Suspension Thoughts

The place to be for a casual day's fun pushing your car to its limits.

Suspension Thoughts

Postby q_enzo » Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:39 pm

recently, i've been paying more attention about what's underneath the cars. I noticed that suspension arms on my Accord look fairly thin and weak compared to say the new Civics with a really thick/ heavy duty looking rear wheel suspension.

and I noticed that a lot of SUVs changed from leaf springs to heavy duty looking coils (ie. i think new Explorers got these).

I'm just perplexed that some suspension "looks" a lot weaker than what they could handle, whereas, on some newer cars, the suspenson looks a lot beefier.
Eternal BLUE Accord V6
User avatar
q_enzo
Novice Driver
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Oct 2002

Postby CptMorgan » Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:46 pm

In my opinion, most newer vehicles (especially SUVs) are being built with weaker looking suspension parts. With the price of new fancy material falling quickly, many car companies are saving weight and money by going with lighter but stiffer parts (steel vs. Alum. vs. Composite).
Things to remember:
Alum look stronger than steel because they must be 2-3 times thicker than there steel counterpart.
Cars and SUV are seeing on average much less stress that in the past due to better roads and less offroading.
Explorers now have IRS to increase handling (and reduce law suits).
CRV/RAV4 have scary thin suspension parts
User avatar
CptMorgan
Novice Driver
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Richmond

Postby Boosted6 » Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:13 pm

The new Civics are supposed to suck in handling. The SiR did worst in this months Sport Compact. :?
"Speed limits are just a suggestion, like pants."
-Homer J.

'88 Mx6 GT Junkyard dog
User avatar
Boosted6
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Vancouver

Postby -S- » Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:23 pm

Oi, you mean you listen to Sport Compact? I think the civic's got one of the crappest tires in that test, w/ 195/60/15 Michelin MXV4. I also think it's the only one in the group with 15" rims! Not that I am a fan of that fugly POS anyways, but I read what SCC says with a bag of salt.
-Sunny
User avatar
-S-
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Burnaby, B.C./Toronto, ON

Postby dov » Wed Dec 11, 2002 10:52 pm

even with a good set of tires the the new civic handles worse than the mid 90's hatch. that just shows that honda does not have a comitment to proformance in it's low end cars. There is no way that they haven't developed enough new technolagy since 92' to improve the handleing on that thing and make the suspention more compact.(they choose to do one and not the other.) Even with the sticker tires it still has the least amount of power, the slowest 1/4 mile (hich sticky time might stightly improve but not the .3 sec it is behind it's nearest competitor. ) and the worst handleing (stickier tires might improve it by .02 g's but that's still behind almost every thing.
Honda civics were never ment to be fast cars they lucked out and the suspention wasn't bad in the mid 90's by chance alone.From 88 to when they stopped making the hatch it had potential. But most of honda buyers could care less about how the car handles. They value interior room more than handleing. the new civic is a reflection of that. the fact that the new si is supposed to be fast seems funny. Mehhh. all "good" things come to an end some time. I never liked those things to begin with.
User avatar
dov
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego

Postby AllWheelDrift » Thu Dec 12, 2002 12:56 am

Tires make a night and day difference.
User avatar
AllWheelDrift
Mr. Sideways
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Vancouver

Postby -S- » Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:08 am

Not that I really care about civics at all, but I must question your source Dov...

1) have you ever driven a car w/ sticky tires? 0.02g gain from sticky tire seems awfully little, unless you started with the likes of S02/S03/AVS Sports. From an all season to r-comps is a huge difference.

2) I don't think honda "lucked out" designing the old civic's suspension. You can't "luck out" a set of double wishbone suspension in an economy car there.

At the end of the day, a civic is still a civic, and a porsche is still a porsche, but I think we've seen enough evidence that civics' success isn't exactally unfounded and based on luck.

