I thought about writing this after just reading

"2g rs *~vs~* 3g gs" in the Racing Section

2KEclipse mentioned a few things about suspensions and so did VX100. Both, I felt, made valid points about the 3G and 2G Eclipse suspensions. So I thought I'd add some knowledge of suspension types to the (none other than) Handling/Suspension section.

I've read this before (among us actually) about the advantages of MacPherson strut suspensions, and how they can be utilized for high performance, it's all a slight misconception. Some people think suspensions just goes up and down holds the wheel and bears the weight. This is not true at all different sus. have special tasks and performance isn't the task of the MacPherson strut suspension Well here is the truth: MacPherson SS are used because they are inexpensive for Auto Manufacturers to purchase and light in weight, NOT because they are used for performance and not because they can take corners quickly. Now some of you are probably thinking to yourselves "Skrilla has no idea what he talking about"-so just let me clarify. The secret in a decent or well handling car lies in the rear suspension. In super cars (not sportscars, there is a difference) they stick to 4 wheel multilink. A car's ability to quickly change direction and Yaw only really needs to be accomplished in a heavy car, because it is easier to do in light cars so Manufacturers use different meathods to accomplish this. The PERFECT eg. is in the Porshe Boxter. Now The BEST suspension would utilize a fully multilink 4 wheel suspension to control all the different movements the chassis presses against the wheels and the environment(roads) press against the wheels. After that is the double wishbone sus. then Macpherson strut sus.
Now Porshe creates a formidable handling car in the boxter by lowering it's polar movement. This can be done in any car by lowering it (springs) and properly dampening it(adjustable struts/shocks). Then they attempt to "Center" it's polar movement which means bringing as much weight toward the middle as they feel necessary/possible, such as the engine. In the real world a novice wants a front engine RWD layout with a 50/50 weight distribution. A car like this handles very well BUT requires more engine torque to perform a turn and is less capable at quick direction changes, making it easier to drive hard at high speeds. The secret of the Nimble Boxter lies in it's very complex multilink rear sus. Mid engine and low weight. By giving their car a "mid" engine it brings the weight slightly towards the center-rear. Bringing slightly more weight to the rear in a 2850lb car will help the tail swing if wanted and kept in check with fat wheels and (you guessed it) a multilink rear sus. and thin/weak rollbar (to maintain the rear tires contact patch and prevent un-wanted tail happy antics). After all this is done to the chassis the only thing the front suspension really must do is acurately turn and hold 40% of the weight. That's SIMPLE! Any sus. can handle that so what's the point in bringing in and wasting money on a complete multiling front sus. when the car can bairly break 150MPH-There Isn't! Thus the reasoning for the Macpherson front sus. in the Porshes. Our cars are a different story since they bear the burden of 3 tasks(as far as we are concerned) and they are: FULLY using the front wheels' contact patch, prevent cornering dip and maintaining 62%+ weight of the entire car. That is a big task and must be kept in line with a REAL suspension, which is the reason all 2G's have multilink front suspensions. For higher performance than a 1G, which actually had a live rear axle(except AWD)-unbelievable for a performance car. The sus. also provides total passenger and engine comfort. BTW the multilink is the most expensive, the heaviest and the highest performing in suspensions, which also goes to explain why the 2G is physically about the same size as a Civic SI and still outweighs them in their lightest form(base model eclipse) by 215 pounds. Pre '01 Civics use double wishbone sus. and the even lighter (VE 5 speed) Corolla at less than 2400lbs, which use 4 wheel Macpherson struts.

Anyway I hope this adds a lil' to our community.

Skrilla
'97 Base Talon NA
"Technology is the Only Substitute for Displacment"
"Peace and Turbo Grease"

*Skrilla
"Honest officer, I thought you were trying to race me"
Talon: 1st 2.4L
'97 Prelude
'04 350Z

Originally posted by etx
Good luck man! Project 'STFU Brian your talon is dead meat' should be on it's feet soon!

LAST EDITED ON 31-Jan-01 AT 10:05 PM (PST)

That was a mouthful but how about this (simple). Throw a car hard into a corner and the outside tires roll on their outer sidewalls and inner tires inner sidewall. Contact patch is reduced. Wishbone suspenion increases neg camber as its compressed increasing the contact patch (keeping the tires more flat against the road surface). Also the reason lowering double wishbone cars causes so much neg camber (I lowered my 90 eclipse 2" with cut springs never wore out a tire unevenly). Mcpherson struts not nearly as capable of adding neg camber as its compressed and hence leaving less contact patch to the road. This can be corrected by just running them with lots of static neg camber (like many autocrossers with -3 and such) but then your run into other problems (that aren't a concern when racing but detrimental to daily usage). This is important to front and reas suspension but especially to rear suspension on FWD cars since the goal is to get the rear wheels to do more work then holding up the rear.

PS. I didn't want to hurt the guys feelings talking about how his 3G susupension had interchangeable parts with the 1G. That statement in itself should have ??? something in his head. 1Gs have archaic rear suspension and typical mcpherson struts up front, neither a point I'd bring up in a "whos better" argument.


Stan2gnt
Stan2va@aol.com
95 Talon ES-I-NOS
http://members.nbci.com/FlyEsi/home.htm
You too can have a never updated site complete with old info and dated pics!

:farfrommugen:
Yes I still own a 2gnt.
Damn right I've been here longer than U
klassic_liven@yahoo.com

LOL!! I knew EXACLTY what you were thinking when you mentioned "I had more to say but I'll leave it at that". OHH this is too funny 'cause I was dyin' when our friend was mentioning that. When I 1st purchased my 1G AWD I wanted a FWD Turbo('cause it's lighter). After speaking with Mike at RRE and discovering all the shortcomings of the front suspension and LIVE REAR AXLE (My God)I couldn't believe Mitsu/Chrylser would put crap like that into such a potentially powerful car.

Skrilla
'97 Base Talon NA
"Technology is the Only Substitute for Displacment"
"Peace and Turbo Grease"

*Skrilla
"Honest officer, I thought you were trying to race me"
Talon: 1st 2.4L
'97 Prelude
'04 350Z

Originally posted by etx
Good luck man! Project 'STFU Brian your talon is dead meat' should be on it's feet soon!

I think that will help alot of people out in clearing up the differences in suspensions. The typical combination you'll see on cars today with 4 wheel indepent suspension is macpherson in front, multilink in back. I guess they do this as a compromise.

Yea, live rear axles in the FWD 1gs, sad but true Not real useful in a street car. But, the macpherson setup can be adjusted, I've seen it on a few 1Gs for their front suspensions. I think it can be set up so the camber can be adjusted easily, right?

Todd Scungio
98 RS
15.803 @ 86.48 MPH

"Tutto fa brodo."

Todd Scungio
98 RS
15.173 @ 90.70 MPH

And also a 2011 Ralliart

When you think about it, what other cars out there actually HAVE a multilink at all four wheels besides a 2g DSM? (or avenger/sebring coupes)

I can't think of any vehicle off the top of my head which does, and I would think that SOMETHING else out there is designed like this, does anyone else know or can anyone else find out? If so, then you would think in the world of FWD, an eclipse could be set up to outhandle practically all other FWDs out there.

Todd Scungio
98 RS
15.803 @ 86.48 MPH

"Tutto fa brodo."

Todd Scungio
98 RS
15.173 @ 90.70 MPH

And also a 2011 Ralliart

There aren't any cars except in the $60,000+ price range. Not in the S2000, the 'Vette, the Supra, or any car under $60,000. Maybe the Viper, I'm not sure but Ferrari certainly does and other high price super cars. Up coming vehicles don't either such as the RSX and the current Celica.

So with that said, once againg the 2GNT prevails!

I can personally attest to the handling power of our cars by my second race in mine after I bought it. At the time my neighnor had an Integra with a CAI and 15x7 wheels running 205 series tires. The funny thing about this was I lost though him in our local back road, and I was totally stock, o 14" wheels! BTW The 7G Celica(new one) lost a track race against the Type R Integra that actually outweighed it by 150 pounds AND on skinnier tires, 195 caompared to the Celicas 205. Good suspensions will work wonders.

Skrilla
'97 Base Talon NA
"Technology is the Only Substitute for Displacment"
"Peace and Turbo Grease"

*Skrilla
"Honest officer, I thought you were trying to race me"
Talon: 1st 2.4L
'97 Prelude
'04 350Z

Originally posted by etx
Good luck man! Project 'STFU Brian your talon is dead meat' should be on it's feet soon!

There is one other platform that has (well had until 2001) front and rear multi link suspension and has had it since 1988. None other than the honda civic/crx and in 90' thru present integras. This is the main reason they recieved so much press about how "such good cars" they are for the money. Of course most honda owners dont have a clue. Like the 3G elipse the 2001 has also went retro and lost its wishbone suspension (and suspension travel among other things. It did gain in style though thanks to its carbon copy styling of the accord coupe much like Explorer/Expedition). Like a 2V per cyl OHV chevy V8 can be fast, 1G suspension can be made to stick like glue but that doesn't mean its a good design. On a smooth track with modified suspension and equal power a (true) live axle camaro and mustang can run with anything on 4wheels but wouldn't you want to be driving the M3 instead? What makes it worse on the 1G FWD there is no "live axle" (spinning the wheels) like those RWD cars so there really is no reason it shouldn't have independent rear suspension


Stan2gnt
Stan2va@aol.com
95 Talon ES-I-NOS
http://members.nbci.com/FlyEsi/home.htm
You too can have a never updated site complete with old info and dated pics!

:farfrommugen:
Yes I still own a 2gnt.
Damn right I've been here longer than U
klassic_liven@yahoo.com

Yes this is true, and has been finally made possible because so many cars use this front setup now, you have to manually find the compromise. Int the end it comes down to what Stan said, it is not as self adjustable in compressing and adding negative camber like multilink and double wishbone are.

Skrilla
'97 Base Talon NA
"Technology is the Only Substitute for Displacment"
"Peace and Turbo Grease"

*Skrilla
"Honest officer, I thought you were trying to race me"
Talon: 1st 2.4L
'97 Prelude
'04 350Z

Originally posted by etx
Good luck man! Project 'STFU Brian your talon is dead meat' should be on it's feet soon!

The 1G suspension, while dated, isn't all _that_ bad. The RRE FWD race car usually kills everything else at races, including the odd Porsche turbo. Mike@DSS also does extremely well in his 89 FWD turbo, usually setting fastest laps and what not. Both these cars are running a LSD up front though, which is about the only way to get decent handling out of a powerful FWD.

juan

I help out at brown university with the formula sae team, and our car has solid front AND rear axles, but we kick alomst every other team's butt. (6th place in the world last year at the annual competition!) We've got a mumford linkage on it, a very old and esoteric design which works, if it's designed right.

We've found a front and rear solid axle has some advantages for an autocross race only vehicle, especially when you have to build the whole suspension yourself from scratch, and with the mumford links. And, we don't have to worry about any other schools using it at the competition, they are so hell bent on using 4 wheel independent A-arm setups that they'll never use solid axles.

and, our car (and every other sae car) uses a LSD.

Todd Scungio
98 RS
15.803 @ 86.48 MPH

"Tutto fa brodo."

Todd Scungio
98 RS
15.173 @ 90.70 MPH

And also a 2011 Ralliart

Joel Baldridge, ASE Certified Master Technician, Audi Certified Expert Technician

Very true, but worth noting is the fact they also run one of the strongest engines along with their car being one of the lightest(just about completely stripped out). On regular pump gas I remember it being not too impressive, though.

Skrilla
'97 Base Talon NA
"Technology is the Only Substitute for Displacment"
"Peace and Turbo Grease"

*Skrilla
"Honest officer, I thought you were trying to race me"
Talon: 1st 2.4L
'97 Prelude
'04 350Z

Originally posted by etx
Good luck man! Project 'STFU Brian your talon is dead meat' should be on it's feet soon!

true that, and I'm sure the drivers have a little something to do with it...


juan

bump, LOL

*Skrilla
"Honest officer, I thought you were trying to race me"
Talon: 1st 2.4L
'97 Prelude
'04 350Z

Originally posted by etx
Good luck man! Project 'STFU Brian your talon is dead meat' should be on it's feet soon!

__________________________________
-Ryan

tis a damn good post though...great info in this...i mos def learned some stuff