Why are the best American cars European?

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Art cant be summed up in one sentence. Or twenty. I would say iunless the platforms has seroius design flaws you can tune a chassis to perform excetionally well. The unitbody torsional resonance has to be a high frequency, a quality steering rack must be be affixed to the subframe with high durometer bushings, no common McPh struts not to be seen anywhere, shock, spring rates and satbiliser bars tuned by feedback from professional driver(s), light unsprung weight at the for corners, good seats with excellent outward vbisibility, good firm brakes and easy to modulate brake boosting with high capacity discs, good tyre on each of the 4 corners, proper and precise shift linkages, high speed stability and areodyn ....
list gos on - butt the tuning of all these subsystems is key.


The funny part is that that those "McPh struts not to be seen anywhere" feature prominently in what are oft regarded as some of the best driving cars in the world, like those produced by BMW, Mercedes and Porsche.

So what is the basis for this criticism other than the fact that you just don't like them?
Every time I look at a spring compresser my fingers hurt. When I look at the cost of a strut vs a shock my wallet hurts. In terms of front suspension geometery, sturts are a compromise vis double wishbones. Mercedes... they used SINGLE joint half shafts for years, just like the early Corvair. (AKA swing axles) Cost no object????
FWIW BMW launched a double wishbone setup in one of their newer large sedans/SUV and Honda went for McPh struts in lieu of wishbone with new Accord. BOTH companies said was made for performance. LOL

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Art cant be summed up in one sentence. Or twenty. I would say iunless the platforms has seroius design flaws you can tune a chassis to perform excetionally well. The unitbody torsional resonance has to be a high frequency, a quality steering rack must be be affixed to the subframe with high durometer bushings, no common McPh struts not to be seen anywhere, shock, spring rates and satbiliser bars tuned by feedback from professional driver(s), light unsprung weight at the for corners, good seats with excellent outward vbisibility, good firm brakes and easy to modulate brake boosting with high capacity discs, good tyre on each of the 4 corners, proper and precise shift linkages, high speed stability and areodyn ....
list gos on - butt the tuning of all these subsystems is key.


The funny part is that that those "McPh struts not to be seen anywhere" feature prominently in what are oft regarded as some of the best driving cars in the world, like those produced by BMW, Mercedes and Porsche.

So what is the basis for this criticism other than the fact that you just don't like them?
Every time I look at a spring compresser my fingers hurt. When I look at the cost of a strut vs a shock my wallet hurts. In terms of front suspension geometery, sturts are a compromise vis double wishbones. Mercedes... they used SINGLE joint half shafts for years, just like the early Corvair. (AKA swing axles) Cost no object????


And Porsche? There has to be a legitimate reason these companies use this suspension setup, despite its well known drawbacks.

I think the fact that camber changes with travel in a McPherson setup may in fact be leveraged as a positive trait if the suspension is designed properly. IE, compression of the strut through the turn creates a change in camber that prevents the tire from rolling over on the side and keeps more of the contact patch/tread surface on the road, whilst the other side, where the strut is stretching out, is experiencing the opposite effect on it's camber, providing the same characteristic, but relative to the inside edge of the tire.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: crw
Or in other words, what made the previous gen Focus (relatively) boring, while the new euro chassis much better (in the opinion of nearly everyone who writes on this stuff)?


The old Focus, or most any American smaller car in the late 90's or early 2000's was tuned for Midwestern American roads, which are long, straight, and boring. It went around corners because it had to, it stopped because it had to. It also had decent power to zip around a tractor taking up the right lane on a arrow-straight farm road somewhere in Iowa.

The new crop of "American" cars do these things better because it's demanded of them elsewhere in the world. Unlike here where stopping from 120 miles/hour is alsmost unheard of, it's practically a daily requirement on some European roads. Same with road-holding around a corner, and being able to successfully do emergency maneuvers at 100+ miles per hour. My global-car Cruze is very comfortable at speeds that get cars impounded here in N. America because of the European driving requirements being stricter, and GM getting economies of scale by making the same parts with the same or similar specifications all around the world.