Now why the hell am I defending civics? :roll:
-Sunny
User avatar
-S-
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Burnaby, B.C./Toronto, ON

Postby dov » Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:59 pm

I agree that from all seasons to r compounds is a huge difference. Last time I checked not that many car makers put r compounds on their cars from the factory. I checked tough and I think you right. I was working under the assumtion that honda had put a "high performance" tire while the others had put on "ultra high performace" tires on in that case the difference would be .02g's ish. I didn't realize that they had made that poor a dissision when choosing what tire to run on the new civic. I think that this is a reflection of how much honda values peroformace. If honda wanted the new civic to handle better from the factory the would have put better tires on their car. It's not like it would have cost them much. A set of kumho 712's 225 40 16 cost less to the public.
As for the when I said they "lucked out" i should have chosen my words more carefully. My intention was to say that I don't think that when the honda enginers disided to choose one form of suspention over another it was for profomace reasons.
I could just be being hard on the poor little car because i dislike honda's. The mian reason for that is I've met too many people that talked about there civic'c as if the were faster than vette's and talked about the over pirced intake that bought as if it was a turbo kit.
At the end of the day I'd rather be driving any other car that sport compact tested in that article and the order in witch I perfer them is just about the same as the order in witch they came in the scc's test. So I think that the test was accurate enough for me.
I don't think that honda lucked out with the civic. It is and was a realiable easy to drive cheep form of transportation. That is what most people are looking for. Some people tryed racing it found out that it didn't handle to bad and it found a following. Same thing happened to the origial mini in europe. But most people will agree with me that a car that first came with a 800cc engine was probably not intended to proform.
User avatar
dov
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego

Postby PVT » Thu Dec 12, 2002 2:18 pm

One thing to keep in mind here is that the Macpherson strut isn't instantly the worst thing on earth. Some worldclass cars use them, Porsche and BMW for example.
PVT
ex-VP
 
Posts: 933
Joined: Oct 2002

Postby dov » Thu Dec 12, 2002 3:27 pm

Dam it I wanted to argue with some one who likes the new civics.
Any way( at least in my opinion )
Comparing a civic to a bmw is like camparing Halle Barry to Rosie O'Donnell. Just because they use the same ________(fill in the blank) doesn't mean that they are even slighly simalar. If your trying to say that if it's posible for other company's to over come the evils of the Macpherson strut than It's posible for honda to over come them. In general I would agree with you But honda's motovations for putting Macpherson struts in an economy car are not the same motovations that the enginers at Porsche had.
User avatar
dov
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego

Postby Boosted6 » Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:57 pm

PF-Racing wrote:One thing to keep in mind here is that the Macpherson strut isn't instantly the worst thing on earth. Some worldclass cars use them, Porsche and BMW for example.


Yeah, but those guys spend the $$ to do it right. It just seems that what's happening to the Civic is the same thing that happened to the GTI. They're getting more and more expensive, heavy, and luxury-oriented rather than sport-oriented.

As for SCC, you damn right! What the hell were they doing testing a prototype SRT-4 against stock everything else? How much you wanna bet, the SRT ends up running mid to high 14s with a boost setting of 11-12psi and a more restricitve exhaust system. Sure, you could get it to be faster, but judging from the somewhat portly PT cruiser, it's not gonna be THAT fast from the factory.
"Speed limits are just a suggestion, like pants."
-Homer J.

'88 Mx6 GT Junkyard dog
User avatar
Boosted6
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Vancouver

Postby dov » Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:30 pm

I don't think the power on the neon was un realistic for a factory car. most high end european turbo cars make around 100 hp per liter+. (volvo, saab, benz ect. ) the prototype dodge made 223 hp form a 2.4L turbo. If other car manufacturers can make reliable cars with that much hp/L than why can't dodge. Ok maybe the car that ends up coming from the factory will have a little less hp take 20 or 30 hp out of that thing and it'll still run mid 14's. It was 1.2 sec faster in the 1/4 than anything elce. Even If that gap drops to .9 sec that's still miles infront of the compatition. I think dodge sees an the big picture. This car will make dodge the king of FWD proformace. The figure If they have the best fastest compact fwd car on the market people will go buy normal neons. It worked for honda. Almost every jackass that wants to own a type R drives some kind of honda product. It's 1000$ us more than the civic SI and less than an SIR wich would you buy. (personally I'd rather drive the protege but that's just by taste to bad it only comes in two colors).
User avatar
dov
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego

Postby Boosted6 » Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:57 pm

The protege has the best handling. It'd prob kick ass for autoX. Won't take much more boost though, they didn't mod the internals enough.
Alls I'm saying is the SRT-4 is gonna be mid-14s at best. That still makes it plenty fast, but running 14psi is pretty high for a stock car. The protege makes 6psi.

As for Dodge:
http://www.thedodgegarage.com/index.html

Heh heh heh 10 sec. Reliant :twisted:
"Speed limits are just a suggestion, like pants."
-Homer J.

'88 Mx6 GT Junkyard dog
User avatar
Boosted6
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Vancouver

Postby raene » Thu Dec 12, 2002 10:50 pm

Does ANYbody like the new Civics? :roll:
'88 CRX Si - 10.909 @ 135.31 mph

C/Mod (d'oh! but expected I guess)
User avatar
raene
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Nov 2002

Postby dov » Sat Dec 14, 2002 1:00 pm

I haven't met anybody but I'm sure they exist. If people liked those ugly pontiac aztec's enough to buy them :? , there must be people who want to buy the new civic. Do you like it?????? :? If you want you can start a pole question about it. It would go like this;

Do you like the new civic si and sir?

1) yes, because I have no taste.

2) no, because it's slow.

3) no, because it's ugly.

4) no, because it's ugly and slow.
User avatar
dov
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego

Postby v67_gsr » Sat Dec 14, 2002 1:54 pm

dov wrote:I haven't met anybody but I'm sure they exist. If people liked those ugly pontiac aztec's enough to buy them :? , there must be people who want to buy the new civic. Do you like it?????? :? If you want you can start a pole question about it. It would go like this;

Do you like the new civic si and sir?

1) yes, because I have no taste.

2) no, because it's slow.

3) no, because it's ugly.

4) no, because it's ugly and slow.


Not to mention the insurance is sky high.
V67-GSR
Retired
FFImageFRImageMRImage
is there any MF?
User avatar
v67_gsr
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Nov 2002

Postby dov » Sat Dec 14, 2002 10:13 pm

why would the insurance be high on a civic??? It's an economy car. And who would wan't to steal something that ugly. How much is it?
User avatar
dov
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego

Postby v67_gsr » Sun Dec 15, 2002 3:09 am

dov wrote:why would the insurance be high on a civic??? It's an economy car. And who would wan't to steal something that ugly. How much is it?


Didn't u know that ICBC apply new insurance rate?
Before the new rate, with 43% discount, my car (Integra GSR) cost only ~1650. Under new rate, it will cost me ~2800.

My friend told me a RSX, with 0% discount, will cost like ~6000 under the new rate. So i am pretty sure the old and new SIR will be in the same range like RSX and Integra.

All i can say is @#$% ICBC.
V67-GSR
Retired
FFImageFRImageMRImage
is there any MF?
User avatar
v67_gsr
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Nov 2002

Postby dov » Sun Dec 15, 2002 12:06 pm

:o :shock: :o :shock: :x :x 6000$ thats wrong are u sure that that isn't the price with a 205% upcharge or something.
User avatar
dov
Senior Driver
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego

Postby N2O4U » Sun Dec 15, 2002 3:35 pm

Well the Civic is a very highly-stolen car in this area. Mainly for wheels, motor (if SiR) etc.
That's why the insurance is so high. Previous year's SiR (older body style) had stupid insurance rates as well.
User avatar
N2O4U
ex-fix web guy
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Oct 2002

Next

Return to Autocross (Solo II)



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests