Front Splitter or Scrape Guard Protector options?

[west]

Hi all. I'm strongly considering an ITS. However, it will need to go to mountain trails, deal with some steep inclines and approach angles, etc.

I have been using my Focus RS for this use case for nearly a decade and it has worked just fine. (I think it has less ground clearance?)

However, the Focus RS, as well as my C7 Corvette, have a really nice setup where there's a front splitter that acts as a sacrificial scrape guard protector. If you scrape something and the scrapes really bother you, unless you really scraped the underside of your car, all you have to do with either the corvette or Focus is remove the front splitter, toss it, and bolt and/or rivet a new one into place.

Does the ITS have this option, or are there scrape guard protectors that people recommend? I see there are some cheap guards online, like this one: https://sliplo.shop/products/acura-bumper-scrape-guard-skid-plate

However, if a replaceable splitter doesn't exist, I was hoping for a scrape guard that is a bit more hardcore, like this Ferrari 360 scrape guard my friend has: https://www.scrapearmor.com/products/ferrari-360-1999-2005

Thanks for the help!

Sponsored

 

[Braun]

Love the idea of that ScrapeGuard product. Pricey, but good peace of mind.

 

[bisquick]

My previous house has a steep, narrow driveway. I could not leave without scraping after installing lowering springs.

These were my interim solution.

 

[DukeFrisbee]

I have used Sliplo on a number of cars with very good results. I have a GT350 with <4” of front clearance and it has saved the factory splitter a number of times.

The trouble with using a aftermarket splitter is that most of the ones I’ve seen are obviously cosmetic (big) and reduced ground clearance even more. While they would likely protect, for your use, you’re almost guaranteed to really scrape or tear one off - which might do more damage.

While I’m not a fan of doing it, swapping the 265x30’s with 275x35’s will also increase ground clearance, roughly 5/8” if I recall correctly.

 

[UltraV]

Just FYI got a similar product of TEMU for the "Sliplo" brand you posted, for less than 10 bucks. Quality was not too bad.

 

[west]

I have used Sliplo on a number of cars with very good results. I have a GT350 with <4” of front clearance and it has saved the factory splitter a number of times.

The trouble with using a aftermarket splitter is that most of the ones I’ve seen are obviously cosmetic (big) and reduced ground clearance even more. While they would likely protect, for your use, you’re almost guaranteed to really scrape or tear one off - which might do more damage.

While I’m not a fan of doing it, swapping the 265x30’s with 275x35’s will also increase ground clearance, roughly 5/8” if I recall correctly.

The larger tires are an interesting idea, although it would affect initial acceleration due to the extra weight being rotated. I'd have to sit down and do the math. Also, there would be more sprung mass. Tire rack has the weight of a Michelin PS4 265/30R19 as 24lbs and the 275/35R19 as 26lbs, fwiw.

Looks like the diameters are 25.3" and 26.6", respectively. So in theory (26.6" - 25.3") / 2 (two sides for the extra height to go to) = 0.65" of ground clearance added. That is quite a lot if you aren't starting out with much.

You'd also get more sidewall (79.5mm on the 265/30R19 and 96.25mm on the 275/35R19... or 96.25 - 79.5mm = 16.75 mm extra side wall on one side of the wheel. Which is basically the same as the 0.65" of extra ground clearance # calculated above.

The one gotcha, besides the extra weight and decline in acceleration, is I suppose you'd have to have something in the car's computer adjusted so the MPH #s were being reported correctly. I think MPH is calculated based on how much a wheel is rotating and the expected tire size. Or mentally you could do the math in your head. "Even though it says I'm doing 75, I'm actually doing 80."

 

[Victorofhavoc]

The larger tires are an interesting idea, although it would affect initial acceleration due to the extra weight being rotated. I'd have to sit down and do the math. Also, there would be more sprung mass. Tire rack has the weight of a Michelin PS4 265/30R19 as 24lbs and the 275/35R19 as 26lbs, fwiw.

Looks like the diameters are 25.3" and 26.6", respectively. So in theory (26.6" - 25.3") / 2 (two sides for the extra height to go to) = 0.65" of ground clearance added. That is quite a lot if you aren't starting out with much.

