Horsepower cuts embarass Asians

I've seen a lot of cars with extensive (and expensive) modifications that actually degraded performance. The people doing the modifications don't really know what they're doing and end up unbalancing the suspension. The limited slip rear is not a help on a twisty road.

McPherson strut suspensions are not great off-road. Take a look at purpose-built off-road vehicles and see how many have strut suspensions.

Reply to
Ray O
Loading thread data ...

not in this instance.

er...

i'm sorry, /how/ many rally world championships have been won with mcpherson struts??? i'm talking cars, not "purpose-built off-road vehicles".

Reply to
jim beam

Here is a pretty good explanation of suspension systems:

formatting link
Every type of suspension system has trade-offs. In the ideal suspension system, the wheel will move up and down perpendicular to the road surface and maintain camber so that the tire maintains maximum contact and traction throughout the limits of wheel movement. Also, designers try to minimize unsprung weight to minimize wheel bounce. In a mass-produced vehicle, cost is a very big factor.

A double wishbone suspension does a very good job at maintaining camber throughout its movement because it acts like a pantograph but is more expensive to produce than a strut suspension.

A strut suspension generally has a lower control arm that the wheel is attached to. The lower control arm pivots where it is attached to the strut so the wheel's movement is actually an arc instead of straight vertical movement. The biggest advantage of a strut type suspension is that it is less expensive to produce while still providing more than adequate performance for every day street driving so you see it widely used on lower and mid-range cost vehicles.

Rally cars do not have strut suspensions because they are great off road; they have strut suspensions because the stock versions of the cars have strut suspensions, and the stock versions have struts because they cost less to produce than other types of suspensions.

Reply to
Ray O

agreed, but i don't see that as a disadvantage for me. there's no price differential at the consumer end.

you're correct about cost, but the fact still remains, struts have proven themselves to be good in low traction environments where the little nuances of maintaining tire contact patch that are addressed by wishbones are vanishingly unimportant. they also give a comfy ride and are less susceptible to roll. put all that on a street car and use wider tires to make up for the geometry issues, and you have something that approximates to acceptable.

Reply to
jim beam

What makes you think that there is no price differential at the consumer end? Automakers examine the cost of every part and component in every vehicle.

You sound like you have read a lot of auto enthusiast magazines but have not had formal training in automotive design, engineering, or service or experience working for an auto manufacturer. If you had, you would know instinctively that maintaining tire contact with the ground is more important in a low traction environment than in an environment where traction is not as much of an issue. You would also know that a strut suspension is not more or less susceptible to roll (I'm assuming that you are referring to body roll). Spring rates and anti-roll bars are what affect body roll. Most strut suspensions are more susceptible to camber changes. Also, wider tires do not make up for geometry issues.

McPherson and Chapman strut suspensions are in wide use not because of their superior handling characteristics, but because they are inexpensive to make and lightweight. Most people know little or nothing about suspension designs so it sounds good when the automaker points out a "MacPherson Strut" suspension and so small and mid-size vehicles that are not actually performance oriented will have them installed. You usually will not see strut suspensions on performance and high-end vehicles, particularly those with RWD. Over the years, engineers have made improvements to strut suspension geometry to more closely approximate the better performing suspensions and they are certainly acceptable for the majority of the driving public, but a someone who is knowledgeable about automotive suspensions or performance would not hint that a strut suspension is the preferred design for any reason other than cost control.

Reply to
Ray O

er, the price i pay when i buy the car?

of course, but not a single vehicle manufacturer in the world sells on a "cost plus" basis. they sell it for what they can get. different manufacturers have different profit margins.

whoa there!!! let's go out on a wild-ass limb here and speculate that i have some training and experience... wtf has that got to do with instinct???

that is the most confused garbage i've read all week.

ok, so you have one little thing correct, cost, but the rest is missing you by a country mile. i'd explain, but reading your "instinct" comment, i think i'd be wasting my time.

Reply to
jim beam

If one thinks McPherson strut suspensions are so great you might want to turn you front wheels to the extreme right or left, turn off the engine, and go look at the different orientation of the two front wheels LOL

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

I thought McPherson struts were a combination spring and shock unit. Wouldn't the orientation of the wheels have more to do with wheel alignment?

Reply to
willshak

Not all were in integral. My old 1985 midsized Ford LTD had struts but the shocks were separate. A very easy change of either item.

JT

willshak wrote:

Reply to
Grumpy AuContraire

Generally they are, and the answer to your question is no. Have you looked at your front wheels as I suggested?

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.