Front Suspension

Mr44666 · Jan 5, 2004

As a BMW parts guy, I've got to say they copied the front suspension of the 3 Series in every way that counts. I think it should handle rather well since BMW has been successfully using this layout since '82 all the way up to the current 3 series.

Just my opinion.

-Dave

351CJ · Jan 5, 2004

Seeing that Ford invented the strut front suspension, almost 50 years ago, I have to say that BMW did a great job copying Ford's invention.

Just my opinion.

Mr44666 · Jan 5, 2004

Well, That is true. I was thinking more of the actual suspension Layout. Good Point.

-Dave

Enzora · Jan 5, 2004

so this is a good thing for the Mustang, right?

Z28x · Jan 5, 2004

As long as it is a good suspension I don't care if they copied it from Huffy.

Mr44666 · Jan 5, 2004

Well, You can just say that it is very forgiving and also very capable. BMW has used this on all three Chassis 3Series since the 320 in '82. This includes the the M3's which I drive quite a bit in all different forms. Very nice, with the only problem being Balljoints, which frequently wear out and require the whole arm to be replaced.

-Dave

Mr Black · Jan 6, 2004

Looks like one of the things that will help the handling most is the way they've pushed the front wheels forward. SHould let the engine sit mostly behind the wheels, which will bring the weight distribution near 50-50 and eliminate a fair bit of understeer. Check out the side-by-side shots of the new one vs SN95 car in the "Production vs Concept" photo thread and you'll see what I mean.

I cannot wait to drive one of these things.

RiddahSpinnaz · Jan 6, 2004

52-48 weight distribution

carbon fiber hood + battery in the back should make it 50-50

Mr Black · Jan 6, 2004

Freakin' A! Well done Ford.

How did you find this info?

66Satellite · Jan 6, 2004

Mr Black said:
Freakin' A! Well done Ford.

How did you find this info?

I believe the Hot Rod article said they didn't want 50/50 weight distribution with that much HP sitting up front cause then they'd have to fit super wide tires on the rear...

Rootus · Jan 7, 2004

66Satellite said:
I believe the Hot Rod article said they didn't want 50/50 weight distribution with that much HP sitting up front cause then they'd have to fit super wide tires on the rear...

Huh? Why would having more of the weight on the rear require *wider* tires? Should reduce that requirement...

SVTdriver · Jan 7, 2004

IRS in the back end and you should hit 50/50. For say the Cobra.

66Satellite · Jan 7, 2004

HairyCanary said:
Huh? Why would having more of the weight on the rear require *wider* tires? Should reduce that requirement...

ah, you made me dig my Hot Rod out of the basement. Without typing it out--that's what it says. With that much torque the Ford guy said you'd be hanging the back end out too much with a 50/50 distribution unless you went to wider rubber in the rear, which they didn't want to do.

sleeper89 · Jan 7, 2004

HairyCanary said:
Huh? Why would having more of the weight on the rear require *wider* tires? Should reduce that requirement...

...because in a 50/50 balanced car when you let off the throttle abruptly in a turn it has a tendency to go into snap oversteer.

-steve

Rootus · Jan 7, 2004

sleeper89 said:
...because in a 50/50 balanced car when you let off the throttle abruptly in a turn it has a tendency to go into snap oversteer.

Hmmm. Still doesn't make sense to me. We're talking about going from a front-loaded car to a balanced car, I would expect it to be more neutral, and with more weight on the back it should have less of a tendency to oversteer.

Dave

sleeper89 · Jan 8, 2004

HairyCanary said:
Hmmm. Still doesn't make sense to me. We're talking about going from a front-loaded car to a balanced car, I would expect it to be more neutral, and with more weight on the back it should have less of a tendency to oversteer.

Dave

...under straight line acceleration it would hook better. but when you are flying up to a corner at XXmph and you let off the throttle the weight at the rear moves up and forward which tries to bring the rear around in front of you. the more weight with less grip at the back the worse this effect is.

i'm not a physicist so i really cant explain it better than that, and i cant 100% guarantee that that is how it works, but that is how i understand it. maybe an expert will chime in.

-steve

66Satellite · Jan 8, 2004

sleeper89 said:
...under straight line acceleration it would hook better. but when you are flying up to a corner at XXmph and you let off the throttle the weight at the rear moves up and forward which tries to bring the rear around in front of you. the more weight with less grip at the back the worse this effect is.

i'm not a physicist so i really cant explain it better than that, and i cant 100% guarantee that that is how it works, but that is how i understand it. maybe an expert will chime in.

-steve

This is my understanding, too. This is not about straight-line acceleration at the track, it's about day-to-day usability (including bad weather) and handing throught the twisties.

rhumbline · Jan 8, 2004

Ford, in there press introduction material, admitted using the M3 as their handling benchmark for the front suspension and thus, probably did replicate pretty closely that design as it works beautifully. As for the ox-cart axle out back, well, Ford has obviously settled for a much lower handling standard there. But overall, this chassis handling should be eons ahead of the current car and the eventual IRS should raise that significantly higher yet to true world-class levels.

As for Hot Rod's dopey statement about weight distribution, I think they should stick to their forte -- drivetrains and straightline acceleration -- they apparently get out of their element very quickly when they stray from the straight and narrow of the strip and venture into the curves and corners of the world. I mean, just start contemplating on the hook up characteristics of an empty pickup to see what a front heavy weight distribution will do for ya. And why exactly then do the top fueler dragster put their motors way in the back...?

66Satellite · Jan 8, 2004

rhumbline said:
As for Hot Rod's dopey statement about weight distribution, I think they should stick to their forte -- drivetrains and straightline acceleration -- they apparently get out of their element very quickly when they stray from the straight and narrow of the strip and venture into the curves and corners of the world. I mean, just start contemplating on the hook up characteristics of an empty pickup to see what a front heavy weight distribution will do for ya. And why exactly then do the top fueler dragster put their motors way in the back...?

It was a direct quote from one of the Mustang designers. And again it concerned oversteer/handling issues, not hookup.

66Satellite · Jan 8, 2004

ok, Hot Rod put the full article up on the web. Here's the quote:

"For us, 52-53 percent [front weight] is near optimal with how much torque we have at the rear wheels," Thai-Tang says. Anything closer to 50/50 than that will produce the tendency for a torquey engine to hang the back end out easily or require bigger tires on the rear than the front for more grip, neither of which were options for the new Mustang.

http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/113_0402_must/index3.html

Front Suspension

Mr44666

351CJ

New Member

Mr44666

Enzora

The member formerly known as Nazgul

Z28x

New Member

Mr44666

Mr Black

New Member

RiddahSpinnaz

New Member

Mr Black

New Member

66Satellite

Banned

Rootus

Officially Addicted

SVTdriver

66Satellite

Banned

sleeper89

New Member

Rootus

Officially Addicted

sleeper89

New Member

66Satellite

Banned

rhumbline

66Satellite

Banned

66Satellite

Banned

Similar threads

Front Suspension

New Member

The member formerly known as Nazgul

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Banned

Officially Addicted

Banned

New Member

Officially Addicted

New Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency