Is it just me or is it less of a liability to the car's performance if the front is a strut suspension on a RWD car than an FWD car? Porsches and BMWs has struts in front with no issues. Neons and Sentras have struts in front, but are also-rans to double-wishboned Civics. FWIW old school GM RWD had control arms, but get no love for other reasons. Am I making this up, and if no, why? Jason
Neons and Sentras have problems because the strut towers are shoved all the way to the sides of the car, and especially in the case of the Sentra, there is barely any suspension travel so the springs have to be mega-stiff. Civics have huge suspension travel and tiny drivetrains (relatively speaking) so there's a lot more room for suspension.
BMWs spare no expense when it comes to making room underhood for the suspension, and I'd assume the same for Porsche. They also have more leeway for control arm pivot location (at both ends) because they don't have to worry about having room for a halfshaft or CVs, and the steering has more leeway for positioning.
So I guess to answer your question, yes, FWD or RWD make for a liability for strut suspension, but this is a packaging artifact and not necessarily due to the fact that it's front drive. FWD Subarus seem to handle just fine with struts. Plenty of room for strut towers too, since there's nothing in their way.
meh, I still hate struts. Sadly they are a fact of life for many of us.
Shrug. I've never driven the E30's or M3 and thought after a great drive: "Golly, I wish I had multilink/double wishbone front suspension...then that would've been a great drive."
The fox platform mustang (1979-2004... yes, up to 2004. Remove a front wheel and take a gander at the unholiness that is a modified McPherson strut suspension, at least on the 'stangs.) is the only strut front suspension that, to me, boggles the mind as to why it was engineered in such a fashion. Things improved somewhat in the later years; more anti-dive, more Ackerman, better steering axis inclination,camber curve, etc...but it's still a compromise AT BEST. The '05 and newer are a HUGE leap forward.
Even with their inherent handicaps they can still be made to boogie around a Solo2 course or race track so YMMV. I had a '91 LX with KYB struts and shocks, M5300-C springs and MAC C/C plates and it was the best handling car that I have owned... up to a point. Anyone who has flogged a Fox Mustang without a panhard bar or upgraded rear suspension is familiar with that point. This was not the fault of the struts, though.
Check out the American Sedan, CMC, American Iron or AIX rankings to see for yourself how one of the most poorly designed front suspensions (in my opinion) fares on a road course.
Said RWD cars tend to have better geometry and camber gain than you run of the mill sentras or whatnot. Its not that struts are bad, bad geometry is bad.
I do agree... I have never gotten out of my ti and wished for a multilink front suspension.
maybe a rear multilink.. but not a front
".....Civics have huge suspension travel..."
That's a joke, right? Civics don't have anymore suspension travel than other cars their size, and in some cases a Civic has less.
Struts were original adopted by car companies looking to put a suspension system in a very tight space. The engineer who developed the McPherson strut, was working for GM when he came up with this "invention" but GM didn't think they had an application for it, so when he went to work for Ford, it was put in small, British Ford sedans.
integraguy wrote: ".....Civics have huge suspension travel..." That's a joke, right? Civics don't have anymore suspension travel than other cars their size, and in some cases a Civic has less. Struts were original adopted by car companies looking to put a suspension system in a very tight space. The engineer who developed the McPherson strut, was working for GM when he came up with this "invention" but GM didn't think they had an application for it, so when he went to work for Ford, it was put in small, British Ford sedans.
They've got WAY more than my strut equipped cars. Even before i messed with them.
Sorry, but read the road tests of Civics, at least older, double wishboned ones, nearly every mag tells you they sorely lack in suspension travel. The only cars worse, off the top of my head? Sentras, or at least those before the last/current gen.
integraguy wrote: Sorry, but read the road tests of Civics, at least older, double wishboned ones, nearly every mag tells you they sorely lack in suspension travel. The only cars worse, off the top of my head? Sentras, or at least those before the last/current gen.
Yes, but road test people don't count as human.
IIRC the EG Civic has 7" travel in the front and 9" in the rear.
I think Sentras have an inch of bump travel.
Yes, you are right, I'm no engineer...but even I know that there's a difference between "suspension travel" and "bump stop" travel. This post/thread intial involved "suspension travel".
OK, so the FWD strut cars suffer because of poor geometry. Does this have to do with having very high strut angles to make room for a transversely mounted engine between the struts?
Also, does that mean that a majority of the STS Civic's advantage has solely to do with the fact that it has camber gain in roll?
It's not uncommon to see claims on forums that the double wishbone is the key to the Civic's success. Is the SLA really "all that"?
I'll take my answer off the air. Love the show, by the way. 
procainestart wrote: I'll take my answer off the air. Love the show, by the way.
"First time listener, long time caller!"
procainestart wrote: OK, so the FWD strut cars suffer because of poor geometry. Does this have to do with having very high strut angles to make room for a transversely mounted engine between the struts?
That's 90% of it. The other 10% is because the control arms necessarily have to be short and mounted fairly low, if you don't want axle interference and CV plunge problems.
Also, does that mean that a majority of the STS Civic's advantage has solely to do with the fact that it has camber gain in roll?
I wouldn't say it is necessarily due to "camber gain" (Hondas have remarkably strut-like camber curves throughout much of their travel, at least the ones that aren't '86-89 Accords) so much as they got the roll centers, antidive, and other critical geometry right. Oh, and the cars are fairly light, have more room for tire, can be lowered more without running into travel problems, etc. A car is a whole, not just one or two points.
Now if you want to see struts done right, in a confined space...
It looks kinda like a Fox-body Mustang but there's some interesting things going on with that geometry. A lot of what they did to get the right antidive, wheel travel arc, and a foot-plus of travel is a whole lot easier with an SLA.
If you want to see weird, look under a G20.
You'll need to log in to post.
