setting the record straight:mac struts vs double wishbone

[Sharp11]

A lot of half truths and misconceptions were put up here last week regarding mac struts being inferior to double wishbones (an earth shattering debate, eh?) in a front-engined car, so I thought I'd set the record straight in a new thread.

Here's what JohnV said:

I never said there was anything wrong with struts. I said there was something wrong with struts in a front-engined car. And to carry that point further, struts can be made to work if the roll stiffness is high enough and the roll centers aren't subterranean. That .. does not describe any current or past BMW models.

Well, although I could find no evidence BMW's roll centers are set below ground level from the factory, I know from practice, one of the nice things about mac struts is the ease with which roll centers can be adjusted - just change the angle of the lower control arm.

The reason mac struts roll more is because their rolls centers actually shift away and over the cars center axis - easily cured with a good anti-roll bar.


A strut has very little camber gain through its travel. To compound this, BMW doesn't give you any adjustability up front for camber. That coupled with the front engine means lots of body roll up front, which means the car's front-end grip will be limited.

The fact that a strut has very little camber change over its travel is a very good thing, not a negative as John suggests, as long as body roll is checked with an anti-roll bar, this allows the front wheel a nearly vertical placement in hard cornering (well, theoretically perfect placement), this is exactly what the chassis engineer wants, less roll, a nearly vertical front wheel.

In fairness to John (and Clyde), if all the car was going to do was circle around traffic cones on a Sunday afternoon, excessive negative camber might be a plus, but for everyman use -- no thanks.


A mid (or rear)-engined car gets away with this because the body roll is much less. The excessive rear camber BMW dials in only exacerbates the understeer inherent to the platform. But at least they let you adjust it, sorta.

The problem with the z4's rear suspension has nothing to do with negative camber and everything to do with excessive rear-wheel steering (it either toes in or out, I can't recall) on rough surfaces, this designed-in for super-quick smooth-surface handling (its ability to leave the M3 in its dust in numerous track tests is evidence of this). I first came across this bit of info from an article in EVO magazine in which engineers from Mercedes were trying to figure out why the Z4's rear end was so lively over bumps.

I driven my car hard on two occasions now, its low, wide platform assures relatively little weight transfer (which is the real enemy of good handling) and very little roll, but when the going gets rough, it's a handful.

I erred when I said dw's required heavier front frames, what I should've said was mac struts have very widely spaced mounting points, allowing for a lighter chassis structure as the suspension loads could be fed into the structure more efficiently.

BMW makes a great handling, front-engined, rear-wheel drive car, that, as I hope I've shown, suffers no disadvantages because it uses struts up front.

However, that the Boxster's ability to outhandle the Z4 probably has little to do with its engine location and everything to do with a more finely tweaked set-up - the fact it uses struts front/rear and is considered one of the best handling cars on the market (especially true of the Cayman) should dispell any superiority of dw's over struts debate.

(I could get into a whole debate of the inherent goodness of front engine rwd vs mid engine rwd, but let's save that for a rainy day ;))

In summary:

The inherent higher roll rate of a strut front suspension can be easily quelled with an anti roll bar, its roll center set with with a change of geometry of the lower a arm, its lack of an excessive camber curve, light weight, simple well-spaced structure then (and only then) a real plus.

I've learned all this over 33 years of driving and studying cars, including a great deal of my own fascination and endless work with the front end of my then new 1980 vw rabbit which I modified to death but turned into a fine handling hot hatch some 26 years ago.

And just to make certain I'm not shooting from the hip here, I went back and checked my old text books (including the book that started it all for me;Fred Puhn's excellent 'how to make your car handle'), I can't find anyone who doesn't support this view :dunno:

Ed

[lemming]

good reading. thanks for posting that, Ed.

i guess i still don't understand what the z4 rear suspension does --the only comment in relation to this i have is that the old M coupe, with the semi-trailing rear arms, had positive camber when it was unsettled or generally loaded up quickly and it was a REAL handful on the track. the z4's multilink rear was a revelation for me driving it because, to me, the back end was really settled and didn't hopscotch around.

[Nick M3]

OK, so? I should think that the fact that BMWs need more than twice as much front spring rate in order to perform well is indicative. Moreover, the amount of static negative camber that you need to make struts work seriously compromises your braking.

But yes, if you're looking for a suspension to tool around town in, struts are perfectly fine. Is there some reason why you can't handle the fact that BMWs have mediocre (at best) suspension geometry?

[Sharp11]

But yes, if you're looking for a suspension to tool around town in, struts are perfectly fine.

A tremendously idiotic statement right up there with your, to paraphrase " serious photography can only be done with film" statement and the reason I started this thread - perhaps you should try a re-read.

Is there some reason why you can't handle the fact that BMWs have mediocre (at best) suspension geometry?

Don't hijack the thread, this is not a thread about your misinformed opinions of bmw suspension geometry, specifically, but if it were, I'd rather put my faith in the geniuses in Munich than you any day of the week.

Ed

[John V]

The title of this thread is comical. :lol:

Well, although I could find no evidence BMW's roll centers are set below ground level from the factory, I know from practice, one of the nice things about mac struts is the ease with which roll centers can be adjusted - just change the angle of the lower control arm.

Uh, yeah, that's great. So when the car is lowered to improve the center of gravity, the roll-center moves below ground level? You say the roll centers can be easily adjusted - not so much. Once the car is lowered, the ball-joint pickups MUST be moved to keep the control arms horizontal at ride height.

The reason mac struts roll more is because their rolls centers actually shift away and over the cars center axis - easily cured with a good anti-roll bar.

An anti-roll bar is a band aid, at best. Really what is needed is a stiffer spring. Anti-roll bars transfer weight in ways that is not always desirable. Though I will say that a larger front ARB on BMWs seems to work very well. Stiffer springs have their own problems. The stiffer springs don't work so well over bumpy surfaces, and they require fancy dampers to keep them settled.

Struts are, for a competition car, a compromise. But I do recognize not everybody drives their car with competition in mind.

The fact that a strut has very little camber change over its travel is a very good thing, not a negative as John suggests, as long as body roll is checked with an anti-roll bar, this allows the front wheel a nearly vertical placement in hard cornering (well, theoretically perfect placement), this is exactly what the chassis engineer wants, less roll, a nearly vertical front wheel.

For a car that is going to be driven up and down the boulevard, yes, it's a good thing. For those of us that enjoy spirited driving, ideally the car will ALWAYS have a bit of camber thrust, even at max cornering. Your ASSumptions about the anti-roll bar magically keeping body roll in check aren't correct - the anti-roll bar only works by transferring the load on the outer tire to the inner tire. With struts, body roll works against you times two: the outer tire positively cambers because the strut's camber curve is basically nil, and the body roll causes the upper mount for the strut to go towards the outside of the corner. Not good for ultimate grip, and even worse for FEEL.

What's more, the strut places an immense load on its outer ball joints, hence those bits have to be rather stout. The strut also has a tremendous amount of friction internally under maximum load. Not good for feel and in some cases, the struts can bind, which leads to unpredictability.

