Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That's what many makers would have you belive as it keeps costs down. But
the better handling FWD cars also have decent rear suspension.


Agreed.
trailing arms and a rear beam is..vile.
the original mini with its traling arms and IIRC a sort of wishbone
arrangement was infinitely superior. Minis were almost impossible to get
into a silly state, but the Morris 1100 was easy to get into a tail
slapper on a trailing throttle. Vile.

If my memory serves me right, all that era of BMC FWD cars have the same
type of rear suspension. Front, too. The hydrolastic connection was more
about comfort than handling, though.

well that's as may be, - perhaps the weight transfer and compliances
were just plain WRONG on the 1100.

I remember it being somewhat better on the Maxi I drove once briefly.

But it is always in the detail I (still have) a spitfire which was
retrofitted with a massive anti-roll bar on the rear. That car with
lowered stiffened fronts and an uprated front roll bar would do splendid
4 wheel drifts.

An unmodified spitfire was - interesting - you had to anticipate the
oversteer as te camber changed, steer into it, and once the suspension
settled than hammer the loud pedal to get some approximation to fast
cornering. Throwing it into a corner was simply asking for trouble.. but
a smooth entry radially loading it up with some decent shocks on made it
not the worse car I have ever driven...





--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.