Ok so I am planning on building Civic for FSP that I want to keep street friendly enough to still be fun on the road. It will be a slow build and I will be running Street Touring for the next couple years as is for the most part except for upgrading parts that need replacing anyway (aka shocks and bushings) but I want to start gathering parts as I find them for cheap on Craigslist and forums and such.
So starting with the suspension, my plan was to use Koni Sports with Ground Controls, Hardrace bushings, camber kit (anyone have a suggestion for which brand to use?) and swaybars of some sort. I was thinking Integra Type R swaybars but does some one else have suggestions that would be better?
Next drivetrain, I was planning on rebuilding a D16Z6 (since the car currently has a ZC SOHC VTEC) with allowed port work, cam gear, intake manifold (Skunk2?), header (already on car), cold air intake (already on car), A/C removed, P28 with Neptune, Limited slip differential and B-series throttle body. What limited slip should I use? Is there any point of using a clutch that isn't the stock one? I don't figure that I am going to be adding a lot of power. What about changing oil pan? Does the back dating/ up dating apply to the engine?
Any comments on the plan or things I should change/ add? Is that enough questions? 
typically you'll want a smaller bar up front and a larger bar in back .. in my case I've got a HF bar in front and 22mm Suspension Techniques rear bar ...
these cars have been built so many times by so many people .. there are multiple formulas on many different forums ... the advantage is that most of the mistakes have been made and remedies found ... 'bout the only thing left for anyone is small tweaks that make each individual build ... just that ... individual ...
typically you'll want stiffer springs up front and somewhat softer in the rear ( adjustable rear bar ) ( Skunk 2 seems to be fairly popular as far as the front camber .. probably they have something for the rear too )
limited slip ... Quaife ... ( if you can get him to do it, a Steve Eckerich LSD is as good or better than any ... Tom or Margie can put you in touch with him) as for clutch, OEM would probably be ok ... lighter flywheel for sure ... oil pan change only if you're going to be tracking it ... high banks aren't as friendly as a flat track ( not much need for baffles on flat track) if you're going to track it, I'd do as I have and add an oil cooler
mine is a ST car so I haven't really looked into the SP ruleset, so I'm not sure about the BD/UD ...
I'm sure you can find lots more info here from others, and on other forums ... good luck
noddaz wrote:
As for limited slip...
SCCA said:
STC, STS, STF – No limited slip differentials are permitted except for
factory standard viscous coupler type units.
STX, STU, STR – Only standard (as defined in Section 12.4) limited
slip differentials (LSD) are allowed on AWD vehicles. For AWD
vehicles that did not come with any type of limited slip differential
(including center differential or transfer case), a single aftermarket
LSD may be added. 2WD vehicles may use any LSD unit.
Street Prepared allows Limited slip. Not building to street touring. I am just going to be gathering parts as I run Street Touring and become a better driver then make the switch to Street Prepared.
wbjones
UberDork
4/16/13 10:20 a.m.
noddaz wrote:
As for limited slip...
SCCA said:
STC, STS, STF – No limited slip differentials are permitted except for
factory standard viscous coupler type units.
STX, STU, STR – Only standard (as defined in Section 12.4) limited
slip differentials (LSD) are allowed on AWD vehicles. For AWD
vehicles that did not come with any type of limited slip differential
(including center differential or transfer case), a single aftermarket
LSD may be added. 2WD vehicles may use any LSD unit.
his original post said it was a SP build ... so LSD is ok
edit: 93EXCivic beat me to it .... ( reading if FUNdamental )
"Strut bars" are kinda pointless in a Civic right? I kinda figure that since the cornering force will be transmitted to the chassis thru the a-arms rather then a strut the don't do much or is it just a way to stiffen the chassis in general.
It's a way to stiffen the chassis in general.
Don't know how useful it really is in an autocross setting, but that being said, i did put them (and big ones) on the DeathScort.
Is this a hatch, coupe, or sedan?
What do you mean by "camber kit" and why do you need one?