You'd also get more sidewall (79.5mm on the 265/30R19 and 96.25mm on the 275/35R19... or 96.25 - 79.5mm = 16.75 mm extra side wall on one side of the wheel. Which is basically the same as the 0.65" of extra ground clearance # calculated above.

The one gotcha, besides the extra weight and decline in acceleration, is I suppose you'd have to have something in the car's computer adjusted so the MPH #s were being reported correctly. I think MPH is calculated based on how much a wheel is rotating and the expected tire size. Or mentally you could do the math in your head. "Even though it says I'm doing 75, I'm actually doing 80."

With a 275/35 it won't be so off. The car reads a little over from factory anyway (almost all cars do), so at 60mph it will probably read close enough to correct.

The approach angle on these cars is poor because the wheelbase is pretty far back in the front. Intentionally done for performance but very poor use for off-road. The focus is far superior to the its when it comes to approach and depart angles due to the much shorter bumper overhang. You could just buy some spring isolators and on the days you plan to take it off roading, just slip one into each corner. They'll raise your spring rate and therefore raise your ride height. I use them to support mechanical springs when towing, and they work great. No squat on my q7 with 700lb tongue weight.

 

[west]

With a 275/35 it won't be so off. The car reads a little over from factory anyway (almost all cars do), so at 60mph it will probably read close enough to correct.

The approach angle on these cars is poor because the wheelbase is pretty far back in the front. Intentionally done for performance but very poor use for off-road. The focus is far superior to the its when it comes to approach and depart angles due to the much shorter bumper overhang. You could just buy some spring isolators and on the days you plan to take it off roading, just slip one into each corner. They'll raise your spring rate and therefore raise your ride height. I use them to support mechanical springs when towing, and they work great. No squat on my q7 with 700lb tongue weight.

Thanks!

Huh, I haven't heard of spring isolators before. Although it looks like you have to unbolt the top hats to slip them in? Unless you are meaning "spring spacers", which just slip in? Those are also something I never heard of before, but searching for isolators had them pop up.

I'm not offroading to much on these cars (well, I guess not what I would call offroading), mostly just doing gravel or sometimes rocky roads to get to trails. But I have (slowly!) driven some roads out in the middle of nowhere that looked like they had been bombed out with a lot of divots in them. Generally you can move around them, but occasionally you have to pick the least worst divot to go through.

Honestly probably my biggest use case is getting in and out of some parking lots in Austin. For whatever reason, soooo many of them seem like they were designed for SUVs or trucks with the angles they have. Add oncoming traffic (when trying to pull out) and it can make for some not fun times!

The overhang + angle of approach of the ITS vs. the Focus is a great thought. I'll have to figure out how to measure it, then compare the Focus to the ITS. In my head I just figured almost anything would be an upgrade vs. the Focus, which had a ground clearance of barely 4" (with the factory suspension... almost all or all aftermarket suspensions lower it even more, I believe). And in person the front looks like it is basically already on the ground, lol.

 

[west]

Well, today I learned apparently approach angle numbers are things you can get from the OEM specs, so you don't have to measure things directly?

Here's the Focus RS: https://www.fordservicecontent.com/...l&div=f&vFilteringEnabled=False&buildtype=web

So, 10.9 degrees when unloaded, 9.9 degrees when loaded.

And then here is the Integra Type S: https://acuranews.com/en-US/release...ntegra-integra-type-s-specifications-features

Also 10.9 degrees (no mention if loaded or unloaded... I'm assuming unloaded).

So they are basically the same.

The one huge advantage of the Focus is it's departure angle (the rear "approach angle"). It is 21.5 degrees when unloaded. Versus just 13.5 degrees on the ITS. I only take advantage of it about once a year, but I do occasionally back into garbage parking spaces because there's so much more ground clearance in the rear. I probably wouldn't be the end of the world to lose that though.

 

[west]

Invoking the power of geometry, if the approach angle on the ITS is 10.9 degrees (0.1868 radians), and the ground clearance is 4.0" (according to that Acura specs webpage I linked to)...

tangent-1(0.1867 radians) = 4.0" / CenterOfWheelToEdgeOfBumper

If I'm doing my math right (it has been a while since I have done this stuff), that means if you solve for CenterOfWheelToEdgeOfBumper you get about 21.7"?