In fairness to John (and Clyde), if all the car was going to do was circle around traffic cones on a Sunday afternoon, excessive negative camber might be a plus, but for everyman use -- no thanks.

"Everyman" likes to hit the twisty roads now and then, maybe do a track day, maybe go to an autocross. It's not all about autocrossing. But yes - for someone like you, struts are just great.

However, that the Boxster's ability to outhandle the Z4 probably has little to do with its engine location and everything to do with a more finely tweaked set-up - the fact it uses struts front/rear and is considered one of the best handling cars on the market (especially true of the Cayman) should dispell any superiority of dw's over struts debate.

The Boxster doesn't have DWs because of two things: 1) the flat-6 motor is very wide and takes up the area that you'd like to mount the DW pickup points and 2) they're too expensive. The Boxster is a budget-engineered car.

The Boxster handles well because it's wide, it's low, and the Cg is very, very low. It doesn't have a stiff chassis. It doesn't have high spring rates. It doesn't have fancy struts. It doesn't have a lot of camber. It could handle a lot better - but it's very good.

Thanks for setting the record straight, though.

[Nick M3]

A tremendously idiotic statement right up there with your, to paraphrase " serious photography can only be done with film" statement and the reason I started this thread - perhaps you should try a re-read.



Don't hijack the thread, this is not a thread about your misinformed opinions of bmw suspension geometry, specifically, but if it were, I'd rather put my faith in the geniuses in Munich than you any day of the week.

Ed
OK, so why do the geniuses in Munich find a way to make double wishbones work when they throw together a serious race car?

[lemming]

OK, so why do the geniuses in Munich find a way to make double wishbones work when they throw together a serious race car?

i was waiting for you to reply with that....otherwise i would have.

[Sharp11]

OK, so why do the geniuses in Munich find a way to make double wishbones work when they throw together a serious race car?

Because they've been doing it that way for fifty million years, long before the mac strut was invented.

Today's race cars are built too low to the ground and have tires that are much too large for struts, but if you recall, in the mid 60's, Colin Chapman embraced and pioneered the use of struts in a race car, it was called the chapman strut and was based on the mac strut (it was an even simpler design).

Certainly he was a genius, no?

He went on the enjoy notoriety as producing one of the best handling two-seater ANY amount of money could buy in the name of the Lotus (i believe) Elan.

Ed

[Sharp11]

The title of this thread is comical. :lol:

Good, glad, always happy to make you laugh

Uh, yeah, that's great. So when the car is lowered to improve the center of gravity, the roll-center moves below ground level? You say the roll centers can be easily adjusted - not so much. Once the car is lowered, the ball-joint pickups MUST be moved to keep the control arms horizontal at ride height.

If you lower a car with DW's, the roll center is below ground automatically as the control arms, all four of them, would angle down towards the ground. You'd need to adjust both control arms to compensate.

So with a strut you reorientate one control arm ( or link) and move a ball joint.

As for struts binding, i've never heard of that.


An anti-roll bar is a band aid, at best. Really what is needed is a stiffer spring. Anti-roll bars transfer weight in ways that is not always desirable. Though I will say that a larger front ARB on BMWs seems to work very well. Stiffer springs have their own problems. The stiffer springs don't work so well over bumpy surfaces, and they require fancy dampers to keep them settled.

There isn't anything you've said in the above paragraph that doesn't apply to both types (or any type, really) of suspensions. Anti roll bars have been coupled with soft springs ever since I can remember, it's the basic layout for almost every car made :dunno: and yes, ARB's transfer weight in strange ways, after all, it's just a third spring stretched out; when you encounter a bump just the right way, the damned things try to lift the other side of the car, causing a nasty head snap.

That's why ARB's are only useful up to a certain diameter -too thick and it gets nasty in a hurry.


Struts are, for a competition car, a compromise. But I do recognize not everybody drives their car with competition in mind.

We're not talking about competition cars.


For a car that is going to be driven up and down the boulevard, yes, it's a good thing.

I completely disagree with that statement and leave it at that.



I snipped out all the other stuff because it's mostly redundant, I've already made the point about lower, wider and flatter being better overall, glad we agree, as for the insults, I'll do my best to back off of them - hope you'd do the same.

Nick asked about race cars, but the mac strut was never created for racing, it was a space efficient, inexpensive design for passenger cars that happens to have very favorable geometry, something we disagree on (and other advantages) for "spirited driving".

It's chief disadvantages for racing are its tallness and migrating roll center - that so many manufacturers and deigners of sports cars and race cars have used it freely, including colin chapman in the sixties, Porsche and BMW all along (porsche uses it in cars other than the Boxster) proves it's a good design and a worthy competitor to the dw when MANY factors are taken into consideration.

There are so many issues which affect a car's handling it seems silly to me we're pissing on each other over this - there's weight, the unsprung to sprung ratio, there's the inclination of the roll center, there's weight distribution, engine location, steering issues etc......whether or not a car has struts or dw's is only a small part of the picture.

Ed

[clyde]

setting the record straight

Straight as in Bruce330cic straight?

(no offense to Bruce intended)

[Nick M3]

I'm still wondering how stiff you think a strut suspension should be set? I have run stiffer front suspensions than anyone on this forum, and I have yet to get the front end of any of my cars stiff enough to solve the body roll/camber/roll center problem.

Of course struts are only part of the issue - that doesn't change the fact that struts are consistently outperformed by double wishbones. Struts have their place - they can be made to handle reasonably well. They're really easy to shove in a street car and forget about.

It's really ironic that you've listed most of the downsides of a Mac strut as a positive. ...and I really, really, really want you to explain to me how minimal camber gain is a plus. How exactly is a suspension setup that forces you to choose between braking OR cornering advantageous? DWs will let you set much less static negative camber, allowing better braking up front while keeping the tire in solid contact with the road under hard cornering.

[Pinecone]

Nick asked about race cars, but the mac strut was never created for racing, it was a space efficient, inexpensive design for passenger cars that happens to have very favorable geometry

but if you recall, in the mid 60's, Colin Chapman embraced and pioneered the use of struts in a race car, it was called the chapman strut and was based on the mac strut (it was an even simpler design).

In back to back posts.

And BTW Colin Chapman pioneered the use of Mac strusts in teh REAR, and that is called a Chapman strut, EXACTLY the same setup, but up to that point they had only been used in the front of cars. And he didn't do it for racing cars, he did it for his street cars.

And ARBs INCREASE weight transfer by limiting suspension droop in the inside tire. That's why cars with lots of ARBs stiffness lift a wheel, and lifting a wheel gives you less traction than keeping both tires on the ground (but due to poor camber gain, it may be better than having positive camber on the outside tire). You lose more traction by reducing the load on the inside tire than you gain by increasing the load on the outside tire. ARBs are a tuning aid, and when used to limit roll due to lack of camber gain under body roll are band aids. The are great on street cars since they allos softer springs for a smooth ride, but limit body roll to allow better handling.

Struts also increase unsprung weight. NOT good for handling.

Struts are compromise suspensions. They are cheaper and easier to build than DW, and work well enough for street cars. It has crappy geometry for cornering, but nice geometry for straight line boulevard cruising.

