A few 'Ricer' car questions...

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Originally Posted By: Tim4mods
I especially don't understand the whole extreme camber thing.


From my own experience with slight negative camber issues I surmise that those employing negative camber are supportive of the tire industry. Extreme negative camber, as I have seen on riced up vehicles guarantees frequent trips to the local tire emporium, thus ensuring continued prosperity for the black rubber industry.

So, you could call these folks "charitable."


Extreme negative cambers, and I mean EXTREME, is a signature of the "stance" or "hellaflush" movement.

Don't confuse them with ricers. Ricers end up with excessive negative camber because they either don't know any better or simply don't care about correcting the alignment when lowering ride height.

One of the goals of stance is the extreme negative camber. It's not because they don't know or don't care. That is what they *want* the car to look like.

Two other trademarks of stance is "stretch", the use of a narrow tire on a wide wheel, forcing the tire sidewall to be stretched to seat the bead, and "poke", where the wheel extends slightly beyond the fender line. The counterpart to "poke" is "tuck", where the wheel is tucked into the fenderwell instead of extending beyond it. Often, you'll see the really extreme camber angles when trying to tuck a very wide wheel.

Another big difference is the type of vehicle that gets this treatment. Audi, VW, and BMW are incredibly popular to stance. Lexus, Infiniti, Mercedes Benz, Subaru WRX, Mitsu Evo, Miata, Mazda RX7, and Nissan Silvia are also popular. Sure, people stance Honda's and Acura's, but it is generally a trend applied to more up-market cars.

Questionable aesthetics aside, this leads to a generally unsafe vehicle. It ends up with incredibly suspect handling due to the extreme suspension angles cause by the low ride height and camber. Unseating a bead is a real concern when trying to stretch narrow tires over a wide wheel. Also unfortunate is the quality of work that some people and shops put into the vehicle trying to achieve such a look. Shoddy would be generous.


I actually find this trend even more annoying than the clapped-out bondo filled Civics with [censored] cannons belching blue smoke that were very common up here. They take a car that is quite nice and often handles very well and completely ruin it for this "look".

I quite frankly have no inkling as to what sort of "logic" drives this trend

Agreed. I've seen some pretty nice little Japanese imports completely ruined to achieve the 'look' you speak of. It's hideous. But then as long as they are paying for it I couldn't care less (except to shake my head in wonderment). Where I get upset is when these recently post-puberty dolts drive on our roads as though they are racetracks. That infuriates me. I often worry about innocent folks getting injured or killed because of some of these fools. But I do get a laugh out of watching them do all they can to get attention from others, including the goofy way they often wear a ball cap....to the clownish looking white framed sunglasses. Oh well, as long as the drive within reasonable limits and stay the heck away from me.

 

[gofast182]

The owners of most cars like this can't afford a sports/luxury car so they buy what they can afford at that instant and dump/waste cash on appearance mods. as soon as they can afford each one.

That said, in the case of Hondas, the metallurgy, tolerancing, and overall engineering that goes into the engines especially is a cut above what other manufacturers offer. Most Honda engines have forged cranks and connecting rods where most competitors' engines do not. They do this not because it's cheaper but because it's more durable. Additionally, they were working with and perfecting the use of molybdenum, advanced aluminum alloys, and composite metal matrices in the mid '90's while other manufacturers just got into that stuff a couple years ago. It's because of this that many choose to tune these engines. Because of the design they can make incredible power in NA form and when FI is introduced their durability allows them to make/tolerate tremendous power on the stock blocks and heads. So to answer the OP's question, yes, if set up properly, they can be very fast either in a straight line or particularly on a road course.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: gofast182
The owners of most cars like this can't afford a sports/luxury car so they buy what they can afford at that instant and dump/waste cash on appearance mods. as soon as they can afford each one.

That said, in the case of Hondas, the metallurgy, tolerancing, and overall engineering that goes into the engines especially is a cut above what other manufacturers offer. Most Honda engines have forged cranks and connecting rods where most competitors' engines do not. They do this not because it's cheaper but because it's more durable. Additionally, they were working with and perfecting the use of molybdenum, advanced aluminum alloys, and composite metal matrices in the mid '90's while other manufacturers just got into that stuff a couple years ago. It's because of this that many choose to tune these engines. Because of the design they can make incredible power in NA form and when FI is introduced their durability allows them to make/tolerate tremendous power on the stock blocks and heads. So to answer the OP's question, yes, if set up properly, they can be very fast either in a straight line or particularly on a road course.


