 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / April 2006Horsepower cuts embarass Asians
Is that new Honda or Toyota less powerful than last years model? Well, yes, and no. The engines in the new models don't make any less power than last year's engines, even though the numbers on the specification page are lower. Its just that the Asians have been caught playing the loopholes in the standards, putting in premium gas for horsepower testing while rating annual fuel cost based on regular, tweaking engine controls to non-standard settings, and turning off accessories. http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060313/AUTO01/603130350 Despite the blatant deception, analysts don't expect the kind of backlash against Honda and Toyota that plagued Hyundai several years ago. After being caught redhanded overstating horsepower, Hyundai paid cash compensation to over 800,000 owners. "Honda and Toyota owners aren't like that", said Joseph Camel of the Brand Research Institute. "They're pretty docile owner groups. After all, they bought the idea that its normal maintenance to automatically replace water pumps at 75,000 miles. Meanwhile, Honda is proposing a new "Effective Horsepower" rating system. "We intended our horsepower ratings to simulate effective horsepower when the vehicles are five years old. Our vehicles lose an average of 46 pounds by that age, meaning better performance" said Honda spokesman Kor Oshon. Toyota, however, is a hesitant supporter, saying Honda's version of Effective Horsepower penalizes it. Studies show that at age five, the average Toyota loses only 32 pounds due to rust. Meanwhile, Mitsubishi wants an adjustment for the lower weight of its cars due to parts that fall off within five years. But Nissan wants no part of the Effective Horsepower program, claiming rust is a localized problem, only occurring in the snow belt, near ocean areas, and in places where it rains. None of the GM and Ford engines that have been tested have shown power losses. Some have shown power gains. For those who critcize Detroit for being stupid, one thing is clear: at least they're smart enough not to lie. >Nissan wants no part of the Effective Horsepower program, claiming >rust is a localized problem, only occurring in the snow belt, >near ocean areas, and in places where it rains. So, um, where is it that cars do NOT rust? >None of the GM and Ford engines that have been tested have shown >power losses. Some have shown power gains. For those who >critcize Detroit for being stupid, one thing is clear: at least >they're smart enough not to lie. Actually, Mazda (which is owned by Ford) did something similar when they introduced the RX-8, downrating its horsepower to 238 and offering to buy back vehciles from anyone who felt ripped off. And don't forget the big debacle over the 1999 Cobra, which was discovered after owners tested their cars on dynamometers. Ford took so long to find a fix that they cancelled production on the 2000 Cobras. They eventually had to replace exhaust systems and other parts in every 1999 Cobra they produced in order to actually achieve the advertised horsepower.  SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > So, um, where is it that cars do NOT rust? Arizona, for one. Rust is unknown in the Phoenix area except in cars brought in from areas where roads are salted. Mike Waiving the right to remain silent, "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> said: >> So, um, where is it that cars do NOT rust? >> > Arizona, for one. Rust is unknown in the Phoenix area except in > cars brought in from areas where roads are salted. Near Tucson, (and in nearby California deserts) there are a couple of airplane graveyards, where thousands of planes sit, virtually rust- free. SignatureLarry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail "I've come here to enjoy nature. Don't talk to me about the environment!" - 'Denny Crane' > Waiving the right to remain silent, "Michael Pardee" > <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > airplane graveyards, where thousands of planes sit, virtually rust- > free. How many of those planes are made of steel? SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." >>Waiving the right to remain silent, "Michael Pardee" >><michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > How many of those planes are made of steel? which part of the plane guy? almost all planes use steels in undercarriage equipment, engine mounts, etc. some even use it for wing spars. but if you want to be really pedantic, there is a plane down there in the phoenix area at the pima air museum called a budd conestoga. that thing is /all/ steel. it's also rivetless, but that's getting too involved... >>>Waiving the right to remain silent, "Michael Pardee" >>><michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >thing is /all/ steel. it's also rivetless, but that's getting too >involved... The Budd Conestogas were built from *stainless* steel. And they were welded, not riveted. -- Jeff > In article <lY6dnSN1Aa_IN4DZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> jim beam > <nospam@example.net> writes: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Jeff Didn't Budd have a patent on shot welding? We have some Silverliner III trainsets still running around here. They're older than I am. Doug >> Waiving the right to remain silent, "Michael Pardee" >> <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >How many of those planes are made of steel? That is not the issue. There was a show on TV a few weeks ago that discussed how they spray the planes with something like an inch of some chemical, that prevents all kinds of problems. ************************* Dave >>>Waiving the right to remain silent, "Michael Pardee" >>><michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ************************* > Dave the cockpit canopies are screened and the engine nacelles blocked up, but that's about it. take a vacation to tucson some time and check one of the bone yards out for yourself. >> Waiving the right to remain silent, "Michael Pardee" >> <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > How many of those planes are made of steel? I lived in the SF bay area for 9 years. For the most part, cars with rust were from out of state....like the one I brought in from NJ........ Are you referring to the aluminum airplanes, the canvas airplanes or the wooden airplanes? LOL mike hunt "Larry J." <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message >>> So, um, where is it that cars do NOT rust? >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > airplane graveyards, where thousands of planes sit, virtually rust- > free. > Near Tucson, (and in nearby California deserts) there are a couple of > airplane graveyards, where thousands of planes sit, virtually rust- > free. AL corrodes to dust, it doesn't rust. The word you are looking for is oxidizes ;) mike hunt >> Near Tucson, (and in nearby California deserts) there are a couple of >> airplane graveyards, where thousands of planes sit, virtually rust- >> free. > > AL corrodes to dust, it doesn't rust. > > So, um, where is it that cars do NOT rust? > > > Arizona, for one. Rust is unknown in the Phoenix area except in cars brought > in from areas where roads are salted. > > Mike It's not just the no road salt. Also the low humidity. >>>Nissan wants no part of the Effective Horsepower program, claiming >>>rust is a localized problem, only occurring in the snow belt, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Arizona, for one. Sorry, it rains in Arizona. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>>>Nissan wants no part of the Effective Horsepower program, claiming >>>>rust is a localized problem, only occurring in the snow belt, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sorry, it rains in Arizona. Sure does, but without salt rust just doesn't appear except on the exhaust system. I worked with a guy who restored old Fords (no accounting for taste!) in Phoenix and sold them to out-of-staters. They were all from the 50s and 60s and didn't have a trace of body rust, which made them very desirable... although I never figured out the attraction for a car with vacuum operated wipers and four wheel drum brakes. Mike >>>>>Nissan wants no part of the Effective Horsepower program, claiming >>>>>rust is a localized problem, only occurring in the snow belt, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Sure does, but without salt rust just doesn't appear except on the exhaust >system. Someone needs to explain that to the folks at Nissan. ;) SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>>>>Nissan wants no part of the Effective Horsepower program, claiming >>>>>rust is a localized problem, only occurring in the snow belt, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > desirable... although I never figured out the attraction for a car with > vacuum operated wipers and four wheel drum brakes. I have a fond memory of my father out in the pouring rain, cutting off the end of the vaccuum hose connected to the wipers in a 57 Ford wagon, so he could get them working again. > >>>>>Nissan wants no part of the Effective Horsepower program, claiming > >>>>>rust is a localized problem, only occurring in the snow belt, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > end of the vaccuum hose connected to the wipers in a 57 Ford wagon, so he > could get them working again. I have a less-than-fond memory of hanging my arm out the passenger side window of a mid-60's Falcon and manually working the wipers as we travelled down I-75 from Cincinnati to Lexington. >> >>>>>Nissan wants no part of the Effective Horsepower program, claiming >> >>>>>rust is a localized problem, only occurring in the snow belt, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > window of a mid-60's Falcon and manually working the wipers as we > travelled down I-75 from Cincinnati to Lexington. Hey, that was my car....oops, sorry, mine was a Comet...... > I have a less-than-fond memory of hanging my arm out the passenger side > > window of a mid-60's Falcon and manually working the wipers as we > > travelled down I-75 from Cincinnati to Lexington. > > Hey, that was my car....oops, sorry, mine was a Comet...... I had a '67 Comet. I was watching "Overhaulin'" the other night, the one about the late 60's GTO, and started wishing I still had the Comet. Wasn't a great car, just liked the body style. Plus I owned it while going to college. Al >> I have a less-than-fond memory of hanging my arm out the passenger side >>> window of a mid-60's Falcon and manually working the wipers as we [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Al The best looking car I ever owned, and wished I had kept, was a 1957 Ford Fairlane 500 convertible with the 312 V8, 4 bbl carb. As a matter of fact, I consider all the 57s, from any US manufacturer, as the last of the good looking US cars, fins and all. SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY > The best looking car I ever owned, and wished I had kept, was a 1957 >Ford Fairlane 500 convertible with the 312 V8, 4 bbl carb. As a matter >of fact, I consider all the 57s, from any US manufacturer, as the last >of the good looking US cars, fins and all. I think the 60 Chrysler/DeSoto qualifies as a good looking fin car. And the 62 Cadillac. But all 58-59 fin cars are mediocre or terrible. >> The best looking car I ever owned, and wished I had kept, was a 1957 >>Ford Fairlane 500 convertible with the 312 V8, 4 bbl carb. As a matter [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think the 60 Chrysler/DeSoto qualifies as a good looking fin car. > And the 62 Cadillac. But all 58-59 fin cars are mediocre or terrible. "58 eldorado was a nice car. http://www.hubcapcafe.com/ocs/pages01/cady5802.htm http://www.misterw.com/Cadillac/58CadEldo06.html >> The best looking car I ever owned, and wished I had kept, was a 1957 >>Ford Fairlane 500 convertible with the 312 V8, 4 bbl carb. As a matter [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think the 60 Chrysler/DeSoto qualifies as a good looking fin car. > And the 62 Cadillac. But all 58-59 fin cars are mediocre or terrible. Well, Studebaker kept the '57 style fin on the Hawk series all the way through '61... they're a bit much, but not bad looking overall. I certainly wouldn't kick a '61 Hawk out of my driveway for leaking oil, esp. if it had a 4-speed. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > The best looking car I ever owned, and wished I had kept, was a 1957 Ford > Fairlane 500 convertible with the 312 V8, 4 bbl carb. As a matter of fact, > I consider all the 57s, from any US manufacturer, as the last of the good > looking US cars, fins and all. I wonder why the US makers decided to go bonkers in the '58 MY and turn out less desirable designs. Mike >I wonder why the US makers decided to go bonkers in the '58 MY and turn out >less desirable designs. My take on it is that they had a styling theme and wanted to stick with it for 58 and were in the middle of the range in 57, dead on center at tasteful. Trying to keep the same theme but with substantial changes took them out of tasteful for that theme. I think we recently witnessed the same thing happening with aero styling. Conisider the first couple of renditions of the Taurus and then the one with the oval back glass. Same thing with the Intrepid and other LH cars. And the Pontiac Grand Prix that's so swoopy the back door beltline is at eye level for a back seat passenger. And current Dakota, Durango, and Ram versus the previous models. >> The best looking car I ever owned, and wished I had kept, was a 1957 Ford >>Fairlane 500 convertible with the 312 V8, 4 bbl carb. As a matter of fact, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I wonder why the US makers decided to go bonkers in the '58 MY and turn out > less desirable designs. The fallacy of "More's Law", i.e., "if a little's good, more's better". >> I have a less-than-fond memory of hanging my arm out the passenger side >> > window of a mid-60's Falcon and manually working the wipers as we [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Al The Comet I had was a 61. I had a 64 Rambler that I was quite fond of as well, as the front seat folded down to the back seat.... My favorite car growing up was a 66 Ford Fairlane 500 Wagon. When the 289 died, I threw in a 351 Cleveland.....(with great difficulty, I might add....) > Actually, Mazda (which is owned by Ford) did something similar when > they introduced the RX-8, downrating its horsepower to 238 and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 1999 Cobra they produced in order to actually achieve the advertised > horsepower. I expect very little coverage of this latest issue with the japanese makes compared with what ford got on the '99 Cobra. Thing is the article described actual cheating while the Cobra issue seemed more or less the difference between prototype and production. The import double standard assures that Ford and GM are duely punished for such things while for the japanese makes it's some obscure mention that is caught by a few car guys. >>Actually, Mazda (which is owned by Ford) did something similar when >>they introduced the RX-8, downrating its horsepower to 238 and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Do you think the guy who's buying the 99 Cobra is paying as much attention to the HP figures as the guy who's buying the Camry or Accord? CD <snip mindless trolling> your headers say it all there guy. <snip> Organization: Usenet Education and Entertainment Bureau <snip> Keywords: auto, lie, deception, cheating Summary: Troll X-Funding-Provided-By: The National Endowment for the Arts, Mercury Outboards, and your local PBS Television Station <snip> detroit is quite capable of shooting itself in the foot without your help. > <snip mindless trolling> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > detroit is quite capable of shooting itself in the foot without your help. Detroit's decades-long obsession with HP -- and NOTHING else -- has made it a worldwide laughingstock when it comes to sports cars. > Detroit's decades-long obsession with HP -- and NOTHING else -- from 1970ish until relatively recently, they couldnt even offer HP. 350 cubic inch engines delivering 150HP? boat anchors. >> Detroit's decades-long obsession with HP -- and NOTHING else -- > > from 1970ish until relatively recently, they couldnt even offer HP. 350 > cubic inch engines delivering 150HP? boat anchors. it's the only way they could make them halfway reliable. cast cranks? what garbage! increase power? need to increase spending on materials and production!!! and that would never do. >>> Detroit's decades-long obsession with HP -- and NOTHING else -- >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what garbage! increase power? need to increase spending on materials > and production!!! and that would never do. You bet, Detroit could crank out a "standard" V8 for about $150 and no one wanted to rock that cash cow. Of course, by the late 70's they were crying in their beer and begging the feds for protection from the yellow menace. >><snip mindless trolling> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Detroit's decades-long obsession with HP -- and NOTHING else -- has > made it a worldwide laughingstock when it comes to sports cars. so true. i think that every time i massively out-corner a mustang in my 89 civic hatch on my skinny little 185/60-14's. a friend of mine has a seriously rodded mustang, and we went out one day into some hills where there are some nice twisty narrow roads. first, we both went in his. no question, /way/ more power. seriously way more power. then we went in mine. thing is, power doesn't mean squat when you have to brake and corner hard with two wheels in the ditch. after i drove, he wasn't speaking much. then he drove. when we were done, he just got out and threw me my keys and walked away! it took him days to stop sulking. i love civics! > > Detroit's decades-long obsession with HP -- and NOTHING else -- has > > made it a worldwide laughingstock when it comes to sports cars. > > > so true. i think that every time i massively out-corner a mustang in my > 89 civic hatch on my skinny little 185/60-14's. a friend of mine has a Everyone in the US who doesen't have a big powerful sports car makes the same claims and tells this same story with minor variations. The Europeans have tried to redefine a sports car as a car that goes fast through the turns. This completely ignores several fundamental realities of driving: a) Driving like this makes you throw up b) Just about all roadway corners do not have enough forward visibility to safely go around at 80Mph. While you may be easily able to stay in your lane, the big panel truck coming the opposite direction going 40Mph could easily have crossed over the centerline, and your not going to have enough road at that speed for him to get back over and for you to swerve safely The rest of the world doesen't like to look at straight-line performance because if they built cars that had it, very few of their customers would buy them. But, driving in a straight line is the safest possible way to race against the next guy on the public street, and there is nothing like being slammed back in your seat with powerful accelleration as the feeling of power in a car. Watch little kids playing with their HotWheels, they race against each other in a straight line, when have you ever seen little kids with toy cars pretending to saloom through a bunch of curves? How fun is that? little kids know what a fun car does, the only reason you have forgotten is because you have been reprogrammed by the advertisers who only have crappy product to sell. Rocket ships go stright with tons of accelleration. Racing jet boats go in a straight line with tons of accelleration. Drag cars and drag motorcycles go in a straight line with tons of accelleration, and you have not lived until you have sat on a 1000cc Kawasaki with wheelie bars and shot down a quarter mile at full throttle. Ted "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote > "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote >> so true. i think that every time i massively out-corner a mustang in my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > through the turns. This completely ignores several fundamental realities > of driving: Uh, "redefine"? Seems to me the original British sports cars that went fast around corners *DEFINED* the sports car, around 40 years ago. FloydR > > "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote > >> so true. i think that every time i massively out-corner a mustang in my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > went fast around corners *DEFINED* the sports car, around 40 years > ago. The Flathead Fords with the Davis DOHC heads predate that by many, many years, the flattie racers defined sports cars. Ted > Everyone in the US who doesen't have a big powerful sports car makes the > same claims and tells this same story with minor variations. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > a) Driving like this makes you throw up This turns out not to be the case. It has been known to affect my wife though... > b) Just about all roadway corners do not have enough forward visibility to > safely go around at 80Mph. While you may be easily able to stay in > your lane, the big panel truck coming the opposite direction going 40Mph > could easily have crossed over the centerline, and your not going to have > enough road at that speed for him to get back over and for you to swerve > safely True. But you'd be amazed how much fun you can have at 30, in the rain. It rains over here... > The rest of the world doesen't like to look at straight-line performance > because if they built cars that had it, very few of their customers would > buy them. Because we pay a dollar a litre for gas. That's right, per LITRE. call it 4 dollars per US gallon. I don't disagree so much with the rest of your comments! Andy >>>Detroit's decades-long obsession with HP -- and NOTHING else -- has >>>made it a worldwide laughingstock when it comes to sports cars. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > a) Driving like this makes you throw up uh? ... ??? !!! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! > b) Just about all roadway corners do not have enough forward visibility to > safely go around at 80Mph. ted, go back to driving your buick will you please. thanks. >>>Detroit's decades-long obsession with HP -- and NOTHING else -- has >>>made it a worldwide laughingstock when it comes to sports cars. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > through the turns. This completely ignores several fundamental realities > of driving: You are very out of date. Modern high end European sports cars go fast straight ahead and in the twisties. John >>>Detroit's decades-long obsession with HP -- and NOTHING else -- has >>>made it a worldwide laughingstock when it comes to sports cars. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Ted Oh my god you are too funny with this straight line Mantra!! It's not all about the straight line, and it's not all about the cornering. It is about both the straight and the corner. Here's the thing: A car that can corners very well has no problem going straight. The car that's built to go straight . . .good luck in the corner. That's why If I had to choose between a Viper or a Vette, give me the Vette, the best ALL AROUND American sports car.SHeesh, I toyed with a Viper in my slightly modified 200 Hp 98 Maxima. I ate him in the twisties. Of course when the road straightened out, he was gone. With a Vette, it would have taken me in the turns AND disappered in the horizon. That's what I'm talking about. CD "The best American sports car' is like saying "the healthiest bacon cheeseburger" >> > Detroit's decades-long obsession with HP -- and NOTHING else -- has >> > made it a worldwide laughingstock when it comes to sports cars. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Ted I've never read so much BS in my life. Racing should mimic real world driving. After all, all vehicles are developed to accelerate in a straight line and then go around curves and corners, up hills and down hills. If they weren't, there would be no steering wheel, shock absorbers and springs, or gears to downshift and upshift. Give me a break. The anvil heads you see on the roads today are useless. I have a friend that has a Ford F250 4X4 with a diesel engine and wonders why he can't make it up a hill in the snow. It's because the freaking lead anvil under the hood doesn't want to. On a curve, the anvil under the hood will go where ever it wants no matter how you steer and brake. If you are patriotic buy American. That, to me is the only reason to consider their product. However, the Camry is built by American workers, the Cavalier built by Mexicans. > the roads today are useless. I have a friend that has a Ford F250 4X4 with a > diesel engine and wonders why he can't make it up a hill in the snow. It's > because the freaking lead anvil under the hood doesn't want to. On a curve, Huh? I'd wonder why too - with 4x4 and decent tires, there is no reason he shouldn't make it up a hill in the snow in 4x4. If nothing else, the truck will spin the rears while the front claws up the hill.... >> the roads today are useless. I have a friend that has a Ford F250 4X4 >> with a diesel engine and wonders why he can't make it up a hill in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > he shouldn't make it up a hill in the snow in 4x4. If nothing else, the > truck will spin the rears while the front claws up the hill.... When accelerating or going uphill, a portion of the vehicle's weight is transferred to the rear wheels. This helps traction in a RWD vehicle and decreases traction in a FWD vehicle. The Ford shouldn't spin its rear wheels while the front "claws up the hill" because the weight bias is towards the rear unless the transfer case or center differential has a bias towards the front wheels. I suspect that the F250 4X4 needs better tires. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>>the roads today are useless. I have a friend that has a Ford F250 4X4 >>>with a diesel engine and wonders why he can't make it up a hill in the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > towards the rear unless the transfer case or center differential has a bias > towards the front wheels. I suspect that the F250 4X4 needs better tires. Most real 4x4s have a lockable transfer case anyway so front/rear weight bias shouldn't be an issue. I also am puzzled as why your friend is having issues with his truck. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > Most real 4x4s have a lockable transfer case anyway so front/rear weight > bias shouldn't be an issue. I also am puzzled as why your friend is > having issues with his truck. > > nate I can comment on that, since I had my F350 SD diesel work truck on a snowy mountain road yesterday. This is my first year with a diesel, and I can tell you it is a lot better suited to snowy hills than a gasser is - as long as I keep it from spinning the turbo up. The gasser had to be kept revved high enough that it wouldn't get carried away when traction got light, and that made the gears effectively higher. The diesel doggedly keeps turning at pretty much the same speed - giving or gaining rpms grudgingly. Having pushed 4X4s through snow as much as a foot deep (with some help from a shovel) on truly primitive roads from time to time, I can assure you it has nothing at all to do with engine weight. The truck body has so much weight it makes no difference whether the engine is a small block or a 6L diesel. Mike > When accelerating or going uphill, a portion of the vehicle's weight is > transferred to the rear wheels. This helps traction in a RWD vehicle and > decreases traction in a FWD vehicle. The Ford shouldn't spin its rear > wheels while the front "claws up the hill" because the weight bias is > towards the rear unless the transfer case or center differential has a bias > towards the front wheels. I suspect that the F250 4X4 needs better tires. True, but given that many pickups are driven with an empty bed, that transfer should be negligible. With a couple inches of snow back there, it should have improved the traction anyway. Point is that all 4 will spin at equal speeds - those that slip will spin while those that grip will pull/push the truck up the hill. >> When accelerating or going uphill, a portion of the vehicle's weight is >> transferred to the rear wheels. This helps traction in a RWD vehicle and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > spin at equal speeds - those that slip will spin while those that grip > will pull/push the truck up the hill. If the tires can not gain traction, then there is no weight transfer to the rear, especially at startup, which is why I thought that the truck needed better tires. All 4 tires will not necessarily spin at equal speeds unless the vehicle is equipped with front and rear locking differentials and a transfer case or center locking differential. If any of the differentials are open, then the tire(s) with the least traction will spin while the others do nothing. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>>When accelerating or going uphill, a portion of the vehicle's weight is >>>transferred to the rear wheels. This helps traction in a RWD vehicle and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > center locking differential. If any of the differentials are open, then the > tire(s) with the least traction will spin while the others do nothing. that depends on the diffs you have. http://www.quaifeamerica.com/ those are always "open". >>>>When accelerating or going uphill, a portion of the vehicle's weight is >>>>transferred to the rear wheels. This helps traction in a RWD vehicle [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > those are always "open". According to the web site on the link, the Quaife differential is not an open differential, although they say that it performs like an open differential during normal driving. An open differential is one that does not have any means of locking or limiting slip. By definition, the Quaife differential is not an open differential. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>>>>When accelerating or going uphill, a portion of the vehicle's weight is >>>>>transferred to the rear wheels. This helps traction in a RWD vehicle [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > limiting slip. By definition, the Quaife differential is not an open > differential. it's "open" in that there's no locking mechanism. it simply transfers torque to the wheel with the most traction, unlike a traditional diff. more common lsd's use clutches, ratchets or locks to keep both wheels turning together so some energy is still lost. i've not driven a quaife, but from what i understand, always driving the wheel that gives traction works like a charm. <snipped> >>>>All 4 tires will not necessarily spin at equal speeds unless the vehicle >>>>is equipped with front and rear locking differentials and a transfer [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > it's "open" in that there's no locking mechanism. it simply transfers > torque to the wheel with the most traction, unlike a traditional diff. I guess my explanation of "open differential" was a little lacking. When a differential is "open" it does not mean that there is no locking or slip limiting mechanism or fluid. An open differential is simply a conventional differential. Any variation to the differential designed to transfer torque to the side with traction means that it is no longer ann "open" differential. Even Quaife says that their differential is better than an open differential - IOW, it is not "open." > more common lsd's use clutches, ratchets or locks to keep both wheels > turning together so some energy is still lost. i've not driven a quaife, > but from what i understand, always driving the wheel that gives traction > works like a charm. A differential that is locked has no energy loss. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > <snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > differential. Even Quaife says that their differential is better than an > open differential - IOW, it is not "open." open means free to turn one wheel relative to another. locked means both wheels turn together. >>more common lsd's use clutches, ratchets or locks to keep both wheels >>turning together so some energy is still lost. i've not driven a quaife, >>but from what i understand, always driving the wheel that gives traction >>works like a charm. > > A differential that is locked has no energy loss. that's not true. lsd's with clutches lose energy big time. but that's not what i'm getting at: if a diff is locked, both wheels turn together, one has traction, the other not. the one that doesn't is simply scrubbing energy away. >> <snipped> >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > one has traction, the other not. the one that doesn't is simply scrubbing > energy away. A limited slip differential and a locking differential are not the same thing. A limited slip differential does lose some energy because kinetic energy is converted to heat. With a locked differential there is zero slippage and therefore zero energy loss when locked.. You were close but not quite correct in your example of a locked differential with both wheels turning together where one wheel has traction and the other does not.. In that example, it is the wheel/tire that is scrubbing the energy, not the differential. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>><snipped> >>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > A limited slip differential and a locking differential are not the same > thing. agreed. > A limited slip differential does lose some energy because kinetic > energy is converted to heat. agreed. > With a locked differential there is zero > slippage and therefore zero energy loss when locked.. not agreed. the tire that's still slipping is still slipping. that's loss. if you mean loss /within/ the diff, that's true, but it's no good worrying about that if you're losing ground on every turn. > You were close but not quite correct in your example of a locked > differential with both wheels turning together where one wheel has traction > and the other does not.. In that example, it is the wheel/tire that is > scrubbing the energy, not the differential. see above. i've been talking about energy transferred to the road all along. >>>><snipped> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > loss. if you mean loss /within/ the diff, that's true, but it's no good > worrying about that if you're losing ground on every turn. When you work with a bunch of anal retentive engineers like I used to, it rubbs off. They would say that since the original discussion was differential efficiency, then the same would have to be true of a locked differential, with a foot note describing the enery loss from the tires. >> You were close but not quite correct in your example of a locked >> differential with both wheels turning together where one wheel has [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > see above. i've been talking about energy transferred to the road all > along. We were talking about similar but different things. The nit picker in me would say that if we were discussing energy transfer to the road, then the words "energy transfer to the road" should have been included at the beginning of the discussion as opposed to differential energy. Since you were talking about energy transfer to the road, then you were correct, however, I still believe that your characterization of the Quaife diff as "open" is still incorrect because "open" does not mean the lack of clutches, silicone fluid, locking sleeves, etc. - I guess Quaife and I will have to agree to disagree with you there. ;-) SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > that's not true. lsd's with clutches lose energy big time. but that's > not what i'm getting at: if a diff is locked, both wheels turn > together, one has traction, the other not. the one that doesn't is > simply scrubbing energy away. Yes... but... An open diff will let your power get wasted onto the spinning wheel. A locked diff will make sure both spin at the same speed, so the power is distributed in proportion to the traction. This is a bit interesting in corners where you want the outside wheel to go farther (and hence faster) than the inside one. An LSD will transfer some of the energy from a spinning wheel back to the gripping one - but it wastes some too. It does however let you go round corners without eating tyres. They do "lose energy big time" but it's worth it as otherwise that energy, and more, would be wasted elsewhere. Andy >> that's not true. lsd's with clutches lose energy big time. but >> that's not what i'm getting at: if a diff is locked, both wheels turn [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > An open diff will let your power get wasted onto the spinning wheel. yes... but... the quaife lsd, the one up thread, doesn't. and it's open. > A locked diff will make sure both spin at the same speed, so the power > is distributed in proportion to the traction. no, if they're locked, they're not in proportion to traction. they're just locked, so the wheel that's still scrubbing is wasting energy. > This is a bit interesting > in corners where you want the outside wheel to go farther (and hence > faster) than the inside one. and that's why these diffs are called "limited slip", not "locked". > An LSD will transfer some of the energy from a spinning wheel back to > the gripping one - but it wastes some too. It does however let you go > round corners without eating tyres. with low traction, that's pretty much irrelevant! > They do "lose energy big time" but it's worth it as otherwise that > energy, and more, would be wasted elsewhere. lsd's are a great idea. some of the fancy schmancy clutched ones use transfer fluids that increase viscosity as shear rate increases, but the price is efficiency. > Andy >> A locked diff will make sure both spin at the same speed, so the power >> is distributed in proportion to the traction. > > no, if they're locked, they're not in proportion to traction. they're > just locked, so the wheel that's still scrubbing is wasting energy. <snip> Jim, I stand by what I said. The power delivered to the road is a multiple of speed and force. So if one wheel has twice as much grip as the other, twice as much power will go through it. (assuming they are both traction limited!) Yes, you will waste some - which is why the tyre smokes when you try really hard - but the *delivered* power will be proportional to the traction. Another rider - you may be delivering the power to the gravel, not the road! Andy http://www.supercars.net/garages/Drivevm/9v2.html > http://www.supercars.net/garages/Drivevm/9v2.html *how* many HP per ton? I don't get any where near the numbers they do, even without putting a driver in the car. In fact, with me in it, it's no better than the Lambo they compare it with. Andy > > > Detroit's decades-long obsession with HP -- and NOTHING else -- has > > > made it a worldwide laughingstock when it comes to sports cars. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Ted I almost believed all of these arguments were for real-- and not a parody of some "buy american" nimrod.. The "reprogramming by advertising" bit snapped me out of it, though. No one could be that stupid. Methinks you friend does not know how to drive. One of my neighborhood kids challenged my stock 2005 Mustang GT convertible to a timed run with his riced up 2006 Civic up over a local six mile mountain road, loaded with hairpin turns where all the locals 'test' their cars . If we had been running for titles I would have yet another car for one of my grand children, if he had the title instead of the bank. LOL mike >> Detroit's decades-long obsession with HP -- and NOTHING else -- has >> made it a worldwide laughingstock when it comes to sports cars. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > threw me my keys and walked away! it took him days to stop sulking. i > love civics! > Methinks you friend does not know how to drive. One of my neighborhood > kids challenged my stock 2005 Mustang GT convertible to a timed run with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > mike Wasn't that an unfair competition? RWD vs FWD, real competition experience vs. (probably) none? ;-) SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) More likely it was my 60 some years of driving experience, vis-a-v his 6 or so years I supose. I guess he never heard of the Ford GT 500 that blew the doors off every sports car in Europe, in the sixties There is no question a RWD vehicle will out handle a FWD vehicle and that is the point. The original poster seem to think otherwise. ;) mike hunt >> Methinks you friend does not know how to drive. One of my neighborhood >> kids challenged my stock 2005 Mustang GT convertible to a timed run with [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Wasn't that an unfair competition? RWD vs FWD, real competition > experience vs. (probably) none? ;-) > Methinks you friend does not know how to drive. with respect, that's not the point. /he/ drove /my/ car and [correctly] concluded that it handled better in those conditions. it really doesn't matter how well he was able to drive [although he's not bad] - it's the comparison between cars that counts. > One of my neighborhood > kids challenged my stock 2005 Mustang GT convertible to a timed run with his [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>threw me my keys and walked away! it took him days to stop sulking. i >>love civics! > with respect, that's not the point. /he/ drove /my/ car and [correctly] > concluded that it handled better in those conditions. it really doesn't > matter how well he was able to drive [although he's not bad] - it's the > comparison between cars that counts. Having grown up driving Mustangs (now drive something else), the 'Stang can handle just fine in the twisties. You need good shocks and tires. Certainly should be able to outdo a Civic - Mustangs are not that bad in the turns. >> with respect, that's not the point. /he/ drove /my/ car and >> [correctly] concluded that it handled better in those conditions. it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Having grown up driving Mustangs (now drive something else), the 'Stang > can handle just fine in the twisties. that's what my friend thought. he had 5 digits of upgrades into that thing. > You need good shocks and tires. you need more than that - you need a good independent rear and decent geometry. my tires are only continental "touring" 185/60-14's. my shocks are only kyb gr2's. > Certainly should be able to outdo a Civic - Mustangs are not that bad in > the turns. you haven't /driven/ a civic when you say "should". > that's what my friend thought. he had 5 digits of upgrades into that > thing. Upgrading what? Engine upgrades won't help squat in the twisties. >> You need good shocks and tires. > > you need more than that - you need a good independent rear and decent > geometry. my tires are only continental "touring" 185/60-14's. my > shocks are only kyb gr2's. Not necessarily. Independent rear will mainly help you on the bumps. But other than that, it helps, but not a huge amount. Pre '99 Cobras posted some impressive skidpad and slalom numbers. Using basically stock Mustang rears. I owned a 97 Cobra - it did fine in the twisties. >> Certainly should be able to outdo a Civic - Mustangs are not that bad >> in the turns. > > you haven't /driven/ a civic when you say "should". By that token, the '87 Escort I used to have should have beat the Stang as well - 4 wheel independent, decent weight, etc.... >> that's what my friend thought. he had 5 digits of upgrades into that >> thing. > > Upgrading what? Engine upgrades won't help squat in the twisties. i know that! he had torque control tubes, special springs and special shocks on a limited slip rear, springs, shocks and rack & pinion conversion on the front. motor was a small block 5.0 with extensive mods. >>> You need good shocks and tires. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > posted some impressive skidpad and slalom numbers. Using basically > stock Mustang rears. I owned a 97 Cobra - it did fine in the twisties. but how much wider are cobra tires???????? the point is, my ratty little civic, with stock spec suspension and stock "si" tires embarrassed the 'stang. if tires alone were the criteria, the civic would be a joke. it's very much not. >>> Certainly should be able to outdo a Civic - Mustangs are not that bad >>> in the turns. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > By that token, the '87 Escort I used to have should have beat the Stang > as well - 4 wheel independent, decent weight, etc.... escort has mcpherson struts on front so i'm not surprised. mcphersons are great off-road, but they just don't do on-road as well as the civic's wishbones. we also took a subaru wrx out on the same road that same day. it was ok on power, but nothing really special on the bends. not as good as the 'stang or the civic. >>> that's what my friend thought. he had 5 digits of upgrades into that >>> thing. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > motor was a small block 5.0 with extensive mods. I've seen a lot of cars with extensive (and expensive) modifications that actually degraded performance. The people doing the modifications don't really know what they're doing and end up unbalancing the suspension. The limited slip rear is not a help on a twisty road. >>>> You need good shocks and tires. >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > it was ok on power, but nothing really special on the bends. not as good > as the 'stang or the civic. McPherson strut suspensions are not great off-road. Take a look at purpose-built off-road vehicles and see how many have strut suspensions. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>>>that's what my friend thought. he had 5 digits of upgrades into that >>>>thing. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I've seen a lot of cars with extensive (and expensive) modifications that > actually degraded performance. not in this instance. > The people doing the modifications don't > really know what they're doing and end up unbalancing the suspension. The > limited slip rear is not a help on a twisty road. er... >>>>> You need good shocks and tires. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > McPherson strut suspensions are not great off-road. Take a look at > purpose-built off-road vehicles and see how many have strut suspensions. i'm sorry, /how/ many rally world championships have been won with mcpherson struts??? i'm talking cars, not "purpose-built off-road vehicles". >>>>>that's what my friend thought. he had 5 digits of upgrades into that >>>>>thing. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > mcpherson struts??? i'm talking cars, not "purpose-built off-road > vehicles". Here is a pretty good explanation of suspension systems: http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible.html Every type of suspension system has trade-offs. In the ideal suspension system, the wheel will move up and down perpendicular to the road surface and maintain camber so that the tire maintains maximum contact and traction throughout the limits of wheel movement. Also, designers try to minimize unsprung weight to minimize wheel bounce. In a mass-produced vehicle, cost is a very big factor. A double wishbone suspension does a very good job at maintaining camber throughout its movement because it acts like a pantograph but is more expensive to produce than a strut suspension. A strut suspension generally has a lower control arm that the wheel is attached to. The lower control arm pivots where it is attached to the strut so the wheel's movement is actually an arc instead of straight vertical movement. The biggest advantage of a strut type suspension is that it is less expensive to produce while still providing more than adequate performance for every day street driving so you see it widely used on lower and mid-range cost vehicles. Rally cars do not have strut suspensions because they are great off road; they have strut suspensions because the stock versions of the cars have strut suspensions, and the stock versions have struts because they cost less to produce than other types of suspensions. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>>>>>that's what my friend thought. he had 5 digits of upgrades into that >>>>>>thing. [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > throughout its movement because it acts like a pantograph but is more > expensive to produce than a strut suspension. agreed, but i don't see that as a disadvantage for me. there's no price differential at the consumer end. > A strut suspension generally has a lower control arm that the wheel is > attached to. The lower control arm pivots where it is attached to the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > strut suspensions, and the stock versions have struts because they cost less > to produce than other types of suspensions. you're correct about cost, but the fact still remains, struts have proven themselves to be good in low traction environments where the little nuances of maintaining tire contact patch that are addressed by wishbones are vanishingly unimportant. they also give a comfy ride and are less susceptible to roll. put all that on a street car and use wider tires to make up for the geometry issues, and you have something that approximates to acceptable. <snipped> >>>>McPherson strut suspensions are not great off-road. Take a look at >>>>purpose-built off-road vehicles and see how many have strut suspensions. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > agreed, but i don't see that as a disadvantage for me. there's no price > differential at the consumer end. What makes you think that there is no price differential at the consumer end? Automakers examine the cost of every part and component in every vehicle. >> A strut suspension generally has a lower control arm that the wheel is >> attached to. The lower control arm pivots where it is attached to the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > make up for the geometry issues, and you have something that approximates > to acceptable. You sound like you have read a lot of auto enthusiast magazines but have not had formal training in automotive design, engineering, or service or experience working for an auto manufacturer. If you had, you would know instinctively that maintaining tire contact with the ground is more important in a low traction environment than in an environment where traction is not as much of an issue. You would also know that a strut suspension is not more or less susceptible to roll (I'm assuming that you are referring to body roll). Spring rates and anti-roll bars are what affect body roll. Most strut suspensions are more susceptible to camber changes. Also, wider tires do not make up for geometry issues. McPherson and Chapman strut suspensions are in wide use not because of their superior handling characteristics, but because they are inexpensive to make and lightweight. Most people know little or nothing about suspension designs so it sounds good when the automaker points out a "MacPherson Strut" suspension and so small and mid-size vehicles that are not actually performance oriented will have them installed. You usually will not see strut suspensions on performance and high-end vehicles, particularly those with RWD. Over the years, engineers have made improvements to strut suspension geometry to more closely approximate the better performing suspensions and they are certainly acceptable for the majority of the driving public, but a someone who is knowledgeable about automotive suspensions or performance would not hint that a strut suspension is the preferred design for any reason other than cost control. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > <snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > What makes you think that there is no price differential at the consumer > end? er, the price i pay when i buy the car? > Automakers examine the cost of every part and component in every > vehicle. of course, but not a single vehicle manufacturer in the world sells on a "cost plus" basis. they sell it for what they can get. different manufacturers have different profit margins. >>>A strut suspension generally has a lower control arm that the wheel is >>>attached to. The lower control arm pivots where it is attached to the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > experience working for an auto manufacturer. If you had, you would know > instinctively whoa there!!! let's go out on a wild-a.s limb here and speculate that i have some training and experience... wtf has that got to do with instinct??? > that maintaining tire contact with the ground is more > important in a low traction environment than in an environment where [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > affect body roll. Most strut suspensions are more susceptible to camber > changes. Also, wider tires do not make up for geometry issues. that is the most confused garbage i've read all week. > McPherson and Chapman strut suspensions are in wide use not because of their > superior handling characteristics, but because they are inexpensive to make [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > suspensions or performance would not hint that a strut suspension is the > preferred design for any reason other than cost control. ok, so you have one little thing correct, cost, but the rest is missing you by a country mile. i'd explain, but reading your "instinct" comment, i think i'd be wasting my time. If one thinks McPherson strut suspensions are so great you might want to turn you front wheels to the extreme right or left, turn off the engine, and go look at the different orientation of the two front wheels LOL mike hunt >> What makes you think that there is no price differential at the consumer >> end? [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > you by a country mile. i'd explain, but reading your "instinct" comment, > i think i'd be wasting my time. > If one thinks McPherson strut suspensions are so great you might want to > turn you front wheels to the extreme right or left, turn off the engine, and > go look at the different orientation of the two front wheels LOL I thought McPherson struts were a combination spring and shock unit. Wouldn't the orientation of the wheels have more to do with wheel alignment? > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >> you by a country mile. i'd explain, but reading your "instinct" comment, >> i think i'd be wasting my time. SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY Not all were in integral. My old 1985 midsized Ford LTD had struts but the shocks were separate. A very easy change of either item. JT > > If one thinks McPherson strut suspensions are so great you might want to > > turn you front wheels to the extreme right or left, turn off the engine, and [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > Bill > In Hamptonburgh, NY Generally they are, and the answer to your question is no. Have you looked at your front wheels as I suggested? mike >> If one thinks McPherson strut suspensions are so great you might want to >> turn you front wheels to the extreme right or left, turn off the engine, >> and go look at the different orientation of the two front wheels LOL >> mike hunt > > I thought McPherson struts were a combination spring and shock unit. > Wouldn't the orientation of the wheels have more to do with wheel > alignment? >> <snipped> >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > er, the price i pay when i buy the car? If a double wishbone suspension costs the automaker $50 more than a strut suspension, do you think the automaker would put put double wishbones in all cars and not pass that cost on to the consumers? <snipped> >> You sound like you have read a lot of auto enthusiast magazines but have >> not had formal training in automotive design, engineering, or service or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have some training and experience... wtf has that got to do with > instinct??? I meant no insult, just an observation, and I apologize. My intent is to share the experience and knowledge I gained while working for an automaker and correct people's misconceptions about how cars work. The more people know about their cars, the more realistic their expectrations of the car's performance and the more satisfied they weill be with their car. When I said "know instinctively," I meant it from the point of view of a professional who spends all day working on and studying a subject and knows something without giving it consccicous thought. For example, a carpenter whose specialty is framing houses will know instinctively when he looks at a new house being built whether it is framed correctly or not. You mentioned that maintaining tire contact is not as important in an environment where traction is poor, and someone with an auto engineering background or who works with cars day in and day out would know without conscious thought that this statement was incorrect. >> that maintaining tire contact with the ground is more important in a low >> traction environment than in an environment where traction is not as much [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > that is the most confused garbage i've read all week. That is why I do not make my living as a writer <g> >> McPherson and Chapman strut suspensions are in wide use not because of >> their superior handling characteristics, but because they are inexpensive [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > you by a country mile. i'd explain, but reading your "instinct" comment, > i think i'd be wasting my time. I am always willing to listen and learn something new and I think the regulars in alt.autos.toyota will testify that I will admit when someone points out an error on my part. As I mentioned earlier, I meant no insult by the "instinct" comment - perhaps "second nature" or "knowing without conscious thought" would have been a better choice of terms. I spent some time working for a fairly large auto maker and have had the benefit of working with and learning from automotive engineers, designers, and the technicians who had to work on them our in the real world. This auto maker is the most profitable auto maker in the world and so I feel that it is safe to That experience and their explanations were a huge help when I had to look at problem vehicles that the dealerships could not fix. What am I missing by a country mile? SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>><snipped> >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > suspension, do you think the automaker would put put double wishbones in all > cars and not pass that cost on to the consumers? so what's the price difference between the camry and accord? according to edmunds, the base [wishbone] accord is $18225, the [strut] camry is $18270. i therefore re-state, car manufacturers do /not/ sell on a "cost plus" basis, so the price of parts is irrelevant. > <snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I meant no insult, just an observation, and I apologize. ok, no problem. > My intent is to > share the experience and knowledge I gained while working for an automaker [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > background or who works with cars day in and day out would know without > conscious thought that this statement was incorrect. i disagree. go to any parking lot where there's a big-tired mercedes or bmw that's on full lock. the "outside" tire has the full contact patch flat against the ground. the "inside" tire however is riding up on one edge because the camber is all wrong. this is an "acceptable" situation as, in practice, hardly anyone drives these cars hard enough for it to be a real issue. with 10" [or whatever] of rubber on the side of the car making the most load, who notices? /but/, when you're driving at 10/10th's, that extra little bit of rubber on the /inside/ tire that's more correctly positioned can get you through the corner faster than the other guy. my no means are hondas the most powerful cars on the road, but they sure do hang well with the big boys as soon as there's a bend. >>>that maintaining tire contact with the ground is more important in a low >>>traction environment than in an environment where traction is not as much [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > by the "instinct" comment - perhaps "second nature" or "knowing without > conscious thought" would have been a better choice of terms. ok. > I spent some time working for a fairly large auto maker and have had the > benefit of working with and learning from automotive engineers, designers, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What am I missing by a country mile? with mcpherson it's the "approximation" that's required for every element of geometry that makes it less than perfect. but it's ok for sedans, cheap, comfy and doesn't roll much. wishbones are better on road where there's greater steering precision possible. disadvantages of wishbones are cost, a little comfort, and the need to address roll since the greater degree of freedom the body has within the system leaves it free to do so. i'd draw a pic, but in ascii it would suck. also consider the fact that mcpherson first came out when bias ply tires were all you could get - again, no need to be precise there! >>>><snipped> >>>>>>Every type of suspension system has trade-offs. In the ideal [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > i therefore re-state, car manufacturers do /not/ sell on a "cost plus" > basis, so the price of parts is irrelevant. Your comparison of the Camry and Accord would be valid if the suspension type were the only differences between the cars. Toyota and Honda have different cost structures with labor, raw material, plant and corporate overhead, advertising, travel and entertainment, etc. as well as different content, distributor markup, and dealer markup. I am not aware of any vehicle where a strut and a different type of front suspension is availble so it is not easy to make a comparison unless you have a background in how automakers price their vehicles. Trucks offer different front suspensions for RWD and 4WD versions and for different capacities. The Japan market Estima Van had an independent rear suspension and the U.S. Previa van had a live axle, but neither rear suspensions were strut type. Your point is valid in that "cost plus" is not the sole determing factor in vehicle pricing, however, the automaker's cost to produce a vehicle is the starting point in determineing what the final MSRP will be. Market competition plays a big factor as well as market demand. I susect that we're saying the same thing differently. >> <snipped> >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > other guy. my no means are hondas the most powerful cars on the road, but > they sure do hang well with the big boys as soon as there's a bend. The effect you're describing about camber changes is not caused by the type of suspension, i.e., strut vs. double wishbone. It is caused by lots of positive caster, like 10 or more degrees, and you will see the same effect whether the car has a strut of wishbone suspension if there is lots of positive caster. Another effect of vehicles with lots of positive caster is that you will see the front end of the vehicle actually dip when the wheel is turned full lock. This effect is magnified