FTO AUSTRALIA

Re Hondas, we're talking Civic's here correct?

Sorry to have to say, but an early Civic setup well for racing vs an FTO (any model you want) setup well for racing both driven by equivalent drivers will outhandle the FTO for one very simple reason, weight!

Nah, not civics shane,integras and not race specced either, stock. Otherwise, you cant really compare.

Just out of interest Shane, do you ever come up against type R Integras in your races and if so, how do you go against them? I guess its still not really a comparison as they are probably modded to blazes as well. Have you fitted an LSD to yours by any chance.

dstocks wrote:Nah, not civics shane,integras and not race specced either, stock. Otherwise, you cant really compare.

ooops

Nah Integras would run in Improved Production, whereas I run in Prod Sports, so no don't come across them.
My biggest competition are MX5's and Loti.

Yep I run a Cusco LSD

So how much can you modify in your class. The Cusco LSD certainly isnt stock.....

dstocks wrote:So how much can you modify in your class. The Cusco LSD certainly isnt stock.....

http://www.camsmanual.com.au/pdf/02_rac ... 2012-1.pdf
Note CAMS golden rule applies - if it doesn't say you can do it, you can't.
Edit: Actually that's more like a brown smelly turd colored rule

Dstocks, sadly I think we'll never really be able to make an accurate comparison between the two cars. There are too many variables, for example tires, an FTO with the best suspension and crap tires won't be able to outhandle a stock Type R with a good set of tires etc.

I agree with you though that FTO's got a bad rep because Type Rs are up against non-Version Rs, and worst still so many FTOs are automatic which further gives them a bad rep which ends up being perpetuated as people don't know what model FTO it is and the availability of a higher spec FTO (Version R).

Shane, I don't know if your reply was to me or not, but the Hondas that I have driven were Civic EG hatchbacks and the oldschool CRX. All handled really well.
In contrast I've driven a Lancer coupe (same chassis as the FTO) with Koni shocks, Whiteline springs, rear swaybar and strut braces, good tires, and I've driven an EG hatchback with the same mods except Pedders springs not whiteline, and rear swaybar was OEM (against whiteline for the Lancer). Also decent tires. Now the Lancer handled amazing well, but the Civic still had more outright grip (Lancer was more directional though and more stable).

Now, I hope I don't get flamed for this, but my opinion is that that Lancer would handle better than an FTO could with the same mods, seeing as it is the same chassis except some 200kg lighter and better weight distribution.
So this kind of leads to the original theme of the post, that the Lancer understeered on the limit (more so than acceptable in my opinion).
And seeing as I want to swap my whitelined F&R swaybars, I am unsure if just to get a GPX front + GPR rear, or GPR all round?

I've driven a Type R and it does under steer less than my FTO but it's full of compromises. You can feel it's gone through a weight loss exercise and the suspension knocks your head off.

Read up on the diffs on the Ford RS Focus and the Renault Megane RS. It's the closest you can come to eliminate understeer with a FWD and they still understeer!

Spetz what tyres do you currently have on your FTO? The Type R comes with expensive arse tyres. I have $300 a corner tyres on mine and had to put on a cheap $180 tyre on and the difference is massive! I will never get a cheap tyre ever again. This is on 17 inch rim as well.

Payaya, your FTO is a GPX or Version R though?

My car (Lancer 6A12 not FTO) hasn't been driven in years but the last it had was a set of Bridgestone S-02 which were really good. I agree with you (and event mentioned above) that no suspension/car etc will handle good on bad tires.

The Lancer I talked about with the suspension mods in a post above had Pirelli P Zero Nero or something, and the Civic had Goodyear Eagle F1. Not sure how these compare to each other

ive been on many trackdays in the uk & never had a type r trouble me yet.

also the previous owner of my car could lap the nurburgring in sub 8.30 and ive never seen a teg type r in that time.

i looked into getting a teg and there just isnt any difference in handling, the one thing i did find was the tegs gearing is superior though.

but again it comes down to the circuit a tight brands hatch would favour the tegs gearing, where a longer circuit the fto.

A post from CAT regarding anti roll bars -

The thicker the ARB the more under steer or over steer they create (depending on which end is in question +F=US & +R=OS), the correct solution for handling is higher rate coil springs and uprated shocks and minimal levels of ARB but for road use comfort may make this a bad option. If you have a thicker rear anti roll bar fitted it will be introducing more over steer and one answer to this is to fit a thicker or shorter armed front anti roll bar, but this just counteracts the increase in over steer with a increase in under steer, this results in little loss in comfort, less body roll but actually less grip (great for perceived handling but not for increased corner speed). It depends on which way you want to go with it but for better handling you should concentrate your money on higher rate springs to reduce roll and good quality uprated and adjustable shocks to control the stronger springs. Of if you want a sporty feel to the handling without a huge loss in comfort or increase in corner speed you can go for thicker ARB's back and front (to keep the neutral balance in under/over steer).

(For General Info) Anti roll bars are a half answer to a problem and in a bid to solve that problem they create another. As we all know anti roll bars reduce roll while attempting to keep some comfort by allowing each wheel on a axle to rise and fall together un-restricted (if both wheels on a axle are pushed up at the same time, as in hitting a speed bump the anti roll bar does nothing to restrict the travel, but if one wheel on the Axel is pushed up and the other falls as in hard cornering the anti roll bar resists the movement by twisting). But by design they increase under steer (when fitted on the front) and over steer (when fitted on the back), so the trade off is less roll for less grip.

ljk, are you comparing a stock Type R though to a track ready FTO?
I agree with you though the FTO gearing is horrible. Since you're in the UK consider a CJ4A gearbox.