In 1987 a Ford 302HO had forged rods and pistons, moly rings, was hand-balanced with ground/numbered rods/caps and pistons, sequential electronic fuel injection with 8 IDM's, could run a cylinder balance test on itself....etc. Now it still had iron heads and pushrods and didn't have tremendous power density but to imply that Honda is this massive "cut above" in terms of what they dump into their engines is a bit misleading. BMW was using composite metal bore finishes (nikasil, alumasil), forged rotating assemblies....etc for ages as well as in general having pretty "over-engineered" engines.

Nobody "just got into this stuff a couple of years ago". Start looking back at what Packard, Rolls...etc were doing with their aviation engines in the 30's and 40's. Ford's all-aluminum "Indy Cammer" DOHC short stroke/big bore NA and turbo screamer from the infancy of the SBF, GM's all-aluminum 427, Ford's 427 SOHC....etc The list is huge.

More modern examples would be GM's LS7 pushrod mill which combines plenty of high-grade materials in a compact package that conservatively cammed still makes over 500HP N/A. Another would be Ford's "Terminator" 4.6L with a completely forged rotating assembly, multi and side-bolt main caps and the ability to handle over 1,000HP completely stock. A Ford GT currently holds the standing mile speed record with its DOHC 5.4L dry-sumped aluminum mill.

Honda has, and I assume will continue to make some great engines. Some will respond well to modifications, some won't. The same goes for any other mainstream brand under the sun. They all make some great engines and certain engines get "better" parts than others. However it must be said that none of these (American) companies are the technological dinosaurs that many of the Japanese fans like to pretend they are. And even the proven "low tech" offerings from GM like the LSx family are incredibly robust and have shown now for almost two decades that they can lay down massive amounts of power for very little money. The cost to build a 10-second Civic is much, MUCH more than it is to do it with an F-body and unless even more money is invested, the F-body will be the better driving car, not have the torque-steer problems, blowing transmissions.....etc. And they even handle well

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^yessir, a quality engine is not a Honda exclusive.

I actually know a kid (my son's buddy) who has a gutted Civic with a bigger 4 banger with a ton of machine work and a nice turbo set up. His car can easily outrun mine but only from a standing start.

If we go really fast or have to stop and turn he is toast, despite his full one ton weight advantage! Then he has a ton of noise, heat, and discomfort while me and the Wife are enjoying the AC, etc!

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Originally Posted By: Tim4mods
I especially don't understand the whole extreme camber thing.


From my own experience with slight negative camber issues I surmise that those employing negative camber are supportive of the tire industry. Extreme negative camber, as I have seen on riced up vehicles guarantees frequent trips to the local tire emporium, thus ensuring continued prosperity for the black rubber industry.

So, you could call these folks "charitable."


Extreme negative cambers, and I mean EXTREME, is a signature of the "stance" or "hellaflush" movement.

Don't confuse them with ricers. Ricers end up with excessive negative camber because they either don't know any better or simply don't care about correcting the alignment when lowering ride height.

One of the goals of stance is the extreme negative camber. It's not because they don't know or don't care. That is what they *want* the car to look like.

Two other trademarks of stance is "stretch", the use of a narrow tire on a wide wheel, forcing the tire sidewall to be stretched to seat the bead, and "poke", where the wheel extends slightly beyond the fender line. The counterpart to "poke" is "tuck", where the wheel is tucked into the fenderwell instead of extending beyond it. Often, you'll see the really extreme camber angles when trying to tuck a very wide wheel.

Another big difference is the type of vehicle that gets this treatment. Audi, VW, and BMW are incredibly popular to stance. Lexus, Infiniti, Mercedes Benz, Subaru WRX, Mitsu Evo, Miata, Mazda RX7, and Nissan Silvia are also popular. Sure, people stance Honda's and Acura's, but it is generally a trend applied to more up-market cars.

Questionable aesthetics aside, this leads to a generally unsafe vehicle. It ends up with incredibly suspect handling due to the extreme suspension angles cause by the low ride height and camber. Unseating a bead is a real concern when trying to stretch narrow tires over a wide wheel. Also unfortunate is the quality of work that some people and shops put into the vehicle trying to achieve such a look. Shoddy would be generous.


Yes, I never understood the EXTREME negative front AND back wheel camber 'stance' movement either, and consider it just as 'jive ***' as the ricer movement.
Do they really think that it makes their rides handle any better in their 'twisties' (man I HATE that ricer lexicon word to DEATH!!!)??!!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^yessir, a quality engine is not a Honda exclusive.

I actually know a kid (my son's buddy) who has a gutted Civic with a bigger 4 banger with a ton of machine work and a nice turbo set up. His car can easily outrun mine but only from a standing start.

If we go really fast or have to stop and turn he is toast, despite his full one ton weight advantage! Then he has a ton of noise, heat, and discomfort while me and the Wife are enjoying the AC, etc!


I'm sure you recall my tale of being at the drag strip and watching the 13 and 14 second gutted turbo Civic's running on snow tires on steelies. And the one guy with a breaker bar tightening down the head bolts in the parking lot while his one buddy rev'd the engine and the other watched for white smoke at the [censored] cannon.

I was there with my (slow relative to the group I was with) H/C/I '87 5.0L cutting 106Mph traps with a 300,000+Km shortblock in a T-top car that was about a rigid as Gumby. My buddies were there with their H/C/I blown coupe's laying down low 11's at 120+. We all drove there and back, which was a good 150Km each way IIRC. And of course these are all stock bottom-end 5.0L's from the late 80's, early 90's, LOL! Super "low tech" pushrod motors.

 

[SteveSRT8]

You'd die if you knew how much moolah the kid has in his Civic, it surprised me how expensive it was!

And of course he is on his 3rd motor!

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Honda has, and I assume will continue to make some great engines. Some will respond well to modifications, some won't. The same goes for any other mainstream brand under the sun. They all make some great engines and certain engines get "better" parts than others. However it must be said that none of these (American) companies are the technological dinosaurs that many of the Japanese fans like to pretend they are. And even the proven "low tech" offerings from GM like the LSx family are incredibly robust and have shown now for almost two decades that they can lay down massive amounts of power for very little money. The cost to build a 10-second Civic is much, MUCH more than it is to do it with an F-body and unless even more money is invested, the F-body will be the better driving car, not have the torque-steer problems, blowing transmissions.....etc. And they even handle well

YES, THANK YOU!!!

Also, someone mentioned those 7 second civics which are MUCH MUCH less 'streetable' (if ANY straight line pure race machine could ever be considered 'streetable'), than the 7 second RWD, V-8 domestic nameplated rides will ever be.
There are C5s/6es in the 10s with VERY little modding, and will STILL kick the arse of the Nippon imports around a road course with just a change of wheels/tires, and adding back the front sway bar.

Someone also mentioned the supposed power density 'superiority' of the Nippon four pots.
I've seen Ford/Cosworth, GM Ecotec, etc. engines in NA form (World and Brit touring car championships, old Group 4 WRC) making that same 300 hp out of 2 liters as the "superior" Nippon products. Once one gets into race parts, ALL bets are off!! The same comparisons go for the boosted stuff as well, with GM dominating some of the more recent WTCC rounds/championships with their turboed Ecotecs in the Cruzes, as well as in 'import' drag racing with the BIG HP boosted Ecotec Caviliers, beating the Nipponphiles AT THEIR OWN GAME!!

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver


Yes, I never understood the EXTREME negative front AND back wheel camber 'stance' movement either, and consider it just as 'jive ***' as the ricer movement.
Do they really think that it makes their rides handle any better in their 'twisties' (man I HATE that ricer lexicon word to DEATH!!!)??!!

I think maybe they do.

