RE: Soleil Anadi: The Dutch Corvette
Discussion
GW65 said:
Ricky Cox said:
I dont like it at all. The wheels are terrible, the rear too.
A good looking car in standard form so why not improve the driving dynamics instead. starting with the rear suspension set up!!
And what, pray tell, needs fixing with the rear suspension? Double-wishbones not good enough? Or do you think the transverse leaf-spring means it has a live rear-axle?A good looking car in standard form so why not improve the driving dynamics instead. starting with the rear suspension set up!!
As for the Soleil...some nice details, but sadly it doesn't work when you put them all together!
I've driven a couple and the back wheels dont seem to know what they're doing. Reminds me of towing my mothers leaf sprung horse box, totally detatched! Corvette- Catch up.
I can understand why you would be defensive.
Papa Hotel said:
GW65 said:
Ricky Cox said:
why not improve the driving dynamics instead. starting with the rear suspension set up!!
And what, pray tell, needs fixing with the rear suspension? Double-wishbones not good enough? Or do you think the transverse leaf-spring means it has a live rear-axle?Last car I drove with leaf springs actually fell over!
Ricky Cox said:
Papa Hotel said:
GW65 said:
Ricky Cox said:
why not improve the driving dynamics instead. starting with the rear suspension set up!!
And what, pray tell, needs fixing with the rear suspension? Double-wishbones not good enough? Or do you think the transverse leaf-spring means it has a live rear-axle?Last car I drove with leaf springs actually fell over!
Ricky Cox said:
Maybe 'he' knows what he's talking about having driven them. I concluded that I would never spend my money on one.
Last car I drove with leaf springs actually fell over!
Funny, they seem to work just fine, it'd be odd a manufacturer putting something in such an iconic vehicle if it was rubbish... I guess you know better though. Last car I drove with leaf springs actually fell over!
Tell us more about this car with leaf springs falling over, that sounds like a hilarious true anecdote.
Ricky Cox said:
Maybe 'he' knows what he's talking about having driven them. I concluded that I would never spend my money on one.
Last car I drove with leaf springs actually fell over!
I've driven several Corvettes. Clarkson was full of it. Last car I drove with leaf springs actually fell over!
I'm curious, you aren't happy about the leaf spring under the back of the car. Should we assume you are OK with the one under the front of the car? You do know that the car has a leaf spring in front too right?
Papa Hotel said:
Funny, they seem to work just fine, it'd be odd a manufacturer putting something in such an iconic vehicle if it was rubbish... I guess you know better though.
Tell us more about this car with leaf springs falling over, that sounds like a hilarious true anecdote.
Ford puts a live axle in its Mustang and while its not horrid for American arrow-straight roads, I'm fairly confident it would be sTell us more about this car with leaf springs falling over, that sounds like a hilarious true anecdote.
te for British bumpy-twisty B-roads, and the Mustang is almost as 'iconic' as the Vette.The Camaro is 'iconic' and had a truly terrible steering wheel, as is the Challenger which had a steering wheel bigger than one of the actual wheels with worse plastic than Fisher Price.
Don't ever underestimate the lengths American car manufacturers will go to save money
BlackPrince said:
Papa Hotel said:
Funny, they seem to work just fine, it'd be odd a manufacturer putting something in such an iconic vehicle if it was rubbish... I guess you know better though.
Tell us more about this car with leaf springs falling over, that sounds like a hilarious true anecdote.
Ford puts a live axle in its Mustang and while its not horrid for American arrow-straight roads, I'm fairly confident it would be sTell us more about this car with leaf springs falling over, that sounds like a hilarious true anecdote.
te for British bumpy-twisty B-roads, and the Mustang is almost as 'iconic' as the Vette.The Camaro is 'iconic' and had a truly terrible steering wheel, as is the Challenger which had a steering wheel bigger than one of the actual wheels with worse plastic than Fisher Price.
Don't ever underestimate the lengths American car manufacturers will go to save money
I suspect the next Mustang will bow to having an IRS even though the current Mustang GT is good enough to compete with the M3 in that department. It's not like IRS made the Camaro better.
Plastics are a different issue because the cars are mainstream cars and I'd rather have cheap plastic and pay less and get the V8 than settle for a European four.
LuS1fer said:
The problem on the Mustang is not the axle, it's the standard damping which is set up soft for level American roads and maximum weight transfer on acceleration. The Mustang does British B roads just fine with a good set of dampers. In respect of the live axle, Ford sent out a survey several years ago because an IRS is not that much more expensive (about $200 per car was estimated) but the Americans didn't want it because it's bad for drag racing.
I suspect the next Mustang will bow to having an IRS even though the current Mustang GT is good enough to compete with the M3 in that department. It's not like IRS made the Camaro better.
Plastics are a different issue because the cars are mainstream cars and I'd rather have cheap plastic and pay less and get the V8 than settle for a European four.