Then, if we raise the ground clearance by 0.65" (to 4.65") by installing the larger tires discussed above (275/35R19), that means our new approach angle would be

NewApproachAngle = tangent(4.65" / 21.7") = ~12.5 degrees, if I'm doing my math right? Still a bit less than the standard integra (13.5 degrees), but it would beat what I've had with my Focus all this time.

 

[Victorofhavoc]

Well, today I learned apparently approach angle numbers are things you can get from the OEM specs, so you don't have to measure things directly?

Here's the Focus RS: https://www.fordservicecontent.com/...l&div=f&vFilteringEnabled=False&buildtype=web

So, 10.9 degrees when unloaded, 9.9 degrees when loaded.

And then here is the Integra Type S: https://acuranews.com/en-US/release...ntegra-integra-type-s-specifications-features

Also 10.9 degrees (no mention if loaded or unloaded... I'm assuming unloaded).

So they are basically the same.

The one huge advantage of the Focus is it's departure angle (the rear "approach angle"). It is 21.5 degrees when unloaded. Versus just 13.5 degrees on the ITS. I only take advantage of it about once a year, but I do occasionally back into garbage parking spaces because there's so much more ground clearance in the rear. I probably wouldn't be the end of the world to lose that though.

Track width plays a role too where wider can help with breakover angle.

Isolator are rubber or poly collars that go around the spring. They come as a donut and you cut them then slip around the spring.

Spring rate is based off of coil count, metal size, and the steel shear modulus. The important part for you is that the coil count is linearly dividing the final number so if you have a spring with 4 coils and you isolate 2 coils so they're no longer active, you have double your effective spring rate.

This is the type of thing you'd look for, but you'd have to ensure you get the right sizing by measuring your springs on your own, https://www.jegs.com/i/Longacre-Rac...CyPX01L9LrR_NPRqakZeq4uTdXhcNdSRoCLJ4QAvD_BwE

They're cheap and effective. The process would be to jack up the car by one side, slide them in and zip tie to the coil for extra confidence, then repeat on other side. On my q7 with a 5.5 active rear coil count it raises the spring rate by roughly 80%. With a loaded up hitch adding 700lbs over the rear it only compresses an inch compared to oem ride height.

It's up to you if the manual effort is worth the benefits you specifically need

 

[west]

Track width plays a role too where wider can help with breakover angle.

Isolator are rubber or poly collars that go around the spring. They come as a donut and you cut them then slip around the spring.

Spring rate is based off of coil count, metal size, and the steel shear modulus. The important part for you is that the coil count is linearly dividing the final number so if you have a spring with 4 coils and you isolate 2 coils so they're no longer active, you have double your effective spring rate.

This is the type of thing you'd look for, but you'd have to ensure you get the right sizing by measuring your springs on your own, https://www.jegs.com/i/Longacre-Rac...CyPX01L9LrR_NPRqakZeq4uTdXhcNdSRoCLJ4QAvD_BwE

They're cheap and effective. The process would be to jack up the car by one side, slide them in and zip tie to the coil for extra confidence, then repeat on other side. On my q7 with a 5.5 active rear coil count it raises the spring rate by roughly 80%. With a loaded up hitch adding 700lbs over the rear it only compresses an inch compared to oem ride height.

It's up to you if the manual effort is worth the benefits you specifically need

Thanks! Measuring the springs shouldn't be a problem as I've got some fancy bigger calipers. They probably will be accurate enough for car springs!

I definitely could have used those for a few trails I have done in the past with the Focus. None of it has been high speed, just very slow crawling over rough trails / roads. So increased spring rate or suspension "gotchas" with the setup wouldn't be an issue.

 

[west]

A good video on those things:

 

[Victorofhavoc]

Yep exactly that.

Just a note for anyone that uses them. They VERY mildly increase metal wear rate where the isolator stops and active coil begins. You can minimize extreme loading by using a softer rubber (50 to 75a) and still stack a stiffer rubber under it (75a+) where needed. The increased wear in practice is so minimal that it's basically of no consequence unless you run them for 300k miles or something else extreme.

Sponsored