Stance Cars and Why You Like Them

You obviously have never looked under a 240sx or any variation of that chassis. That car probably has less than 2 inches of clearances to the frame rails, and the exhaust even less.
And that's besides the fact that the springs are extremely stiff for track duty. The Lexus on the other hand is on airbags and lowered for show. When you need to drive you raise it up, sometimes even above the stock red height. A lot of modern systems have memory settings like the seats in a Benz so you can choose an appropriate height at the touch of your iPhone. Come to think of it, you can't adjust your Benz's seats with an iPhone.
 
Another thing to note is the ability to make very original and unique cars:

Black3_Cover-1110x743.jpg

Nobody makes parts for these cars (KA9 RL). This is all custom stuff taken from other cars and modified/retro'd to fit this. The guy who put this car together had to put in a lot of effort because he chose a unique platform.
 
Aesthetically I can appreciate it but it really bugs me how from an engineering view this is so inefficient. Using less of the tyre + forces concentrated on inside, so lower performance and far more wear on the inside. Which would actually solve the problem! - They should make "cone tyres" (that taper inwards) for rims set like this.
 
Wow.....lots of haters. That ok though, I welcome the haters. I love the civic and the perfect stance. My daily....ready?...a 2000 2 door Chevy cavalier, is slammed and stanced. I only have 1 1/2 in. clearance, burnt fenders and a pile of oil pans and tired because of it. I love it...all of it. Stance to me is personal...it's a life style....a passion we have that the haters will never truely understand or appreciate. Why do I like stance?...it can't be put into txt.
 
I don't say I hate stance, I just find them impractical in every way and they're all show and no go. I would prefer to have a nicely customised and tuned car that can drive like it's on rails rather than a car I can't drive in the city without worrying if I scratched the front bumper on a speedhump. The 86 I drive is low enough, some stanced cars look *shrugs* alright I guess but no. No I wouldn't own one at all.
 
maybe it's popular belief/ignorance, but lowered cars with a small bit of camber on rear wheel drive cars give me the impression that their drivers enjoy a nice slide sideways here and then, and so theres some decency in it, unless the driver also decides a hideous set of rims are needed too, in which case i am truly lost. what i dont understand is stancing front wheel drive cars and all wheel drive rides as well. With front wheel it seems alright because it makes for a more responsive ride if i am not mistaken, but with all wheel it completely kills the purpose of the ride in off-road/snowy conditions as the car will buckle and such.

But, as our state's culture goes says, "Stance will make her dance" so I guess all i can say is that the kids my age love it and it apparently looks different and attracts women so there is no argument against it. :/
I stanced my fwd because I like the look and allowed me to sit lower to the street.

I don't say I hate stance, I just find them impractical in every way and they're all show and no go. I would prefer to have a nicely customised and tuned car that can drive like it's on rails rather than a car I can't drive in the city without worrying if I scratched the front bumper on a speedhump. The 86 I drive is low enough, some stanced cars look *shrugs* alright I guess but no. No I wouldn't own one at all.
My opinion....LOVE IT! Takes all kinds to make tha world go round.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find stance stupid. Why make a car that can't really drive anywhere? I don't get what is cool about having your wheels scraping the fenders and sticking out on an extreme angle. It just ends up breaking everything on the car and makes it "look good" (beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course, and my eye doesn't see it in stance.)
 
It just ends up breaking everything on the car and makes it "look good" (beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course, and my eye doesn't see it in stance.)

Welcome to the world of modified vehicles. Not everyone like everything, and most modifications are going to break something on the car.
 
I like slight camber angles but when it's going overboard it's too much for me. If I had money I'd invest in some air suspension for my car and add some negative camber.
 
I don't tend to like it but I do like having the best of both worlds, like this LS430 on airbags.

FB_IMG_1456793090717.jpg


There's less than a bee's proverbial of space between tyre and guard like this but it's okay cause the bloke can just lift it up to simple "lowered" spec for when he's actually driving.
 
Having your tires gain wear really fast, being extremely uncomfortable and having to fall out just to get out, can't say i'm a fan really...
 
Last edited:
Its not as bad as you may think.
Well that is your opinion i'm not against it or you for liking it cause its good to be yourself and like what you like, its just not my or every ones (especially here) thing.
 
Last edited:
Freaking hate STANCE. I like a car a little low but not scraping and stuff. Ridiculous
Lollllollol I'm such a hypocrite, I would scrape a couple of times a day when I would daily my 240.

I just hate the excess camber but I do love a low car. Just not one 1/4 of inch from a ground.
 
I doubt I'll ever understand what makes people stance their cars beyond a reasonable limit.
I understand the point of a stanced car isn't any sort of performance, it's to appeal to the ideal vision of what the owner thinks is cool. I get that, it's fine. I do like a moderate amount of camber if it's done properly; I'd just never do it myself

What I still don't get (and what I've never got a real explanation for) is that, outside of showing off, why people will stretch tires, go nuts with camber, and drop a car until you're scraping the ground. I understand it on show cars - they're built to give an audience a kind of 'wow' factor, and with show cars the sky is the limit (or the ground, in this case) in terms of customization and what you can actually do to and with a car.

But, if it's not a show car? What would compel you to be uncomfortable, feeling every bump in the road, destroying tires and undercarriage pieces of your car every time you hit a pothole?
 
I doubt I'll ever understand what makes people stance their cars beyond a reasonable limit.
I understand the point of a stanced car isn't any sort of performance, it's to appeal to the ideal vision of what the owner thinks is cool. I get that, it's fine. I do like a moderate amount of camber if it's done properly; I'd just never do it myself

What I still don't get (and what I've never got a real explanation for) is that, outside of showing off, why people will stretch tires, go nuts with camber, and drop a car until you're scraping the ground. I understand it on show cars - they're built to give an audience a kind of 'wow' factor, and with show cars the sky is the limit (or the ground, in this case) in terms of customization and what you can actually do to and with a car.

But, if it's not a show car? What would compel you to be uncomfortable, feeling every bump in the road, destroying tires and undercarriage pieces of your car every time you hit a pothole?
I cant explain why i enjoy it as much as i do...maybe its the challenge. All i know is the feeling i get when i open my garage door and see my car is hard to match. Close to the feeling i had when i first laiyed eyes on my wife...
 
Your a funnt cat.

You're*

Sorry, not sorry.

Welcome to the world of modified vehicles. Not everyone like everything, and most modifications are going to break something on the car.

There is a difference between making an upgrade that improves speed/power/handling at the risk of reliability, and making a stance modification that just makes the car drive like absolute garbage an have a very high chance of failiure (if you can even get out of the driveway with it to drive.).

But you are right. I disagree with stance and others love it. But my case still stands.
 
There are many different ideas of "stance". It's a pretty terrible catch-all term that's just a punching bag for the likes of the 'MUH V8' crowd who will gladly brandish any kind of non-American modified car as rice.

Car culture is a bit crap. Everyone's at each other's throats for no apparent reason, and not having a taste for a particular style or trend more often than not elevates into a war of words with the fandom of said style. Stance is a trigger word - everyone very quickly associates it with daft camber levels and daft young car owners, and a good amount of people are firmly stuck in that mindset. Without going into semantics too much, it's entirely possible that the proper noun has given way to some kind of negative collective noun, or even jibe in car enthusiasts' vocabularies... but whatever the case, I find it a little bit mad that it's spiraled into such a big standalone craze - people live by it, some people despise it, and it's had the power to reshape a word's meaning.

Stance, to me, will always just be how a car sits - and I have no particular preferences.* As long as it looks good to the owner of the car, and as long as it's not a particularly important car being butchered for the sake of it, do whatever you want. Modifying a car is about pleasing the person who's going to own it and drive it - you're answering to nobody else. I think tiny stretched wheels and forty-five degree camber angles look daft, but I couldn't care less about their existence - I'll just move on and look at some more cars.