somewhat by the large wheels and tires. Automakers will design lots of positive caster to provide straighter tracking, and the tradeoff is slightly less responsive turning. <confusing stuff snipped> > with mcpherson it's the "approximation" that's required for every element > of geometry that makes it less than perfect. but it's ok for sedans, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mcpherson first came out when bias ply tires were all you could get - > again, no need to be precise there! Aaah! What I'm getting from what you're describing is different from what I got from your other posts. In your other posts, I got that you were saying that strut suspensions offered superior handling to wishbones. What you are conveying here is much more accurate than your previous posts - we're on the same page now (we probably were before but on different frequencies). SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>>>><snipped> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > competition plays a big factor as well as market demand. I susect that > we're saying the same thing differently. no, you're just back-tracking. >>><snipped> >>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > The effect you're describing about camber changes is not caused by the type > of suspension, i.e., strut vs. double wishbone. ok, stop right there. camber doesn't change [much] with struts, but with wishbones, it can change substantially. check your facts before making garbage like that up. it's not like you don't have an internet connection and access to millions of web articles on such stuff. > It is caused by lots of > positive caster, like 10 or more degrees, and you will see the same effect > whether the car has a strut of wishbone suspension if there is lots of > positive caster. rubbish. caster is [one way] to create trail. there's no hard rule differentiating struts and wishbones. > Another effect of vehicles with lots of positive caster is > that you will see the front end of the vehicle actually dip when the wheel > is turned full lock. that's not just caster guy, that's camber, caster and trail. > This effect is magnified somewhat by the large wheels > and tires. Automakers will design lots of positive caster to provide > straighter tracking, and the tradeoff is slightly less responsive turning. eh? you have no idea what you're talking about. larger trail provides more self-centering which is good on a freeway, but makes it /harder/ to turn the steering wheel - it doesn't make it less responsive. if anything, the opposite. > <confusing stuff snipped> no fooling. >>with mcpherson it's the "approximation" that's required for every element >>of geometry that makes it less than perfect. but it's ok for sedans, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > got from your other posts. In your other posts, I got that you were saying > that strut suspensions offered superior handling to wishbones. no, re-read what i wrote. i said struts are a successful design for off-road uses because their shortcomings are less important than they are on-road. > What you are > conveying here is much more accurate than your previous posts - we're on the > same page now (we probably were before but on different frequencies). i'm definitely not on the same page as you. but right now, i don't care. i'm going away for a few days, so knock yourself out with any face-saving response you like. or maybe you can use the time to go to the library and do some homework. >>>>>><snipped> >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 158 lines] > yourself out with any face-saving response you like. or maybe you can use > the time to go to the library and do some homework. We'll have to agree to disagree. I stand by what I said, I assume you stand by what you said. Have a great trip! SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > <snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > suspensions or performance would not hint that a strut suspension is the > preferred design for any reason other than cost control. Struts are the wave of the future. Not only are struts less expensive, but struts are also more space efficient than double-wishbone suspensions. Carmakers can design a roomier cabin and more capacious trunk for a car when using struts. A sign that struts have come along is that the new BMW 3 series uses them. If they're good enought for "the ultimate driving machine" then they are quit good now. Take note on how the 3 series is now a much roomier car and it is still quite a driving machine. CD >> <snipped> >> [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > them. If they're good enought for "the ultimate driving machine" then > they are quit good now. what an utterly stupid comment. bmw do many things, including seal their transmissions so the fluid cannot be changed, design their crumple zones so "early" deformation occurs in parts of the shell that render the vehicle irreparable, etc. but because they label themselves with a catchy advertising tag-line, whatever they do /has/ to be good? complete carp. > Take note on how the 3 series is now a much > roomier car and it is still quite a driving machine. > > CD > what an utterly stupid comment. bmw do many things, including seal > their transmissions so the fluid cannot be changed, design their crumple [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> CD Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. BMW has quite reputation, which I agree with, for making a driver's car, so the slogan fits. I don't buy into marketing. The fact that they have used a strut to make high performance driver's car says alot about what can be done with a strut. Wishbones are better, but struts have closed the gap, asswipe. CD >> what an utterly stupid comment. bmw do many things, including seal >> their transmissions so the fluid cannot be changed, design their [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > agree with, for making a driver's car, so the slogan fits. I don't buy > into marketing. but you keep paraphrasing their tag line! if you think that's not buying into their marketing, you need a reality adjustment. > The fact that they have used a strut to make high > performance driver's car says alot about what can be done with a strut. > Wishbones are better, but struts have closed the gap, asswipe. > > CD struts make for comfy cars that get driven on freeways. like bmw. if you think bmw make a "high performance driver's car", you need to drive a few more different types of cars because they're just like mercedes, they're way behind porsche, blah blah blah. you could also get your a.s on down to a nice twisty track some time and see who wins. but that takes more effort than shooting off on a news group. doesn't it. I've been on the track, bud. No question that Porsche makes great cars, but you have to consider cost. The 911 costs more than BMWs top of the line V10 M5. If BMW wanted to procduce a coupe that costs 100 grand, I'm sure they'd make it drive as well if not better than the Porsche. Ceramic disc brakes are incredible technology that you only find in a Porshce, and that option ALONE adds 8 grand to the cost. Great stuff, but fantastically pricey. I'm sure one day we'll see truts in a Porsche, like the more economically price cayman series. CD > I've been on the track, bud. No question that Porsche makes great cars, > but you have to consider cost. i do. and that's why it's ridiculous that a cheap crappy honda with wishbones and narrow tires hangs hangs with the big boys once the road bends a bit. > The 911 costs more than BMWs top of the > line V10 M5. eh? > If BMW wanted to procduce a coupe that costs 100 grand, > I'm sure they'd make it drive as well if not better than the Porsche. they do. and it doesn't. > Ceramic disc brakes are incredible technology that you only find in a > Porshce, and that option ALONE adds 8 grand to the cost. Great stuff, > but fantastically pricey. ceramic refers to the pad material. that's a $10-$20 delta compared to standard pads. you can put ceramic pads on your buick if you want. > I'm sure one day we'll see truts in a Porsche eh? porsche already are struts >, like the more > economically price cayman series. the cayenne? those thing's are not "economic", any way you slice the pie. the boxter is the cheapest thing porsche have in their stable right now. > CD >> I've been on the track, bud. No question that Porsche makes great cars, >> but you have to consider cost. > > i do. and that's why it's ridiculous that a cheap crappy honda with > wishbones and narrow tires hangs hangs with the big boys once the road > bends a bit. Dont doubt it. Like I keep saying, Wishbones are better, just not much much better than struts. >> The 911 costs more than BMWs top of the >> line V10 M5. > > eh? >> If BMW wanted to procduce a coupe that costs 100 grand, >> I'm sure they'd make it drive as well if not better than the Porsche. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ceramic refers to the pad material. that's a $10-$20 delta compared to > standard pads. you can put ceramic pads on your buick if you want. No, the rotors themsleves are ceramic. Like I said earlier, its an $8000 option. >> I'm sure one day we'll see truts in a Porsche > > eh? porsche already are struts Fair enough, my bad. but doesnt that say something that Porsches are using struts? >> , like the more >> economically price cayman series. > > the cayenne? those thing's are not "economic", any way you slice the > pie. the boxter is the cheapest thing porsche have in their stable > right now. The cayman is a poor man's Porsche 911. Basically its a Boxter coupe. The Cayennee is their SUV. >> CD CD <snip> >> , like the more >> economically price cayman series. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> CD http://www11.porsche.com/cayman/pcna.asp I wouldn't mind a Cayman. Cayenne? WTF is that for???? Andy >Struts are the wave of the future. <Retch> Accords used to use them. Don't any more. I'd like to see someone accuse Honda of being behind the times. > Not only are struts less expensive, >but struts are also more space efficient than double-wishbone >suspensions. Maybe. But they distribute the space useage differently. Advantageous for transverse engines. Possibly less advantageous without that and with a V type engine. Depends. > Carmakers can design a roomier cabin and more capacious >trunk for a car when using struts. If you want to maximize trunk space with front wheel drive you use a beam axle and leaf springs. So there! And I recall the Renault Alliance has a very roomy trunk for the size of the car... IRS, too... transverse torsion bars. >A sign that struts have come along is that the new BMW 3 series uses >them. BMWs have used struts for a long time. Its nothing recent. >If they're good enought for "the ultimate driving machine" then >they are quit good now. Take note on how the 3 series is now a much >roomier car and it is still quite a driving machine. They're good enough for the customers who believe its the ulitmate driving machine. Not quite the same. >>Struts are the wave of the future. > > <Retch> > > Accords used to use them. Don't any more. I'd like to see someone > accuse Honda of being behind the times. Honda isn't behind the times. Honda beleives in making the best handling FWD car, so they went for the wishbones. The Acura TL is acknowledged as the best handling FWD sedan out there. Compared to its pseudo arch enemy, the Nissan Maxima, the Maxima is a much roomier car, about the same power, and handles not as well as the TL. Maxima uses struts and Honda uses wishbones. >>Not only are struts less expensive, >>but struts are also more space efficient than double-wishbone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Advantageous for transverse engines. Possibly less advantageous > without that and with a V type engine. Depends. In the examples above, both have V6 engines. The wishbone car is not as roomy as the strut car. >>Carmakers can design a roomier cabin and more capacious >>trunk for a car when using struts. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Alliance has a very roomy trunk for the size of the car... IRS, too... > transverse torsion bars. There are always exceptions, and the beam axle, the way Nissan did with the 95-03 Maxima or Infinit G20 was not such a bad thing. I actually like it. Fact is, when you compare the strut to the ideal, the wishbone, the strut is catching up, and because of all strut's other advantages, it will take over. >>A sign that struts have come along is that the new BMW 3 series uses >>them. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > They're good enough for the customers who believe its the ulitmate > driving machine. Not quite the same. BMWs, especailly cars like the M3 and M5, have long been recognized as extremly high performance driving machines. People buy BMWs for that reason, even if probably some 90% wont' even drive them for the driving machine that it is. The fact this BMWs are recognized by real drivers as driver's cars, not those customers who have to keep up with the Jones's. That says alot about how they build their cars: the engines and suspensions being paramount components. BMW has kept the spirit of the driving machine whilst using a strut. I find that impressive about what can be done with a strut. CD >> Accords used to use them. Don't any more. I'd like to see someone >> accuse Honda of being behind the times. >> >Honda isn't behind the times. I think I said that. >>>Not only are struts less expensive, >>>but struts are also more space efficient than double-wishbone [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >In the examples above, both have V6 engines. The wishbone car is not as >roomy as the strut car. Note above "without that" (transverse engine). I see no relationship between interior roominess and the type of front suspension within the types discussed except pure coincidence. >> If you want to maximize trunk space with front wheel drive you use a >> beam axle and leaf springs. So there! And I recall the Renault [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the 95-03 Maxima or Infinit G20 was not such a bad thing. I actually >like it. The lateral link unavoidably encroaches on potential trunk room. Or, in this case, rather displaced the fuel tank into what could have been trunk space. >Fact is, when you compare the strut to the ideal, the wishbone, >the strut is catching up, and because of all strut's other advantages, >it will take over. Just can't admit the way the way GM, Ford, and Chrysler did it for decades was better, eh? >> They're good enough for the customers who believe its the ulitmate >> driving machine. Not quite the same. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >driving machine whilst using a strut. I find that impressive about what >can be done with a strut. Think of how good they could be with a proper suspension! (Considering BMW's history of struts and semi-trailing arms not to be features that come anywhere near matching their pompous advertising slogan.) >>>Accords used to use them. Don't any more. I'd like to see someone >>>accuse Honda of being behind the times. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Note above "without that" (transverse engine). Fair enough. My bad. > I see no relationship between interior roominess and the type of front > suspension within the types discussed except pure coincidence. It's a synergy of all the systems involved. When building a car, the engine wants to sit behind the suspension to promote a better center of gravity. Because struts take up less space, the engine can sit comfortably behind the suspension without pushing too much into the firewall, thereby not impeding interior space. Since a wishbone setup is bigger, the motor has to be pushed back further, and the car designer has to decide the overall length of the car longer to account for that, or sacrifice a little interior space. Since making the car longer will hurt performance, the decision is usually made to cut interior space a little. Compare the Acura TL to the Maxima and you will find that maxima much more roomy. >>>If you want to maximize trunk space with front wheel drive you use a >>>beam axle and leaf springs. So there! And I recall the Renault [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in this case, rather displaced the fuel tank into what could have been > trunk space. OK, so trunk space goes from huge with the lateral link to ginormous without. And the gas tank is in the same place as in other cars. No big issue here. >>Fact is, when you compare the strut to the ideal, the wishbone, >>the strut is catching up, and because of all strut's other advantages, >>it will take over. > > Just can't admit the way the way GM, Ford, and Chrysler did it for > decades was better, eh? I like the Corvettes:) >>>They're good enough for the customers who believe its the ulitmate >>>driving machine. Not quite the same. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > features that come anywhere near matching their pompous advertising > slogan.) No doubt that the wishbone is better, but it is not as much better than struts than they used to be. CD >> I see no relationship between interior roominess and the type of front >> suspension within the types discussed except pure coincidence. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >little. Compare the Acura TL to the Maxima and you will find that maxima >much more roomy. Engines have been more or less over the front axle (or the theorectical axle, in the case in independent suspension) in the vast majority of cars since the Chrysler Airflow. The Hondas and Nissans you mention are not exceptions. >> The lateral link unavoidably encroaches on potential trunk room. Or, >> in this case, rather displaced the fuel tank into what could have been >> trunk space. >OK, so trunk space goes from huge with the lateral link to ginormous >without. And the gas tank is in the same place as in other cars. No big >issue here. Your original point was the space efficiency of the Nissan beam axle design. Its not the most space efficient way to hang a beam axle on a car. Leaf springs, which I mentioned, is more space efficient. >>>Fact is, when you compare the strut to the ideal, the wishbone, >>>the strut is catching up, and because of all strut's other advantages, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I like the Corvettes:) <G> >> Think of how good they could be with a proper suspension! >> (Considering BMW's history of struts and semi-trailing arms not to be >> features that come anywhere near matching their pompous advertising >> slogan.) >No doubt that the wishbone is better, but it is not as much better than >struts than they used to be. Upper/lower control arms have greater performance potential. With longitudally mounted engines in BMW's rear drive cars, the difference in the shape of the space consumed by struts versus upper/lower arms is not an issue. BMW has chosen struts because of lower cost. It could be expected that a car that is billed as the ultimate driving machine would make the choice for performance. >>>I see no relationship between interior roominess and the type of front >>>suspension within the types discussed except pure coincidence. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > majority of cars since the Chrysler Airflow. The Hondas and Nissans > you mention are not exceptions. I understand that, and I guess I didn't make myself clear. The ideal situation is to put the engine behind the front axle. With struts the engine can sit further behind than with wishbones, AND you dont sacrifice as much in interior room, AND they cost less. Do I chose a car simply because it has struts? Nope. It's the whole package that determines whether I invest in the car or not. >>>The lateral link unavoidably encroaches on potential trunk room. Or, >>>in this case, rather displaced the fuel tank into what could have been [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > design. Its not the most space efficient way to hang a beam axle on a > car. Leaf springs, which I mentioned, is more space efficient. Nope, my post was and is all about struts not being as bad as people think. I digressed to beams which I feel that Nissan made a very good compromise between practicality (a big trunk) and performance (road holding ability). Everything involves a compromise. With wishbones you get the best suspension, but it impedes on the practical aspect. > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > could be expected that a car that is billed as the ultimate driving > machine would make the choice for performance. No argument here. Wishbones are the best. But they are no longer magnitudes better than struts, just some what better, IMHO. As for being the ultimate driving machine, I by no means consider BMWs to be the best handling cars in the world, but I do beleive it to an extent given thier price. Yes, the slogan using the word ultimate is a bit extreme, but ALL marketing is these days. I respect that BMW really does strive to achieve that goal in a mass produced vehicle more than other carmakers. . . . .in that price point. CD >> Engines have been more or less over the front axle (or the >> theorectical axle, in the case in independent suspension) in the vast [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I understand that, and I guess I didn't make myself clear. The ideal >situation is to put the engine behind the front axle. Ideal for what? Doing that unavoidably increases the length of the car, given a desire for the same passenger room, or decreases passenger room within the same length. I believe that for the typical length of a compact or mid size car, putting the engine completely behind the front axle would result in a car with either no trunk or no rear seat. > With struts the >engine can sit further behind than with wishbones, AND you dont >sacrifice as much in interior room, AND they cost less. I disagree. With a transverse mounted engine, the lower control arm on an upper/lower arm system or the control arm on a strut system is below the engine. Nothing changes there. However, an upper/lower control arm system with the shock mounted to the lower arm results in a narrower engine compartment at mid height than a strut suspension. Essentially, the space consumed, front view, or right suspension is this: Strut xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Upper/lower control arm xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Space consumption differences are irrelevant with longitudinally mounted engines except a very long stroke horizontially opposed design. Honda obviously struggled getting upper/lower control arms in its cars, ending up with a system of intricately curved parts that is both expensive and fragile. The most space efficient engine compartment design I've seen is that used on the Chrysler LH cars, which used struts but appear to have been able to use upper/lower arms if desired. But then, Chrysler didn't intend to promote the LH as the Ultimate Driving Machine. >> Your original point was the space efficiency of the Nissan beam axle >> design. Its not the most space efficient way to hang a beam axle on a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >holding ability). Everything involves a compromise. With wishbones you >get the best suspension, but it impedes on the practical aspect. In the case of rear drive, except with a horizontally opposed engine, there are no practical functional benefits to struts. Its all cost. >> Upper/lower control arms have greater performance potential. With >> longitudally mounted engines in BMW's rear drive cars, the difference [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >does strive to achieve that goal in a mass produced vehicle more than >other carmakers. . . . .in that price point. At that price point? When the BMW 3 series came out, every American built car had an upper/lower control arm system. Many cost less than the 3 series. Probably every one cost less per pound than the 3 series. In Europe, at the same time, an upscale economy car, the Opel 1900, had upper/lower arms and tapered coil springs. And a few years later, in the US, GM introduced the econobox Chevette with the same configuration. Ultimate driving machine? <smirk> >>>Engines have been more or less over the front axle (or the >>>theorectical axle, in the case in independent suspension) in the vast [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > behind the front axle would result in a car with either no trunk or no > rear seat. Ideal to promote a 50/50 weight distribution which makes the car handle better. >>With struts the >>engine can sit further behind than with wishbones, AND you dont [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > xxxxxxxxxx > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I dont know about you, but in these diagrams, I see the strut being more space efficient. It sticks out a bit more but you can do more with the space that it doesnt take up. > Space consumption differences are irrelevant with longitudinally > mounted engines except a very long stroke horizontially opposed > design. I disagree. Honda obviously struggled getting upper/lower control arms in > its cars, ending up with a system of intricately curved parts that is > both expensive and fragile. The most space efficient engine > compartment design I've seen is that used on the Chrysler LH cars, > which used struts but appear to have been able to use upper/lower arms > if desired. But then, Chrysler didn't intend to promote the LH as the > Ultimate Driving Machine. Compared witht the Honda accord, those LH cars were very long in wheelbase and overall length. Whaever efficeincy achieved in the engine compartment was lost elsewhere. >>>Your original point was the space efficiency of the Nissan beam axle >>>design. Its not the most space efficient way to hang a beam axle on a [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > in the US, GM introduced the econobox Chevette with the same > configuration. Ultimate driving machine? <smirk> In the US market, BMW makes a driver's car. Most American cars aren't built with passion to be driven, those lower control arms are just there so they can boast about it in the marketing brochures. Lower control arms? Yeah, it's got em. But can those cars handle? fuhgetaboutit. the 3 series with the "less" capable struts will run circles around them. You got me on the Europeans cars, though. I completely agree. I wish those kind of car were available here in the US. Chevette's suck, you can keep those un-developed hashed together control arms, but Opel's I like. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. Apparently we see the same things very differently. CD >> Ideal for what? Doing that unavoidably increases the length of the >> car, given a desire for the same passenger room, or decreases [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Ideal to promote a 50/50 weight distribution which makes the car handle >better. And what all do you give up that's relevant to a passenger car? How do you justify this design for passenger car use? Some racing cars used to use this configuration... 50 years ago! Now the engines are behind the driver. >I dont know about you, but in these diagrams, I see the strut being more >space efficient. It sticks out a bit more but you can do more with the >space that it doesnt take up. It doesn't matter with a longitudinally mounted engine. There's nothing to be done with the space, except stick in accessory items that could to anywhere. >> Space consumption differences are irrelevant with longitudinally >> mounted engines except a very long stroke horizontially opposed >> design. > >I disagree. Irrelevant without an argument to show your point. > Honda obviously struggled getting upper/lower control arms in >> its cars, ending up with a system of intricately curved parts that is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >wheelbase and overall length. Whaever efficeincy achieved in the engine >compartment was lost elsewhere. Lost? Has it occurred to you that they were **intended** to be large cars inside and out? They were quite succesful, but functionally and commercially. Of course, this is lost on people who consider whatever size the current Accord is to be the perfect size car. >> At that price point? When the BMW 3 series came out, every American >> built car had an upper/lower control arm system. Many cost less than [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >built with passion to be driven, those lower control arms are just there >so they can boast about it in the marketing brochures. Based on your last sentence above, we can assume struts have upper arms. Correct terminology is that a strut suspension has a control arm and what is called a "wishbone" suspension has upper and lower control arms. In any case, advertising for American cars in the era I referred to didn't mention upper/lower control arms. The major suspension advertising of the era was Chrysler pushing its torsion bars and the Asians pushing struts as "sports car" feature or one featured on premium European cars. In fact, the strut suspension was a design proposal for the 1949 Ford, intended as a cheap way of building an independent front suspension and was rejected for use at that time. The original design was a marvel of "no parts" and "cheap parts" as the control arm wasn't triangulated and the anti-roll bar provided the third point. Ford didn't use struts on a North American built product until the 1978 Fairmont (can you say "cheap"). Chrysler didn't use them until 1978, on the Horizon/Omni, and GM didn't use them until 1980, on the Citation etc. Note the appropriateness for FWD (the packaging reasons I mentioned earlier), in two of the three applications mentioned above, and "cheap" in all of them. > Lower control >arms? Yeah, it's got em. But can those cars handle? fuhgetaboutit. the 3 >series with the "less" capable struts will run circles around them. All a matter of the choices made in other areas. With a comparable philosophy and equal development, struts are inferior to an upper/lower arm system. Your argument is the same as saying you can haul more stuff in a C1500 than in a Honda Civic. >You got me on the Europeans cars, though. I completely agree. I wish >those kind of car were available here in the US. Chevette's suck, you >can keep those un-developed hashed together control arms, but Opel's I like. The Chevette started life as an Opel. It was GM's world ecnonobox design, built in Europe by Opel, in the US by Chevrolet, and in Japan by Isuzu. They're easy to recognize as being the same because the steering column in all those cars doesn't aim straight back at the driver. Aims a little to the left. They didn't bother with a link in the steering mechanism to compensate for the fact that the entry point to the steering rack was inboard of the steering wheel location. >I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. Apparently we see the >same things very differently. Just trying to fill you in. >> that's what my friend thought. he had 5 digits of upgrades into that >> thing. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > By that token, the '87 Escort I used to have should have beat the Stang > as well - 4 wheel independent, decent weight, etc.... The dis-advantage of the Mustang's rear end is more than just the lack of indepedence. It's a heavy, truck like live axle, understandibly so because you need that to turn all that engine's torque 90 degrees. The heaviness and non-independent left and right rear wheel get a double whammy of negativity in that regard. Yeah it'll take turns, not nearly as well as other cars though. Cheap speed it what the Mustang is all about. CD >>> that's what my friend thought. he had 5 digits of upgrades into that >>> thing. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > whammy of negativity in that regard. Yeah it'll take turns, not nearly > as well as other cars though. Cheap *straight line* > speed it what the Mustang is all about. > > CD > Meanwhile, Honda is proposing a new "Effective Horsepower" > rating system. "We intended our horsepower ratings to simulate > effective horsepower when the vehicles are five years old. Our > vehicles lose an average of 46 pounds by that age, meaning > better performance" said Honda spokesman Kor Oshon. LOL. Yeah, right. April Fool's day is still a couple weeks off, dorky. From www.detroitnews.com? Pure propaganda! Like American manufacturers haven't been doing this? Ken > Is that new Honda or Toyota less powerful than last years model? > Well, yes, and no. The engines in the new models don't make [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > critcize Detroit for being stupid, one thing is clear: at least > they're smart enough not to lie. >None of the GM and Ford engines that have been tested have shown >power losses. Some have shown power gains. For those who >critcize Detroit for being stupid, one thing is clear: at least >they're smart enough not to lie. Detroit cars only go downhill after three years. J. > Is that new Honda or Toyota less powerful than last years model? > Well, yes, and no. The engines in the new models don't make [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > annual fuel cost based on regular, tweaking engine controls to > non-standard settings, and turning off accessories. http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060313/AUTO01/603130350 I don't know if anyone else picked up on it but the text at the link bears no relationship to what follows... [snip] > After being caught redhanded overstating horsepower, > Hyundai paid cash compensation to over 800,000 owners. "Honda > and Toyota owners aren't like that", said Joseph Camel of the > Brand Research Institute. "They're pretty docile owner groups. > After all, they bought the idea that its normal maintenance to > automatically replace water pumps at 75,000 miles. "Joseph Camel?" Joe Camel? R-i-i-g-ht. [snip] >> Is that new Honda or Toyota less powerful than last years model? >> Well, yes, and no. The engines in the new models don't make >> any less power than last year's engines, even though the numbers >> on the specification page are lower. Its just that the >> Asians have been caught playing the loopholes in the standards, FWIW, My 2005 Tacoma has the same 236 HP V6 as the 2006. My 2005 was advertised as 250 HP. Who cares? What am I going to do buy a Colorado? That would be biting off my nose to spite my face! <G> My Tacoma is an outstanding truck, and I can't tell 236 from 250 when driving. My penis is long enough where I don't need a decal stating HP on the side of the truck. FWIW, Nissan still dosen't comply with the standard. >FWIW, My 2005 Tacoma has the same 236 HP V6 as the 2006. My 2005 was >advertised as 250 HP. Sorry, it was advertised as 245. See what I mean? Who cares? I don't even know exactly how may horsepower my vehicle is! <G> >>> Is that new Honda or Toyota less powerful than last years model? >>> Well, yes, and no. The engines in the new models don't make [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >biting off my nose to spite my face! <G> My Tacoma is an outstanding >truck, Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but its kinda funny that at the same time you admit you know virtually nothing about your truck, and even scarier that you say you don't care. > and I can't tell 236 from 250 when driving. My penis is long >enough where I don't need a decal stating HP on the side of the truck. But I hope you're advertising your penis length correctly. (Wondering if Toyota and Honda have been caught in delusions they're John Holmes.) >FWIW, Nissan still dosen't comply with the standard. Ignoring, of course, the fact that GM and Ford do. Faith is an interesting thing.... >>>> Is that new Honda or Toyota less powerful than last years model? >>>> Well, yes, and no. The engines in the new models don't make [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Ignoring, of course, the fact that GM and Ford do. That is not how I read the article. GM and Ford are only testing new powerplants, for the most part, according to the article. Toyota and Honda tested everything. > > After being caught redhanded overstating horsepower, > > Hyundai paid cash compensation to over 800,000 owners. "Honda [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "Joseph Camel?" Joe Camel? R-i-i-g-ht. Good catch. >I don't know if anyone else picked up on it but the text at the link bears >no relationship to what follows... Well, there is SOME relationship. Some of the stuff in the post starts out the same as a passage in the article, but quickly diverges in a very amusing way. ;) SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave It's always amusing to think about how the "buy-American" type deludes himself into thinking a Vette or a Viper are better than Euro or Japanese sports cars because "our cars are faster".. Ignorance & simple-mindedness-- it's what makes conservatism and NASCAR so goddam popular in this country. > It's always amusing to think about how the "buy-American" type deludes > himself into thinking a Vette or a Viper are better than Euro or > Japanese sports cars because "our cars are faster".. Hmm... I don't see this at all, I see as few Vettes and Vipers on the quarter mile track on Friday night as I see exotic European or Japanese sports cars. A brand new Domestic "sports car" is as bad as a brand new Eurpoean "sports car" they are so expensive the buyers are scared to death of damaging them, so they never see a Real Man's racetrack. > Ignorance & simple-mindedness-- it's what makes conservatism and NASCAR > so goddam popular in this country. I won't argue that - of course, I assume you don't think that anyone in this forum actually deludes themselves that what is run on the NASCAR circuit is in any way shape or form even remotely related to a "stock car" NASCAR should have renamed themselves NATCAR years ago. (National Association of Toy Car Racers) Ted > I won't argue that - of course, I assume you don't think that anyone > in this forum actually deludes themselves that what is run on the > NASCAR circuit is in any way shape or form even remotely related > to a "stock car" Or a "truck". <G> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.