Honda Car Forum

edward ohare wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:46:41 -0400, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>edward ohare wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:49:59 -0400, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net>
>>>wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>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.

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
>>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

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
>>>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.
>
>
>
> 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
>>>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>
>
> 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>

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

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:46:04 -0400, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net>
wrote:

>edward ohare wrote:

>> 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.
>
>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
>> 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.


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
>> 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>
>
>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.


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.