Horsepower cuts embarass Asians

Fair enough. My bad.

It's a synergy of all the systems involved. When building a car, the
engine wants to sit behind the suspension to promote a better center of
gravity. Because struts take up less space, the engine can sit
comfortably behind the suspension without pushing too much into the
firewall, thereby not impeding interior space. Since a wishbone setup is
bigger, the motor has to be pushed back further, and the car designer
has to decide the overall length of the car longer to account for that,
or sacrifice a little interior space. Since making the car longer will
hurt performance, the decision is usually made to cut interior space a
little. Compare the Acura TL to the Maxima and you will find that maxima
much more roomy.

OK, so trunk space goes from huge with the lateral link to ginormous
without. And the gas tank is in the same place as in other cars. No big
issue here.

I like the Corvettes

No doubt that the wishbone is better, but it is not as much better than
struts than they used to be.

CD

 

Fair enough. My bad.

It's a synergy of all the systems involved. When building a car, the
engine wants to sit behind the suspension to promote a better center of
gravity. Because struts take up less space, the engine can sit
comfortably behind the suspension without pushing too much into the
firewall, thereby not impeding interior space. Since a wishbone setup is
bigger, the motor has to be pushed back further, and the car designer
has to decide the overall length of the car longer to account for that,
or sacrifice a little interior space. Since making the car longer will
hurt performance, the decision is usually made to cut interior space a
little. Compare the Acura TL to the Maxima and you will find that maxima
much more roomy.

OK, so trunk space goes from huge with the lateral link to ginormous
without. And the gas tank is in the same place as in other cars. No big
issue here.

I like the Corvettes

No doubt that the wishbone is better, but it is not as much better than
struts than they used to be.

CD

 

Engines have been more or less over the front axle (or the
theorectical axle, in the case in independent suspension) in the vast
majority of cars since the Chrysler Airflow. The Hondas and Nissans
you mention are not exceptions.

Your original point was the space efficiency of the Nissan beam axle
design. Its not the most space efficient way to hang a beam axle on a
car. Leaf springs, which I mentioned, is more space efficient.

Upper/lower control arms have greater performance potential. With
longitudally mounted engines in BMW's rear drive cars, the difference
in the shape of the space consumed by struts versus upper/lower arms
is not an issue. BMW has chosen struts because of lower cost. It
could be expected that a car that is billed as the ultimate driving
machine would make the choice for performance.

 

Engines have been more or less over the front axle (or the
theorectical axle, in the case in independent suspension) in the vast
majority of cars since the Chrysler Airflow. The Hondas and Nissans
you mention are not exceptions.

Your original point was the space efficiency of the Nissan beam axle
design. Its not the most space efficient way to hang a beam axle on a
car. Leaf springs, which I mentioned, is more space efficient.

Upper/lower control arms have greater performance potential. With
longitudally mounted engines in BMW's rear drive cars, the difference
in the shape of the space consumed by struts versus upper/lower arms
is not an issue. BMW has chosen struts because of lower cost. It
could be expected that a car that is billed as the ultimate driving
machine would make the choice for performance.

 

i do. and that's why it's ridiculous that a cheap crappy honda with
wishbones and narrow tires hangs hangs with the big boys once the road
bends a bit.

they do. and it doesn't.

ceramic refers to the pad material. that's a $10-$20 delta compared to
standard pads. you can put ceramic pads on your buick if you want.

eh? porsche already are struts

the cayenne? those thing's are not "economic", any way you slice the
pie. the boxter is the cheapest thing porsche have in their stable
right now.

 

i do. and that's why it's ridiculous that a cheap crappy honda with
wishbones and narrow tires hangs hangs with the big boys once the road
bends a bit.

they do. and it doesn't.

ceramic refers to the pad material. that's a $10-$20 delta compared to
standard pads. you can put ceramic pads on your buick if you want.

eh? porsche already are struts

the cayenne? those thing's are not "economic", any way you slice the
pie. the boxter is the cheapest thing porsche have in their stable
right now.

 

I understand that, and I guess I didn't make myself clear. The ideal
situation is to put the engine behind the front axle. With struts the
engine can sit further behind than with wishbones, AND you dont
sacrifice as much in interior room, AND they cost less.

Do I chose a car simply because it has struts? Nope. It's the whole
package that determines whether I invest in the car or not.

Nope, my post was and is all about struts not being as bad as people
think. I digressed to beams which I feel that Nissan made a very good
compromise between practicality (a big trunk) and performance (road
holding ability). Everything involves a compromise. With wishbones you
get the best suspension, but it impedes on the practical aspect.

No argument here. Wishbones are the best. But they are no longer
magnitudes better than struts, just some what better, IMHO.
As for being the ultimate driving machine, I by no means consider BMWs
to be the best handling cars in the world, but I do beleive it to an
extent given thier price. Yes, the slogan using the word ultimate is a
bit extreme, but ALL marketing is these days. I respect that BMW really
does strive to achieve that goal in a mass produced vehicle more than
other carmakers. . . . .in that price point.


CD

 

I understand that, and I guess I didn't make myself clear. The ideal
situation is to put the engine behind the front axle. With struts the
engine can sit further behind than with wishbones, AND you dont
sacrifice as much in interior room, AND they cost less.

Do I chose a car simply because it has struts? Nope. It's the whole
package that determines whether I invest in the car or not.

Nope, my post was and is all about struts not being as bad as people
think. I digressed to beams which I feel that Nissan made a very good
compromise between practicality (a big trunk) and performance (road
holding ability). Everything involves a compromise. With wishbones you
get the best suspension, but it impedes on the practical aspect.

No argument here. Wishbones are the best. But they are no longer
magnitudes better than struts, just some what better, IMHO.
As for being the ultimate driving machine, I by no means consider BMWs
to be the best handling cars in the world, but I do beleive it to an
extent given thier price. Yes, the slogan using the word ultimate is a
bit extreme, but ALL marketing is these days. I respect that BMW really
does strive to achieve that goal in a mass produced vehicle more than
other carmakers. . . . .in that price point.


CD

 

Dont doubt it. Like I keep saying, Wishbones are better, just not much
much better than struts.

No, the rotors themsleves are ceramic. Like I said earlier, its an $8000
option.

Fair enough, my bad. but doesnt that say something that Porsches are
using struts?

The cayman is a poor man's Porsche 911. Basically its a Boxter coupe.
The Cayennee is their SUV.

CD

 

Dont doubt it. Like I keep saying, Wishbones are better, just not much
much better than struts.

No, the rotors themsleves are ceramic. Like I said earlier, its an $8000
option.

Fair enough, my bad. but doesnt that say something that Porsches are
using struts?

The cayman is a poor man's Porsche 911. Basically its a Boxter coupe.
The Cayennee is their SUV.

CD

 

jim beam wrote:

http://www11.porsche.com/cayman/pcna.asp

I wouldn't mind a Cayman. Cayenne? WTF is that for????

Andy

 

jim beam wrote:

http://www11.porsche.com/cayman/pcna.asp

I wouldn't mind a Cayman. Cayenne? WTF is that for????

Andy

 

Ideal for what? Doing that unavoidably increases the length of the
car, given a desire for the same passenger room, or decreases
passenger room within the same length. I believe that for the typical
length of a compact or mid size car, putting the engine completely
behind the front axle would result in a car with either no trunk or no
rear seat.

I disagree. With a transverse mounted engine, the lower control arm
on an upper/lower arm system or the control arm on a strut system is
below the engine. Nothing changes there. However, an upper/lower
control arm system with the shock mounted to the lower arm results in
a narrower engine compartment at mid height than a strut suspension.

Essentially, the space consumed, front view, or right suspension is
this:

Strut

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Upper/lower control arm

xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Space consumption differences are irrelevant with longitudinally
mounted engines except a very long stroke horizontially opposed
design. Honda obviously struggled getting upper/lower control arms in
its cars, ending up with a system of intricately curved parts that is
both expensive and fragile. The most space efficient engine
compartment design I've seen is that used on the Chrysler LH cars,
which used struts but appear to have been able to use upper/lower arms
if desired. But then, Chrysler didn't intend to promote the LH as the
Ultimate Driving Machine.

In the case of rear drive, except with a horizontally opposed engine,
there are no practical functional benefits to struts. Its all cost.

