Where do you say "These cars just don't handle"?

I didn't want to hijack the thread about making a Volvo 240 or 740 handle, but it got me thinking.

My current DD is a '96 Volvo 850 GLT wagon (non-turbo auto). While it handles really well for a wagon, it does have a touch of luxury float to it. But I realize that's how it was designed. It was a marketed as a near luxury car with some sporting intentions.

I know this is GRM and understand the idea, but where do you draw the line and say that a certain car was just never designed with handling in mind? As an extreme example, take the Buick Park Avenue. I'm sure if you spent a boatload...pun intended...on suspension parts and Star Spec tires, you could get it to handle fairly well. But it really was never designed and engineered with that in mind, so how much will you really get out of all those parts?

So is there a point where you'd say to yourself, or someone asking advice, that car "x" was designed as a luxury car (or family sedan or whatever) and was never meant to be a handling car?

I don't know what you're talking about

This thread reminds me of a few years ago when a friend spent thousands on trying to make his 02 Silverado sportier. He had a reg cab/short bed 2wd v6 for a foundation. The truck got dropped (not blocks and hangers), upgrade shocks and springs, grippy tires, air intake, mass air meter, chip, headers, catback and Im sure there is alot more. It plowed worse than stock imo and wasnt any faster. I dont know alot about truck suspension geometry, but this was a bad combo.

I've been ripped apart for holding a low opinion of the Base model Plymoth Acclaim I learned to drive in.

I have since learned to go with the "Thumper Rule" when it comes to someone's project. And political threads.

I'd think it's safe to say that anything can be improved, can't it? If I ever get caught up on projectes (ha!) I'd love to lower the 4Runner and get a decent alignment on it. Thing has so much positive camber you'd think it would wear the outsides of the front tires.

But I'm sure there are limits. Again, the 4Runner weighs, what, more than two tons? Not going to be a canyon carver. Some cars are limited by their suspension design and you'd have to really change a lot to get them to work well. But, really, we overcome a lot of that all the time. The semi-trailing arms on a Merkur are a nightmare if you lower the car at all. When I had mine, it was lowered by the PO. But once I did some work and shimmed things it was amazing how well it could work. Just don't let it move! I think that's kind of the secret to a lot of bad designs.

I prefer cars that focus on a limited number of tasks and do those extremely well over cars that try to be all things to all people. I sometimes question the intelligence of people that spend a ton of dough trying to make some family sedan into a canyon carver but at the same time sort of understand how big projects start off as small improvements. Sometimes it's just fun to be different and make a Volvo wagon beat a Civic Si on an autocross course, not because it's easy but because it's hard. I certainly didn't go the traditional route with my V12 powered MGB-GT but am immensly proud of doing something that many said couldn't be done. The tradition of making something meant for one thing into something else goes back to the beginning of the automobile. Just look at Porsche, they took a Beetle and made it into the Series 1, which became the 356. Who would have thought that a car designed to be the "Peoples car" could be made into an iconic sports car?

I believe that the Fox platform was designed to not handle...

Definitely not my intention to bash anyone's car or ideas. It was more a theoretical question.

Loosecannon, I agree with your points. Sometimes it's fun to do things that are different and make cars do amazing things. Just wondering where people would stop and say it's just not worth it.

How can a car 'not handle?' Doesn't it either handle well, or handle poorly?

Doing nothing to avoid impressions of schizophrenia... I guess it's down to what one is trying to achieve.

They're not at the absolute top my list, but I am rather fond of late-'60s and early '70s Dodge Darts. My sister had a '69, and it was among the foulest-handling things I've ever driven (turn steering wheel; somewhere below decks the tires start to take off on a new heading; eventually word is sent to the body to start rolling; a coon's age later, the springs wind up and the outside door handles kiss the ground and then head off in search of the tires...). And yet some part of me really wants to do a Trans-Am style thing with one, and I'm sure that'll take a lot of re-engineering to be even liveable.

This from the same person who was questioning the wisdom of using an S-10 chassis as a project base because it was sub-optimal as compared to building a Locost chassis.

Is it as simple as adjusting the question to "Where do you say that this car's handling can't be improved enough to allow me to enjoy it even though I think it's this cool (holds hands far apart)?"