[Sharp11]

Nick,

When you corner hard you've got positive camber, in relation to the road surface, on a car with DW's as well as with macs - especially so with passenger cars, less so with race cars because they corner so flat (and are low, wide etc.). Theorectically, we'd like to see, on a car that rolls, a magical suspension which could keep its inside wheel perfectly vertical under heavy cornering load - in reality, it's just not so.

I'm of the opinion, these days, that I'd rather have the low, wide, flat-cornering car - one lap of an autox circuit in a car of this type makes you forget all about sedans and coupes and body roll.

Pinecone,

Chapman used this system on his race cars in the mid/late sixties as well as his road cars.

I think we're getting redundant here, I'd advise anyone who cares about this subject and has an interest in it to read one of the many several books on handling dynamics and suspension design both for passenger cars and race cars and decide for yourselves.

There are great books out there from Fred Puhn (dated but still good), Carroll Smith and Jeffrey Daniels (my favorite) to name three. Suffice to say, if you read and study, you'll see the general consensus of opinion doesn't quite jibe with what's being said here.

I'd hate to see people here feel their BMW or Porsche is somehow "compromised" in its handling because of its front suspension design.

It may indeed be somewhat compromised by its shape and cg (sedan), or its engine location (911 - an appropriate designation for this car;)), but its front suspension design, in this day and age where two designs have held steadfast, is probably the least of its problems.

There's a lot of pre-conceived "truths" on display here, I've seen (and stayed out of) the leaf spring arguments, the live axle in the new Mustang debates etc., but every car is a compromise and every engineering decision goes with it a compromise.

Ed

[Nick M3]

Nick,

When you corner hard you've got positive camber, in relation to the road surface, on a car with DW's as well as with macs - especially so with passenger cars, less so with race cars because they corner so flat (and are low, wide etc.). Theorectically, we'd like to see, on a car that rolls, a magical suspension which could keep its inside wheel perfectly vertical under heavy cornering load - in reality, it's just not so.

I'm of the opinion, these days, that I'd rather have the low, wide, flat-cornering car - one lap of an autox circuit in a car of this type makes you forget all about sedans and coupes and body roll.

Pinecone,

Chapman used this system on his race cars in the mid/late sixties as well as his road cars.

I think we're getting redundant here, I'd advise anyone who cares about this subject and has an interest in it to read one of the many several books on handling dynamics and suspension design both for passenger cars and race cars and decide for yourselves.

There are great books out there from Fred Puhn (dated but still good), Carroll Smith and Jeffrey Daniels (my favorite) to name three. Suffice to say, if you read and study, you'll see the general consensus of opinion doesn't quite jibe with what's being said here.

I'd hate to see people here feel their BMW or Porsche is somehow "compromised" in its handling because of its front suspension design.

It may indeed be somewhat compromised by its shape and cg (sedan), or its engine location (911 - an appropriate designation for this car;)), but its front suspension design, in this day and age where two designs have held steadfast, is probably the least of its problems.

There's a lot of pre-conceived "truths" on display here, I've seen (and stayed out of) the leaf spring arguments, the live axle in the new Mustang debates etc., but every car is a compromise and every engineering decision goes with it a compromise.

Ed
You've got to be kidding me - double wishbones clearly do better in the camber gain department. A lot better.

These cars need one hell of a lot less static negative camber in order to corner well.

On my M3, I run a 32mm front sway bar (full stiff), 500lbs. springs up front, Motons (another 100-150lbs. of spring there), and I still get outside edge wear with -4.5 degrees of camber. Best of all, I also get severely compromised braking. Corvettes and RX-8s (just to pick a couple out of the hat) get similar or better wear patterns with dramatically less negative camber.

Of course, I'm sure I could cure it all with a good anti-roll bar.

[Sharp11]

Corvettes and RX-8s (just to pick a couple out of the hat) get similar or better wear patterns with dramatically less negative camber.



Why not pick a Z4, a Boxster/Cayman or a 911 out of the hat while you're at it - those cars are also low, wide, sports cars and have about as much in common with a fouur door three series sedan as little richard and liberace ........ except that they too feature struts in front.

Ed

[Nick M3]

Why not pick a Z4, a Boxster/Cayman or a 911 out of the hat while you're at it - those cars are also low, wide, sports cars and have about as much in common with a fouur door three series sedan as little richard and liberace ........ except that they too feature struts in front.

Ed
How about I run with a CTS-V, RX-8 and M3 comparison? None of those are low slung sports cars. (Or is the RX-8 suddenly a low slung sports car because it handles well?)

[clyde]

Nick,

When you corner hard you've got positive camber, in relation to the road surface, on a car with DW's as well as with macs - especially so with passenger cars, less so with race cars because they corner so flat (and are low, wide etc.). Theorectically, we'd like to see, on a car that rolls, a magical suspension which could keep its inside wheel perfectly vertical under heavy cornering load - in reality, it's just not so.

I'm of the opinion, these days, that I'd rather have the low, wide, flat-cornering car - one lap of an autox circuit in a car of this type makes you forget all about sedans and coupes and body roll.

Pinecone,

Chapman used this system on his race cars in the mid/late sixties as well as his road cars.

I think we're getting redundant here, I'd advise anyone who cares about this subject and has an interest in it to read one of the many several books on handling dynamics and suspension design both for passenger cars and race cars and decide for yourselves.

There are great books out there from Fred Puhn (dated but still good), Carroll Smith and Jeffrey Daniels (my favorite) to name three. Suffice to say, if you read and study, you'll see the general consensus of opinion doesn't quite jibe with what's being said here.

I'd hate to see people here feel their BMW or Porsche is somehow "compromised" in its handling because of its front suspension design.

It may indeed be somewhat compromised by its shape and cg (sedan), or its engine location (911 - an appropriate designation for this car;)), but its front suspension design, in this day and age where two designs have held steadfast, is probably the least of its problems.

There's a lot of pre-conceived "truths" on display here, I've seen (and stayed out of) the leaf spring arguments, the live axle in the new Mustang debates etc., but every car is a compromise and every engineering decision goes with it a compromise.

Ed
Ed, please feel free to stop digging anytime.

[clyde]

(Or is the RX-8 suddenly a low slung sports car because it handles well?)

Nick, don;t you remember that Ed told us that the RX-8 is a special case becuase it was was designed formt eh group up as a sports car. Seriously, dude...get with the program. :irate:

[Sharp11]

How about I run with a CTS-V, RX-8 and M3 comparison? None of those are low slung sports cars. (Or is the RX-8 suddenly a low slung sports car because it handles well?)

I don't think your front suspension is the problem, e46 three series sedans did well in touring class over the last few years :dunno:

Ed

[Sharp11]

Nick, don;t you remember that Ed told us that the RX-8 is a special case becuase it was was designed formt eh group up as a sports car. Seriously, dude...get with the program. :irate:

Tell me then, because I really don't know, which platform the Rx8 was culled from :dunno:

Ed

[lemming]

Ed, please feel free to stop digging anytime.

why?

it's like a national geographic special entitled, "journey to the middle of the earth", the hole is.

