As opposed to having the rear be basically identical to the front? My Eclipse has front and rear basically identical (similar style as Honda). What is better about Honda's rear suspension? We're talking 88-00 here.

 

No one knows? Interesting.

 

i know what a honda suspension looks like. but i dont know what an eclipse suspension looks like. this is a honda forum. why dont you show us.....

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turbohappy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">As opposed to having the rear be basically identical to the front? My Eclipse has front and rear basically identical (similar style as Honda). What is better about Honda's rear suspension? We're talking 88-00 here.</TD></TR></TABLE>

i don't really know what you're asking...or how technical you want it but i'll start witht he basics

88-00 honda used double wishbone front and rear in all their cars...this allowed a better camber curve, toe curve, and lessen body roll as opposed to a macpherson strut (what eclipse have...and many other cars) setup

now...as to why the rear in particular is advantages to the front or other cars..it depends which car model first off..and if you're asking why one lower control arm at x angle, x length, with x mounting point is better than something else then....very few will know or care i gaurantee you that

 

The 95-99 eclipse has what looks a lot like a honda front suspension in the front and also in the rear. I was wondering what Honda did not use the same suspension on both the front and the rear. They are both double wishbone, but the style of them is very different. This is for a project car, I was wondering what disadvantages I would see by using two sets of front suspensions.

 

i suggest you take a closer look.

eclipses use a simple macpherson strut design up front. its different than front double wishbone that honda uses in all the civics and integras from 88-00, which uses unequal arm lengths to control the camber curve. macpherson struts also have less control over the toe curve or bumpsteer.

the rear of the eclipse looks like some kind of multilink suspension. i see some sort of trailing arm and a low upper arm with a bolt on coilover strut. i cant really tell whats going on there. the rear of the honda multilink trailing arm suspension simulates the double wishbone setup like up front. control over toe and camber are also well defined.

im not going to say honda has better suspension, hands down. there are many high performance cars that still maintain a macpherson stut suspension. but i would never say that they are the same.

 

actually, i guess my above comments are only directed to 1g eclipses. looks like they updated the suspension to double wishbone all around for 2g's.

i finally found a decent source of eclipse suspension pictures.
http://www.vfaq.com/FAQlocator-suspension.html

i think the fact that mtisubishi decided on this design change update tells you something in itself. (disregard honda making current civics and rsx macpherson strut...)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">disregard honda making current civics and rsx macpherson strut..</TD></TR></TABLE>
An odd move, but iirc the next gen Civics will be going back to the double a-arm front suspension. So the macpherson trend didn't last too long (1 generation?) with the Civic/Integras. That says a lot too.

 

no, acutally i dont think it is going back to double wishbone.

 

What does formula 1 use? independent double wishbone, front and rear. Not saying that honda is a formula 1 car, but they share the same set-up.

there is probably a good reason formual 1 cars use independent double wishbone.

 

Whoah thats interesting.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tyson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">no, acutally i dont think it is going back to double wishbone.</TD></TR></TABLE>

correct, its just the RSX chassi with a new body on it.


Some cars that have Mac strut handle great, like BMW.

 

those links you posted of the elcipse (not sure what generation) are def mac strut/multilink f/r... technically the double wishbone is a better suspension design, but that's not to say that there isn't mac strut cars that handle great (i think porsche still uses them... don't quote me on that).... for the honda experts here, why did honda chose to go from double wishbone -&gt; mac strut?

 

Have official reports been posted? I want to take a look at this.

 

The 2006 Civic SI fenders are kinda of wide its very possible they brought double wishbone back and decided to speed some money on the developement of it.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by yudalicious &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i think porsche still uses them... don't quote me on that).... </TD></TR></TABLE>

depends what model porsche...i was flipping through their catalog and most have either a multilink front and rear or multilink rear with macpherson front...the carrera gt uses double wishbone front and rear though

bmw uses a macpherson strut and multilink in the rear

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by slammed_93_hatch &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">correct, its just the RSX chassi with a new body on it.


Some cars that have Mac strut handle great, like BMW.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Doesn't the old Z06 still even use leaf springs in the rear? Look how that handles...

 

The advantages to using similar front and rear suspension design will not affect you, the consumer, but the manufacturer. Cheaper to produce the car if you're only making half as many suspension components. eg. 968 Boxster had identical front and rear suspension uprights and lateral control arms, 996 Carrera has multilink rear.