Stricter requirements elsewhere in the world, and automakers attempting to get economies of scale.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Art cant be summed up in one sentence. Or twenty. I would say iunless the platforms has seroius design flaws you can tune a chassis to perform excetionally well. The unitbody torsional resonance has to be a high frequency, a quality steering rack must be be affixed to the subframe with high durometer bushings, no common McPh struts not to be seen anywhere, shock, spring rates and satbiliser bars tuned by feedback from professional driver(s), light unsprung weight at the for corners, good seats with excellent outward vbisibility, good firm brakes and easy to modulate brake boosting with high capacity discs, good tyre on each of the 4 corners, proper and precise shift linkages, high speed stability and areodyn ....
list gos on - butt the tuning of all these subsystems is key.


The funny part is that that those "McPh struts not to be seen anywhere" feature prominently in what are oft regarded as some of the best driving cars in the world, like those produced by BMW, Mercedes and Porsche.

So what is the basis for this criticism other than the fact that you just don't like them?
Every time I look at a spring compresser my fingers hurt. When I look at the cost of a strut vs a shock my wallet hurts. In terms of front suspension geometery, sturts are a compromise vis double wishbones. Mercedes... they used SINGLE joint half shafts for years, just like the early Corvair. (AKA swing axles) Cost no object????
FWIW BMW launched a double wishbone setup in one of their newer large sedans/SUV and Honda went for McPh struts in lieu of wishbone with new Accord. BOTH companies said was made for performance. LOL


The F10 5-series (and I believe the X-series SUV's) have migrated to SLA (at least the F10 is SLA, I can't remember what is in the X5). But both suspension geometries have been around SO LONG I don't know if I would consider the McPherson setup to be as bad as many claim.

The S197 Mustang chassis is McPherson/3-link, whilst the antiquated Panther chassis has double wishbone up front, LOL

Both are obviously live axle out back.

I guess my point is that I don't think it is as cut and dry as McPherson sucks

BMW still uses McPherson on the M3 as well, which of course is their racing car.

Quote:
the E90 is equipped with a fully independent suspension including aluminium MacPherson struts in the front, and steel 5-link Multi-link suspension in the back


Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
BMW Motorsport announced in February 2008 that Rahal Letterman Racing will campaign two factory-backed E92 M3s in the American Le Mans Series in 2009, following a two-year absence by the brand. This was the cover car for the simulation racing game Need for Speed: Shift. Schnitzer Motorsport entered 2 cars at the 1000 km of Spa and finished 4th after a move by the Ferrari in the final corner. For 2010, BMW Motorsport has been granted entry in the 2010 24 Hours of Le Mans and in the 2010 24 Hours Nürburgring. BMW Motorsport/Schnitzer Motorsport went onto to take an overall win at the 24 Hours Nürburgring with the #25 M3 GT2 of Jörg Müller, Augusto Farfus, Pedro Lamy, and Uwe Alzen while the top competitors from Porsche and Audi dropped out one by one. In addition, one of the M3 GT2's that competed at Le Mans (#79) has been chosen as the 17th BMW Art Car, which will be done by American artist, Jeff Koons.[42] At the 24 Hours of Spa, BMW qualified 2nd and maintained 1st with the #79 car throughout the race until it succumbed to a suspension failure with just half an hour remaining, leaving the top spots to Porsche. The BMW M3s won the GT2 category in the ILMC 1000 km of Zhuhai. In 2011, the BMW achieved a 1,2 finish in the 12 Hours of Sebring. In the 2011 American Le Mans Series GT class, BMW Team RLL swept all categories, winning the GT manufacturer, team and driver championships. They contest another year in the ALMS GT class, coming off of another fantastic win at the 2012 60th running of the 12 Hours of Sebring.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: crw
Or in other words, what made the previous gen Focus (relatively) boring, while the new euro chassis much better (in the opinion of nearly everyone who writes on this stuff)?


In all honesty, if the 08-11 Focus was badged a Honda, everyone would have loved it.

It's not a boring car, especially the higher SES models with lower gear ratio and rear sway bar and black chrome

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

I think the fact that camber changes with travel in a McPherson setup may in fact be leveraged as a positive trait if the suspension is designed properly. IE, compression of the strut through the turn creates a change in camber that prevents the tire from rolling over on the side and keeps more of the contact patch/tread surface on the road, whilst the other side, where the strut is stretching out, is experiencing the opposite effect on it's camber, providing the same characteristic, but relative to the inside edge of the tire.


That happens but IMO doesn't seem to as much as a short-long arm double wishbone setup. Maybe if they really cranked up the caster on a MacPherson it might sort of put more weight on the inside (of the curve) edges of the front tires.

Or maybe b/c macphersons are so cheap they go on everyday cars that are engineered to understeer so jane doe doesn't spin out when she loses attention. Ergo a cart/horse situation.

My volvo 940 has macphersons in the front and a coil spring live axle in the back and really handles pretty okay.

So have my all strut taurus and contour.

 

[javacontour]

You mean I'm not sporty or sexy? Don't tell my wife!

Originally Posted By: Oldwolf
I also believe we 'Mericans think European cars are for the most part sporty and sexy so when they buy a car here in the US that is also popular in Europe, they feel like they are part of an elite group of sporty and sexy people.

 

[cbear]

Comparing a Cruze to a Cobalt or Cavalier isn't fair. The Cruze from the get go was branded as a step above basic transportation. It also was about $5k more starting price.

 

[hattaresguy]

Cause Europeans build the best cars, at least at the moment.


It also comes down to taste; SUV and truck people tend to like them. Car people at the moment seem to prefer more of a European feel.

 

[FowVay]

Kiss French,
Dress Italian,
Drive German.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

My '98 M roadster handled very good but I could still feel those pesky front struts. I always feel MUCH more comfortable driving a sla front end hard - esp if it also employs a braking reaction rod like the old GM A body. The Struts and their compromise was noticable on the M. And a 318 Ti I "thought" I wanted to buy years ago - until I test drove it - BLecch. Some manufacturers seem to do better with struts - like the Italians. Subaru and Suzuki seem to do OK, too. Sad to see the good chassis disappear on the new honda accord. Thats off my list. Strut geo is very compromised. Read up. My 12 fit is near undrivable. the Fit may have a oil-canned unibody - it pops in and out of alignment constantly. Couldnet see anything but I dont have a big pry bar or come-a-long to look for slop or snap.

 

[97prizm]

Granted I too like many sport sedans that come from Europe, on the flip side many Europeans like big cushy comfortable american cars and trucks. I work at the front desk of a hotel and many Europeans that stay with us Love the F150's and other big trucks that they occasionally end up with. On a second note many European vehicles are starting to migrate towards "American Emission" standards. I think this will too push a more world car platform.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
My '98 M roadster handled very good but I could still feel those pesky front struts. I always feel MUCH more comfortable driving a sla front end hard - esp if it also employs a braking reaction rod like the old GM A body. The Struts and their compromise was noticable on the M. And a 318 Ti I "thought" I wanted to buy years ago - until I test drove it - BLecch. Some manufacturers seem to do better with struts - like the Italians. Subaru and Suzuki seem to do OK, too. Sad to see the good chassis disappear on the new honda accord. Thats off my list. Strut geo is very compromised. Read up. My 12 fit is near undrivable. the Fit may have a oil-canned unibody - it pops in and out of alignment constantly. Couldnet see anything but I dont have a big pry bar or come-a-long to look for slop or snap.


My M5 drives nothing like my wife's 328i, despite them having the same suspension setup. My car is much more composed and has a much nicer ride. And of course it handles better too.

A lot of it has to do with how it is setup, and I would expect a roadster to have a more "taught" ride than what you'd get in a saloon like the M5.

 

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

What about traditional American cars didn't work, and why are the European-based models that much more appealing? I have my own ideas, but I'm curious what others think.


I think it's just a general change in the market affected by a lot of different factors. The quintessential American car really came into it's own in the post WWII boom that was going on in the 1950s. At that time, bigger was usually seen as better. There was room for large cars, nobody cared about emissions, nobody was concerned about the cost of fuel or its future availability, and cars were used for a lot of things that we use pickups/SUVs for today. In addition, size was a big indicator of status, luxury, and price. In the last 60 years all of these things have changed (somewhat), so it is not surprising that buyers are demanding a different type of car. These days, the best traditional American cars are trucks. Want a big comfy bench seat, cold A/C, and a big V8? There's the F-150, Silverado, Sierra, and Ram. The F-150 became the best selling vehicle in the US at around the time the domestics started trying to emulate the Europeans.