[Sharp11]

why?

it's like a national geographic special entitled, "journey to the middle of the earth", the hole is.


One need not dig at all, all one needs to do is dare disagree and wait for the shovelfuls of dirt to appear and get buried alive...

Witness the mindless attacks on Hack........

Let's see:

V8's are good, especially pushrod models.

DW's are superior to struts, even if well-known and respected authors and designers disagree among themselves the "experts" here will tell you "how it is".

Excessive weight is ok as long as the car hasn't been released yet or it's a GM product with four doors and a V8.

Roadsters suck.

All BMW's suck, even if no one's driven certain models, especially those which haven't yet appeared.

Geeeze.... it is after all, a "private" club, aptly titled, with a small membership - it's no wonder.

Ed

[John V]

Nick,

When you corner hard you've got positive camber, in relation to the road surface, on a car with DW's as well as with macs - especially so with passenger cars, less so with race cars because they corner so flat (and are low, wide etc.). Theorectically, we'd like to see, on a car that rolls, a magical suspension which could keep its inside wheel perfectly vertical under heavy cornering load - in reality, it's just not so.

I don't get this statement. The camber gain of a double-wishbone can be designed to be essentially limitless. The location of the mounting points, the angles of the arms relative to one another and the lengths of the two arms all play into determining how many degrees of camber are gained per inch of suspension movement. The camber gain of the strut can be improved by adjusting the angle of the lower arm at ride height, but doing so makes the scrub radius change dynamically as the suspension moves. It comes down to a compromise - you need to run a bunch of static camber and very very stiff springs to make a strut work.

The RX-8 was designed from the ground up as a four-seat, four-door sedan, not as a sports car. It's relatively narrow. It has softish springs and a fair amount of body roll. Yet even though we only get -1.4 degrees of static negative camber, at full lean the outside tire still has some negative camber. The car doesn't even have a lot of caster, which is the crutch that BMW and Porsche lean on to try to get some camber gain out of the struts. The downside is the weight jacking that increases as you increase caster.

You mention the E46 in race configuration - those cars are running upwards of 4 degrees of static negative camber and have their suspension mounts relocated, nevermind running even stiffer springs than Nick. All to get around the strut's inherent flaws for performance driving.

[Nick M3]

Yep. I'll be back up to 1050lbs. in the front of the race car for Watkin's Glen. I might even end up going stiffer than that in the future.

Also, don't forget what the BMWs typically compete against in race configuration: FWD cars. Of course, the RX-8 has been pretty badly hurting the 330 in GAC.

[lemming]

One need not dig at all, all one needs to do is dare disagree and wait for the shovelfuls of dirt to appear and get buried alive...

Witness the mindless attacks on Hack........

Let's see:

V8's are good, especially pushrod models.

DW's are superior to struts, even if well-known and respected authors and designers disagree among themselves the "experts" here will tell you "how it is".

Excessive weight is ok as long as the car hasn't been released yet or it's a GM product with four doors and a V8.

Roadsters suck.

All BMW's suck, even if no one's driven certain models, especially those which haven't yet appeared.

Geeeze.... it is after all, a "private" club, aptly titled, with a small membership - it's no wonder.

Ed

no one really likes pushrod v8s except for me, and i'm far from a majority opinion on anything around here.

the argument you might be alluding to is more like the hp/litre versus hp/engine density? i dunno.

i don't think it's a really superheated argument at all about wishbones versus struts, do you? it's mostly semantics and theory to me.

i don't think anyone is all that happy about increased weights, despite whatever you think.

clyde would disagree with you about roadsters sucking. again, i'm in the minority because i'm the only one who thinks that roadster is not a prerequisite for a sports car.

i don't think most people think bmw's, suck, either sinc emost people here have reinvested in the brand. FWIW, i think stuka gets nailed more than the Hack, but in either case, it's not un-provoked.

[Doug]

I love pushrod V8, of course that's from my drag race days

[John V]

no one really likes pushrod v8s except for me, and i'm far from a majority opinion on anything around here.

I like pushrod V8s, mostly because they're so misunderstood by guys like Ed who think they're low-tech, inefficient beasts. They're not. They're elegantly simple, have high horsepower and torque for a unit of mass (especially the ones with aluminum blocks like the Chevy LS series) and can be made to run very efficiently through gearing.

i don't think anyone is all that happy about increased weights, despite whatever you think.

I'm willing to accept a kinda porky vehicle for a daily driver if it has the right bits and is sold for the right price. GM seems to be a little better than BMW in that regard, but they do trade a bit of panache and a lot of interior quality. Oh well.

clyde would disagree with you about roadsters sucking. again, i'm in the minority because i'm the only one who thinks that roadster is not a prerequisite for a sports car.

Roadsters ROCK! Never thought I'd say that. But they do. The fact that the Z4 doesn't frost my cookie dynamically or stylistically doesn't mean it's a bad car. It's a great car. It's just not for me.

i don't think most people think bmw's, suck, either sinc emost people here have reinvested in the brand. FWIW, i think stuka gets nailed more than the Hack, but in either case, it's not un-provoked.

I loved my E36, and I loved Ken's E46 once he fixed the problems BMW engineered in - weirdly valved shocks, too-narrow front wheels and no camber. But they don't currently make a product I'm interested in. No biggie. :dunno:

[Plaz]

i'm the only one who thinks that roadster is not a prerequisite for a sports car.

No you're not.

[JST]

One need not dig at all, all one needs to do is dare disagree and wait for the shovelfuls of dirt to appear and get buried alive...

Witness the mindless attacks on Hack........

Let's see:

V8's are good, especially pushrod models.



V8s are good; some are better than others. GM's aluminum pushrod V8s happen to be outstanding engines, from a power/efficiency, packaging, and cost standpoint. I might go so far to say that, taking into account cost, size, weight, fuel economy and performance, they are the best engines in the world. But I'd probably get jumped on for that.



DW's are superior to struts, even if well-known and respected authors and designers disagree among themselves the "experts" here will tell you "how it is".



All else equal (meaning space and cost are not something you have to worry about), I doubt anyone would claim that a well-engineered strut delivers better performance than a well-engineered DW. How many cost-no-object supercars use struts? Of course, in the real world, all else is not equal, and you always have to worry about space and cost (see discussion of GM V8s, supra). So, in some applications, struts are "better" because they can be used more effectively than a DW design.


Excessive weight is ok as long as the car hasn't been released yet or it's a GM product with four doors and a V8.


What is "excessive" depends a lot on the type of car. I don't like heavy cars, but I expect a mid-size V8 four door to weigh more than a Lotus Elise.


Roadsters suck.


Two seat cars bug me, because their utility is so compromised. Other than that, I have no problem with roadsters.


All BMW's suck, even if no one's driven certain models, especially those which haven't yet appeared.


As lemming said, by far the most popular brand of car on this board is BMW. We wouldn't all own/lease them if we thought they sucked. The fact that BMW is so highly thought of is what leads to most of the bitching around here when they do something stupid, like neglect to include an LSD in a 300 hp car.

