i don't know if you guys have noticed it, but when a first gen's lowered really low, as in no finger gap, the ride just becomes ridiculously lame and uncomfortable. and yes, i do know that there's less piston speed travel, but if that was entirely the case, then how come these hondas running around almost lowered to the ground feel comfortable. i've previously owned hondas and both were really lowered and it didn't feel that bad as compared to when lowering a 1st gen.

in case you're wondering my setup is
discontinued set of neuspeed springs. half to no finger gap at the fronts, and 3 fingers at the rear coupled w/ tokico shocks.

 

It's just a different design. Basically, you can only lower our cars a 1" or so before the shock bottoms out but Hondas a lot more travel from the get go. I know what you mean, I can drop my integra to floor and it'll still be a better ride than my 7.

 

Most of the bad handling feeling comes from the rear of the car - after all, the front uses a MacPherson setup that is similar to most modern cars.

You can get a bit of comfort back by shaving some meat off the bumpstops in the rear, but there's only so far you can go before the tyre hits the inner guard.

Why do you need the car to sit on the ground? Are you doing it for looks or performance? I used to run around in a first gen with about an inch ground clearance (well, until the chassis cracked) and I can assure you, there's no need to go that low to get "skateboard" handling. Just get some good springs/shocks, get new bushes and lower it moderately - it will perform quite well.

 

Tire sidewall size and stiffness have a big effect on ride. Maybe that's a difference between your rx-7 and honda that you didn't think of.

 

but you cant compare a 7 to a...dare i use the h-word?

i dont think that the FB needs to be lowered at all...just add new springs/shocks like jon_valjean said...it will make a large difference in the handling if that is what you are looking for...

 

thanks for all the input guys. i will take these into considerations

has any1 here tried eibach springs? IIRC, they're ride height much higher than RB springs?

 

My Car;

Front = 1 Finger
Back = 3 Fingers

Suspension;

Struts/Shocks = Tokico Blues
Springs = Suspension Techniques

It's the trade off of dropping the car for performance...

- Tech

 

I can barely squeeze a finger in the front, and almost 3 in the back... I've got the RB springs and tokico blues, and 205/50-15 Falken Azenis. It's a teeth shattering ride, but DAMN does it handle!

 

Before my beloved first gen was stolen way back in '93, I had the RB strut top modification done to lower it 1.25 inches, plus RB coils with one coil cut, set it down about 3 inches and rode killer with Tokico blues....want lower? use Ground Control fronts, Illuminas, and the strut kit, get about 3-3.25 inches with some ride quality to boot.

For the rear, make sure you cut the bump stops in half, run a stiff shock like an illiumina and cut a coil off your lowering springs and you'll get the 1 to 1.5 finger space in the back. Enough for clearance and weight transfer.

 

i run eibach and tokico hp's and i like it if it was going to be a true blue daily driver its not low at all. The front actually went up from stock and the rear dropped about half an inch, people cry about it being too stiff are just whiney girls. My personal preference is that the springs are way too soft. The rears are okay, but the fronts aren't anything that I expected.

 

Okay number one, the reason you can not lower a 1st gen more than an 1" is because of the rear suspension geometry. Flat and simple. The Watts Link can encounter binding with the right conditions in STOCK form, when you lower the car you become closer to the binding "threshold". If you replace the Watts link with a Panhard rod, you next issue becomes the geometry of the four link setup. After about two inches the angle that is placed upon the u-joint becomes so sever that it induces binding on the joint. Not really an issue unless you like replacingh driveshafts.

That is why you rarely see first gens "slamed" on the ground, well at least the one's that work the way they are supposed too.

 

why does everyone like the panhard bar. It causes the rear suspension to move in an arch. Where as the watts link allows it to travel straight up and down which is superior. Why hasn't anyone just spend some time trying to figure out a different mount for the Watts instead of returning to a inferior peice.

 

I've often wondered that myself. I think the answer is that a Panhard is simpler to engineer than relocating the Watts link. Certainly if our Watts link had proper geometry, there'd be no need to go to anything different.