Honda Prelude Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
1989 Third Gen stance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,750 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
I prefer not to stance cars. Looks stupid as fuck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,750 Posts
Well it is an easy way to fit in with the crowd and be fashionable... fora short period in time.

It also looks stupid, ruins any car's handling (along with the extra wear & tear on parts), and is as dangerous as fk.

As ideas for cars goes it's one of the worst we've ever seen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,668 Posts
I think it looks pretty cool in photos and when the car is parked (when executed well), and not so much when driving (or when executed poorly).

If tires are stretched even just a little bit more than is required to fit under the fenders, it looks monumentally stupid and make me want to kick puppies. It's missing the point entirely.

I have specific examples in mind but posting them would be tactless.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,294,967,295 Posts
He's just trying to up his post count so he can use the spam section.
I don't think that is it. He has only made 3 post. First one in January. The other is his build thread where he wants people to give him ideas. I looked at it the other day when he created this post. I think he had an attached photo there. Not hosted like your suppose to. I don't remember the particulars if anybody can do that. I think so. Most won't see the pic though as it is membership subscription bonus feature. I always just host mine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,923 Posts
I don't think that is it. He has only made 3 post. First one in January. The other is his build thread where he wants people to give him ideas. I looked at it the other day when he created this post. I think he had an attached photo there. Not hosted like your suppose to. I don't remember the particulars if anybody can do that. I think so. Most won't see the pic though as it is membership subscription bonus feature. I always just host mine.
Ah I stand corrected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,750 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Stance .... fat tires cambered in... very low... looks good sitting still . but Preludes are made to MOVE! The car was designed to DRIVE. and driving and bouncing at 15mph is not what I call driving... IMHO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Stance .... fat tires cambered in... very low... looks good sitting still . but Preludes are made to MOVE! The car was designed to DRIVE. and driving and bouncing at 15mph is not what I call driving... IMHO
Negative camber causes uneven tyre wear and looks stupid as hell. Lowered cars are basically the driver saying "Fuck you engineers I know better than you do" If you want a more aerodynamic Prelude, you put a skid plate on it, add wheel skirts to the rear wheels ( if you don't have 4WS ), change the side view mirrors, and seal all the body panel gaps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,750 Posts
Negative camber causes uneven tyre wear and looks stupid as hell. Lowered cars are basically the driver saying "Fuck you engineers I know better than you do"
Actually negative camber is NOT the cause of bad tyre wear.
I used to run as much neg camber as possible on mine and never had adverse tyre wear in 100ks of miles.
I also lowered mine and it absolutely handled better than stock.

You need to keep all things in context rather than tarring it all with the same bush.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Actually negative camber is NOT the cause of bad tyre wear.
I used to run as much neg camber as possible on mine and never had adverse tyre wear in 100ks of miles.
I also lowered mine and it absolutely handled better than stock.

You need to keep all things in context rather than tarring it all with the same bush.


You're telling me thats not going to wear the inside of the tire and possibly the sidewall more than the outside edge? There's some benefit to having negative camber, sure, but combined with the hellaflush look and that much looks awful and probably causes the owner thousands in tyres a year. Its clear from the context I'm referring to this, vs moderate negative camber seen in cars.

And lowering doesn't provide better handling - it lowers the car's centre of gravity which can reduce body roll, but you can achieve the same without lowering the car's ground clearance through use of stiffer struts, springs, better bushings, and upgrading other parts of the suspension. Also, not all of us live in pristine cities with clean roads - if you lower an already low car such as the Prelude, you risk smacking the oil pan or transmission into the pavement - the transmission on my Prelude had this happen with a previous owner and I had to repair the hole, pain in the arse it was.

I'm educated as an engineer - this whole conversation reminds me of when my machine shop instructor told us about back in 1973 where people installed smaller jets in their carbs to reduce fuel consumption - it worked, but the engine ran lean and as a result burn rates were changed, engine wear increased and even overheating from inefficient burning. Honda engineers balanced the cars ground clearance for aerodynamics, ride quality, and other things, and I'd wager they had good reasons for doing this, and this is coming from a guy who daily'd a BMW M5 for 2 months that was as low as this:



That car didn't last long in my garage because I busted a control arm on I-95 from a pothole nobody could see, and I learned my expensive lesson that day: Lowering sucks for dailys - save it for the track, don't drive it on the road like that. Since my Prelude is going to possibly become a daily depending on how far the repairs get and if my Mazda 3 stays in good health, I'm ripping the eBay coilovers the last chap put on it and putting stock struts in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,750 Posts


You're telling me thats not going to wear the inside of the tire and possibly the sidewall more than the outside edge?
Where did I say that?
Or did you fail to read/understand what I did say: "You need to keep all things in context rather than tarring it all with the same bush. "
In other words.... just stating that lowering or negative camber is bad, try keeping it in context, that TOO much camber or lowering is bad. But done correctly is definitely not bad.







There's some benefit to having negative camber, sure, but combined with the hellaflush look and that much looks awful and probably causes the owner thousands in tyres a year. Its clear from the context I'm referring to this, vs moderate negative camber seen in cars.
Well it's not obvious because you didn't give any context you just made statements.

And lowering doesn't provide better handling
Done correctly, yes it does. Fact.

- it lowers the car's centre of gravity which can reduce body roll,
Very, very marginally but only as a by-product and not as the aim.

but you can achieve the same without lowering the car's ground clearance through use of stiffer struts, springs, better bushings, and upgrading other parts of the suspension.
Erm, no you can not lower the CofG by doing any of those things.
And a lower CofG is still an important thing to consider.
I'd think most here know that all the other suspension mods have effects.


Also, not all of us live in pristine cities with clean roads -
Yeah, I live in Minnesota where the last road repair was done by a bloke with a horse and cart.

if you lower an already low car such as the Prelude, you risk smacking the oil pan or transmission into the pavement - the transmission on my Prelude had this happen with a previous owner and I had to repair the hole, pain in the arse it was.
Glad you mentioned this because over the last 15 yrs or so of owning 18+ Preludes I'd never noticed.


I'm educated as an engineer - this whole conversation reminds me of when my machine shop instructor told us about back in 1973 where people installed smaller jets in their carbs to reduce fuel consumption - it worked, but the engine ran lean and as a result burn rates were changed, engine wear increased and even overheating from inefficient burning.
Well you'd be wise to better understand/know the people you're talking to before trying to make points like that.

Honda engineers balanced the cars ground clearance for aerodynamics, ride quality, and other things, and I'd wager they had good reasons for doing this,
Of course they did, to keep the mass car producing public happy.
It's called compromise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Where did I say that?
Or did you fail to read/understand what I did say: "You need to keep all things in context rather than tarring it all with the same bush. "
In other words.... just stating that lowering or negative camber is bad, try keeping it in context, that TOO much camber or lowering is bad. But done correctly is definitely not bad.

> Actually negative camber is NOT the cause of bad tyre wear.
I used to run as much neg camber as possible on mine and never had adverse tyre wear in 100ks of miles.

Number one, you've contradicted yourself here. In your first statement you adamantly state that negative camber cannot cause bad tyre wear. I then showed an example of a Scion xB and clarify I was referring to that level of negative camber - you then turn around and agree with me but somehow claim that you never said the first statement in the first place...? I don't get what you're trying to say, which is it? Negative camber cannot cause tyre wear or can cause it? Because that was a direct contradiction there.





Well it's not obvious because you didn't give any context you just made statements.
Its implicit from the preceding statement by user your6:

>Stance .... fat tires cambered in...

See, that statment sets the topic, and my response was comment - its called topic-comment structuring. Its clear the context is in the stance community and with fat tires cambered in, specifically relating to that style I posted of the xB.


Done correctly, yes it does. Fact.
The problem with your statement here is "Done correctly". Which is a broad assumption.

Very, very marginally but only as a by-product and not as the aim.
Anytime you change the amount of suspension travel it affects body roll. And while its not the aim, its what you're going to feel.


Erm, no you can not lower the CofG by doing any of those things.
And a lower CofG is still an important thing to consider.
I'd think most here know that all the other suspension mods have effects.
Yes, but we're talking about a Prelude. At stock height the ground clearance is already quite low. There's improvements to be made over stock but lowering? Hardly the highest priority. The 3rd gen in particular at stock height is lower than a Firebird or a Camaro of the same year, for crying out loud.

Glad you mentioned this because over the last 15 yrs or so of owning 18+ Preludes I'd never noticed.[\QUOTE]

You must have been lucky because the entire case was scuffed up on this and it wasn't even slammed - and the hole was big enough to put my index finger in and make the car puke 1/2 qt ATF every 100 miles.

Well you'd be wise to better understand/know the people you're talking to before trying to make points like that.

Of course they did, to keep the mass car producing public happy.
It's called compromise.
And its a compromise that for the Prelude they did a pretty damn good job. I'm don't know who you are but it doesn't matter - I'm not particularly pleased with someone who corrects me then acts like a hypocrite. I'd have no problem with you disagreeing if you didn't accuse me of overgeneralizing when your own statements suffer from that very fault. Bring the focus back to the topic at hand - stancing. The OP brought it up, so I decided to say my piece and then comment on someone else's piece.

I don't care for the stance community, or its obsession with hellaflush or extreme negative camber, or just the fact it screams "RICER" everytime I see one of them show off, then the people it attracts are chaps like the guy I linked to Jalopnik who decided to do this to his struts:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,750 Posts
> Actually negative camber is NOT the cause of bad tyre wear.
I used to run as much neg camber as possible on mine and never had adverse tyre wear in 100ks of miles.

Number one, you've contradicted yourself here.
No I didn't.
You are merely taking things out of context.
Read my whole post as one comment, rather than trying to dissect it so that you can try to make a point.


In your first statement you adamantly state that negative camber cannot cause bad tyre wear.
At no point did I say that.
You just decided to interpret it (incorrectly) for whatever reasons you have.
I said it 'does not' cause, in the context of my complete post.

you then turn around and agree with me but somehow claim that you never said the first statement in the first place...?
I have not changed my position at all.