That survey story, which I'd heard a few years ago, isjust another example of American focus group bullsh!t. I suspect the next Mustang will bow to having an IRS even though the current Mustang GT is good enough to compete with the M3 in that department. It's not like IRS made the Camaro better.
Plastics are a different issue because the cars are mainstream cars and I'd rather have cheap plastic and pay less and get the V8 than settle for a European four.
Its sad as f*ck that the 2003 Mustang Cobra had IRS and they can't even put it on the current one, and I'm assuming that even adjusting for inflation and the better interior, more power etc., the GT500 is waaay more money than the Cobra was back then.
I'd still buy one tho. In fact the Mustang, Camaro and the Challenger are on my short list of cars to buy a couple of years from now.
I like the Corvette but imo the current one looks too much like the C4, which is almost 30 yrs old now.
BlackPrince said:
That survey story, which I'd heard a few years ago, isjust another example of American focus group bullsh!t.
Its sad as f*ck that the 2003 Mustang Cobra had IRS and they can't even put it on the current one, and I'm assuming that even adjusting for inflation and the better interior, more power etc., the GT500 is waaay more money than the Cobra was back then.
I'd still buy one tho. In fact the Mustang, Camaro and the Challenger are on my short list of cars to buy a couple of years from now.
I like the Corvette but imo the current one looks too much like the C4, which is almost 30 yrs old now.
US domestic cars used to have cheap interiors because the cost structures of the US manufactures made it very hard to compete. However, that has changed greatly and quickly in the past few years. On average most cars sold in the US do have cheaper interiors than in Europe but that's in part because the US buyers seem to favor cheaper over nicer in the main stream segment. The US Accord and Civic for example are cheaper feeling (and in price) than the European trimmed versions. Its sad as f*ck that the 2003 Mustang Cobra had IRS and they can't even put it on the current one, and I'm assuming that even adjusting for inflation and the better interior, more power etc., the GT500 is waaay more money than the Cobra was back then.
I'd still buy one tho. In fact the Mustang, Camaro and the Challenger are on my short list of cars to buy a couple of years from now.
I like the Corvette but imo the current one looks too much like the C4, which is almost 30 yrs old now.
There are a number of stories why Ford used the live axle in the Mustang. The most likely is cost. The Mustang is the only car to use its platform (though it is related to the old Jag S-type). For what ever reason it was decided that a live axle could be made to work and thus justified the cost savings. Remember that while loaded Mustangs might be upwards of $40k the bulk of the sales will be in the mid $20s and some even perhaps under $20k. This means Ford is somewhat cost sensitive with this car. The Camaro and Charger, two similar RWD cars with IRS, don't start out as cheap as the Ford. I'm sure the Mustang would be better with an IRS but it is also reasonably clear that Ford was able to make the the live axle work well. I'm not sure if the trade off is really worth it and rumors have it that some at Ford still think the choice as a bad idea. Regardless, the Mustang shouldn't be considered "typical" American thinking any more than it's "typical" of European cars to put the engine behind the rear axle where it never should have been placed.
BTW, Mustang vs M3:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1010_20...
The Corvette suspension is basically misunderstood. The Corvette was one of the very first cars to have a proper IRS. It got a proper multi-link setup at about the same time as Lotus and Jag introduced their first multi-link designs. The Germans were largely using trailing arms or even worse, swing axles at the the time. Many people get confused by the spring. The leaf springs on the Corvette (one front, one rear) are very advanced, very light and not used as a suspension link. There are two typical problems with leaf springs. The first is friction between the multiple metal leaves. The Corvette has a mono-leaf and like a coil spring it has no leaf to leaf friction. The other issue is leaf springs are almost always used as a suspension link for a live axle (Hotchkiss suspension). The Corvette leaf spring is just a simple spring (well a simple but VERY light spring). The suspension is actually double wishbone at all four corners. The leaf spring is just being a spring. The A-arms are holding everything together.
BTW, so long as we are talking about suspension advances. Remember those neat magnetic shocks that Ferrari and Audi are using? Well they were on the Corvette first... and on a Caddy before that. Yes, the latest and greatest Ferrari's high tech shocks started life on a Caddy... then on the Corvette.
BlackPrince said:
LuS1fer said:
The problem on the Mustang is not the axle, it's the standard damping which is set up soft for level American roads and maximum weight transfer on acceleration. The Mustang does British B roads just fine with a good set of dampers. In respect of the live axle, Ford sent out a survey several years ago because an IRS is not that much more expensive (about $200 per car was estimated) but the Americans didn't want it because it's bad for drag racing.
I suspect the next Mustang will bow to having an IRS even though the current Mustang GT is good enough to compete with the M3 in that department. It's not like IRS made the Camaro better.
Plastics are a different issue because the cars are mainstream cars and I'd rather have cheap plastic and pay less and get the V8 than settle for a European four.
