definition. True you can get outside of automotive thinking, but in this sense I still believe that it is a strut. Not a MacPherson (as it doesn't bear the load like one nor does it turn as the wheel does), but definitely a type of strut.
bigboy106
New Member
I am looking to lower my car too 
Read this it is very helpful
http://www.clubcivic.com/board/showthread.php?t=206087
Read this it is very helpful
http://www.clubcivic.com/board/showthread.php?t=206087
By definition, a shock is not a strut. They aren't one in the same, though a shock is built within a strut body like on the MacPherson suspension found on the newer Civics. Shock absorbers cannot on their own hold up the weight of a car or take the stress load that a strut can. This is why there is the use of springs or leaf springs.
Like I said, a shock absorber has it's definition in its name . It's one and only purpose is to control movement in the suspension. Without the shock absorber, our cars would be incredibly dangerous. However, a car can drive just fine without a strut. Older double wish bone suspensions are a perfect example.
I think you're getting confused with a strut by it's design. Take a hood strut like the one pictured below for example.
^ This is NOT a shock. It does not absorb any forces and it is not intended to. It is a strut, and it is one because its purpose is to support a load (the hood). It is essentially designed fairly close to that of a shock, and looks like one, but it is still NOT a shock.
Hood strut
Shock absorber
^ They both look the same, but serve different purposes and that is why they have different titles.
so shock absorber is the agreed on term for CC?