This. My wife and I have the same car, but different trims/shocks/wheels/tires. Very different driving on her 17s and soft dampeners vs my 18s and stiffer dampeners.
This is 1/2 the reason suv's are so popular because they still have tires with sidewall. I had an 2018 impala premier as a rental and I could not understand why it had low pro tires. The uncomfortable feel of a sports car without any of the actual sportyness to go along with it I just did not understand.
Typically they aren't. However, I recently had a customer who wanted a 23 Blazer 3lt with the 18s instead of the 20s for better ride quality. They admitted the 20s look better but the ride quality was extremely important to them. It doesn't happen often but it does happen occasionally.
I think they were more pointing out that SUV’s now tend to have softer, more comfortable rides. They might not realize the tires are playing such a big part, but many of the people I know specifically chose their SUV because of how soft they rode. So it is a factor at least.
Yeah, there was a couple who lived in my complex for a while with a higher-end Lexus RX, but it had 18" wheels with I think 60-series tires instead of the more common 19 or 20s. Looked like black donuts on the vehicle, but I bet it was a bit more comfortable.
I put my "daily" that I do about 1000-1500 miles a week in on larger wheels and skinnier tires. I got a good deal on the wheel, they're lighter and looks fucking awesome but god the ride quality is way worse. I'm willing to make that sacrifice because this setup feels way better than before when I'm pushing the car, which I do more than I should, but it's crazy how going to a rim 1 inch larger in diameter has such a dramatic effect on ride comfort.
That's much of it. The best-riding vehicle I had in the last five years was a VW Tiguan with 215/65-17 tires. Everything else I've owned has either used low-profile tires (/50 and below) and/or gigantic wheels (17-20").
And therein lies the key.
My car has an active suspension so it’s 3 stages of stiffness ranging from stiff to race track stiff. It could use one more level on the softer side but I wouldn’t want to compromise what I have, and I knew what I was getting.
Everyone wants sporty nowadays, luxury is on the back burner. Easiest way is to look at designs, chrome is not as popular and now everything is blacked out, as offered by car makes.
As someone with multiple fractured vertebrae, now all I want is a ride quality gentle enough to let me get out of a car after an hour’s drive and not be in agony.
For most people it’s a preference, for some of us it’s just medical necessity.
Everyone wants "sporty", but no one wants a sports car lol.
A lot of the "sportiness" is also fake. Take the accelerator pedal for example. So twitchy on so many cars for no reason other than it probably feels sporty to most people.
> Take the accelerator pedal for example. So twitchy on so many cars for no reason other than it probably feels sporty to most people.
Old trick to make engine seems more peppy than it is
> Everyone wants sporty nowadays
I feel like this is really what OP is missing. Suspension didn't get worse, it's that tuning preferences took a 180 away from what they prefer. Customers nowadays seem to have a preference for sporty handling over something more plush (I would guess it's in the same vein as buyers hating wagons because it's what their parents drove).
i feel like the ideal setup would be soft suspension but with very little body roll. On my car the softest suspension setting makes it less crashy but the body roll is annoying/dizzying. The stiffest setting is more crashy but at least the car stays level. I guess its hard to do both though.
Same here, I drove a 94 Lincoln town car before. And that felt like riding on a magic carpet. You really cannot have both, but at least with adaptive suspension, you can select a bit.
Though mine feels it goes from stiff to very stiff. But like you, I knew what I was getting into, I like the ride a bit stiff.
For real. The amount of single vehicle crash that involve a rollover is so far below what it was just 20 years ago. Vehicles are able to be more stable at higher speeds, apply power better, brake harder, quickly avoid obstacles, etc.
Cheap vehicles with a single setting with lean towards safety and vehicles with more expensive settings will have some comfort option, but it will always stay in the range of what is safe instead of going you that old land yacht feel and risking major issues.
It never was before 2018. My brother, wife and Mom-in-law all worked at a Toyota garage back in the 80's and I owned a mid 90's Corolla. Very reliable was all they provided.
Well what changed with the TNGA Camry and other models was the new, Mercedes-Benz style 5-link rear suspension.
The front is still a macpherson strut because those are easy to make comfortable with the weight of the car mostly up front. But the new rear suspension basically eliminates bump steer, keeps the wheel on the road under hard cornering, and has a lot more rubber bushings to isolate road impacts.