That survey story, which I'd heard a few years ago, isjust another example of American focus group bullsh!t. I suspect the next Mustang will bow to having an IRS even though the current Mustang GT is good enough to compete with the M3 in that department. It's not like IRS made the Camaro better.
Plastics are a different issue because the cars are mainstream cars and I'd rather have cheap plastic and pay less and get the V8 than settle for a European four.
Its sad as f*ck that the 2003 Mustang Cobra had IRS and they can't even put it on the current one, and I'm assuming that even adjusting for inflation and the better interior, more power etc., the GT500 is waaay more money than the Cobra was back then.
I'd still buy one tho. In fact the Mustang, Camaro and the Challenger are on my short list of cars to buy a couple of years from now.
I like the Corvette but imo the current one looks too much like the C4, which is almost 30 yrs old now.
The IRS on the Cobra was a simple device using the same mounting points as the live axle for cost reasons so was a compromise in terms of location. When tested against the 2002 Camaro SS, the Ford was faster round a circuit but not by very much considering it had around 400 hp compared to the Chevy's 320 (both at the rear wheels if you believe the dyno).
I think people have become unbearably snobby and elitist about cars which, year on year, have become more and more competent to the point of being anodyne. I had a C4 Corvette that slapped a wide grin on my face just starting it and lighting up the tyres was never less than compulsory. the handling was fun and enteratining at 5mph let alone 100mph. Move on 17 years to my C5 Z06 and it just lacked the fun factor - it wa clinically efficient and you needed to be doing 100 just to get any sort of kick out of it really. My Mustang is quite similar and despite the Top Gear style drifts and all that crap, the car is very planted and it really takes a lot of provocation to get it out of shape. It's still fun to drive but at a higher limit.
So the question is do we actually need sophisticated and complicated suspension in this day and age where traffic is cripplingly slow and for most people a spirited hoon is all they really aspire to and the purpose of a hoon is to have fun, not to endanger others by using inappropriate or excessve speed. Hell I used to have a whale of a time in a 48hp Austin A40 whose suspension was prehistoric.
I regret the passing of the entertainment section in favour of the computer efficient section of driving. I have driven many cars but only the Yanks provide the fun I want, the looks I want, the style I want and the running costs I want. The cars I used to aspire to fell by the wayside a long time ago and I now see most of them as white goods.
LuS1fer said:
Not quite. In America, the buyer is King. They tried to replace the Mustang with the Probe and had such an outcry, the Mustang was reprieved and thank heraven for that. Similarly, the buyers made it clear they wanted a live axle for drag racing and many too many of the Cobras had their IRS replaced with the old live axle for that very reason. In case anyone missed it, the Mustang is the last of a dying breed and still the staple at the drag strips.
The IRS on the Cobra was a simple device using the same mounting points as the live axle for cost reasons so was a compromise in terms of location. When tested against the 2002 Camaro SS, the Ford was faster round a circuit but not by very much considering it had around 400 hp compared to the Chevy's 320 (both at the rear wheels if you believe the dyno).
I think people have become unbearably snobby and elitist about cars which, year on year, have become more and more competent to the point of being anodyne. I had a C4 Corvette that slapped a wide grin on my face just starting it and lighting up the tyres was never less than compulsory. the handling was fun and enteratining at 5mph let alone 100mph. Move on 17 years to my C5 Z06 and it just lacked the fun factor - it wa clinically efficient and you needed to be doing 100 just to get any sort of kick out of it really. My Mustang is quite similar and despite the Top Gear style drifts and all that crap, the car is very planted and it really takes a lot of provocation to get it out of shape. It's still fun to drive but at a higher limit.
So the question is do we actually need sophisticated and complicated suspension in this day and age where traffic is cripplingly slow and for most people a spirited hoon is all they really aspire to and the purpose of a hoon is to have fun, not to endanger others by using inappropriate or excessve speed. Hell I used to have a whale of a time in a 48hp Austin A40 whose suspension was prehistoric.
I regret the passing of the entertainment section in favour of the computer efficient section of driving. I have driven many cars but only the Yanks provide the fun I want, the looks I want, the style I want and the running costs I want. The cars I used to aspire to fell by the wayside a long time ago and I now see most of them as white goods.
White goods???! The IRS on the Cobra was a simple device using the same mounting points as the live axle for cost reasons so was a compromise in terms of location. When tested against the 2002 Camaro SS, the Ford was faster round a circuit but not by very much considering it had around 400 hp compared to the Chevy's 320 (both at the rear wheels if you believe the dyno).