It is not unusual to to see an X1/9 at an Autocross event with some negative rear camber dialed in. And for being powered by a SOHC 75 hp motor, they can fly around a tight track. But they do not have 195/65R15 Mayrun Chinese tires stretched across a 9" wide wheel

The explanation is that it "makes the sidewall stiffer" for better handling. Seems to me that the tire will just unbead itself if you run the wrong pressure and they are usually using cheap Chinese all season touring tires. If anything, to generate that .001 g of lateral grip they've compromised the braking, acceleration, ride, and ability to corner in a bumpy corner. Lose lose lose. Just for a style.

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: dailydriver


Yes, I never understood the EXTREME negative front AND back wheel camber 'stance' movement either, and consider it just as 'jive ***' as the ricer movement.
Do they really think that it makes their rides handle any better in their 'twisties' (man I HATE that ricer lexicon word to DEATH!!!)??!!

I think maybe they do.

It is not unusual to to see an X1/9 at an Autocross event with some negative rear camber dialed in. And for being powered by a SOHC 75 hp motor, they can fly around a tight track.


ABSOLUTELY! BUT, the operative word here is "some" rear negative camber, as in maybe up to 1-1.5 degrees, NOT the 3-6 degrees+ these 'stance' clowns are running.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Originally Posted By: Tim4mods
I especially don't understand the whole extreme camber thing.


From my own experience with slight negative camber issues I surmise that those employing negative camber are supportive of the tire industry. Extreme negative camber, as I have seen on riced up vehicles guarantees frequent trips to the local tire emporium, thus ensuring continued prosperity for the black rubber industry.

So, you could call these folks "charitable."


Extreme negative cambers, and I mean EXTREME, is a signature of the "stance" or "hellaflush" movement.

Don't confuse them with ricers. Ricers end up with excessive negative camber because they either don't know any better or simply don't care about correcting the alignment when lowering ride height.

One of the goals of stance is the extreme negative camber. It's not because they don't know or don't care. That is what they *want* the car to look like.

Two other trademarks of stance is "stretch", the use of a narrow tire on a wide wheel, forcing the tire sidewall to be stretched to seat the bead, and "poke", where the wheel extends slightly beyond the fender line. The counterpart to "poke" is "tuck", where the wheel is tucked into the fenderwell instead of extending beyond it. Often, you'll see the really extreme camber angles when trying to tuck a very wide wheel.

Another big difference is the type of vehicle that gets this treatment. Audi, VW, and BMW are incredibly popular to stance. Lexus, Infiniti, Mercedes Benz, Subaru WRX, Mitsu Evo, Miata, Mazda RX7, and Nissan Silvia are also popular. Sure, people stance Honda's and Acura's, but it is generally a trend applied to more up-market cars.

Questionable aesthetics aside, this leads to a generally unsafe vehicle. It ends up with incredibly suspect handling due to the extreme suspension angles cause by the low ride height and camber. Unseating a bead is a real concern when trying to stretch narrow tires over a wide wheel. Also unfortunate is the quality of work that some people and shops put into the vehicle trying to achieve such a look. Shoddy would be generous.


Yes, I never understood the EXTREME negative front AND back wheel camber 'stance' movement either, and consider it just as 'jive ***' as the ricer movement.
Do they really think that it makes their rides handle any better in their 'twisties' (man I HATE that ricer lexicon word to DEATH!!!)??!!

I recall that once you lower most Hondas more than a few inches, you really can't fix the camber.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Honestly...I would love to see some of the supposedly "fast" imports trying to survive Hot Rod's Drag Week! Larry Larson's Nova ran 6's after 1000+ street miles...let's see a Civic do THAT!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: surfstar
....

But, as they say, its more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow.



People with fast cars never say this.


Actually, someone with a fast car said just that two posts above yours.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
But, as they say, its more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow.


Said no one who actually owns and does a bunch of seat time in a fast car...Ever

As far as the ricer thing? Eh, everyone has a hobby. Car guys are car guys some folks just do it differently.

Oh and gregk24, I have a GM V6 for your little 2.4. I have to ask what happens after 0-60 when the larger displacement V6 walks right past you?

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: surfstar
....

But, as they say, its more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow.



People with fast cars never say this.


Actually, someone with a fast car said just that two posts above yours.