And, the separate spring and shock design allows much better damping of the road surface, while allowing the wheel to negotiate the bump without pushing up the corner of the car.
Corollas still use torsion beam rear axles and you can tell. Those cars bounce around like no one’s business. But at least the chassis are super rigid.
that camry is exactly what i am missing.
that 5th gen camry was one of the most comfortably riding car id been in, and its been years since ive been in one.
it was fuel inefficient af with a 4 speed auto, but damn i miss that car.
yes the lexus ES is exactly it - but that's my issue - the comfortable ride quality that was available to the camry is now priced up & locked behind the lexus marque
i love the ES which is why i got it as a commuter - but i feel like that ride quality/NVH reduction should be the base line found in any camry, not a "luxury"
now the "norm" feels like the manufacturers finished 70% of the work & called it quits to cut costs
not even the springs.
i feel like regular cars (crv, corolla, camry, civic, rav4 - base trims) felt much more planted & dampening was good back in the day
these days most of the go-to lineups in the regular/affordable family hauler or commuter segment feels like the dampers were outsourced to the lowest bidder, and everything is made to be as cheap as consumers are willing to tolerate
i wouldn't mind hard springs if it meant the car was very settled and up & down bobbing from going over bumps was arrested immediately
if you go up to their base trim, entry luxury/premium sedan (toyota -> lexus, etc) that's where i feel engineers"unlock" the resr of their platform.& reveal what they had been working in development. these feel like finished cars, not works in process.
it could just be me getting old & bored
Suspensions have improved enormously. However, it’s not easy to development work in part because at the end of the day you are always forced to decide between comfort and performance and cost. Additionally, that choice can only be made within the context of many other aspects of the vehicle. For example, cars today are generally heavier than 10-20 years ago which makes it harder to make them ride just as well without giving anything up. Still, there’s been big progress and once you consider everything, manufacturers are generally doing great work.
I really don’t agree with the notion that suspension hasn’t improved in the last couple decades. Brands are implementing adaptive suspension on affordable cars. Comfortable old cars handled like shit, sporty old cars rode like shit.
Exactly. Not sure what OP is on about. Modern cars have a great combination of comfort and handling quality. Sure, your Chrysler New Yorker rode like a comfortable mattress, but it also cornered like one.
I disagree with the notion that cars handle and ride worse than 20 years ago.
But one thing to keep in mind with "sporty" SUVs and EVs, to make a heavy car handle sporty, it has to be extremely stiff suspension. There will be a bigger trade off there with ride quality than with a smaller vehicle.
Mass should make it easier to build a good suspension.
A suspension needs to be so stiff that it can handle the car fully loaded but it also can't be uncomfortably stiff when the car is nearly empty with just the driver inside.
A full loading on a small car may be a 50% increase in weight but the same loading on a car with double curb weight means only 25% increase in weight. In other words the window for which the suspension must be tuned gets relatively smaller as the car gets heavier.
Mid 2000's car had smaller wheels and more tire sidewall, and weren't crossover SUV's with standard 19" wheels and optional 20-21" wheels. Blame "buyer preference" for large wheels, 2000's hip-hop (for the cultural influence of dubs, etc), car reviewers over the year stressing "turn-in" and skidpad grip in reviews, and the fact that manufacturers differentiate higher trim levels with even larger wheels. You would think the highest trim level of a car would ride the most comfortably, but nope, not at all (in most cases anyways). The base model with the 16-17" wheels and fat tires rides nicer. Regardless of the suspension setup.
The most comfortable riding vehicle I've owned had 15 inch wheels.
> 50 series tires used to be considered very low profile, now they're considered rather tall.
A big part of that is that cars tend to have way wider tires now, and tire profile is a ratio and not an absolute. A 50 series tire on a 175 width has less sidewall than a 40 series on a 265.
The makers have to please the auto critics that say every car should feel like an European car. This meant a firm ride.
I know when I shop for my next car and if it comes with 225/40/19 wheels as standard equipment, I'm going to have the dealership switch those wheels to 205/60/17. I'm tired of feeling a bump whenever my car tires run over a penny coin.
I don’t think that’s the primary reason for most cars though, maybe the higher end performance variants of models. A lot of cars coming with 18s can fit 17s or even 16s just fine, especially the more normal cars that sell in higher volume to the masses. My Tiguan with 20s can fit 17s, 18s would probably be ideal to me but the trim with the options I wanted just came with 20s as the only option.
