In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
Have you ever looked at the design of the rear suspension under a Fox? If there is any vertical movement of the rear axle at all, it is in bind, and stiffer bushings only make this worse.
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
Have you ever looked at the design of the rear suspension under a Fox? If there is any vertical movement of the rear axle at all, it is in bind, and stiffer bushings only make this worse.
Think you replied to the wrong guy. I agree with you. 
I dont think that there is a point where you make that absolute judgment. People just need to be realistic about their expectations of cost/benefit.
I've been ripped apart for holding a low opinion of the Base model Plymoth Acclaim I learned to drive in.
Any manufacturer that puts 195/75r14s on a 3000 lb car deserves for their car to be labeled as 'bad handling', even if it isnt. You can ruin anything with tires like that.
I made my spirit (dodge version of acclaim) handle pretty well by accident. Im still reeling from that.
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
No, actually, I'm saying the Fox is probably worse than your Escort suggestion; I know the mk1 USDM Escorts have all sorts of bad suspension engineered into them but the rear of a Fox seems to trump it.
pres589 wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: No, actually, I'm saying the Fox is probably worse than your Escort suggestion; I know the mk1 USDM Escorts have all sorts of bad suspension engineered into them but the rear of a Fox seems to trump it.
Mine was more tongue-in-cheek considering what i'm building. 
Top Gear tried to make the wrong car handle:
In reply to Vigo:
I also think the base Acclaim had a lesser suspension package than it's siblings. That thing was scary at 70 on the interstate.
On a side note I want a 5spd Shadow as a toy. I think I might have a problem
You'd be amazed what you can get to handle. Adding the Hotchkis TVS package (basically an enormous front sway bar and a rear sway bar - stock had none) to my '94 Chevy K1500 pickup absolutely transformed it. I'm sure the 265 section width tires and Bilstein HDs didn't hurt, but that truck was a dream in the corners. Of course, it was very interesting to drive in the wet...
dj06482 wrote: You'd be amazed what you can get to handle.
"You can't make a racehorse out of a pig. But if you work hard enough at it you can make a mighty fast pig." - Bob Akin 
In reply to mmosbey:
I always thought they screwed up with that one. Spendy brakes when good pads would have been enough. Costly wheels/tires when DOT legal slicks on the stock wheels would probably have been just as good if not better. The tune up was good, but the nitrous oxide idea would have done a lot, and they'd have plenty of money to do it right.
dj06482 wrote: You'd be amazed what you can get to handle. Adding the Hotchkis TVS package (basically an enormous front sway bar and a rear sway bar - stock had none) to my '94 Chevy K1500 pickup absolutely transformed it. I'm sure the 265 section width tires and Bilstein HDs didn't hurt, but that truck was a dream in the corners. Of course, it was very interesting to drive in the wet...
Yeah, but it seems that to turn something that "doesn't handle well" into something that does, you almost have to make a go-kart out of it. If you're just building a track toy, that can be cool..but if you have to live with it on a daily basis, it can be a PITA. Stiff ride, bad wet weather manners, no creature comforts, etc.
pres589 wrote: In reply to mmosbey: I always thought they screwed up with that one. Spendy brakes when good pads would have been enough. Costly wheels/tires when DOT legal slicks on the stock wheels would probably have been just as good if not better. The tune up was good, but the nitrous oxide idea would have done a lot, and they'd have plenty of money to do it right.
I had considered a thread on how GRM would have built it...
ransom wrote: ...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*.
Getting a Dart to handle is much easier than you think. Today it's easier than it ever was. And it's not re-engineering either. Just basic rebuilding and bolt-on parts.
Tires with tread width wider than a deck of cards helps too. 
I don't know if it's precisely relevant to this, but I was going to start a new thread anyway so I'll jump in here.
I had the pleasure of spending the day as a course worker at a Street Survival school on Sunday. And after watching 30 kids wail 30 box-stock cars through cone after cone, I have to say this:
A 5-year-old V6 Camry is absolutely the least safe car you could ever send your kid out to drive.
It's kind of appalling - the Camry is the quintessential "safe and boring" car that everybody everywhere thinks is perfect for young (or elderly, for that matter) drivers. But based on my observations, it is NOT SAFE under emergency conditions.