Disadvantages are that the front and rear suspensions do different things. Most sophisticated front suspensions have built in ackerman and anti-dive into their geometry, so you can't really transfer those traits to the rear of the car (rear needs anti-squat). The geometry of the suspension combined with the spring rate on each axle will also be different. So you can't just mount any front suspension design and rear suspension design to any vehicle and hope for the same handling traits as the donor car(s).

Yes Formua l cars are the ultimate racing cars and yes they do use double wishbone but for different purposes as road cars. A Grand Prix car needs its dampers and springs mounted inboard, (out of the airflow, closer to the car's CG) and this is only possible with a double wishbone setup with pushrods. Not with MacPherson struts. Nothing to do with camber gain, toe curve, or bump steer since there is hardly any suspension movement in a Formula 1 car. It's mostly in the tire sidewall.

A road vehicle needs a double wishbone for all these things because a road vehicle will see a more varied type of surface/conditions than a dedicated race car. It must be compliant and predicatable.

The main advantage of MacPherson struts is it takes up less space than a double wishbone, and costs less with fewer parts. There is also no camber gain with a MacPherson strut so if you can sufficiently maintain your roll angle, then it would be most advantageous for you. Also why there are many successful full-body (eg. touring cars, GT cars) racecars with MacPherson strut.

So, long story short, if it were a project car, double wishbone would be ideal, if you have room for it. Just keep in mind what you NEED the double wishbones for because you might be able to achieve the same results with a simpler MacPherson strut design. And the orginal suspension design may be the most advantageous ONLY for the vehicle it was designed around. Suspension engineers aren't stupid nor are they underpaid.

Just remember, it's all about those four contact patches and keeping them as big and constant as possible.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GetawayInMoscow &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Doesn't the old Z06 still even use leaf springs in the rear? Look how that handles... </TD></TR></TABLE>

all corvettes use leaf springs in the rear, even the brand new ones.

 

The corvette uses leaf springs but not in the traditional live-axel sense. It is a fully independent sophisticated rear suspension design. The corvette was one of the earlier cars to use an independent rear suspension.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GetawayInMoscow &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Doesn't the old Z06 still even use leaf springs in the rear? Look how that handles... </TD></TR></TABLE>

The older Z06 (and all C5 vettes) use true double wishbones front and rear. The rear uses a TRANSVERSE fiberglass monoleaf spring for springing. Much different than a longitudinal leaf spring like on a pick-up truck. The C5 and the C6 have some of the most advanced suspensions on earth.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by d16dcoe45 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The older Z06 (and all C5 vettes) use true double wishbones front and rear. The rear uses a TRANSVERSE fiberglass monoleaf spring for springing. Much different than a longitudinal leaf spring like on a pick-up truck. The C5 and the C6 have some of the most advanced suspensions on earth.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Good to know....so it's not a leaf spring like on a truck.

Does anyone have a pic?

 

I don't have a pic, but picture the leaf spring (single--monoleaf, fiberglass) going across the rear of the car from the right side to the left side attached to each control arm and being supported in the middle. Each end of the spring performs the same function as a coil spring--the advantages being the fiberglass leaf spring is much lighter (less unsprung weight) and it takes up alot less room. It is actually a really smart system.

 

An F1 suspension doesn't have springs. The spring rate is derived from the flex of its links. As noted, most damping is provided from the tires (you won't find this in your Azenis).

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by L8apex &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The main advantage of MacPherson struts is it takes up less space than a double wishbone, and costs less with fewer parts. There is also no camber gain with a MacPherson strut so if you can sufficiently maintain your roll angle, then it would be most advantageous for you. Also why there are many successful full-body (eg. touring cars, GT cars) racecars with MacPherson strut.</TD></TR></TABLE>

MacStrut cars still have camber gain in roll. Less than the traditional SLA (Short-Long A-arm) suspension, but the LCA (and hence the wheel) still follows an arc in roll.

Performance-wise there are numerous bad things about a MacStrut. Lateral loads into the shock shaft, relatively little camber control, humungously large strut, offset/conical spring forces fed into the upper mount (this is why many struts have the spring offset). Due to its beneficial packaging, it may be your only option. You can get an A-arm suspension to be lighter than a strut for the same vehicle suing the same material (IMO, haven't done it). ALMS cars are closed bodywork vehicles and they all use bellcrank-mounted dampers actuated by P-rods.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GSpeedR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">An F1 suspension doesn't have springs. The spring rate is derived from the flex of its links. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Not so sure about that. I'm almost certain some teams use either torsion bar springs or inboard spring/damper setup. Maybe youre thinking of the blade adjustable swaybars on F1 cars that rely on material flex. Either way, a topic for another post. Back to the original topic.