I don't get what you're trying to say,
Obviously.
My aim was to extract more from you than that wildly generalistic statement.

which is it? Negative camber cannot cause tyre wear or can cause it? Because that was a direct contradiction there.
You have just made the contradiction yourself, I neither made nor implied one.



Its implicit from the preceding statement by user your6:

>Stance .... fat tires cambered in...
Ah well, stance guys don't use fat tyres, they stretch skinnier tyres.
But on here you need to state whether you're responding to the OP or the previous post. Otherwise you'll be queried on it :lol:



The problem with your statement here is "Done correctly". Which is a broad assumption.
:lol:
Not with the already known fact that I regard 'stanced' as retarted.
Add that to the general knowledge of my profession & hobby.



Anytime you change the amount of suspension travel it affects body roll.
No it doesn't. That is only the case if you already use the total travel available.
Or did you specifically mean on vehicles where ride height directly affects suspension travel?


At stock height the ground clearance is already quite low. There's improvements to be made over stock but lowering?
Yes.
I'm guessing you haven't done too much with 3G Ludes.
Again we have to keep this in context.
My 300k+ road and 50k+ track miles in them goes a long way in to knowing what makes them work.



Hardly the highest priority. The 3rd gen in particular at stock height is lower than a Firebird or a Camaro of the same year, for crying out loud.
:lol:
I find it funny when anyone compares them to USDM (muscle car)stuff.



You must have been lucky because the entire case was scuffed up on this and it wasn't even slammed
Not at all lucky, just paid attention to what I was driving on. Mine were always more likely to rip the oilpan on an apex kerb on track or the horrible speed humps we have all over the UK.



And its a compromise that for the Prelude they did a pretty damn good job.
No-one here would argue that point. Bu it's still a compromise.

I'm not particularly pleased with someone who corrects me then acts like a hypocrite.
Well you have taken things out of context to try to show me as a hypocrite, although you failed as I'm not one.
I actually never corrected you, I merely pointed out why you shouldn't generalise too much.
My reply hit the target.

As long as we're all clear now that lowering and negative camber are not bad things if done in the correct manner. (I really don't need to explain my take on 'correct' ).



Now remember kids. Every minute of excessive camber and every mm of stretched tyre costs you one of your brain cells. (and if 'stance' seems like a good idea you can't afford to lose many more)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,668 Posts
I love that all this was caused by a noob posting nothing but the words, "1989 Third Gen stance." :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
No I didn't.
You are merely taking things out of context.
Read my whole post as one comment, rather than trying to dissect it so that you can try to make a point.



At no point did I say that.
You just decided to interpret it (incorrectly) for whatever reasons you have.
I said it 'does not' cause, in the context of my complete post.


I have not changed my position at all.



Obviously.
My aim was to extract more from you than that wildly generalistic statement.


You have just made the contradiction yourself, I neither made nor implied one.




Ah well, stance guys don't use fat tyres, they stretch skinnier tyres.
But on here you need to state whether you're responding to the OP or the previous post. Otherwise you'll be queried on it :lol:




:lol:
Not with the already known fact that I regard 'stanced' as retarted.
Add that to the general knowledge of my profession & hobby.




No it doesn't. That is only the case if you already use the total travel available.
Or did you specifically mean on vehicles where ride height directly affects suspension travel?



Yes.
I'm guessing you haven't done too much with 3G Ludes.
Again we have to keep this in context.
My 300k+ road and 50k+ track miles in them goes a long way in to knowing what makes them work.




:lol:
I find it funny when anyone compares them to USDM (muscle car)stuff.




Not at all lucky, just paid attention to what I was driving on. Mine were always more likely to rip the oilpan on an apex kerb on track or the horrible speed humps we have all over the UK.




No-one here would argue that point. Bu it's still a compromise.


Well you have taken things out of context to try to show me as a hypocrite, although you failed as I'm not one.
I actually never corrected you, I merely pointed out why you shouldn't generalise too much.
My reply hit the target.

As long as we're all clear now that lowering and negative camber are not bad things if done in the correct manner. (I really don't need to explain my take on 'correct' ).



Now remember kids. Every minute of excessive camber and every mm of stretched tyre costs you one of your brain cells. (and if 'stance' seems like a good idea you can't afford to lose many more)
Alright well you clarified some of what you meant, so I guess that's good enough for me.

Also, the only reason I compared them to the F-body pony cars is not because I've owned one ( I've only owned one domestic car, actually, and it was a Suburban. ) but because at the time I was struggling to think of a performance oriented sports coupe that wasn't a total joke ( I have a deep seated dislike of the Mitsu Eclipse so I wasn't going to say that ) and was from a manufacturer other than Honda. But now I thought of one. The Celica... I'm ashamed that slipped my mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,750 Posts
But now I thought of one. The Celica... I'm ashamed that slipped my mind.
Well TBH that's nothing to be ashamed of.
Trying to think of any same era, same type, same price car that even competes is pretty tricky.
I can think of a lot of cars whose owners think they're as good/better but none have proven to be correct.

My vote would go to the Toymota Corolla. AE86 of course.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top