Differences in GPX to GPvR suspension;

GPX comes with a 16mm front sway bar and an 18mm rear.
GPvR comes with 20mm front and rear.

GPX and GPvR do have different part numbers for shocks and springs, but I can't find any further info about the details of these part numbers (ie spring rates, etc).

GPvR has additional reinforcing/strenghtening on the front sub frame.

GPvR has the front drop links connected to the control arm rather than the shock body.

GPvR has a different front control arm rear bush to the GPX.

Interesting that the sway bars are the same front and rear. Anyone got a spare rear GPvR sway bar that they wanna sell?

spetz wrote:ljk, are you comparing a stock Type R though to a track ready FTO?
I agree with you though the FTO gearing is horrible. Since you're in the UK consider a CJ4A gearbox.

no comparing similar spec cars (bolt on mods).
ive never seen a stock type r on track there always modified, as most things are on track.


yeah im looking into the final drives at the minute

Some GPvR suspension info from ftoog.

The original Version R shock would have had a very slightly higher damp rate to match the very slightly stiffer spring rate but as most have been lowered using a stock (GPX-GPvR-GR-GX) lowering spring this isn't important or relevant. The anti roll bar on the GPvR travelled through less of an arc with the same amount of suspension travel than the GPX as it was mounted closer to the pivot point of the lower arm, this was the reason the GPvR anti roll bar was made thicker.

The difference in original spring rate and shock rate on the GPvR when compared to the GPX is so small telling the difference would be difficult, but the rear lower bush on the post 97 FTO's was a major improvement and would have a bigger effect on suspension performance than any other difference.

The manual aircon and auto aircon weight difference (including actuators) is probably no more than a few hundred grams, the interior is the same weight, the shell is the same weight the engine is the same weight, the gearbox on the GPvR is slightly heavier due to its LSD (manual and auto), the suspension is slightly heavier on the GPvR (due to the increased dia antiroll bar), wheels will be the same and the very slightly heavier rear spoiler on the GPvR will probably compensate for one of the GPX's mirror motors. So when you look at the whole picture there is no way Mitsubishi made a lighter car especially by the margin they seem to claim if the document is a official Mitsubishi release and not one of the ones made up for "translated hand books" by some club members in the early part of this decade.

Shane, the 16mm GPX swaybar links to the strut whereas the GPR onto the LCA, so the 20mm GPR swaybar that links to the LCA might be equivalent to a GPX 18mm that links to the strut.
As for the different control bush, I thought facelifted GPX were the same as the GPR?


ljk, can you explain why this control bush was such a vast improvement over the normal GPX bush setup?
And as for the K frame being stronger, I think a stock K frame + an H brace would more than make up for it.
The GPR is meant to be some 20kg lighter, but I think it had sound insulation etc taken out as well. To be honest given the size and age of these cars, they were somewhat heavy, considering they weigh equivalent to a DC5R

I was always under the impression they had a lot of sound deadening not included to save on weight there. I could be wrong but it makes sense?

spetz wrote:Shane, the 16mm GPX swaybar links to the strut whereas the GPR onto the LCA

Yep, I included that point in my post

spetz wrote:so the 20mm GPR swaybar that links to the LCA might be equivalent to a GPX 18mm that links to the strut.

but I don't know enough about suspension setup to be able to comment on this.

ljk, do you have a link or a reference to more information on the relation between the sway bar thickness and drop link length?

TBH I would have thought it would be the other way around, with the shorter drop link resulting in a 'tighter' sway bar system.

It's not the drop link length that has an effect, it's the mounting point.
Simplified, if the strut compresses 10cm while cornering, with the GPX so will the swaybar, but with the GPR because it links closer to the pivot point of the LCA, it may only move 8cm, so the resistance of the swaybar will only be 80% in relation to the GPX mounting point. Also there is the whole leverage/pulley side of it too. In reality I don't think we'll ever be able to accurately calculate the difference between the two.

Keeping in mind that the Cyborg RS (Mirage MIVEC) had the 16mm GPX front swaybar, then after the facelift it got a 21mm front swaybar that links to the LCA, this logically is the next step up from the GPR swaybar, and after that I think 23mm for the Evo IV. In contrast for the Cyborg RS the rear only went from 17mm to 18mm if I recall correctly after the facelift.

spetz wrote:It's not the drop link length that has an effect, it's the mounting point.
Simplified, if the strut compresses 10cm while cornering, with the GPX so will the swaybar, but with the GPR because it links closer to the pivot point of the LCA, it may only move 8cm, so the resistance of the swaybar will only be 80% in relation to the GPX mounting point. Also there is the whole leverage/pulley side of it too. In reality I don't think we'll ever be able to accurately calculate the difference between the two.

Thanks spetz, understand that now

spetz wrote:Payaya, your FTO is a GPX or Version R though?

My car (Lancer 6A12 not FTO) hasn't been driven in years but the last it had was a set of Bridgestone S-02 which were really good. I agree with you (and event mentioned above) that no suspension/car etc will handle good on bad tires.

The Lancer I talked about with the suspension mods in a post above had Pirelli P Zero Nero or something, and the Civic had Goodyear Eagle F1. Not sure how these compare to each other

Man Eagle F1's kick the Neros arse. Motor did a tyre test and the F1 got first and the P Zero got last out of 10 tyres.

Check this review out.

http://www.tirerack.com/images/tires/te ... _gs_ds.pdf

Your Bridgestones are Potenzas??

http://planetsoarer.com/tyres/tyre.htm