|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
First, Mazda6 is double A-arm in the front, MacStrut.
Second, the field of Vehicle dynamics is incredibly complex. Not only do you have the static suspension geometry to worry about, you also have to worry about how the geometry changes during suspension travel, both in jounce and rebound (up and down respectively). Further complicating matters is that each suspension joint is not perfectly rigid, but is made from a rubber bushing . . . which will deflect under load. You then need to figure out the expected loading (no easy task) and use that to figure out how much the bushing will deflect, which in turn is used to figure out how the geometry changes as the bushing deflects and as the suspension travels (want an example? the Contour rear suspension is designed to passively help steer the car when the body rolls and the bushings in the rear deflect). Then there is a matter of static alignment. Keep in mind that even one tenth of one degree can make a noticable difference in any one of the geometry factors. Then factor on top of all that, you still need a spring and damper to control the motion of all of the parts. Spring and damper tuning plays an even larger role in the overall feel of the car than even the suspension geometry (provided the geometry is at least halfway decent).
For all the MacStrut bashers, fwiw, kinematically a MacStrut is the same as a double a-arm with an infinately long upper arm. The major downside to the MacStrut (or, more accurately, the modified Macstrut, I don't know any production cars using a true Macpherson strut design anymore, the last I remember is the Sierra/XR4Ti) is that there is a limited range of travel for an acceptable camber curve. In most non-rally or offroad vehicles, this is a non-issue, so use of a MacStrut is perfectly fine, and offers both weight and cost savings to the design. A good Macstrut design will ALWAYS be better than a bad double wishbone design.
Why does the contour handle so well? First, Ford of Europe spent an enormous amount of time getting the geometry right for thier more handling focused european customer. Then, significant resources were poured into getting the spring and damper tuning right for the same customer. And we as Americans that like a nicely controlled suspension benefit as a result.
Oh, and I didn't even mention how HUGE a role tires play in handling, lol, both tire grip and pressure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 301
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 301 |
Originally posted by todras:
The CDW-27 platform was the first car Ford actually engineered to be "fun to drive." Wish I could find the something online about it.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Ford was an altogether cooler company back in the late 80s/early 90s when it was developed. They really put a lot of resources into making enthusiast cars--there was the Mustang GT/SVO/Cobra, Thunderbird Turbo/Super Coupes, Lincoln Mark VII/VIII, Merkur XR4Ti, Taurus SHO, Probe GT.. You can tell the real car guys had a lot of influence back then.
It's a shame that they've gone from that, to focusing primarily on trucks and fleet cars. 
'99 Contour Sport V6 MTX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,177
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,177 |
Originally posted by rearden:
Originally posted by todras:
The CDW-27 platform was the first car Ford actually engineered to be "fun to drive." Wish I could find the something online about it.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Ford was an altogether cooler company back in the late 80s/early 90s when it was developed. They really put a lot of resources into making enthusiast cars--there was the Mustang GT/SVO/Cobra, Thunderbird Turbo/Super Coupes, Lincoln Mark VII/VIII, Merkur XR4Ti, Taurus SHO, Probe GT.. You can tell the real car guys had a lot of influence back then.
It's a shame that they've gone from that, to focusing primarily on trucks and fleet cars.
Problem nowadays is that Ford is designing cars and hoping the market fits the car ... they need to actually talk to consumers and research how driving habits have changed and design a car that fits the market.
They need to take a risk and be creative ... that's how the Mondeo came to life, and why it won car of the year so many times.
Taking the current car lineup ...
Focus = Small econo-car. Nice little runner, but nothing special, does the job.
Fusion = Mazda6 ... what more can I say, albeit slightly bigger (IIRC) and heavier ... needs SVT version that is not just a MazdaSpeed6 rip-off.
Five Hundred = Big and bland. This it the model that will, I believe, take on the Buick mantle for 'old timers' car. I've heard that a good number of local sales are older Taurus/Vic drivers trading in. Again, nothing special.
What I would do ...
StreetKa = 1.6l Gas engine as standard. Add Duratorq option, and Duratec 23. SVT version could be 'baby Mustang' type car, and regular type would be the fun econocar. I see a fair number of those little Firefly (I think) soft-tops around, and the drivers love that. Something like this would be perfect for younger women (18-28).
Focus = Bring on the blown ST version 
Fusion = Naturally a Duratec35 w. 6-spd. As for SVT version, just don't limit their creativity or force them into making a MazdaSpeed6.
FiveHundred = Leave it as it is, but focus heavily on build quality. It will never be a 'fun' car, or enthusiasts car ... current buyers want quality more than anything.
1998.5 T-Red on Midnight Blue SVT
Build Number 5320 of 6535
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,867
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,867 |
Originally posted by Christian:
Originally posted by rearden:
Originally posted by todras:
The CDW-27 platform was the first car Ford actually engineered to be "fun to drive." Wish I could find the something online about it.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Ford was an altogether cooler company back in the late 80s/early 90s when it was developed. They really put a lot of resources into making enthusiast cars--there was the Mustang GT/SVO/Cobra, Thunderbird Turbo/Super Coupes, Lincoln Mark VII/VIII, Merkur XR4Ti, Taurus SHO, Probe GT.. You can tell the real car guys had a lot of influence back then.
It's a shame that they've gone from that, to focusing primarily on trucks and fleet cars.
Problem nowadays is that Ford is designing cars and hoping the market fits the car ... they need to actually talk to consumers and research how driving habits have changed and design a car that fits the market.
They need to take a risk and be creative ... that's how the Mondeo came to life, and why it won car of the year so many times.
Taking the current car lineup ...
Focus = Small econo-car. Nice little runner, but nothing special, does the job.
Fusion = Mazda6 ... what more can I say, albeit slightly bigger (IIRC) and heavier ... needs SVT version that is not just a MazdaSpeed6 rip-off.
Five Hundred = Big and bland. This it the model that will, I believe, take on the Buick mantle for 'old timers' car. I've heard that a good number of local sales are older Taurus/Vic drivers trading in. Again, nothing special.
What I would do ...
StreetKa = 1.6l Gas engine as standard. Add Duratorq option, and Duratec 23. SVT version could be 'baby Mustang' type car, and regular type would be the fun econocar. I see a fair number of those little Firefly (I think) soft-tops around, and the drivers love that. Something like this would be perfect for younger women (18-28).
Focus = Bring on the blown ST version
Fusion = Naturally a Duratec35 w. 6-spd. As for SVT version, just don't limit their creativity or force them into making a MazdaSpeed6.
FiveHundred = Leave it as it is, but focus heavily on build quality. It will never be a 'fun' car, or enthusiasts car ... current buyers want quality more than anything.
I may be talking out of my behind, here, but one major difference between then and now was the corporate structure at Ford. Ford N.A., Ford Japan, and Ford of Europe were, technically, seperate companies, but part of an "International" corporation. Ford NA had to buy Ford Sierras from Ford of Europe and import them. Ford NA leadership would see a nice car over in Europe and sometimes they'd say, "Hey, I want to sell that here!" The 71-77 Capri was such a car, as was the Merkur. Ford of Europe had free reign to develop cars for Europe. Now, perhaps, they are saddled by the need to design cars to "fit" the whole world, as part of Ford Global's overall product strategy. I initially thought this would be a good thing for Ford cars in the US, but instead, it seems to have homogenized the European spirit.
Function before fashion.
'96 Contour SE
"Toss the Contour into a corner, and it's as easy to catch as a softball thrown by a preschooler." -Edmunds, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