My parents had VWs before anything else, then my dad bought a new Fiat in 1972. In 1975 they bought a Datsun pickup. Despite being early adopters of European and Japanese cars my parents bought nothing but Fords and Jeeps in the 80s because they were more comfortable and better equipped than the cheapo European and Japanese cars they had been buying.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
My 12 fit is near undrivable. the Fit may have a oil-canned unibody - it pops in and out of alignment constantly. Couldnet see anything but I dont have a big pry bar or come-a-long to look for slop or snap.


Glad we have a '09 Fit instead of a '12 Fit. Ours seems to be in alignment, according to its driving and the tire wear.

 

[artificialist]

The Saturn L-series was an Opel with plastic body parts. It never caught on, and I never heard great reviews about it.

The Cadillac Catera was another Opel, and it was not popular either. I helped out a guy who had one. He said it was as unreliable as a 1980s Cadillac he had. He was sure that a German car would be better because he spent some time in Germany.

During the 1980s, Ford had the Merkur series of cars, but they fell out of favor and got discontinued.

Winnebago made an RV based on a French vehicle, and called it the LeSharo. I never read anything positive about them other than that they got good MPG.

There was a partnership between AMC and Renault, but I never heard good things about those cars, most people were glad they faded into extinction.

Not only can the best American cars be European, so can the worst.

 

[fdcg27]

With strut suspension, the wheels and the tires mounted to them follow the roll of the body, so while the outside wheels are more heavily loaded, they also have positive camber, which is undersirable.
Now, it has often been said that any suspension will work if you don't let it.
I am stealing this from Peter Egan's most recent R&T column, but its been said before.
Make things stiff enough in roll, and maintain a proper bias between front and rear roll stiffness, and it matters not whether you use struts or a-arms.
Also, tuning matters.
If a street car is built with the undesirable combination of struts up front and semi-trailing arms in the rear and has some careful tuning of spring rates, roll rates and damping based upon actual test driving, combined with fat tires, then it can seem to handle quite well in typical street fast driving.
For the track, just stiffen everything up and the components used won't matter.
A few German makes come to mind, and I've owned at least two of each from two of the three makers I'm thinking of.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
With strut suspension, the wheels and the tires mounted to them follow the roll of the body, so while the outside wheels are more heavily loaded, they also have positive camber, which is undersirable.



No, the outside wheel gets NEGATIVE camber (the top of the strut is further inboard than the bottom of the strut, when it compresses, the wheel develops NEGATIVE camber, NOT positive camber) in a corner, which ensures a larger contact patch and the tire is rolling over less on the sidewall.

The INSIDE wheel develops POSITIVE camber due to the extension of the strut and body roll, and this provides the same effect, a larger contact patch as the camber angle is articulated against the roll of the body through the turn keeping the outside edge of the tire in contact with the road surface, versus rolling over on the inside edge, which is what it would try to do.

Typical BMW setup (showing the strut angled in the inboard direction):

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
The best cars today (of most all brands) tend to be based on European or world models. Cars like the Cruze, cars like the Malibu, cars like Volvo-based or Ford of Europe-based Fords, cars like the ATS/CTS with Holden-rooted chassis, etc.


Daewoo played the leading role in the development of the Cruze. The Koreans have been really dynamic lately. Not just GM's success with the Cruze and Sonic (and possibly the Spark/Matiz)and Sangyup Lee's Camaro design, but also Hyundai and Kia.

Holden is Australian.

Furthermore, the 2006-2012 Ford Fusion is Mazda6 based. The Fiesta is European based but Mazda engineers were utilized.

It's not just Europe. The rest of the world is involved too.

American car design was really good for a long time. I mean if gas is .10 cents a gallon, which would you buy? a 1963 Chevrolet Impala 283 or a Opel Reckord 1.5? We just didn't adapt well to changing times.

But don't despair. The US still leads the world in designing fullsize pickups.

 

[SteveSRT8]

The expertise comes in tuning a suspension. This is where the Koreans are sadly lacking compared with the class leaders like BMW.

Not just the suspension but the bushings and mounting points. It's just critical to the feel of the finished product.

And to my knowledge the CTS/ATS have no Holden roots. Please provide a link?