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

Duke wrote: 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.

I want an 89-91 Camry V6 with a manual swap for autox duty.

I also think the base Acclaim had a lesser suspension package than it's siblings. That thing was scary at 70 on the interstate.

Problem still = tires.

Ive owned most of the k-cars ever made.

My first AutoX ever i pax'd 15 out of roughly 60 with a stock Dodge Dynasty with upgraded tires (not even great tires). I raced for almost a year like this and usually finished mid-pack or better. I usually won H-stock.

Duke wrote: **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.

Yet basically every Camry of the last 10 years falls in under 50 deaths per million registered vehicles, while the 02-04 Jeep Liberty is up around 90-120 deaths per million vehicles. Weird.

Source.

ppddppdd wrote:

Duke wrote: **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.

Yet basically every Camry of the last 10 years falls in under 50 deaths per million registered vehicles, while the 02-04 Jeep Liberty is up around 90-120 deaths per million vehicles. Weird. Source.

That's more about who survives the crash than how many crashes.

I don't understand why ALL cars aren't designed to handle predictably. (And by predictably I don't mean terminal under-steer)

The people who worship at the alter of "ride quality" can have their tug-boat ride with tall soft springs, and those of us who would trade softness for agility, could be satisfied with stiffer springs and sway-bars. But the core suspension geometry should remain the same. Okay maybe different durometer urethane in the bushings, but that could be an easy swap.

I don't understand why it is acceptable to design a car that doesn't go where it is steered, but instead gradually runs off the road on the outside of the corner. How is that considered safe?

Vigo wrote:

Inspiration for my LHS.

Vigo wrote: Ive owned most of the k-cars ever made. My first AutoX ever i pax'd 15 out of roughly 60 with a stock Dodge Dynasty with upgraded tires (not even great tires). I raced for almost a year like this and usually finished mid-pack or better. I usually won H-stock.

As HS is the slowest class in autocross, props for finishishing mid-pack. HS not exactly hotly contested though, so as interesting and surprising as this story is, I think this anecdote says more about you and your competition than it does about the Dynasty. I'd love to see you drive back to back runs in a K-car and one of the perennial autox favorites (CRX si, MINI, Miata, MR2) and note your times and driving impressions.

In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:

No need for a manual swap. They were available with manuals from the factory. 156 horsepower 2.5 liter V6.

In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:

No need for a manual swap. They were available with manuals from the factory. 156 horsepower 2.5 liter V6.

chaparral wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: No need for a manual swap. They were available with manuals from the factory. 156 horsepower 2.5 liter V6.

Well i'll be damned. I've been told for years that they didn't exist. But there it is... uses an E-series transmission, too! That opens up all kinds of easy and hilarious swaps!

5vzfe-powered 1990 5spd camry? Don't mind if i do!

For my next trick... i'll try to find one.

dj06482 wrote: 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!

That's actually pretty impressive. I wonder what it would have done with a better set of tires! And I've driven a buddy's FBStang in the wet, I see what you mean.

neon4891 wrote: 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

Suspension geometry is more or less the same across the board. The only difference is in the steering ratio, sway bars, springs, struts/shocks and the tires.

Aside from the rear suspension, the Neon's were essentially a mix of the K and L-body platforms.

Decent tires, 350-400+lb springs on the front of a K-car with adjustable Koni's will wake it the heck up. Ditching the stock, forever binding front sway bar for something a little more able to move predictably will really help ride quality and make tuning much easier. The usual mods, bushings, strut plates, etc are just icing on the cake.

Vigo wrote:

I also think the base Acclaim had a lesser suspension package than it's siblings. That thing was scary at 70 on the interstate.

Problem still = tires. Ive owned most of the k-cars ever made. My first AutoX ever i pax'd 15 out of roughly 60 with a stock Dodge Dynasty with upgraded tires (not even great tires). I raced for almost a year like this and usually finished mid-pack or better. I usually won H-stock.

Looking at that picture, in my head I hear the tire howling sound effects from a '70's cop show. Just need the detective style magnetic light on the roof to complete the scene.

I know the car is a couple decades newer, but that's what I'm hearing.

As HS is the slowest class in autocross, props for finishishing mid-pack. HS not exactly hotly contested though, so as interesting and surprising as this story is, I think this anecdote says more about you and your competition than it does about the Dynasty. I'd love to see you drive back to back runs in a K-car and one of the perennial autox favorites (CRX si, MINI, Miata, MR2) and note your times and driving impressions.

Point taken, and i mostly agree.