At that price point? When the BMW 3 series came out, every American
built car had an upper/lower control arm system. Many cost less than
the 3 series. Probably every one cost less per pound than the 3
series.

In Europe, at the same time, an upscale economy car, the Opel 1900,
had upper/lower arms and tapered coil springs. And a few years later,
in the US, GM introduced the econobox Chevette with the same
configuration. Ultimate driving machine? <smirk>

 

Ideal for what? Doing that unavoidably increases the length of the
car, given a desire for the same passenger room, or decreases
passenger room within the same length. I believe that for the typical
length of a compact or mid size car, putting the engine completely
behind the front axle would result in a car with either no trunk or no
rear seat.

I disagree. With a transverse mounted engine, the lower control arm
on an upper/lower arm system or the control arm on a strut system is
below the engine. Nothing changes there. However, an upper/lower
control arm system with the shock mounted to the lower arm results in
a narrower engine compartment at mid height than a strut suspension.

Essentially, the space consumed, front view, or right suspension is
this:

Strut

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Upper/lower control arm

xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Space consumption differences are irrelevant with longitudinally
mounted engines except a very long stroke horizontially opposed
design. Honda obviously struggled getting upper/lower control arms in
its cars, ending up with a system of intricately curved parts that is
both expensive and fragile. The most space efficient engine
compartment design I've seen is that used on the Chrysler LH cars,
which used struts but appear to have been able to use upper/lower arms
if desired. But then, Chrysler didn't intend to promote the LH as the
Ultimate Driving Machine.

In the case of rear drive, except with a horizontally opposed engine,
there are no practical functional benefits to struts. Its all cost.

At that price point? When the BMW 3 series came out, every American
built car had an upper/lower control arm system. Many cost less than
the 3 series. Probably every one cost less per pound than the 3
series.

In Europe, at the same time, an upscale economy car, the Opel 1900,
had upper/lower arms and tapered coil springs. And a few years later,
in the US, GM introduced the econobox Chevette with the same
configuration. Ultimate driving machine? <smirk>

 

Ideal to promote a 50/50 weight distribution which makes the car handle
better.

I dont know about you, but in these diagrams, I see the strut being more
space efficient. It sticks out a bit more but you can do more with the
space that it doesnt take up.

I disagree.
Honda obviously struggled getting upper/lower control arms in

Compared witht the Honda accord, those LH cars were very long in
wheelbase and overall length. Whaever efficeincy achieved in the engine
compartment was lost elsewhere.

In the US market, BMW makes a driver's car. Most American cars aren't
built with passion to be driven, those lower control arms are just there
so they can boast about it in the marketing brochures. Lower control
arms? Yeah, it's got em. But can those cars handle? fuhgetaboutit. the 3
series with the "less" capable struts will run circles around them.


You got me on the Europeans cars, though. I completely agree. I wish
those kind of car were available here in the US. Chevette's suck, you
can keep those un-developed hashed together control arms, but Opel's I like.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. Apparently we see the
same things very differently.

CD

 

Ideal to promote a 50/50 weight distribution which makes the car handle
better.

I dont know about you, but in these diagrams, I see the strut being more
space efficient. It sticks out a bit more but you can do more with the
space that it doesnt take up.

I disagree.
Honda obviously struggled getting upper/lower control arms in

Compared witht the Honda accord, those LH cars were very long in
wheelbase and overall length. Whaever efficeincy achieved in the engine
compartment was lost elsewhere.

In the US market, BMW makes a driver's car. Most American cars aren't
built with passion to be driven, those lower control arms are just there
so they can boast about it in the marketing brochures. Lower control
arms? Yeah, it's got em. But can those cars handle? fuhgetaboutit. the 3
series with the "less" capable struts will run circles around them.


You got me on the Europeans cars, though. I completely agree. I wish
those kind of car were available here in the US. Chevette's suck, you
can keep those un-developed hashed together control arms, but Opel's I like.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. Apparently we see the
same things very differently.

CD

 

And what all do you give up that's relevant to a passenger car? How
do you justify this design for passenger car use? Some racing cars
used to use this configuration... 50 years ago! Now the engines are
behind the driver.

It doesn't matter with a longitudinally mounted engine. There's
nothing to be done with the space, except stick in accessory items
that could to anywhere.