Not enough seat time. It is his brother in laws. I bet if you ask if he wanted an 01 STS, A CR-V, or a 99 Supercharged LS1 Vette, his answer will not contain the following in it...01 STS or CRV.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I actually find this trend even more annoying than the clapped-out bondo filled Civics with [censored] cannons belching blue smoke that were very common up here. They take a car that is quite nice and often handles very well and completely ruin it for this "look".

I have a buddy up here who has always hated the ricer business. He likes the G, but has given me grief over it. Well, he bought a new Civic now. So, I tell him that Infiniti isn't even a make in Japan, and therefore my car is as American as apple pie. Of course, he correctly points out that the G was made in Japan, whereas his Civic is not. Well, at least I can torment him somewhat.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: surfstar
....

But, as they say, its more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow.


People with fast cars never say this.


Actually, someone with a fast car said just that two posts above yours.


Not enough seat time. It is his brother in laws. I bet if you ask if he wanted an 01 STS, A CR-V, or a 99 Supercharged LS1 Vette, his answer will not contain the following in it...01 STS or CRV.


My wife loved her 60HP Festiva as much as she loves her 800+HP Grand National.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Not enough seat time. It is his brother in laws. I bet if you ask if he wanted an 01 STS, A CR-V, or a 99 Supercharged LS1 Vette, his answer will not contain the following in it...01 STS or CRV.


It's my brother's, and my answer does contain "CR-V". If I wanted a supercharged C5, I'd have one; my CR-V cost more than what my brother has in his Corvette. Second choice would be the STS. I have no use for the C5. It's fun for a short while. But then it gets old. I've driven it 140 mph with the top down. Fun. But then again, that was in Arizona where you can sort of get away with that kind of thing every now and than. On the populated East Coast, there's just nowhere to do that.

The C5 handles great; it has more grip than I'll ever need. But it's so "binary" in its execution. There's no emotion to it. I felt the same way of the STS I did own. It was a pig of a car masquerading around as a "sport sedan". It felt very unnatural.

As you said earlier, car guys are car guys. Some simply have different tastes. We don't all like "fast". My brother's Corvette is an incredible performance value, there's no disputing that. There's no way it should go as fast as it does for the money he has in it. But again, you have to like that kind of thing to want that kind of thing. Some people simply don't.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Not enough seat time. It is his brother in laws. I bet if you ask if he wanted an 01 STS, A CR-V, or a 99 Supercharged LS1 Vette, his answer will not contain the following in it...01 STS or CRV.


It's my brother's, and my answer does contain "CR-V". If I wanted a supercharged C5, I'd have one; my CR-V cost more than what my brother has in his Corvette. Second choice would be the STS. I have no use for the C5. It's fun for a short while. But then it gets old. I've driven it 140 mph with the top down. Fun. But then again, that was in Arizona where you can sort of get away with that kind of thing every now and than. On the populated East Coast, there's just nowhere to do that.

The C5 handles great; it has more grip than I'll ever need. But it's so "binary" in its execution. There's no emotion to it. I felt the same way of the STS I did own. It was a pig of a car masquerading around as a "sport sedan". It felt very unnatural.

As you said earlier, car guys are car guys. Some simply have different tastes. We don't all like "fast". My brother's Corvette is an incredible performance value, there's no disputing that. There's no way it should go as fast as it does for the money he has in it. But again, you have to like that kind of thing to want that kind of thing. Some people simply don't.

I was talking about your brother, not sure why I thought he was your brother in law. We already know your answer.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
My wife loved her 60HP Festiva as much as she loves her 800+HP Grand National.


Loved and fun are two different things. I love our new Equinox, but it is not as fun to drive as the Trans Am.

You can love a lot of things. I love my truck. Fun to drive like a Vette, Mustang or F-body? No. I love it because it does what I ask of it.

Lots of people love their cars for different reasons. But I have heard on this board that a normal run of the mill Corolla was more fun to drive than my WS6 cause you can roll through all the gears. When I asked the guy he had never even driven a WS6, but I got the A slow car is more fun to drive than a fast car.
You can love the Corolla and you can love the WS6, but I am here to tell you that a slow car. No fun to drive.