The way I took this was 'I drove this car and it just kind of floated and bounced around and didn't feel connected in any real way to the street below it' with a side of 'and it plowed / snap-oversteered around corners'. And I've driven a late-90's Park Avenue Ultra that felt just like that, like the designers and somehow wrapped everything in foam rubber.

I worked as a valet in college, and in that time drove hundreds of makes and models and trim levels. It quickly became apparent to me that 95% of cars and trucks on the roads are not designed to be interesting or engaging to drive. Among these rolling appliances, some were really solid and well built, some were really s!!tty, but most were just average and boring.

I'm sure that with a few dollars and plenty of patience, you could modify nearly any of these 'point a to point b' vehicles to accelerate faster, brake harder and corner with more grip. But you're still playing catch-up to those 5% of cars which were designed for and by enthusiasts, cars which can handle straight off the showroom floor, cars which when tweaked with the same mods remain massively more fun to drive.

Fuel for the fire: 'Nothing says "triumph of enthusiasm over physics" like a FWD race car'

Klayfish wrote: So is there a point where you'd say to yourself, or someone asking advice, that car "x" was designed as a luxury car (or family sedan or whatever) and was never meant to be a handling car?

When it's a Reliant Robin?

I've never had the displeasure of driving a vehicle which meets this description, other than perhaps the Ford Taurus I took driver's ED in, but that was more due to the fact that there was a set of pedals in the passenger footwell that were linked to the pedals on the driver's side and made it evil to drive and made the throttle completely and totally unresponsive, to the point I had to floor it to slowly accelerate from 40mph to 45mph. even my riding lawnmower is decently fun to drive/ride, on the off chance it's not being obtuse and causing the safety switches to act up, and the golf cart on my grandparent's farm is decently entertaining to drive, even though I very nearly bicycled it a few times

Klayfish wrote: So is there a point where you'd say to yourself, or someone asking advice, that car "x" was designed as a luxury car (or family sedan or whatever) and was never meant to be a handling car?

I would say the line is "when my enjoyment of the car is no longer increased by an incremental improvement in handling."

For example, the things that I like about my Suburban are that it was cheap to buy, can haul just about anything, I can take it camping as an improptu RV, and it has that mean big block sound. It could use some better tires for more grip on wet and slippery roads, but beyond that, I can't see myself putting handling mods on it. I don't need it to handle.

There's also cases where I'd recommend someone else not try to make a car handle if it's clear their goals would be better met elsewhere. If you want the challenge of making a Dart handle better or want to run a Cadillac hearse in LeMons for giggles, go ahead. If you want to go drifting in a Lexus ES300 "because it's what I've got" - consider getting something else.

ransom wrote: My sister had a '69, and it was among the foulest-handling things I've ever driven (turn steering wheel; somewhere below decks the tires start to take off on a new heading; eventually word is sent to the body to start rolling; a coon's age later, the springs wind up and the outside door handles kiss the ground and then head off in search of the tires...).

Thanks. That really made me LOL. Brought back memories of test driving a '69 Charger some 20 years ago.

It seems that with stiff enough springs, high quality shocks and very sticky tires, just about anything can be made to "handle". The Cayenne and X5M are somewhat proof of that.

I'd agree with the reliant robin comment.

I run a country squire. With some used mustang wheels/tires, some street stock springs and shocks, the car is amazing and did really well auto-xing. Except for the fact that the rear axle eats bearings and axle shafts every few months and has ruined a few diffs it's been quite reliable too.

I've gotten much more enjoyment per dollar on the squire suspension than the BMW 318ti that I commute in.

I think at least in Ford's case, the big boat has a far better suspension than their ponycar....

I started my professional life, like a few of us on this board, as an alignment technician. When I see cars I see them from underneath. I see the simplicity or complexity of their suspensions first. I like to look at a car that is said to "handle" then look at a car that is said to "wallow like a pig" and compare them.

Case in point:

I will suggest anyone here take these three similarly classed vehicles and look under them and tell me why one is a better autocross car than the other:

Vehicle one: Mark III or IV Jetta or Golf

Vehicle two: B13 or B14 Sentra

Vehicle three: GM J Body

Trick question - they all suck!

Our MKIV Jetta was a wallowing, understeering pig on its stock steelies and all-seasons. On BBS alloys and z-rated tires, it was transformed into a sure-footed, understeering pig. Improvement! The car was pretty nose heavy, and sticky tires amplified the body roll inherent with its soft springs and rear torsion beam. Instead of sinking thousands into modifying the car to be a more fun and capable autocrosser, I picked up and modified an old Miata. Much better ROI.

I've never driven a B13 Sentra, but the stock, automatic-equipped B14's I've driven in anger were turds. Narrow, hard tires, overboosted steering with little feel, super soft spring rates, massive body roll, and terminal understeer make for a car that's frustrating in the corners and unstable at high speeds.

In the spirit of this thread, both of these cars could be made to handle much better by adding: new springs, new shocks, new swaybars and tires. But without massive modifications to their weight distribution and suspension geometries, the cars will have a hard time outdriving real sports cars - so why bother? (Yes, I realize that LOTS of GRM readers will disagree with me on this point)

nderwater wrote: Trick question - they all suck!

LOL!

They all have nearly identical suspensions so they should. But guys out there will defend a B13 Sentra or a MKIII Golf to the death at the same time write off a Beetle or a Cadervalier!

My poor old mercedes wasn't really designed with great handling in mind and the stock 205/70/14 tires don't do it any favors. When pushed hard through curves I can basically judge how close to the limit the car is by how badly the front tires beg me to stop. Combined with the fact that the I6 engine is a rev monster without a lot of low end torque means if you slow the engine before a turn there really isn't a good way to prevent the understeer using the throttle. I have a set of 16x8 rims but the roads here in the SF bay area suck bad and I don't want to destroy my rare set of rims. It is all about trade offs, I can if I want to put on a set of lowering springs, +2 rims, rear camber kit, and koni yellows, but it would hurt the drivability of the car. I would much prefer a car which doesn't handle as well to one which is constantly bottoming out, bending rims, etc. The stock Fuchs with 70 series tires will absorb impacts and just keep going, hitting a 6in deep pot hole in Oakland doing 45mph will likely kill a nice set of rims and low profile tires.

MadScientistMatt wrote:

Klayfish wrote: So is there a point where you'd say to yourself, or someone asking advice, that car "x" was designed as a luxury car (or family sedan or whatever) and was never meant to be a handling car?

I would say the line is "when my enjoyment of the car is no longer increased by an incremental improvement in handling." For example, the things that I like about my Suburban are that it was cheap to buy, can haul just about anything, I can take it camping as an improptu RV, and it has that mean big block sound. It could use some better tires for more grip on wet and slippery roads, but beyond that, I can't see myself putting handling mods on it. I don't need it to handle. There's also cases where I'd recommend someone else not try to make a car handle if it's clear their goals would be better met elsewhere. If you want the challenge of making a Dart handle better or want to run a Cadillac hearse in LeMons for giggles, go ahead. If you want to go drifting in a Lexus ES300 "because it's what I've got" - consider getting something else.

As well as getting an education in what drifting IS.

FWD drifting isn't fun for anyone.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

MadScientistMatt wrote:

Klayfish wrote: So is there a point where you'd say to yourself, or someone asking advice, that car "x" was designed as a luxury car (or family sedan or whatever) and was never meant to be a handling car?

I would say the line is "when my enjoyment of the car is no longer increased by an incremental improvement in handling." For example, the things that I like about my Suburban are that it was cheap to buy, can haul just about anything, I can take it camping as an improptu RV, and it has that mean big block sound. It could use some better tires for more grip on wet and slippery roads, but beyond that, I can't see myself putting handling mods on it. I don't need it to handle. There's also cases where I'd recommend someone else not try to make a car handle if it's clear their goals would be better met elsewhere. If you want the challenge of making a Dart handle better or want to run a Cadillac hearse in LeMons for giggles, go ahead. If you want to go drifting in a Lexus ES300 "because it's what I've got" - consider getting something else.

As well as getting an education in what drifting IS. FWD drifting isn't fun for anyone.

I wholeheartedly disagree. FWD drifting is to real racing like wheelchair pole vaulting is to the 100M hurdles. You know its stupid until you see someone do it right... then you know it is good stuff!

pres589 wrote: I believe that the Fox platform was designed to not handle...

lol

Escorts were never meant to handle. They suck. Bad.