[Sharp11]

I love pushrod V8, of course that's from my drag race days

Well, the truth is, if I were going to drop the kind of money an Mz4 costs, I'd be seriously looking at a Corvette, pushrods and all.

There's a Chevy dealer here in Stamford who's advertising an 06 coupe, brand new, for 43 and change.

That's a pretty good value.

Ed

[clyde]

Tell me then, because I really don't know, which platform the Rx8 was culled from :dunno:

The RX-8 platform was unique unto itself at introduction. Mazda designed it with the intention of basing several vehicles on it: new MX-5 and RX-7 as well as a multi-configurable compact (ala RX-3) and a mid sized luxury 4 door (ala Roadpacer :eeps: ).

[Rob]

no one really likes pushrod v8s except for me, and i'm far from a majority opinion on anything around here.

Bah.

I wish I could get some of that fuel effienciency out of my LS series pushrod engine that everyone talks about though.

Ed, you talk about people sticking to their preconceived conclusions - I think that is the most ironic concept out of any of these threads.

[lemming]

Bah.

I wish I could get some of that fuel effienciency out of my LS series pushrod engine that everyone talks about though.

Ed, you talk about people sticking to their preconceived conclusions - I think that is the most ironic concept out of any of these threads.

just as a reality check: have you seen the fuel ratings for the F430 and the M5/m6 cars? i think it's something like 10/14mpg.

for something pushing out 400#ft --17/24 isn't bad.

but it is mainly because of the 3.73:1 rear end. i could regularly get 26.5mpg in the c5z06 (on the way to the MI dealership) and got 24.5mpg on the way home (from the MI dealership) in the c6z06. it all has to do with gearing.

that said, it will get better anyway with the usage of the DoD feature in the upcoming LS9 and so forth.

(mainly a post for rwg, sorry for the tangent, Ed).

[The HACK]

I have driven a front engined, double wishbone suspension front, multilink rear, 3,250 lbs car with ~300 HP on the track for over a year now. I have driven a front engined, MacStrut front, multilink rear, 3,200 lbs car with ~180 Hp on the track for over 3 years. I'm now going back to a front engined, MacStrut front, multi-link rear, 3,100 lbs car with 330 HP for the track for the forseeable future.

Real world experience suggest to me that a well engineered BMW MacStrut is better than a well engineered Nissan double wishbone. If I can get that double wishbone suspension to work as well as the MacStrut on the BMW I probably would not have sold the 350z.

I was faster in my 323Ci than I was in the 350Z despite the massive difference in HP.

[lemming]

I have driven a front engined, double wishbone suspension front, multilink rear, 3,250 lbs car with ~300 HP on the track for over a year now. I have driven a front engined, MacStrut front, multilink rear, 3,200 lbs car with ~180 Hp on the track for over 3 years. I'm now going back to a front engined, MacStrut front, multi-link rear, 3,100 lbs car with 330 HP for the track for the forseeable future.

Real world experience suggest to me that a well engineered BMW MacStrut is better than a well engineered Nissan double wishbone. If I can get that double wishbone suspension to work as well as the MacStrut on the BMW I probably would not have sold the 350z.

I was faster in my 323Ci than I was in the 350Z despite the massive difference in HP.

stickpoke alert, Hack:

and the car that is consistently beating the 3100 pound M works car in head to head testing also has mac-struts all around.

ergo: mac struts can't be all bad. but the other point, that they're rarely used in the higher levels of competition, isn't inaccurate either. clearly both points are valid, it's a question of cheap, fast and reliable all over again.

cars that are mass produced typically need to hit cost targets. bespoke racing cars don't. hence the difference. but automakers aren't necessarily bereft of engineers who can't tune anything to execute well. mac struts being the prime example here (transverse composite leaf springs another --in combination with DWs).

[John V]

Just goes to show there are no absolutes. The 350Z has some notoriously bad geometry in its double wishbones. The camber curve in the front of that car is about the same as a regular ole' strut. :ack:

[Sharp11]

stickpoke alert, Hack:

and the car that is consistently beating the 3100 pound M works car in head to head testing also has mac-struts all around.

ergo: mac struts can't be all bad. but the other point, that they're rarely used in the higher levels of competition, isn't inaccurate either. clearly both points are valid, it's a question of cheap, fast and reliable all over again.

cars that are mass produced typically need to hit cost targets. bespoke racing cars don't. hence the difference. but automakers aren't necessarily bereft of engineers who can't tune anything to execute well. mac struts being the prime example here (transverse composite leaf springs another --in combination with DWs).

I'll grab my shovel and add that the dw suspension on a purpose-built race car is a helluva lot different from that which one finds on a street car with dw's and leave it at that.

Of course, we were talking about street cars to begin with :dunno:

Ed

[lemming]

I'll grab my shovel and add that the dw suspension on a purpose-built race car is a helluva lot different from that which one finds on a street car with dw's and leave it at that.

Of course, we were talking about street cars to begin with :dunno:

Ed

:box:

[The HACK]

Just goes to show there are no absolutes. The 350Z has some notoriously bad geometry in its double wishbones. The camber curve in the front of that car is about the same as a regular ole' strut. :ack:

No sh*t Sherlock. Because they're both street cars. You wouldn't expect anyone to put on any mass consumed, sub-$50K vehicle the ability to dial in -3.5 degree of negative camber from the factory. Nissan actually had to dial back the toe on all the 350Zs because owners were complaining of "premature tire wear" and "noise" issues. They replaced all front tires under warranty. You think if they allowed the 350Z to have -3 degree of camber up front they'll ever make a single dime on these cars when the front tires are being replaced every 6 months?

And before you go calling the 350Z as having "bad geometry", Nissan has had decades of practice on building double wishbone type suspensions. Outside of Honda, they're probably the BEST Japanese manufacturer at making a double wishbone work and work wonders. A simple upper A arm replacement at $800 will allow you to add up to 3 degrees of camber either way, making the maximum negative camber up front at -4.7.

You guys are comparing suspension design built for street cars to dedicated racecars built from the ground up. That's like saying my @ss is flabby compared to Lance Armstrong's, therefore Lance must be a better bike rider. Yeah. No sh*t. Professional bicycle competition isn't what I was built for.

As far as my REAL world experience is concerned, I had two cars with relatively the same weight, same drivetrain layout, nearly 50/50 weight distribution (the 350z is 57/43), both with front camber and toe set the same (-1.8 degree, 1/16th toe IN) both built for same purpose (street) by engineers that are the best at what they do. Double wishbone isn't better. Now if one of you want to supply me a MacStrut based race car and a Double Wishbone based race car, both built from the ground up as race cars, to beat around a few racetracks for a year, I'll let you know which one is better too.

[The HACK]

stickpoke alert, Hack:

and the car that is consistently beating the 3100 pound M works car in head to head testing also has mac-struts all around.

Come talk to me when you have driven both cars, then we can have an intelligent conversation. Until then you're just like the rest of the P-badge hound lemmings here (no pun intended) spewing crap that others have told you or stuff you read on the intarweb.

