Well..okay a little info :lol:
Finally found a contact at Works who seems to be at least more than half interested in helping out. He just happens to be in the Engineering department too :wink:
Stock a Pilot has 5.9" of travel in the front, this is FROM Honda spec's, I haven't verified it, but hope it to be true travel at the axle.....need a second set of hands to help out removing the spring stop, got it off on the rear, fronts harder... :x
The stock shock is 13.25" with 3.25" stroke giving 5.9" travel
I believe (have to do more measuring) that in stock form, a 14.5" shock with 4-3/4" stroke (max for that length shock) will fit with no alterations and increase travel FROM 5.9" to 8.6" :shock:
Add a set of +2 arms, and stay woth stock mounting, and go to 10.6" :shock: :shock:
Now here's the catch....not sure what happens with the stock arms, but with +2's, Works says the pilot will sit ~4" higher in the front. But, I notice the +2 Arms I have FROM you Red have the spindle joints at different angles than OEM, so that again would change static height, lowering it some FROM the straight calculation that Works does in software.
Now my questions for you Red, and hoser since he has them too, that's if he reads here anymore.
You moved the upper mount, went with a longer shock, does your Pilot sit higher up front now? If so how much? Any ill handling affects? Red have you done any thing to the rear? Or is it still OEM setup -> static height?
I don't want to just move the upper mount and lose upward travel to lower the front to match the rear. 1-2" higher I don't think would be too bad....but 4"...not good. But it won't be 4" since the ends are angled up somewhat more then OEM, so that'll help. Hence...more measuring. My pilot's sitting on the floor (shocks off), and I have 2 others to work/compare with so I should have fun this afternoon
In the rear...Poor setup according to Works...shock travel to wheel travel is too linear...What the shocks sees in travel vs the wheel at low speed travel is close to what it sees in travel vs the wheel at high speed. It's better to have the shock angleg so that it sees less of a variance in travel speed FROM low speed to high speed travel. Springs don't care, but oil you can set up well for one or the other, covering both ends of the scale results in less than optimum for both. Angling the rear shock would lessen this affect and provide overall (low to high speed) performance.
Possible? Haven't looked INTO it yet, but at first glance....mmmmm...yuck. Can't move the lower mount out, it's against the wheel as is, and moving the upper mount in would make it hit the upper arm.
In the rear too there is more travel available. You could go to a 1" longer shock (20.125" to 21.125") and if possible for that shock body go FROM 6.125" to 8.5". That would increase travel FROM stock 7.1" to 9.85". It will only raise the rear ~1". Most of all it will not improvew handling, only more travel. But I guess aftermarkey shocks over OEM are usually increase handling, especially over 14 yr old OEM
So that's the scoop. Trying to get shocks that will bolt on up front and increase travel..an easy bolt on increase (5.9"-7.7") And maybe the same in the rear. As well as shocks to use for the +2arms, leaving the mounts as is...
Incoming mail Red!
Clutch info updated in that thread..
http://www.p-o-ps.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=908#908