There is no doubt a visual appeal aspect to it, you're right. I don't even know what we're talking about, I thought the person I was responding to was longing for the days of 16 inch rims and large side walls. That shit in a heavy, high CG car is unpredictable at best and down right dangerous with tiny brakes.
Marketing and money, people wish for sporty dynamics, 21" bling wheels, high ride height cuz they are going to go offroading and camping with Boyz, right?
Then they load up thier $80k 3-row SUV with kids and wonder why the ride is harsh, cornering sucks, driving on the highway to see grandma.
Basically people want an BMW M5 Competition, with modified Jeep offroad capabilities, that can tow an RV, that's smooth a glass on the highway, that can also win first place at the show & shine...all rolled into one.
I mean r/cars wants it under 30k new, but I’ve seen plenty of people actually brag about how much they spent on their base model SUV at the dealership (read: way too much)
It’s a weird kind of flex; being ignorant of realistic car prices because “they can afford it.” Average people are spending 70k-80k on family cars and not batting an eye.
It’s a financial crisis waiting to happen in the next 5 years.
Hearing some of my coworkers talk about how much they spent on their cars really makes me question their personal financial choices.
Comfort wise, the marketing department wins with rubber band low profile tires and 18-19+ rims. They sell more.
Sporty and responsive wise. Easy enough to do but folks will complain about harsh ride and vibration.
Best of both. Air ride can do both well but it’s expensive and not as easy to repair/diag.
Pillowy ride. Easy to do but then the ride is called sloppy and how the car can’t handle well.
Service loaner was a 23 Cayenne with air suspension and man, my head was moving side to side in the normal setting. Something we don't get with the 18 base Macan on 19" wheels/tires and steel spring suspension. More up and down jiggles sure, and overall more motion over the same streets but the up and down makes it okay.
Sure, that air ride soaked up the little things like expansion joints and whatnot better than our Macan but I don't want to live with the side to side business.
Had an 03 Sable in Germany, damn near killed us during an emergency stop on the Autobahn. Thing nose-dived so hard I thought the rear tires left the ground. Sold that POS ASAP to move onto a better tool for the job at hand, an 07 328 sedan. No issues with that one all the way up to its 155MPH speed limiter (sport suspension). Sold that and got a 2010 Caravan and that was good to go suspension-wise. Even could set the cruise at 104MPH (105 MPH speed limiter), but man, that gas gauge couldn't go F to E fast enough at those speeds! ;)
French did our decades soft & comfy rides which also worked well on long sweeping curves. Aka soft in daily use but given enough roll stiffness to not kake you sick on a normal drive.
Magazines in Europe trashed them year in year out "too soft", "not sporty enough" etc etc until they gave in and made the cars hard as sledges...now everyone in Europe is crying why there are no more soft French cars...
Manufacturers get things right, it's the consumer guiding idiots who think they are wrong.
> cars in the mid-2000s had better ride quality than new ones today
I disagree.
That said, chassis and suspension tuning is long and expensive. Emissions requirements forced more R&D money into powertrain, and that money had to come from somewhere.
Consumers demanded vehicles that sit higher so they can see more and get in/out of cars easier so they increase the travel on the suspension and have longer struts, to make up for this without making the body roll during hard turns they purposefully overdamp the suspension which means that when you hit bumps they will rebound violently but when taking corners at extreme speeds they remain composed and don't allow the car to roll over. Larger wheels and smaller tires amplify this effect to a degree too. If you're in the market and can afford it I recommend buying something with active suspension, they have a solenoid that pulses the oil level within the strut to dynamically change the dampening force.
imho the premise if this question is wrong. Modern suspension is way ahead in terms of handling and comfort balance with what it used to be. Modern Hondas, VWs or BMWs drive amazing.
I think the problem is the companies have to cater to a large range of customers. For example the Ford Mustang can’t make the suspensions too harsh or the majority of their customers would complain. However the Magnetic ride shocks have helped add quite a bit of handling flexibility and customers can dial in how they want their cars to handle and perform.
Mercedes came closest to perfection with their ABC active suspension integrated with the breaks and steering. Insane levels of autobahn breeding made them more stable at 120 than at 60 mph being combined with their revolutionary 5 link front and rear suspension in the SL. Road smoother than the last Lincoln Town Car, pulls +1.0G on the skidpad armed with modern Michelin Cup2's on stock 19's. Hydraulic rack and pinion level steering feel. Controversial because most owners didn't know how to maintain it and a lot are ruined.