Irrelevant without an argument to show your point.

Lost? Has it occurred to you that they were **intended** to be large
cars inside and out? They were quite succesful, but functionally and
commercially. Of course, this is lost on people who consider whatever
size the current Accord is to be the perfect size car.

Based on your last sentence above, we can assume struts have upper
arms. Correct terminology is that a strut suspension has a control
arm and what is called a "wishbone" suspension has upper and lower
control arms.

In any case, advertising for American cars in the era I referred to
didn't mention upper/lower control arms. The major suspension
advertising of the era was Chrysler pushing its torsion bars and the
Asians pushing struts as "sports car" feature or one featured on
premium European cars.

In fact, the strut suspension was a design proposal for the 1949 Ford,
intended as a cheap way of building an independent front suspension
and was rejected for use at that time. The original design was a
marvel of "no parts" and "cheap parts" as the control arm wasn't
triangulated and the anti-roll bar provided the third point.

Ford didn't use struts on a North American built product until the
1978 Fairmont (can you say "cheap"). Chrysler didn't use them until
1978, on the Horizon/Omni, and GM didn't use them until 1980, on the
Citation etc. Note the appropriateness for FWD (the packaging reasons
I mentioned earlier), in two of the three applications mentioned
above, and "cheap" in all of them.

All a matter of the choices made in other areas. With a comparable
philosophy and equal development, struts are inferior to an
upper/lower arm system. Your argument is the same as saying you can
haul more stuff in a C1500 than in a Honda Civic.

The Chevette started life as an Opel. It was GM's world ecnonobox
design, built in Europe by Opel, in the US by Chevrolet, and in Japan
by Isuzu. They're easy to recognize as being the same because the
steering column in all those cars doesn't aim straight back at the
driver. Aims a little to the left. They didn't bother with a link in
the steering mechanism to compensate for the fact that the entry point
to the steering rack was inboard of the steering wheel location.

Just trying to fill you in.

 

And what all do you give up that's relevant to a passenger car? How
do you justify this design for passenger car use? Some racing cars
used to use this configuration... 50 years ago! Now the engines are
behind the driver.

It doesn't matter with a longitudinally mounted engine. There's
nothing to be done with the space, except stick in accessory items
that could to anywhere.

Irrelevant without an argument to show your point.

Lost? Has it occurred to you that they were **intended** to be large
cars inside and out? They were quite succesful, but functionally and
commercially. Of course, this is lost on people who consider whatever
size the current Accord is to be the perfect size car.

Based on your last sentence above, we can assume struts have upper
arms. Correct terminology is that a strut suspension has a control
arm and what is called a "wishbone" suspension has upper and lower
control arms.

In any case, advertising for American cars in the era I referred to
didn't mention upper/lower control arms. The major suspension
advertising of the era was Chrysler pushing its torsion bars and the
Asians pushing struts as "sports car" feature or one featured on
premium European cars.

In fact, the strut suspension was a design proposal for the 1949 Ford,
intended as a cheap way of building an independent front suspension
and was rejected for use at that time. The original design was a
marvel of "no parts" and "cheap parts" as the control arm wasn't
triangulated and the anti-roll bar provided the third point.

Ford didn't use struts on a North American built product until the
1978 Fairmont (can you say "cheap"). Chrysler didn't use them until
1978, on the Horizon/Omni, and GM didn't use them until 1980, on the
Citation etc. Note the appropriateness for FWD (the packaging reasons
I mentioned earlier), in two of the three applications mentioned
above, and "cheap" in all of them.

All a matter of the choices made in other areas. With a comparable
philosophy and equal development, struts are inferior to an
upper/lower arm system. Your argument is the same as saying you can
haul more stuff in a C1500 than in a Honda Civic.

The Chevette started life as an Opel. It was GM's world ecnonobox
design, built in Europe by Opel, in the US by Chevrolet, and in Japan
by Isuzu. They're easy to recognize as being the same because the
steering column in all those cars doesn't aim straight back at the
driver. Aims a little to the left. They didn't bother with a link in
the steering mechanism to compensate for the fact that the entry point
to the steering rack was inboard of the steering wheel location.

Just trying to fill you in.