|
Originally Posted by Dallas J
(Post 11863965)
Oh true, my class is weighed without driver. But thinking about car only takes out the variability of driver weight when talking about weight thats possible.
In SM trim I can absolutely get down into the 27xx range. But my min weight is 2900lbs (2.24l), so as I pull weight from up front I have to add it to the back of the car. Right now Ive been carrying extra fuel but Zack had brought up an interesting point about that being a lot of fuel to slosh around. |
Originally Posted by ayoustin
(Post 11863671)
Just to put things in perspective, James Houghton's integra, one of the fastest time attack cars in North America still uses factory rear brakes, 260mm. Our rear brakes are waaay bigger than that, 300mm. Just because it's better doesn't mean it's going to make any noticeable improvements. I had somebody explain to me that by increasing the rear brake performance in moderation with the front, you actually bring the rear of the car down thus taking load and strain off the front but increase overall performance. Its as if the whole car squats equally rather than just nose dives. |
Originally Posted by TimC909
(Post 11863985)
You really can't compare an Integra's braking characteristics to an Evo's as there is the small matter of having a shaft linking the front and rear axles together which in turn decreases the ease of locking the rear up..
I had somebody explain to me that by increasing the rear brake performance in moderation with the front, you actually bring the rear of the car down thus taking load and strain off the front but increase overall performance. Its as if the whole car squats equally rather than just nose dives. I don't like understeer, so I see no reason to put larger brakes on the rear. A car can't "squat equally" the nose dive motion you get in braking is from weight transfer, if you reduce that nose dive motion by increasing rear braking all you're doing is reducing the weight transfer. We don't have a lot of weight in the rear of our cars, we don't need big rear brakes. |
Originally Posted by TimC909
(Post 11863985)
I had somebody explain to me that by increasing the rear brake performance in moderation with the front, you actually bring the rear of the car down thus taking load and strain off the front but increase overall performance. Its as if the whole car squats equally rather than just nose dives.
|
Originally Posted by Dallas J
(Post 11863994)
I would probably not listen to that guys advice anymore :lol:. No matter which end brakes, braking in general applies a force at the wheel and a resultant force and moment at the CG. Regardless of how the car dives (which is controlled by the geometry), that moment will cause weight transfer will happen the same because the force at the tires are in the same ground plane. Now you could possibly get rear squat under braking if you had really bad geometry. An old Chevy Nova actually does this when lowered significantly. They look incredibly stupid tho, at the drag strip you'll see them actually rise up in the rear when launching.
You dont need alot of rear brake in an evo and u definately dont need to upgrade them to a bigger caliper or disc or anythn |
Originally Posted by TimC909
(Post 11863985)
I had somebody explain to me that by increasing the rear brake performance in moderation with the front, you actually bring the rear of the car down thus taking load and strain off the front but increase overall performance. Its as if the whole car squats equally rather than just nose dives. |
Originally Posted by kaj
(Post 11864015)
In the average, modern-day car, that is pretty much impossible. You can't have weight transfer to the rear under braking. I'd also suggest not listening to that person again :lol:
one thing is that the roll/dive/pitch is just the evidence of weight transfer. if the suspension was theoretically solid or something, then maybe there wouldn't be squat/dive. weight transfer still happens though, you just wouldn't see it in the body |
Originally Posted by Construct
(Post 11863902)
I remember seeing at least one post from someone who installed EvoX rear brakes on an VIII or IX. Good question about the e-brake, though. I'll try to find the old post and message the person for an answer.
|
Originally Posted by kikiturbo
(Post 11864725)
Compared the rears today. Evo X has a much larger rear handbrake. Central section has about 20mm larger diameter.. So I would say it is far from direct swap..
|
It's more than opinion ,but we get your point.
:lol: |
Originally Posted by kikiturbo
(Post 11863913)
If I had to guess, I would say that the stock brake balance is setup on the "safe" side of more front bias as not to have any issues with rear stepping out under braking. We could probably run more rear bias.... I will run manual brake bias so we will see how that works..
|
Originally Posted by Dallas J
(Post 11863905)
60/40 here bruh :lol: Full interior, 2900lbs with no real rear weight reduction. Even have wiper, washer, and seats in.
I think Zach is like 55/45 in his FP evo, but he has like 400lbs of ballast. man thats heavy! :) we went through extreme efforts to better our weight distribution and we're still 60/40 |
you could directly swap the rear brakes. if u did calipers, discs, hubs, handbrake etc haha.
Youll find the mounting points are slightly diff on the rear as are the fronts and they wont mount directly to your hub. |
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.evo...8049a4f054.jpg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.evo...546574dd07.jpg dry sump project going ahead... Pulley is in, it is 190 mm in diameter (to keep pump speed up to 7000 rpm) and looks ridiculous.. :D I am not happy with the way the lightening holes were done but that is when it is not done on a CNC but on a manual lathe... May have another made later when I see how it works.. (might need to speed up the pump.. who knows..) |
Maybe I missed things, are you making your own drysump? We might need a thread just dedicated to that.
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:03 AM. |
© 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands