No, they ITR is different. Certain body parts are actually stamped differently for the sake of rigidity.

Yes, I agree that sway bars make the biggest difference as far as handling dynamics. The only real benefit to lowering IMO is stiffer spring rates.

You won't get a normal Integra to be as stiff as an ITR without a roll cage or some other unconventional methods but that doesn't mean that the car can't be fun to drive.

And I agree that holes don't necessarily make something weaker. DC Sports strut bars flux like wet noodles though. I know this through first hand experience. Could be the design or materials....or something else. Who knows. They're just bad functionally but boy are they shiney!

 

First of all, any stock Civic hatchback will handle well in comparison to the dead pig-ness of a 2G DSM, and still IMHO slightly better than a 1G. (Except in conditions where AWD is a factor, of course.)

Secondly, ITRs have a physically stiffer frame than the rest of the Integra family. CTRs are most likely the same, but seeing as there's only a handful in the US, its not exactly widely known info.

In any case, with a quick shopping trip involving some choice Benen bits, along with the classic front and rear struts, sways, and ties, plus a set of aftermarket springs and struts, you will have a VERY nicely handling car.

Oh, and the DC strut bar is easily hand bendable. Not worth anyone's time or money. Its just a sheetmetal part that they prettied up and cut some holes through.

To top it all off, RS integras don't have moonroofs.

Phew.

 

Thanks for all the imformative replys :thumbup:

I had a feeling that the CTR had more rigid stamped frame parts but it sounds like that can be somewhat compensated for. Well.. off to cruise the newspapers for used Civic HB's.. I like the look of the 6th gen.. its the model the CTR is based on correct?

I've driven my friend's GS-R a couple of times and it can shuffle around pretty impressively for a bone stock car (suspension wise). My other buddy has a 240 with a reworked suspension (LSD, and DMS coilovers) and that thing rides on rails! :shocked:

 

lowering removes body roll and circles improve tensile strength, they may flex, but that's irrelevant if you have a lower tie.

 

Not really. The whole idea is to hold the unibody rigid, not to directly add rigidity to the suspension.

 

eh, you and i both know that you're not going to make any serious changes to a 2400 lb machine with a 20 lb piece of metal, unless it's countered by that lower tie. Either way you're looking at it you're really only adding a tensioning spring and as long as the bar is flat stock and not square stock or bar stock you're never going to limit the up and down flex, the only thing you can hope to accomplish is limiting the amount the struts move towards and away from each other, and a steel piece of flat stock will be more succesful with holes drilled in it for these purposes.

Take a piece of fiberglass some time and try to tear it apart like a phone book, than take the same piece and try to snap it in half. I think this illustrates my points, but you're intelligent, so don't think im patrnoizing you.

 

Lower Center of Gravity also.

 

:thumbup:

 

2400 pounds, yes, but it is the lower bars that hold most of the weight, and that is why they are usually much stronger than upper.

Holding the frame rigid in the horizontal plane is the whole idea. In high speed cornering situations, distortion can be an issue. The only reason designs get more complicated (Neuspeed 4 point, or Mugen's bar) is to prevent flex and pivoting.

It just so happens that the DC is a piece of crap. I'm not saying that any flat stock bar is bad. Spoon and Skunk2 both use flat stock. Bent, but I'm sure that is more for clearance reasons than anything else.

 

LOL, DC Sports is crap.