In reply to Swank Force One:
1993 EX Coupe. By camber kit, I really mean adjustable upper arms like these
http://www.kingmotorsports.com/p-672-skunk2-pro-series-front-camber-kit-eg-del-sol-dc2.aspx
I have no idea about if it is necessary. I guess I kinda ASSumed it would be useful.
93EXCivic wrote:
In reply to Swank Force One:
1993 EX Coupe. By camber kit, I really mean adjustable upper arms like these
http://www.kingmotorsports.com/p-672-skunk2-pro-series-front-camber-kit-eg-del-sol-dc2.aspx
I have no idea about if it is necessary. I guess I kinda ASSumed it would be useful.
Strut tower bar probably not going to do a ton on that car, then. Might be worth exploring the option for the front, not so much for the back. Testing will be hard and expensive because cheap bars don't do E36 M3 in the first place. Either way, probably one of the last things you should worry about. They're more about "feel" (Which CAN make you faster, but doesn't necessary improve performance of the car) than they are about generating more grip.
The adjustable upper arms could be useful... but only if you find yourself picking up more negative camber than you want. My guess is that you'll find yourself maybe with more camber than you'd want on street tires (depending on how low you go), but might even want MORE when you make the move to slicks.
It's a problem i WISH i had on my car. I run 3f/2r negative on The DeathScort and will probably end up running more later.
Because it's a Civic, i'd suggest building it the opposite way i did. One thing at a time.
Do shocks and springs, race it. See what else you want. Add that thing. Race again. See what else you want. Add it.
Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary.
You're starting with a great chassis, and have hundreds of choices for anything you'd ever want. One thing at a time. 
Also: It being a Civic, you may very well have better options available to you than Konis and GCs.
SCCA rules said:
The updating and/or backdating of engines, transmissions,
transaxles, and/or unibodies must be done as a unit; component
parts and specifications of these units may not be interchanged.
I am correct in reading that if I run the Z6 then I can't run D15B7 pistons in it due to this rule correct?
93EXCivic wrote:
SCCA rules said:
The updating and/or backdating of engines, transmissions,
transaxles, and/or unibodies must be done as a unit; component
parts and specifications of these units may not be interchanged.
I am correct in reading that if I run the Z6 then I can't run D15B7 pistons in it due to this rule correct?
Correct.
Makes for some interesting parts-sourcing issues with some of the older cars.
And also prevents the MX6 GT from being a REAL player in the DSP field. (The Probe LX 3.0 trans has ideal ratios for autocross, and is the same transmission, just different bellhousing. Can't swap legally swap the entire gear stacks.)
Swank Force One wrote:
93EXCivic wrote:
In reply to Swank Force One:
1993 EX Coupe. By camber kit, I really mean adjustable upper arms like these
http://www.kingmotorsports.com/p-672-skunk2-pro-series-front-camber-kit-eg-del-sol-dc2.aspx
I have no idea about if it is necessary. I guess I kinda ASSumed it would be useful.
Strut tower bar probably not going to do a ton on that car, then. Might be worth exploring the option for the front, not so much for the back. Testing will be hard and expensive because cheap bars don't do E36 M3 in the first place. Either way, probably one of the last things you should worry about. They're more about "feel" (Which CAN make you faster, but doesn't necessary improve performance of the car) than they are about generating more grip.
The adjustable upper arms could be useful... but only if you find yourself picking up more negative camber than you want. My guess is that you'll find yourself maybe with more camber than you'd want on street tires (depending on how low you go), but might even want MORE when you make the move to slicks.
It's a problem i WISH i had on my car. I run 3f/2r negative on The DeathScort and will probably end up running more later.
Because it's a Civic, i'd suggest building it the opposite way i did. One thing at a time.
Do shocks and springs, race it. See what else you want. Add that thing. Race again. See what else you want. Add it.
Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary.
You're starting with a great chassis, and have hundreds of choices for anything you'd ever want. One thing at a time.
Also: It being a Civic, you may very well have better options available to you than Konis and GCs.
agree on the strut bars ... but IF YOU JUST HAVE TO then rear not front ... you want to stiffen the back as much as you can .. anything you do that would result in the front being stiffer works opposite of what you're after ...
SFO .. why wouldn't he want adjustable camber ... I'm running 3 1/2° front and 1 1/2° rear ... and camber won't affect your tire life when driven on the street ... now toe on the other hand .. wow ... a smidgen toe out (or in ) that exceeds OEM specs will EAT up your tires
with proper skid pad testing (and a pyrometer) , you can get very close to optimal neg. camber with adjustable A-arms
wbjones wrote:
Swank Force One wrote:
93EXCivic wrote:
In reply to Swank Force One:
1993 EX Coupe. By camber kit, I really mean adjustable upper arms like these
http://www.kingmotorsports.com/p-672-skunk2-pro-series-front-camber-kit-eg-del-sol-dc2.aspx
I have no idea about if it is necessary. I guess I kinda ASSumed it would be useful.
Strut tower bar probably not going to do a ton on that car, then. Might be worth exploring the option for the front, not so much for the back. Testing will be hard and expensive because cheap bars don't do E36 M3 in the first place. Either way, probably one of the last things you should worry about. They're more about "feel" (Which CAN make you faster, but doesn't necessary improve performance of the car) than they are about generating more grip.
The adjustable upper arms could be useful... but only if you find yourself picking up more negative camber than you want. My guess is that you'll find yourself maybe with more camber than you'd want on street tires (depending on how low you go), but might even want MORE when you make the move to slicks.
It's a problem i WISH i had on my car. I run 3f/2r negative on The DeathScort and will probably end up running more later.
Because it's a Civic, i'd suggest building it the opposite way i did. One thing at a time.
Do shocks and springs, race it. See what else you want. Add that thing. Race again. See what else you want. Add it.
Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary.
You're starting with a great chassis, and have hundreds of choices for anything you'd ever want. One thing at a time.
Also: It being a Civic, you may very well have better options available to you than Konis and GCs.
agree on the strut bars ... but IF YOU JUST HAVE TO then rear not front ... you want to stiffen the back as much as you can .. anything you do that would result in the front being stiffer works opposite of what you're after ...
SFO .. why wouldn't he want adjustable camber ... I'm running 3 1/2° front and 1 1/2° rear ... and camber won't affect your tire life when driven on the street ... now toe on the other hand .. wow ... a smidgen toe out (or in ) that exceeds OEM specs will EAT up your tires
with proper skid pad testing (and a pyrometer) , you can get very close to optimal neg. camber with adjustable A-arms
Gonna have to explain the reasoning behind not wanting chassis rigidity up front to me. Strut tower bars are a chassis thing, not suspension. Shouldn't ever really decrease traction or cause more understeer if that's what the issue is.
I suppose you're right about the arms. Just maybe a bit far-sighted at first glance to me. At the height i'd end up running one of these, chances are i'd already have a bunch of negative camber. Fair enough though, adjustment is never a bad thing besides giving you one more thing to berkeley up.
from what I've been able to "learn"
the front tower brace would be the last thing I'd do .... chassis stiffening IS a good thing but I would do all the other chassis/suspension tuning before I'd work on the tower braces ... that's all ... from the research I've been able to do ( mostly talking to the people involved) it seems that most of the top running STC/STS(the CRX's)/STF national contending cars don't run them ...
[now if I could tie them to the fire wall and the tops of the shock towers I might do it ( he might be allowed to in SP)]
sorta, if it's good enough for them then I doubt that I can teach them new tricks .. that said, it was the first mod I did to my Integra, that and a rear tower brace ... before I ever got around to springs/shocks/rear bar/small front bar/header/CAI ... think of me ( at least then) as a ricer wannabe ( even if though I'd never even heard of the term at the time LOL )
If I did do the strut tower bar, I would probably just fab it myself.
if it will fit ...the ones from my Integra will be available SOON .. front one is a Comptech titanium and the rear is Nuspeed