I think people have become unbearably snobby and elitist about cars which, year on year, have become more and more competent to the point of being anodyne. I had a C4 Corvette that slapped a wide grin on my face just starting it and lighting up the tyres was never less than compulsory. the handling was fun and enteratining at 5mph let alone 100mph. Move on 17 years to my C5 Z06 and it just lacked the fun factor - it wa clinically efficient and you needed to be doing 100 just to get any sort of kick out of it really. My Mustang is quite similar and despite the Top Gear style drifts and all that crap, the car is very planted and it really takes a lot of provocation to get it out of shape. It's still fun to drive but at a higher limit.
So the question is do we actually need sophisticated and complicated suspension in this day and age where traffic is cripplingly slow and for most people a spirited hoon is all they really aspire to and the purpose of a hoon is to have fun, not to endanger others by using inappropriate or excessve speed. Hell I used to have a whale of a time in a 48hp Austin A40 whose suspension was prehistoric.
I regret the passing of the entertainment section in favour of the computer efficient section of driving. I have driven many cars but only the Yanks provide the fun I want, the looks I want, the style I want and the running costs I want. The cars I used to aspire to fell by the wayside a long time ago and I now see most of them as white goods.
I'm not sure which cars you're referring to soo care to provide a brief list?
I'm Canadian, but I live in Ireland at the moment so I grew up w/ American cars, and read yank car mags like C&D and R&T growing up so am v. familiar w/ yank tanks, and I thnk it was the 2002 STS that had the magnetorrheological dampers (sp?)
I've driven the last gen of the Mustang, which by media accounts was crap but I loved. And this gen too which was fun.
Current gen Camaro looks good but not nearly as good to drive as the Mustang (clearly IRS doesn't impact it too negatively - at least on Canadian long side straight bumpfree roads anyway).
I'll be in Ireland for a couple more years but when I get back, I'm seriously contemplating a 2010 GT500 or a 2012 Boss 302.
Not sure if I could handle a yank tank on British roads tho but if you enjoy them more power to you mate! (pardon the pun har har). I ride a bike, but plan to sell it soon and have my eyes on a CSL for Irish roads.
By white goods, I mean most mainstream marques notably those which have good cars at the top (like the CSL - good choice) but pretty banal and average cars basking in their reflected glory lower down the range. As an example, I had a Civic Type R which as a daily car is about perfect and quite a lot of fun but ultimately lacking any real soul.
Obviously your aspirations change with age and experience so one man's white goods are another man's dream.
I think the concept of Yank tanks is largely disappearing in the wake of "small" cars which are getting fatter and fatter. I'd rather punt my Mustang down a B road than my Mondeo with it's thick pillars and invisible sloping periphery. Then again, my old Golf III GTI has fantastic visibility and compactness for such duties and I don't worry about that.
Obviously your aspirations change with age and experience so one man's white goods are another man's dream.
I think the concept of Yank tanks is largely disappearing in the wake of "small" cars which are getting fatter and fatter. I'd rather punt my Mustang down a B road than my Mondeo with it's thick pillars and invisible sloping periphery. Then again, my old Golf III GTI has fantastic visibility and compactness for such duties and I don't worry about that.
LuS1fer said:
Not quite. In America, the buyer is King. They tried to replace the Mustang with the Probe and had such an outcry, the Mustang was reprieved and thank heraven for that. Similarly, the buyers made it clear they wanted a live axle for drag racing and many too many of the Cobras had their IRS replaced with the old live axle for that very reason. In case anyone missed it, the Mustang is the last of a dying breed and still the staple at the drag strips.
The IRS on the Cobra was a simple device using the same mounting points as the live axle for cost reasons so was a compromise in terms of location. When tested against the 2002 Camaro SS, the Ford was faster round a circuit but not by very much considering it had around 400 hp compared to the Chevy's 320 (both at the rear wheels if you believe the dyno).
I don't think it was so much that buyers were clamoring for a live axle as most buyers probably don't know/care. I've seen so many cases where even car people don't understand the technology they are talking about (look at everyone who rags on the Corvette for the leaf springs). Sure some drag racers want the live axle but really, I think Ford used it because it was cheap. The stories of retrofitting Cobras with live axles should be considered a condemnation of the particular IRS that car had rather than proof that a good IRS wouldn't be much better than a live axle. The IRS in the Cobra was severely compromised by, as you mentioned, the need to fit into existing chassis hard points on a chassis that dated back to the 1970s. Given the challenges the designers faced it's amazing it was even as good as it was. The IRS on the Cobra was a simple device using the same mounting points as the live axle for cost reasons so was a compromise in terms of location. When tested against the 2002 Camaro SS, the Ford was faster round a circuit but not by very much considering it had around 400 hp compared to the Chevy's 320 (both at the rear wheels if you believe the dyno).
I don't think Ford listened to the customers beyond, "we don't want to pay too much" and "it needs to drive good". Ford was able to deliver both with the live axle. It would be interesting to know how much better (or not) the car would have been with an IRS. Even if it didn't help the handling, some extra rear seat room would be nice.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff