La Crosse getting better Macpherson struts
03-26-2010, 02:47 AM
#1
Cruisin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: California
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
La Crosse getting better Macpherson struts
Autoblog today described a new HIPer version of the Macpherson strut that will minimize FWD steering issues when driving on curves. Saab may already have this technology.
Acura from what I have read has had Macpherson strut suspensions that handle curves well and minimize oversteer for a long time. Are the current Macpherson designs used on Acuras the same as the Integras. Are they comparable to what Buick will be promoting for their FWD La Crosses?
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/25/q...hiper-w-video/
Acura from what I have read has had Macpherson strut suspensions that handle curves well and minimize oversteer for a long time. Are the current Macpherson designs used on Acuras the same as the Integras. Are they comparable to what Buick will be promoting for their FWD La Crosses?
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/25/q...hiper-w-video/
03-26-2010, 05:35 AM
#2
2009 TL SH-AWD Tech
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from what i know and wiki confirmed....... macpherson was invented to lower the total production cost of the car.....
double wishbone has better dynamics than macpherson if you know how to get it right.... that's why honda always use double wishbone on more expensive model like the accord and tl while using macpherson for cheaper model like the fit and civic....
double wishbone has better dynamics than macpherson if you know how to get it right.... that's why honda always use double wishbone on more expensive model like the accord and tl while using macpherson for cheaper model like the fit and civic....
03-26-2010, 09:46 AM
#3
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
Autoblog today described a new HIPer version of the Macpherson strut that will minimize FWD steering issues when driving on curves. Saab may already have this technology.
Acura from what I have read has had Macpherson strut suspensions that handle curves well and minimize oversteer for a long time. Are the current Macpherson designs used on Acuras the same as the Integras. Are they comparable to what Buick will be promoting for their FWD La Crosses?
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/25/q...hiper-w-video/
Acura from what I have read has had Macpherson strut suspensions that handle curves well and minimize oversteer for a long time. Are the current Macpherson designs used on Acuras the same as the Integras. Are they comparable to what Buick will be promoting for their FWD La Crosses?
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/25/q...hiper-w-video/
There are two reasons to use McPherson struts in small cars.
1. The use of McPherson struts makes more space and more metal available for the crush zone. You can build a safer small car using struts.
2. McPherson struts install on the assembly line as a whole unit. You are reducing the time it takes to finish the vehicle, and you are reducing the cost of parts.
In a large car like our TL's, and in cars like the Buicks, the only reason to use McPherson struts is to reduce the cost.
Inasmuch as the McPherson design handles less well in dynamic situations by the very nature of its design, you will have to engage in public relations campaigns to try to show why your McPherson design doesn't sacrifice handling and/or come up with some kind of high performance hyperbole to try to make an excuse for having a McPherson design on a larger, higher performance vehicle.
Struts can work fine in high performance applications in smaller cars, witness any number of modern (and old) Porsche designs.
But it is very difficult to make any kind of strut work in very large cars, and you'll notice that even the Porsche Cayenne moves from the traditional strut design to double wishbones.
You can go very wrong with strut designs even in smaller cars.
The original Honda McPherson strut design, the 2002-2005 DC5 Integra (RSX) and EP3 Civic caught a lot of flak from Honda enthusiasts.
The cars that replaced these cars like the FG2 Civic introduced a number of changes to try to deal with these complaints.
They moved the tie rod from the strut to the hub.
They reclined the strut toward the driver so that you could have a strut with longer gravel even with a low hood design.
They moved the EPS steering rack from high up on the firewall all the way down to the road.
But it is still a McPherson design that is inherently inferior to a double wishbone design and when a manufacturer of large cars like Buick and Ford have to engage in these kinds of public relations shenanigans to make excuses for their cheap designs, those of us who know a little more than the average driver are going to see right through it.
McPherson designs have their place, and they can be entirely adequate in even mildly high performance designs like the Civic Si. But acting for a moment like struts belong in a car like the Taurus SHO or any good sized Buick is silly enough that most of us are going to see through it.
03-26-2010, 09:48 AM
#4
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
I do not mean to leave a reader with the impression that the new LaCrosse is a bad car in any way. I think that GM are making huge advances.
But the McPherson "high performance" campaign is just something that most of us are going to see beyond.
But the McPherson "high performance" campaign is just something that most of us are going to see beyond.
03-26-2010, 11:45 AM
#5
Cruisin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: California
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My mistake and I'm sorry... Acura's website confirms that Acuras are using double wishbone suspensions. Comments on the autoblog strut article (propaganda) led me to belive the Acuras had struts.
The new Lacrosse has been getting a lot of hype recently. The design elements look similar to other sport sedans on the surface. Maybe a little tacky design wise too!
Thanks George.
The new Lacrosse has been getting a lot of hype recently. The design elements look similar to other sport sedans on the surface. Maybe a little tacky design wise too!