Sanger Cortina 2.jpg

Sanger Cortina 3.jpg

Modsports-Turbo-E-Type-at-Brands-1975-Built-by-Roberto-e1367089922436.jpg
 
To me, proper stance is where the wheels sit well against the leading edge of the arch, without rubbing and not tucked inside. Anything other than that is just disproportionate to the car, in my humble opinion.

If you run 5 degrees of negative camber and it still fits the arches, then more power to you cause it looks great.
 
Alright I'll be constructive. A car can still sit nice (and be functional) without the fenders hitting the tires. "Hellaflush" just looks like the suspension is broken.

This is good stance.
IMG_2271.jpg

This is bad stance.
noriyaro_kawashima_celica_Tokyo_Auto_Salon_02.jpg


I run 3* front camber on my personal car and it eats up the tires under 10k miles if I do mostly street driving. Good tires aren't cheap!
1463137_10202449532387892_936218734_n.jpg
 
First Rule of Internet Forums: read the first post in its entirety.



First Rule of Life: Not everyone agrees with everyone else.

Welcome to GTPlanet, by the way.
Your right, im sorry.

Alright I'll be constructive. A car can still sit nice (and be functional) without the fenders hitting the tires. "Hellaflush" just looks like the suspension is broken.

This is good stance.
IMG_2271.jpg

This is bad stance.
noriyaro_kawashima_celica_Tokyo_Auto_Salon_02.jpg


I run 3* front camber on my personal car and it eats up the tires under 10k miles if I do mostly street driving. Good tires aren't cheap!
1463137_10202449532387892_936218734_n.jpg
Now see, thats too much camber on that gold...thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Below is what I'd love to do to my 240SX sometime later down the road (not exactly, but as an inspiration.)

100_2053.jpg


The clearance (in this case, the gap between the wheel/tire and the fender) is a bit too close for me, so a better setup would be needed. I love this look, it's simple, doesn't have any flashy aerokits or nonsense, has that bit of aggressiveness because of that moderate stance... In short, I'd want to do something like this.

Major issue holding me back (and a number of friends who have similar dreams) is twofold.
First is money - that intercooler setup suggests a turbo, I'd assume CA18 or SR20. Throw in the obvious suspension bits needed, plus a few things that I can assume that were done to this particular example - 5 lug swap is one, and that usually goes hand in hand with a brake change to 300ZX brakes. Those wheels (Enkei RPF1's I believe) aren't cheap, either. Although I'd like something different, those are a good base for me in terms of looks and style.
Also add in the cost of (in my case) rust removal and repair, and I'm looking at something that could easily get into the $7000-$8000 range if I want it done properly and not half-ass it with cheap parts or something (and I assure you that I'll be trying to give my car the best equipment that I can buy.) When you're a college student, it doesn't leave much time or money for a lot of things.

Second, more of a geographical thing than anything else, is road conditions. I live in the Rust Belt, where potholes abound and work crews are constantly trying to fight them. In the last five years, in my family alone we've lost 3 different tires (the family van twice, my dad's Honda once), an exhaust (my 240), a wheel (the same Honda), and numerous suspension bits (all three cars have had this problem) to road damage, usually from potholes. If I'd get all of these upgrades done, I'd be worried about destroying a wheel - even now I worry about ripping a tire and wheel apart, it's a common occurrence and I wouldn't want to be wasting money buying new wheels every time spring comes.

That's what I think is why a part of me likes stance to a point, and why the majority of me hates it, because I'd hate to see something get ruined by outside influences (acts of God, if you will) aside from driving like an idiot or acting like an idiot, unless the owner of a car is willing to deal with the consequences of being ridiculous in terms of stance, or even a moderate amount of stance. I don't think I could deal with it.
 
Back