The V6 Camry has got more than enough power to get in over its (and its driver's) head very quickly, and that flop-tastic suspension is absolutely no help to the driver once things do go south. Time after time in the lane change, slalom, and brake-n-turn exercises, it was the Camries that plowed, lurched, balked, gave up, and murdered the cones. And it was not just that the drivers were coincidentally bad - all the drivers were inexperienced - it was the appliance cars that were not doing their jobs.
Yet this is the car recommended to millions of people with no interest in cars (and who are therefore most likely to be questionable drivers). It was actually pretty scary. By contrast, the Jeep Liberty that attended was a model of composed vehicle dynamics.
yup. i autocross a 70 duster.
and used to open track and autocross an s10, a mazda P5, and an extended cab 98 dakota.
you can make anything handle, and be fun. if its worth it to you.
some cars ARE inherintly more crippled from a design standpoint (model A?? solid axle 4WD? early 80's chrysler minivan?), but with enough enginuity, fab, and compromise, you can do it.
that being said, i see no reason to try to make my 89 GMC 1500ECLB hhandle, because thats not the point.
michael
With enough fabrication anything can handle.
example = this
this cherokee took 2nd place (behind an STi) in a local BMWCCA event X2 class. This class is typically the fastest of the four non-BMW classes at every event, and dominated by Subarus. I wasn't there that week (or he would have been 3rd ;) ) but the results list shows him beating a Mazdaspeed3, a couple RX8s, an eclipse, a late model Mustang, and (gasp) a 2009 Miata
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_Y0_SkZtgw
Wait, so there's ANOTHER fast Jeep Cherokee that autocrosses with a BMWCCA chapter? What the hell were the chances of that?
iadr wrote: I'll quote Zora Arkus-Duntov (from memory): " There are 3 main factors in making a car handle. The first is roll stiffness distribution. You don't need to worry too much about the other 2."
Oh, c'mon. That has to go in the magazine.
ransom wrote: 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...
I just thought I'd chime in here and nominate this for "Say what?"
Here's a strange one. My daughter took the street survival school in the wife's 99 Chevy Venture. Through the entire day they couldn't get the thing to slide in any fashion. It wouldn't push, it wouldn't over steer. The instructor even took it out on a wet and soaped skid pad and still couldn't get either end to step out. It would just four wheel drift to the outer ring of cones. The lane change was even anticlimactic, it just went where you pointed it with minimum fuss. All this on a set of Uniroyal all season tires that they managed to destroy in the process.
I'm thinking anything can be made to handle with enough money and enough time. GM did a fairly good job on their minivan. Go figure.
familytruckster wrote: 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.
Slightly OT...
Where have you been? I've missed reading about your auto-x exploits in the Family Truckster. 
Josh wrote: Wait, so there's ANOTHER fast Jeep Cherokee that autocrosses with a BMWCCA chapter? What the hell were the chances of that?
seroiusly? i gotta get in touch with them! that thing looked really stable out there too, i wanna know what they did for suspension.
friedgreencorrado wrote: Yeah, but it seems that to turn something that "doesn't handle well" into something that does, you almost have to make a go-kart out of it. If you're just building a track toy, that can be cool..but if you have to live with it on a daily basis, it can be a PITA. Stiff ride, bad wet weather manners, no creature comforts, etc.
It wasn't too bad of a compromise, as it still had the stock torsion bars up front and the soft 1/2 ton leaf springs in back. However if you were already at the edge of traction and hit a mid-corner bump, you'd better know what you were doing. The relatively short wheelbase (117.5") for it's height and weight let things get exciting in a hurry. For example, it wasn't something I would just toss the keys to my wife if it was wet out.
I would say it was comparable to a Fox body 5.0 Mustang in the wet. Certainly very drivable, but you had to be on your toes. In the dry it was an absolute blast, and anyone could drive it. It was on rock-hard tires during the time I owned it, so that probably made the wet performance more interesting than it should have been.
I was amazed at the difference in performance for only $350 worth of swaybars!
STARTING with the correct car is very important.
E36 M3 comes to mind. It outhandles most cars in stock trim.
You'll need to log in to post.