At least I'll have the opportunity to swap seats with our chief instructor, David Mecey, at the California Speedway event on October 7-8th. He's special ordering a Cayman S STRIPPED (no options except for the Chrono pack and Xenons) and I'll have my semi-stripped MZ4 Coupe (no premium). If he (or I) don't get our cars before October (mine's due to arrive LATE September) we'll have another chance to swap and drive at the next April Buttonwillow school.

Or I can ask one of my two other friends who's got Cayman S'es to let me take them out for a couple of laps. Either way, I can at least say I've driven both cars on the track and the magazines are either right or wrong. For sure.

Until then I stand by my statement. I'll believe what the magazines wrote when I see one pass me on the track.

[lemming]

Come talk to me when you have driven both cars, then we can have an intelligent conversation. Until then you're just like the rest of the P-badge hound lemmings here (no pun intended) spewing crap that others have told you or stuff you read on the intarweb.

At least I'll have the opportunity to swap seats with our chief instructor, David Mecey, at the California Speedway event on October 7-8th. He's special ordering a Cayman S STRIPPED (no options except for the Chrono pack and Xenons) and I'll have my semi-stripped MZ4 Coupe (no premium). If he (or I) don't get our cars before October (mine's due to arrive LATE September) we'll have another chance to swap and drive at the next April Buttonwillow school.

Or I can ask one of my two other friends who's got Cayman S'es to let me take them out for a couple of laps. Either way, I can at least say I've driven both cars on the track and the magazines are either right or wrong. For sure.

Until then I stand by my statement. I'll believe what the magazines wrote when I see one pass me on the track.

:D

bait taken.

i'd love to drive them both on a closed track. i don't know that i'd be able to do that easily, though.

if i could do it locally, then i could drive the z06, the detuned and the M coupe to see how big a difference there is among the chassis setups.

[John V]

No sh*t Sherlock. Because they're both street cars. You wouldn't expect anyone to put on any mass consumed, sub-$50K vehicle the ability to dial in -3.5 degree of negative camber from the factory. Nissan actually had to dial back the toe on all the 350Zs because owners were complaining of "premature tire wear" and "noise" issues. They replaced all front tires under warranty. You think if they allowed the 350Z to have -3 degree of camber up front they'll ever make a single dime on these cars when the front tires are being replaced every 6 months?

As usual, you show up with your selective reading and start spouting garbage like a four-year old. It's getting tired. Please direct me to a post in which I said the Z could dial in -3.5 degrees of negative camber. Oh wait: I didn't say that. What I did say was it had poor geometry, which is true for a car that purports to be a performance car. It has essentially zero camber gain through compression. Great if you're driving a Geo Prizm, not great for a "sports car" with pretty floppy stock springs and a small front anti-roll bar.

Everyone who has spent any time driving a track car on the street knows it isn't camber that kills tires, it's toe. It's not my fault Nissan chose to dial in too much toe from the factory. Look at the S2000 or the RX-8. Both good examples of double-wishbones with proper geometry. No excessive front tire wear issues with those cars and they have VERY aggressive camber curves. Gawrsh.... wonder how they did it? :dunno: A quick glance through the RX-8 shop manual shows the car's front alignment is to have ZERO toe up front. Innnnnteresting.

<snipped a bunch of meaningless jibba-jabba>

As far as my REAL world experience is concerned, I had two cars with relatively the same weight, same drivetrain layout, nearly 50/50 weight distribution (the 350z is 57/43), both with front camber and toe set the same (-1.8 degree, 1/16th toe IN) both built for same purpose (street) by engineers that are the best at what they do. Double wishbone isn't better. Now if one of you want to supply me a MacStrut based race car and a Double Wishbone based race car, both built from the ground up as race cars, to beat around a few racetracks for a year, I'll let you know which one is better too.

I forgot you were the only one here with "REAL world experience." :)

A double wishbone isn't more effective if you don't design it to be more effective. Simple as that. I guess the Nissan engineers saw the 350Z primarily as a boulevard car and gave it a DW that performs like a strut.

Come back with some more "technical smackdown" anytime. It's always fun to HACK apart your posts. :D

[FC]

At least I'll have the opportunity to swap seats with our chief instructor, David Mecey, at the California Speedway event on October 7-8th. He's special ordering a Cayman S STRIPPED (no options except for the Chrono pack and Xenons) and I'll have my semi-stripped MZ4 Coupe (no premium). If he (or I) don't get our cars before October (mine's due to arrive LATE September) we'll have another chance to swap and drive at the next April Buttonwillow school.

Or I can ask one of my two other friends who's got Cayman S'es to let me take them out for a couple of laps. Either way, I can at least say I've driven both cars on the track and the magazines are either right or wrong. For sure.

Until then I stand by my statement. I'll believe what the magazines wrote when I see one pass me on the track.

That's cool! I look forward to reading about your experience.:cool: :)

[lemming]

hey HACK: if a bone stock base C6 shows up at the same day, let me know how that car does in relation to the Detuned and the M coupe.

i'm curious.

[Pinecone]

Nick,

When you corner hard you've got positive camber, in relation to the road surface, on a car with DW's as well as with macs - especially so with passenger cars, less so with race cars because they corner so flat (and are low, wide etc.). Theorectically, we'd like to see, on a car that rolls, a magical suspension which could keep its inside wheel perfectly vertical under heavy cornering load - in reality, it's just not so.



VERY wrong. A properly designed DW wishbone setup will maintain negative camber on the outside tire under all conditions of roll that can be expected in operation. YOU can roll them a little or you can roll them a lot.

Yes, a race car will roll less, so the suspension has to deal with less camber change, but a DW CAN be set up/designed for any amount of roll and proper camber angles.

Which Lotus RACE cars (not street cars that were raced) were setup with Mac/Chapman struts?

[clyde]

No sh*t Sherlock. Because they're both street cars. You wouldn't expect anyone to put on any mass consumed, sub-$50K vehicle the ability to dial in -3.5 degree of negative camber from the factory.

Maybe Mr. Know it All can explain why GM does it with the $20k Solstice. Oh, never mind...you're right, you're right. It can't get -3.5...only get about -3.1 degrees. Never mind the fact that it only needs -2.5.

Nissan actually had to dial back the toe on all the 350Zs because owners were complaining of "premature tire wear" and "noise" issues. They replaced all front tires under warranty. You think if they allowed the 350Z to have -3 degree of camber up front they'll ever make a single dime on these cars when the front tires are being replaced every 6 months?

As a general rule, -3 degrees won't add significant wear. It's not like toe where there's a relatively narrow range that allows for decent tire wear.

And before you go calling the 350Z as having "bad geometry", Nissan has had decades of practice on building double wishbone type suspensions. Outside of Honda, they're probably the BEST Japanese manufacturer at making a double wishbone work and work wonders.

Which only makes it that much more disappointing that they fucked up the 350Z's front suspension so badly.

A simple upper A arm replacement at $800 will allow you to add up to 3 degrees of camber either way, making the maximum negative camber up front at -4.7.

You can "fix" almost any car's shortcomings (however you want to define them), but that has nothing to do with how the car comes from the factory.