As for the last part, i actually had an interesting experience that sort of fits there when i took my Aries to $2009 challenge. At the challenge, GRM staff were racing an 09 or maybe '10 miata with some kind of sport package. The aries was slightly faster on the Auto-x. I think both had about the same amount of tire (i was on 215/45r16 street tires). I also got the chance to hop into someone's (forget the name) stock 1.6 miata on r-comps. I got one run in it and went almost 2 seconds faster than the aries, the new miata, and the owner. My strongest impression from that car was how nice it was to not have to think about the gas pedal. Floor it and steer. It CANT make too much power. In the Aries, 70% of the driving happens at the gas pedal.

I also got a chance to autox a stock c5 many years ago, too. I beat the owner in that thing too. Throttle modulation was very important but still easier than an overpowered FWD.

I dont have a whole lot of experience in RWD, but from what i do have, it seems like the differences and the RWD fanaticism are overblown. Ive driven a lot of rwd cars on the street, and none of it has made me dislike FWD.

Ive never driven mid engine and would very much like to try..

Vigo wrote: I dont have a whole lot of experience in RWD, but from what i do have, it seems like the differences and the RWD fanaticism are overblown. Ive driven a lot of rwd cars on the street, and none of it has made me dislike FWD. Ive never driven mid engine and would very much like to try..

This.

If it's fast, why should i care what wheels are driven?

Rob_Mopar wrote:

Vigo wrote:

I also think the base Acclaim had a lesser suspension package than it's siblings. That thing was scary at 70 on the interstate.

Problem still = tires. Ive owned most of the k-cars ever made. My first AutoX ever i pax'd 15 out of roughly 60 with a stock Dodge Dynasty with upgraded tires (not even great tires). I raced for almost a year like this and usually finished mid-pack or better. I usually won H-stock.

Looking at that picture, in my head I hear the tire howling sound effects from a '70's cop show. Just need the detective style magnetic light on the roof to complete the scene. I know the car is a couple decades newer, but that's what I'm hearing.

You forgot the hubcaps rolling off as well. Some of those shows would have four or five caps per side come off those cars!

4eyes wrote: I don't understand why ALL cars aren't designed to handle predictably. (And by predictably I don't mean terminal under-steer) The people who worship at the alter of "ride quality" can have their tug-boat ride with tall soft springs, and those of us who would trade softness for agility, could be satisfied with stiffer springs and sway-bars. But the core suspension geometry should remain the same. Okay maybe different durometer urethane in the bushings, but that could be an easy swap. I don't understand why it is acceptable to design a car that doesn't go where it is steered, but instead gradually runs off the road on the outside of the corner. How is that considered safe?

I have the same thoughts, wouldn't it be better to swing the butt around and cave in the backend, where the driver ISN'T sitting?

familytruckster wrote: I have the same thoughts, wouldn't it be better to swing the butt around and cave in the backend, where the driver ISN'T sitting?

except that it could be in any state of rotation and end up sideslamming into something with the least protection. if you know it'll understeer straight into something it's a more 'controlled' impact to design for. not that i disagree entirely as i'd love it to not fight a car in near stock form to get it to rotate nicely.

^ Ditto. Its ALWAYS safer to run into something going forward than sideways. This is why i always tell my non-enthusiast friends to put the best tires on the back if they're different or not all worn the same.

In reply to Vigo:

I'm pretty sure familytruckster is employing some well-camouflaged sarcasm here, but I'm with you Vigo.

The funny thing is that when I try to explain the "new tires go on the back" rule to enthusiast friends they very frequently reject the argument, preferring to exit the road in an uncontrollable but expressive pirouette rather that with the airbags and crumple zones and motor and transmission in front of them.

Vigo wrote: 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.

Vigo wrote: 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. It is real easy to make an Acclaim or Spirit handle once you figure out that G-body components work with little or no modification

In reply to Rob_Mopar:

And Biiiiggggg torsion bars!

Moparman wrote: In reply to Rob_Mopar: And Biiiiggggg torsion bars!

Yep. And it's cake installing 'em.

We'll have let these guys get back to figuring out how to make a LeSaber master the cones now.

Vigo wrote: As for the last part, i actually had an interesting experience that sort of fits there when i took my Aries to $2009 challenge. At the challenge, GRM staff were racing an 09 or maybe '10 miata with some kind of sport package. The aries was slightly faster on the Auto-x. I think both had about the same amount of tire (i was on 215/45r16 street tires). I also got the chance to hop into someone's (forget the name) stock 1.6 miata on r-comps. I got one run in it and went almost 2 seconds faster than the aries, the new miata, and the owner. My strongest impression from that car was how nice it was to not have to think about the gas pedal. Floor it and steer. It CANT make too much power. In the Aries, 70% of the driving happens at the gas pedal.

Dude, sounds like you can drive a lil bit. If you like FWD (no flame, I do too), see if you can borrow someone's ST Civic.