Thanks George.
03-27-2010, 10:22 AM
#6
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Staten Island
Age: 39
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure why you would ask this particular question in this forum, but you did, so here goes.
There are two reasons to use McPherson struts in small cars.
1. The use of McPherson struts makes more space and more metal available for the crush zone. You can build a safer small car using struts.
2. McPherson struts install on the assembly line as a whole unit. You are reducing the time it takes to finish the vehicle, and you are reducing the cost of parts.
In a large car like our TL's, and in cars like the Buicks, the only reason to use McPherson struts is to reduce the cost.
Inasmuch as the McPherson design handles less well in dynamic situations by the very nature of its design, you will have to engage in public relations campaigns to try to show why your McPherson design doesn't sacrifice handling and/or come up with some kind of high performance hyperbole to try to make an excuse for having a McPherson design on a larger, higher performance vehicle.
Struts can work fine in high performance applications in smaller cars, witness any number of modern (and old) Porsche designs.
But it is very difficult to make any kind of strut work in very large cars, and you'll notice that even the Porsche Cayenne moves from the traditional strut design to double wishbones.
You can go very wrong with strut designs even in smaller cars.
The original Honda McPherson strut design, the 2002-2005 DC5 Integra (RSX) and EP3 Civic caught a lot of flak from Honda enthusiasts.
The cars that replaced these cars like the FG2 Civic introduced a number of changes to try to deal with these complaints.
They moved the tie rod from the strut to the hub.
They reclined the strut toward the driver so that you could have a strut with longer gravel even with a low hood design.
They moved the EPS steering rack from high up on the firewall all the way down to the road.
But it is still a McPherson design that is inherently inferior to a double wishbone design and when a manufacturer of large cars like Buick and Ford have to engage in these kinds of public relations shenanigans to make excuses for their cheap designs, those of us who know a little more than the average driver are going to see right through it.
McPherson designs have their place, and they can be entirely adequate in even mildly high performance designs like the Civic Si. But acting for a moment like struts belong in a car like the Taurus SHO or any good sized Buick is silly enough that most of us are going to see through it.
There are two reasons to use McPherson struts in small cars.
1. The use of McPherson struts makes more space and more metal available for the crush zone. You can build a safer small car using struts.
2. McPherson struts install on the assembly line as a whole unit. You are reducing the time it takes to finish the vehicle, and you are reducing the cost of parts.
In a large car like our TL's, and in cars like the Buicks, the only reason to use McPherson struts is to reduce the cost.
Inasmuch as the McPherson design handles less well in dynamic situations by the very nature of its design, you will have to engage in public relations campaigns to try to show why your McPherson design doesn't sacrifice handling and/or come up with some kind of high performance hyperbole to try to make an excuse for having a McPherson design on a larger, higher performance vehicle.
Struts can work fine in high performance applications in smaller cars, witness any number of modern (and old) Porsche designs.
But it is very difficult to make any kind of strut work in very large cars, and you'll notice that even the Porsche Cayenne moves from the traditional strut design to double wishbones.
You can go very wrong with strut designs even in smaller cars.
The original Honda McPherson strut design, the 2002-2005 DC5 Integra (RSX) and EP3 Civic caught a lot of flak from Honda enthusiasts.
The cars that replaced these cars like the FG2 Civic introduced a number of changes to try to deal with these complaints.
They moved the tie rod from the strut to the hub.
They reclined the strut toward the driver so that you could have a strut with longer gravel even with a low hood design.
They moved the EPS steering rack from high up on the firewall all the way down to the road.
But it is still a McPherson design that is inherently inferior to a double wishbone design and when a manufacturer of large cars like Buick and Ford have to engage in these kinds of public relations shenanigans to make excuses for their cheap designs, those of us who know a little more than the average driver are going to see right through it.
McPherson designs have their place, and they can be entirely adequate in even mildly high performance designs like the Civic Si. But acting for a moment like struts belong in a car like the Taurus SHO or any good sized Buick is silly enough that most of us are going to see through it.
03-27-2010, 11:20 AM
#7
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,770 Likes
on
4,341 Posts
- why this would be posted in 4G TL.
- What the OP was thinking.
- C Ya. Off to Car Talk.
Trending Topics
03-27-2010, 11:33 AM
#8
Grandpa
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, Besieged
Age: 68
Posts: 7,596
Received 2,609 Likes
on
1,475 Posts
03-27-2010, 01:20 PM
#9
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,770 Likes
on
4,341 Posts
03-27-2010, 03:27 PM
#10
Senior Moderator
I personally think its a great advancement to the design of them and dont see any thing wrong with it. It cuts cost and space.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rp_guy
Member Cars for Sale
9
07-16-2017 07:33 AM
lanechanger
Member Cars for Sale
4
10-13-2015 10:56 AM