[rautox]

Maybe Mr. Know it All can explain why GM does it with the $20k Solstice. Or why toyota was able to do it in 91 with the MR2.
:dunno:

[Sharp11]

Maybe Mr. Know it All can explain why GM does it with the $20k Solstice.

Do you really believe the Hack's demeanor is any worse then John's, yours and mine?

We're all a bunch of ass holes who know just enough to know nothing at all - no one here gives an inch, or more appropriately, a degree -and I'm the worst offender because I'm the oldest and should know better.

Ed

[Nick M3]

Do you really believe the Hack's demeanor is any worse then John's, yours and mine?

We're all a bunch of ass holes who know just enough to know nothing at all - no one here gives an inch, or more appropriately, a degree -and I'm the worst offender because I'm the oldest and should know better.

Ed
Actually, you're the worst because you hold the least tenable position. :)

[lemming]

Actually, you're the worst because you hold the least tenable position. :)

depends on the issue.

sometimes that's MY hat to wear.

but, for example, here The Hack mainly contributed two anecdotes where the OEM engineers failed. i would argue that neither example given was definitive at all in the "answer". and we all agree that at the level of mass produced street legal car, regardless of the hardware approach, if it is not executed well, it could be the best design and still be inferior to other less optimal designs.

Ed, i actually thought you and The Hack would get along really, really well because you both are z4 owners. : outtaher

[Rob]

I am a little astounded that nobody has taken issue with characterising 57/43 weight balance as "near 50/50." That's a 14% discrepency and it's huge. (Not that 50/50 weight balance is a hold grail, just an observation of the characterization).

[FC]

I am a little astounded that nobody has taken issue with characterising 57/43 weight balance as "near 50/50." That's a 14% discrepency and it's huge. (Not that 50/50 weight balance is a hold grail, just an observation of the characterization).

I was going to bring it up, but I have so far stayed away from this debate. I agree, however. I think you have to be at least 53/47 or closer to claim a general 50/50 weight distribution in passing.

[John V]

I am a little astounded that nobody has taken issue with characterising 57/43 weight balance as "near 50/50." That's a 14% discrepency and it's huge. (Not that 50/50 weight balance is a hold grail, just an observation of the characterization).

If Nissan had just put the motor behind the driver where it belonged...

Sorry, sorry, just :stickpoke: ing

[Sharp11]

Yes, a race car will roll less, so the suspension has to deal with less camber change, but a DW CAN be set up/designed for any amount of roll and proper camber angles.



But won't that same camber curve be a deficit on rough roads? I'm assume we're talking passenger cars here.

The very first indy-suspended cars were designed to keep as much vertical travel while encountering bumps as possible, that was the whole point of the sliding pillar, which won out over the dw's drawn by the Lancia engineers in the 30's.

The sliding pillar was a disaster, of course, because the outside front wheel rolled with the body (and it binded while doing so) so engineers realized they need some negative camber to deal with the situation.

So the dw came in with its shorter upper a arm, longer lower to provide a fair amount of compromise between the two - too much negative camber would have poor results over bumps because, as the wheel travels up and down, it would travel through a negative curve, the gyroscopic effect of the wheels would cause resultant problems.

I thought Honda cleverly dealt with this by angling their upper arm forward so it would provide a bit more negative camber, but only at the extreme end of its travel.

I'm talking passenger cars here, I really don't understand how you can have one ideal camber curve for absolute perfect cornering on smooth surfaces be great for rough road driving :dunno:

I'm welcome to being totally wrong here and I'm sure I'll get lambasted, but this is what I've always understood to be true.

Ed

[Sharp11]

depends on the issue.

sometimes that's MY hat to wear.

but, for example, here The Hack mainly contributed two anecdotes where the OEM engineers failed. i would argue that neither example given was definitive at all in the "answer". and we all agree that at the level of mass produced street legal car, regardless of the hardware approach, if it is not executed well, it could be the best design and still be inferior to other less optimal designs.

Ed, i actually thought you and The Hack would get along really, really well because you both are z4 owners. : outtaher

I don't even know what this "discussion" is about any longer, all I do know is, in its 3 series segment, BMW has managed to design a great handling car, the best in class and it's up against the audi with its four link front end, the G35 and the Caddy CTS (the regular one) and it beats 'em all.

Disclaimer: No, I haven't driven all the above on an autox surface against a stopwatch, nor would I profess (even if I were to drive them all) to be able to dispute the wide blanket of agreement which seems to exist on the matter among the professional scribes who actually do know more than I and I assume, everyone here.

That's why they are PROfessionals!!!

It's no longer enough that the above disclaimer is implicit, it needs to be spelled out, I'm afraid.

Ed

[Plaz]

Holy shit this thread is relentless. :lol:

[Sharp11]

Holy shit this thread is relentless. :lol:

Of course it's silly, but I think it's great a bunch of guys can get all worked up over a front suspension - it's like the analog/digital debates, the humbucker/single coil, or the playing bass pick vs fingers threads among musicians - it's endless. :lol:

Ed

[clyde]

Do you really believe the Hack's demeanor is any worse then John's, yours and mine?

I was asking if Mr. Know-It-All (aka Ray) could provide an explanation, not The HACK.

However, you and Hack are wrong. John and I are right. That's all there is to it.

nyah-nyah-nyah-nayh-nayh. :irate:

[Sharp11]

I was asking if Mr. Know-It-All (aka Ray) could provide an explanation, not The HACK.

However, you and Hack are wrong. John and I are right. That's all there is to it.

nyah-nyah-nyah-nayh-nayh. :irate:

Ok, you're right then :)

Ed

[Pinecone]

But won't that same camber curve be a deficit on rough roads? I'm assume we're talking passenger cars here.

The very first indy-suspended cars were designed to keep as much vertical travel while encountering bumps as possible, that was the whole point of the sliding pillar, which won out over the dw's drawn by the Lancia engineers in the 30's.

The sliding pillar was a disaster, of course, because the outside front wheel rolled with the body (and it binded while doing so) so engineers realized they need some negative camber to deal with the situation.

So the dw came in with its shorter upper a arm, longer lower to provide a fair amount of compromise between the two - too much negative camber would have poor results over bumps because, as the wheel travels up and down, it would travel through a negative curve, the gyroscopic effect of the wheels would cause resultant problems.

I thought Honda cleverly dealt with this by angling their upper arm forward so it would provide a bit more negative camber, but only at the extreme end of its travel.

I'm talking passenger cars here, I really don't understand how you can have one ideal camber curve for absolute perfect cornering on smooth surfaces be great for rough road driving :dunno:

I'm welcome to being totally wrong here and I'm sure I'll get lambasted, but this is what I've always understood to be true.

Ed

In that case, the live axle is the best, no camber change with roll or with bump. :)

Everything is a compromise. With a DW you can design the EXACT camber curve for your use, lots of camber gain or no camber gain. With Mac sturut you have serious limitations as to what you can get.

And yes, a well designed strut is better than a poorly designed DW. But a well designed DW is better than any strut, if for no other reason you get exactly waht you WANT, not what you have to live with.

[lemming]

Holy shit this thread is relentless. :lol:

signal:noise notwithstanding, i'm still learning a lot in this thread.

but not enough yet to have an "intelligent discussion" just yet.

;)

[BahnBaum]

signal:noise notwithstanding, i'm still learning a lot in this thread.

I'm learning.

Learning about certain posters and their personalities, at least their on-line version.

Alex

[CABINBLACKM3]

OK this was easy reading.....I guess me having -3.5 and -2.5 camber in the rear of my 05 M3 Convertible would add to extra tire wear.....Hey maybe my excessively low suspension will add to end link damage.....Oh wait maybee thats the sway bar ..shit......Maybe thats what makes the damn protective bar things come up when I pitch it into a corner....It can handle it wait wait was it designed to have all the crap I put on it..hummm.....maybe .....maybe.....I forgot what the f$%* I was talking about ..wait...wait...This is the perfect conversation for this thread...

[lemming]

OK this was easy reading.....I guess me having -3.5 and -2.5 camber in the rear of my 05 M3 Convertible would add to extra tire wear.....Hey maybe my excessively low suspension will add to end link damage.....Oh wait maybee thats the sway bar ..shit......Maybe thats what makes the damn protective bar things come up when I pitch it into a corner....It can handle it wait wait was it designed to have all the crap I put on it..hummm.....maybe .....maybe.....I forgot what the f$%* I was talking about ..wait...wait...This is the perfect conversation for this thread...

dude,
save your speed for the cars --ingesting it makes it difficult to read your text.

[John V]

I'm learning.

Learning about certain posters and their personalities, at least their on-line version.

That sounds like a dig. :mad2:

[lemming]

I'm learning.

Learning about certain posters and their personalities, at least their on-line version.

Alex

the difference between smart people and intelligent people, IMO, is usually tact and grace. much like the difference between the rich and the wealthy.

but NOT like the difference between a mac strut and a double wishbone suspension setup.

:lol:

[BahnBaum]

That sounds like a dig. :mad2:

To some, perhaps. :D

Alex

[CABINBLACKM3]

dude,
save your speed for the cars --ingesting it makes it difficult to read your text.

:lol:

[Sharp11]

the difference between smart people and intelligent people, IMO, is usually tact and grace. much like the difference between the rich and the wealthy.

but NOT like the difference between a mac strut and a double wishbone suspension setup.

:lol:

I don't know about that, you can be really "smart" one day, and then "intelligent" the next - at least that's the way it is in my field ;)

Ed

[lemming]

I don't know about that, you can be really "smart" one day, and then "intelligent" the next - at least that's the way it is in my field ;)

Ed

being neither myself......;)

[Rob]

I think it's interesting that Ed and I pretty much have an absolute opposite opinion of the journalists that make their living writing about cars.

To me, they are just journalists that have to come up with a headline to make magazines sell. They are maybe a step up from the general media b/c they actually experience what they are writing about, but just a step. I can read about their experiences, but when it comes down to it, it's all just opinion. Even the performance numbers vary widely depending on what magazine has a car.

[rautox]

To me, they are just journalists that have to come up with a headline to make magazines sell. They are maybe a step up from the general media b/c they actually experience what they are writing about, but just a step.
:yes:

I'm more interested in what Sam Strano has to say about the new mustang than anything the press wants to print. For the rx8 (one of the few cars I'd consider for dd/stock class competition), M3, elise, CTS-V, whatever, there are better sources of info... like my own experience, this board, the people I autox with... people who actually live with the cars and use them in a way I would.

Unlike the autojourno's, I don't have a self-replenishing fleet, so their input just isn't terribly relevant to me. Why would it be :dunno:

[The HACK]

but, for example, here The Hack mainly contributed two anecdotes where the OEM engineers failed. i would argue that neither example given was definitive at all in the "answer". and we all agree that at the level of mass produced street legal car, regardless of the hardware approach, if it is not executed well, it could be the best design and still be inferior to other less optimal designs.

Ed, i actually thought you and The Hack would get along really, really well because you both are z4 owners. : outtaher

When you say "OEM engineers failed", do you mean that the 350Z and the E46 323Ci both drive and handle like crap? Man, all those auto-rag writers must have been wrong, just like they're wrong with their Porsche Cayman S vs M Z4 Coupe articles? As far as I know, both the 350Z and the E46 suspension has received nearly universal praise? And that my personal experience with both suspensions confirm their writings both on and off the track? Or when you say the OE Engineers failed, do you mean they failed when they compromised the suspension design to suite the particular needs of their perceived audience? Again, I must ask, which cars in their respective class consistently receive higher accolades in performance and handling?

I guess the 350Z I drove must have handled better than my E46 323Ci despite my experiences. I stand corrected.

p.s.: Plaz, if you're too busy to help with the RacingBrake project, let me know now. Thanks for volunteering earlier, but if you're busy, I need to find someone else in the area...Your response is appreciated.

[lemming]

When you say "OEM engineers failed", do you mean that the 350Z and the E46 323Ci both drive and handle like crap? Man, all those auto-rag writers must have been wrong, just like they're wrong with their Porsche Cayman S vs M Z4 Coupe articles? As far as I know, both the 350Z and the E46 suspension has received nearly universal praise? And that my personal experience with both suspensions confirm their writings both on and off the track? Or when you say the OE Engineers failed, do you mean they failed when they compromised the suspension design to suite the particular needs of their perceived audience? Again, I must ask, which cars in their respective class consistently receive higher accolades in performance and handling?

I guess the 350Z I drove must have handled better than my E46 323Ci despite my experiences. I stand corrected.

p.s.: Plaz, if you're too busy to help with the RacingBrake project, let me know now. Thanks for volunteering earlier, but if you're busy, I need to find someone else in the area...Your response is appreciated.

for the sake of "intelligent conversation", let's go over my recent car ownership to see if i can contribute:

e36m3
e36/8
993
STi
C5_Z06
CTS-V
C6_Z06

i could probably eat an a Z4 M coupe alive in my old C5 Z06, but i would it then be logical to conclude that it was because of the wishbones up front? an M coupe could probably lap faster than my daily driver, the CTS-V, would it be logical then, to conclude that struts are better? i guess because i would bet my house that i could lap faster in my old c5 z06 or the c6 z06 than an old or new M coupe, that i could set the record straight that transverse leaf springs are better?

as i alluded to before, i'm sure that each of us has their own dataset to superficially contribute here, but it does not necessarily set the record straight, does it --frankly, your own anecdotes, while interesting, don't really add much more to the technical aspects of this discussion than mine do.

[FT@SGP]

as i alluded to before, i'm sure that each of us has their own dataset to superficially contribute here, but it does not necessarily set the record straight, does it --frankly, your own anecdotes, while interesting, don't really add much more to the technical aspects of this discussion than mine do.
Does this mean this wonderfully interesting discussion is concluded now? :o

[BahnBaum]

Does this mean this wonderfully interesting discussion is concluded now? :o

I wouldn't bet on it...

Alex

[lupinsea]

Wow, it looks like BMW is venturing into the world of double-wishbone suspensions with their new X5

A double-wishbone front suspension that lets you feel one with the road.

[http://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/futurevehicles/newx5 (http://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/futurevehicles/newx5)