Looking to buy a body kit for a 92 acura integra. My first one so not really sure what to look for. Don't want one of the glue on kits. Any suggestions or links would be appreciated.
Nothin wrong with stock
Spend money on under the hood
for once.. i agree with you..
couldnt have said it better myself....id get rims tho
He asked a direct question and that's the best you could come up with ....
I don't know anything about Honda bodykits, but if that's what you want to do with your car ... then go for it. I would tend to agree with these other guys that my PREFERENCE would be for performance mods first, but if your priorities are different, then good luck with the bodykit search :thumbs:
good point as well lol
as much as i hate bodykits... umm.. i would most probably suggest someone
like BOMEX would be one of the best choice's to make with Acura kits. Also,
i've heard that Street Fighter kits are good too, fairly ricer though.
PERSONALLY, i hate bodykits and would never get one.
I personally think that the '92 era Integra is the best looking Integra (neck-and-neck with the JDM ITR) and I could in no way condone defacing one with a bodykit.... bad idea :badrazz: ... in my opinion.
Why try to make it look fast when you can actually make it fast is what I say.
Why not make it look better to him, when it's already fast enough to get
tickets in every state and country?
Here's a nice, subtle one that would look very good on that car:
Kaminari products are high quality, and have been for a couple decades.
Erebuni has a nice looking fromt air dam that would go with the Kaminari side skirts and rear apron. Again, fairly subtle in comparison to the Combat kits. But Erebuni products can tend to be hit or miss for quality, and often take quite a bit of finsih work to look good. But it's only $175...
I hate I hate I hate
Because the mass produced compromises by committee are perfection in steel, right?
would rather spend it on perfomance parts but front/rear bumper damaged so
they need replaced and hell stock costs more than after market so that's
what i'm looking for now so like i asked if you know of a good spot for
some please let me know
thx ChrisV for the linkage
:orglaugh: maybe someone owes this guy an apology. :thumbs:
no, because they deface the beauty of a stock car, not because of the mass produced compromises by committee are perfection in steel.
id get rims instead of bodykit. if you have a bodykit with stock rims, it'll look uglier. if you get rims with stock bumpers, itll look nicer. and for those 92 years integra's, i'd prefer stock look better then with bodykits.
I think you missed his point.... what he was saying is that "is stock the
only beautiful way a car can be? If so, who deems that this is the most
beautiful form of the car ... the execs of the company who are mass
For example, you say that bodykits deface the beauty of a stock car. What if the factory brought the car out "stock" with a "ricer" bodykit on it? Then would it be defacing it to change the kit to look like what we know to be stock now? If not, then why is it defacing it to go the other way? Who says that the company designers know what looks good more than I do? More importantly, how could the company designers possibly know what I think looks good more than I do.... or what you think looks good more than you do. They're not the only ones who can define and design "beauty".
Pre-riced bodykits! Nevar!
The guy needs a new bumper, it's no good saying that he needs to focus on performance if he's got a damaged bumper.
Wow... (eats words). Those are two super clean bodykits... doesn't really seem like they should be called bodykits. They're so subtle and clean... OK... I'll condone the use of one of those.
Wel if you think a stock mass produced compromise is eth only way a car is
beautiful then you fit the description I gave. hell, stiock isn't even teh
way teh DESIGNERS envisioned it, once teh engineers that have to BUILD it,
and teh reguations it has to meet, get through with it. That's why
production cars look so little like teh concepts, usually. So saying stock
is always the most beautiful form they came in is really silly.
Whether it's '50s customs or modern customs, making a car look different than stock, or making it look more to your liking is part of car ownership for many enthusiasts. Mass produced cars are compromises, both for performance and visually. If someone likes the stock performance, but thinks the car could look better with a few custom mods, then that's not automatically a bad thing.
Remember the thread wehre I posted pics of the basic 3 series BMW, with black bumpers and little wheels, then posted the picture of the same year M3, and how much beter it looked? If stock was always best, then WHICH stock?And if teh basic, black bumoper, no air dam, small wheel BMW looks best because it's stock, how come the M3 looks better?
Remember the one where I posted the pics of my SVT Contour and a regular on? The visual differences were the mild bodykit. Made it different than the noraml stock ones, yet it's OK beause a team of tuners inside the factory did it? Why should it matter WHICH human being did it? A group of enthsiasts in the factory, or the actual owner of the car?
More importantly, how do they design one mass prodcued non-exotic
automabile that EVERYONE is going to think looks "perfect?"
Like I said, cars are mass produced compromises that in most non-exotic cases, don't even look like the designers originally drew up. So which is "perfect?" The way the designers originally drew them up, or the way they ended up after regulations and engineers got done with them?
Hell, a lot of people here think that the PT Cruiser is ugly, and they should have made the show car instead. So how could doing cusom body mods on one of them "deface" it?
my mistake, point well taken, i was being narrow minded towards the idea of body kits, sorry.