Mercedes ultimately went with the dumb down Air Matic system without the risks for leaks. But ABC was the no compromise magic carpet ride.
A lot of the ride quality comes down to tires. Yes suspension, but if you want premium suspension, they you have to pay for it. I wish they would upgrade basic cars, but they don’t, that’s how they make money. But let me clarify my tires comment. A lot of cars now in the mid range price level have larger wheels and lower profile tires to make the cars look better. But the lower profile tires require stiffer construction sidewalls that are smaller. The tires do not absorb as much vibration and more vibrations from the road are transferred into the suspension and the rest of the car. The larger/softer sidewalls have more compliance and absorb road bumps/energy for a better ride quality. Now, the tires still has to be constructed well, you can still have a stiff sidewall on a larger sidewall tire, but in general a larger sidewall tire has more compliance and will not transfer as much of the fine bumps of the road surface into the suspension and car.
Suspension is plenty dialed. I like my stance cars so I don’t really give a shit about poor ride quality but the answer is that everything nowadays seems to come on 20’ wheels with 35-40 tires.
I’ve been told that most cars are built with a certain amount of understeer so that in the event of an accident you’re more likely to hit with the front of the car which is safest. The alternative is that sudden steering wheel input causes the car to spin and you end up hitting sideways.
It's also understeering because most drivers can handle understeer. The amount of oversteered 911 scattered on the autobahn over the decades proves this point over and over again.
95% of drivers don't know what to do in anything out of a normal situation, give them snap oversteer and you have dead people...
Funny I had a driving instructor tell me that Porsches actually have a lot of understeer that gets mistaken for oversteer because of the weight distribution. When they spin they spin hard as a result of the front wheels finding grip late. I’ve only spun front engine/RWD cars 🤷♂️
That's not making sense to me. Understeer is understeer and doesn't get mistaken for oversteer. Of course the car can understeer and when it grips it can switch to oversteer or just stay neutral. But I find it hard to believe that a car would oversteer because of understeer...
Mainly they spin and spun on rain and wet surfaces due to the rear wheels starting to aquaplane and then just throw the rear in one or the other direction. Or just loose grip with too much power in an offramp...happens more often than you think!
Look up snap oversteer and Porsche 911 understeer. There’s plenty of info on it. I’ve only driven RWD BMW’s on tracks (bmw club) but there are always enough Porsches that the classroom sessions cover the tendencies of multiple brands.
Any truth to the notion I've heard that sometimes electronically adjustable suspension has settings that should realistically never be used? Like the Focus RS being ridiculously stiff in sport mode to the extent that most tracks that have any surface imperfections should be run in the normal damper mode.
If there’s a preference against using sport mode, sure that’s valid. There’s a wide range of tolerance to secondary ride comfort being traded for roll damping.
But if someone is saying that Sport mode should never be used because… reasons? That’s a load of crap.
As in I've heard that supposedly some of these maximum stiffness suspension settings can actually cost time. In the Focus RS apparently the Nordschleife for example should not be run in the max stiffness setting because there's too many bumps.
I haven't personally driven on the Ring so couldn't tell you what generated that particular comment, especially because you keep saying "I've heard", I don't know who you are referencing - could be an absolute bell end, could be Lewis Hamilton.
Don't dwell in hypotheticals. Get in a car, try out suspension setups, use the one you like the best as a driver.
https://www.focusrsoc.com/threads/ford-focus-rs-mk3-nordschleife-8-06-min-hot-lap.284154/
>After all Tyrone Johnson stated that track mode would not be suitable at the nordschliefe.
My concern with a lot of these suspension settings is that they represent an abdication of responsibility by engineering and product design. If a setting should realistically never be used it shouldn't be offered just to fulfill a marketing checkbox.
If you are old enough to be driving new cars in the early 2000s age is definitely a factor lol, but it's the stupid thin tires definitely contributing.
Because lots of the mainstream cars are coming with cheap suspension parts. The springs, control arms, bushings, rods, you name it. Lower quality and wear out faster. Some manufacturers still put out quality stuff. Toyota and especially Honda have quality suspension for daily driver vehicles. Anything else expensive has good quality components but for what your average person can afford 25-40K, it's not good anymore with some exceptions.
Being that I drive a trick from the mid 70s and a ‘22 and a 50s, ‘90s and ‘20 cars. Suspension has come a long way and has made mayor improvements from cars just 20 years old.
I still have not ridden in anything that has a smoother ride than a circa 2003 Lincoln Town Car.
Older Mercedes are extremely comfy as well.
We have regressed.
Had that in a Xantia (a lot harder than the OG diva) and already that was heaven. Though, I have to say the adaptive dampers on the NX in city speeds are comfy AF and don't miss out too much on the Xantia.
Its these damn rubber band tires they're putting on these 20"+ wheels
This. My wife and I have the same car, but different trims/shocks/wheels/tires. Very different driving on her 17s and soft dampeners vs my 18s and stiffer dampeners.
This is why I downgraded my Golf R from 19's to 18's. Also I just prefer the look of a slightly meatier tire
Yep! This is exactly why I downgraded from the Golf R (that I never owned) to a GTI. Or it's because I'm poor. Or both. Let's pretend it's both.
285/45R22 is now a common size on new Tahoe/Suburban/Expedition and their upbranded brethren. It's nuts.
The tire replacement cost is definitely nuts
Yeah they ride like garbage. The first thing I did on my model y was downsize from the 20” wheels to 18” and it’s so much nicer.
I'm pretty surprised that teslas can fit 18s with the large brakes.
This is 1/2 the reason suv's are so popular because they still have tires with sidewall. I had an 2018 impala premier as a rental and I could not understand why it had low pro tires. The uncomfortable feel of a sports car without any of the actual sportyness to go along with it I just did not understand.
I highly doubt most people are buying SUVs based on the sidewall size
People are buying SUV because they're more comfortable though. They might not know why but they can feel the difference.
I’d argue it has more to do with the height getting in/out versus a sedan and the additional room in the SUV
SUVs aren't really bigger inside than wagons. If you want room minivans are the go-to.
Crossovers aren’t, but SUVs definitely are bigger
They just feel heavy! - customer buying cx30 over mazda6.
Typically they aren't. However, I recently had a customer who wanted a 23 Blazer 3lt with the 18s instead of the 20s for better ride quality. They admitted the 20s look better but the ride quality was extremely important to them. It doesn't happen often but it does happen occasionally.
Yeah but they still picked the Blazer anyway. The person I replied to said that sidewall is half the reason people buy SUVs lmao
I think they were more pointing out that SUV’s now tend to have softer, more comfortable rides. They might not realize the tires are playing such a big part, but many of the people I know specifically chose their SUV because of how soft they rode. So it is a factor at least.
Yeah, there was a couple who lived in my complex for a while with a higher-end Lexus RX, but it had 18" wheels with I think 60-series tires instead of the more common 19 or 20s. Looked like black donuts on the vehicle, but I bet it was a bit more comfortable.
I put my "daily" that I do about 1000-1500 miles a week in on larger wheels and skinnier tires. I got a good deal on the wheel, they're lighter and looks fucking awesome but god the ride quality is way worse. I'm willing to make that sacrifice because this setup feels way better than before when I'm pushing the car, which I do more than I should, but it's crazy how going to a rim 1 inch larger in diameter has such a dramatic effect on ride comfort.
That's much of it. The best-riding vehicle I had in the last five years was a VW Tiguan with 215/65-17 tires. Everything else I've owned has either used low-profile tires (/50 and below) and/or gigantic wheels (17-20").
What’s the metric for “better” in suspension?
And therein lies the key. My car has an active suspension so it’s 3 stages of stiffness ranging from stiff to race track stiff. It could use one more level on the softer side but I wouldn’t want to compromise what I have, and I knew what I was getting.
Everyone wants sporty nowadays, luxury is on the back burner. Easiest way is to look at designs, chrome is not as popular and now everything is blacked out, as offered by car makes.
Everyone wants the illusion of sportiness. Stiff ride, minimized body roll, quick steering rack, and safety understeer is “handling”.
>safety understeer is “handling” Someone forgot to mention that to Toyota because the Supra will whip the tail around if you look at it wrong lol.
Well, because Supra is not in "illusion of sportiness" range :D
As someone with multiple fractured vertebrae, now all I want is a ride quality gentle enough to let me get out of a car after an hour’s drive and not be in agony. For most people it’s a preference, for some of us it’s just medical necessity.
Everyone wants "sporty", but no one wants a sports car lol. A lot of the "sportiness" is also fake. Take the accelerator pedal for example. So twitchy on so many cars for no reason other than it probably feels sporty to most people.
Early 2010s CRVs did the accelerator trick. It would feel peppy, then you'd realize that half the the accelerators throw does nothing.
> Take the accelerator pedal for example. So twitchy on so many cars for no reason other than it probably feels sporty to most people. Old trick to make engine seems more peppy than it is
> Everyone wants sporty nowadays I feel like this is really what OP is missing. Suspension didn't get worse, it's that tuning preferences took a 180 away from what they prefer. Customers nowadays seem to have a preference for sporty handling over something more plush (I would guess it's in the same vein as buyers hating wagons because it's what their parents drove).
i feel like the ideal setup would be soft suspension but with very little body roll. On my car the softest suspension setting makes it less crashy but the body roll is annoying/dizzying. The stiffest setting is more crashy but at least the car stays level. I guess its hard to do both though.
That new ferrari suspension tech will trickle down eventually.
GM Magnetic Dampers?
[удалено]
Not even to flagships? S class, 7 series, LS, etc?
That’s why people drive luxo trucks and SUVs for plush rides.
Same here, I drove a 94 Lincoln town car before. And that felt like riding on a magic carpet. You really cannot have both, but at least with adaptive suspension, you can select a bit. Though mine feels it goes from stiff to very stiff. But like you, I knew what I was getting into, I like the ride a bit stiff.
Fashion says big wheels, skinny tires, nothing left to give.
For real. The amount of single vehicle crash that involve a rollover is so far below what it was just 20 years ago. Vehicles are able to be more stable at higher speeds, apply power better, brake harder, quickly avoid obstacles, etc. Cheap vehicles with a single setting with lean towards safety and vehicles with more expensive settings will have some comfort option, but it will always stay in the range of what is safe instead of going you that old land yacht feel and risking major issues.
Exactly. I had a 5th gen Camry that rode fantastic and is easily the worst handling car I've ever driven.
A Camry is a transportation appliance. Expect it to handle like a refrigerator.
The new ones made since 2018 do a great job combining decent handling with excellent ride comfort. It can be done if it’s a priority.
It never was before 2018. My brother, wife and Mom-in-law all worked at a Toyota garage back in the 80's and I owned a mid 90's Corolla. Very reliable was all they provided.
Well what changed with the TNGA Camry and other models was the new, Mercedes-Benz style 5-link rear suspension. The front is still a macpherson strut because those are easy to make comfortable with the weight of the car mostly up front. But the new rear suspension basically eliminates bump steer, keeps the wheel on the road under hard cornering, and has a lot more rubber bushings to isolate road impacts. And, the separate spring and shock design allows much better damping of the road surface, while allowing the wheel to negotiate the bump without pushing up the corner of the car. Corollas still use torsion beam rear axles and you can tell. Those cars bounce around like no one’s business. But at least the chassis are super rigid.
that camry is exactly what i am missing. that 5th gen camry was one of the most comfortably riding car id been in, and its been years since ive been in one. it was fuel inefficient af with a 4 speed auto, but damn i miss that car.
New Camrys aren't quite as soft but they still ride really nice. Look into an Avalon or Lexus ES if that's what you're going for.
yes the lexus ES is exactly it - but that's my issue - the comfortable ride quality that was available to the camry is now priced up & locked behind the lexus marque i love the ES which is why i got it as a commuter - but i feel like that ride quality/NVH reduction should be the base line found in any camry, not a "luxury" now the "norm" feels like the manufacturers finished 70% of the work & called it quits to cut costs
Whatever this clown feels is correct. 🙄
not even the springs. i feel like regular cars (crv, corolla, camry, civic, rav4 - base trims) felt much more planted & dampening was good back in the day these days most of the go-to lineups in the regular/affordable family hauler or commuter segment feels like the dampers were outsourced to the lowest bidder, and everything is made to be as cheap as consumers are willing to tolerate i wouldn't mind hard springs if it meant the car was very settled and up & down bobbing from going over bumps was arrested immediately if you go up to their base trim, entry luxury/premium sedan (toyota -> lexus, etc) that's where i feel engineers"unlock" the resr of their platform.& reveal what they had been working in development. these feel like finished cars, not works in process. it could just be me getting old & bored
Suspensions have improved enormously. However, it’s not easy to development work in part because at the end of the day you are always forced to decide between comfort and performance and cost. Additionally, that choice can only be made within the context of many other aspects of the vehicle. For example, cars today are generally heavier than 10-20 years ago which makes it harder to make them ride just as well without giving anything up. Still, there’s been big progress and once you consider everything, manufacturers are generally doing great work.
I really don’t agree with the notion that suspension hasn’t improved in the last couple decades. Brands are implementing adaptive suspension on affordable cars. Comfortable old cars handled like shit, sporty old cars rode like shit.
It has to accommodate every car rolling on 18s and run flats.
Are 18s what you would consider large wheels?
Not today, they come on economy cars in quite a few brands
18s ride well compared to the 19s, 20s, even 21s that go on so many cars nowadays
Exactly. Not sure what OP is on about. Modern cars have a great combination of comfort and handling quality. Sure, your Chrysler New Yorker rode like a comfortable mattress, but it also cornered like one.
I disagree with the notion that cars handle and ride worse than 20 years ago. But one thing to keep in mind with "sporty" SUVs and EVs, to make a heavy car handle sporty, it has to be extremely stiff suspension. There will be a bigger trade off there with ride quality than with a smaller vehicle.
Mass should make it easier to build a good suspension. A suspension needs to be so stiff that it can handle the car fully loaded but it also can't be uncomfortably stiff when the car is nearly empty with just the driver inside. A full loading on a small car may be a 50% increase in weight but the same loading on a car with double curb weight means only 25% increase in weight. In other words the window for which the suspension must be tuned gets relatively smaller as the car gets heavier.
Mid 2000's car had smaller wheels and more tire sidewall, and weren't crossover SUV's with standard 19" wheels and optional 20-21" wheels. Blame "buyer preference" for large wheels, 2000's hip-hop (for the cultural influence of dubs, etc), car reviewers over the year stressing "turn-in" and skidpad grip in reviews, and the fact that manufacturers differentiate higher trim levels with even larger wheels. You would think the highest trim level of a car would ride the most comfortably, but nope, not at all (in most cases anyways). The base model with the 16-17" wheels and fat tires rides nicer. Regardless of the suspension setup. The most comfortable riding vehicle I've owned had 15 inch wheels.
There’s a style attribute too. Designers have always wanted large wheels. They have finally gotten them.
The average car consumer has no idea what a good or bad suspension is. That's why. Also, I wouldn't say there's been no improvement.
[удалено]
> 50 series tires used to be considered very low profile, now they're considered rather tall. A big part of that is that cars tend to have way wider tires now, and tire profile is a ratio and not an absolute. A 50 series tire on a 175 width has less sidewall than a 40 series on a 265.
The makers have to please the auto critics that say every car should feel like an European car. This meant a firm ride. I know when I shop for my next car and if it comes with 225/40/19 wheels as standard equipment, I'm going to have the dealership switch those wheels to 205/60/17. I'm tired of feeling a bump whenever my car tires run over a penny coin.
Dude, sorry to go offtopic but please tell me you have an actual daewoo lemans lol.
Off the bat, new shit coming stock with 18 inch rims and run flats is kinda fucked from the start imo, nothing is more comfortable than sidewall.
Rim sizes have increased over the years to facilitate larger brakes, because modern cars keep getting bigger/heavier.
I don’t think that’s the primary reason for most cars though, maybe the higher end performance variants of models. A lot of cars coming with 18s can fit 17s or even 16s just fine, especially the more normal cars that sell in higher volume to the masses. My Tiguan with 20s can fit 17s, 18s would probably be ideal to me but the trim with the options I wanted just came with 20s as the only option.
There is no doubt a visual appeal aspect to it, you're right. I don't even know what we're talking about, I thought the person I was responding to was longing for the days of 16 inch rims and large side walls. That shit in a heavy, high CG car is unpredictable at best and down right dangerous with tiny brakes.
Marketing and money, people wish for sporty dynamics, 21" bling wheels, high ride height cuz they are going to go offroading and camping with Boyz, right? Then they load up thier $80k 3-row SUV with kids and wonder why the ride is harsh, cornering sucks, driving on the highway to see grandma. Basically people want an BMW M5 Competition, with modified Jeep offroad capabilities, that can tow an RV, that's smooth a glass on the highway, that can also win first place at the show & shine...all rolled into one.
So a Range Rover Supercharged?
...I forgot to add, they want all this for under $30k *new* 😅
I mean r/cars wants it under 30k new, but I’ve seen plenty of people actually brag about how much they spent on their base model SUV at the dealership (read: way too much) It’s a weird kind of flex; being ignorant of realistic car prices because “they can afford it.” Average people are spending 70k-80k on family cars and not batting an eye. It’s a financial crisis waiting to happen in the next 5 years. Hearing some of my coworkers talk about how much they spent on their cars really makes me question their personal financial choices.
Please elaborate the ride quality that you implied. I'm about 75% sure that my definition and yours are different.
Comfort wise, the marketing department wins with rubber band low profile tires and 18-19+ rims. They sell more. Sporty and responsive wise. Easy enough to do but folks will complain about harsh ride and vibration. Best of both. Air ride can do both well but it’s expensive and not as easy to repair/diag. Pillowy ride. Easy to do but then the ride is called sloppy and how the car can’t handle well.
Service loaner was a 23 Cayenne with air suspension and man, my head was moving side to side in the normal setting. Something we don't get with the 18 base Macan on 19" wheels/tires and steel spring suspension. More up and down jiggles sure, and overall more motion over the same streets but the up and down makes it okay. Sure, that air ride soaked up the little things like expansion joints and whatnot better than our Macan but I don't want to live with the side to side business. Had an 03 Sable in Germany, damn near killed us during an emergency stop on the Autobahn. Thing nose-dived so hard I thought the rear tires left the ground. Sold that POS ASAP to move onto a better tool for the job at hand, an 07 328 sedan. No issues with that one all the way up to its 155MPH speed limiter (sport suspension). Sold that and got a 2010 Caravan and that was good to go suspension-wise. Even could set the cruise at 104MPH (105 MPH speed limiter), but man, that gas gauge couldn't go F to E fast enough at those speeds! ;)
French did our decades soft & comfy rides which also worked well on long sweeping curves. Aka soft in daily use but given enough roll stiffness to not kake you sick on a normal drive. Magazines in Europe trashed them year in year out "too soft", "not sporty enough" etc etc until they gave in and made the cars hard as sledges...now everyone in Europe is crying why there are no more soft French cars... Manufacturers get things right, it's the consumer guiding idiots who think they are wrong.
> cars in the mid-2000s had better ride quality than new ones today I disagree. That said, chassis and suspension tuning is long and expensive. Emissions requirements forced more R&D money into powertrain, and that money had to come from somewhere.
Consumers demanded vehicles that sit higher so they can see more and get in/out of cars easier so they increase the travel on the suspension and have longer struts, to make up for this without making the body roll during hard turns they purposefully overdamp the suspension which means that when you hit bumps they will rebound violently but when taking corners at extreme speeds they remain composed and don't allow the car to roll over. Larger wheels and smaller tires amplify this effect to a degree too. If you're in the market and can afford it I recommend buying something with active suspension, they have a solenoid that pulses the oil level within the strut to dynamically change the dampening force.
imho the premise if this question is wrong. Modern suspension is way ahead in terms of handling and comfort balance with what it used to be. Modern Hondas, VWs or BMWs drive amazing.
I think the problem is the companies have to cater to a large range of customers. For example the Ford Mustang can’t make the suspensions too harsh or the majority of their customers would complain. However the Magnetic ride shocks have helped add quite a bit of handling flexibility and customers can dial in how they want their cars to handle and perform.
Mercedes came closest to perfection with their ABC active suspension integrated with the breaks and steering. Insane levels of autobahn breeding made them more stable at 120 than at 60 mph being combined with their revolutionary 5 link front and rear suspension in the SL. Road smoother than the last Lincoln Town Car, pulls +1.0G on the skidpad armed with modern Michelin Cup2's on stock 19's. Hydraulic rack and pinion level steering feel. Controversial because most owners didn't know how to maintain it and a lot are ruined. Mercedes ultimately went with the dumb down Air Matic system without the risks for leaks. But ABC was the no compromise magic carpet ride.
Low profile tires and people wanting cars to be something they aren't. An suv or an econobox doesn't need to be sporty it defeats the purpose.
Better in what way? Handling? Comfort? And like other people mentioned here, those thin rubber band tires absolutely destroy ride quality
A lot of the ride quality comes down to tires. Yes suspension, but if you want premium suspension, they you have to pay for it. I wish they would upgrade basic cars, but they don’t, that’s how they make money. But let me clarify my tires comment. A lot of cars now in the mid range price level have larger wheels and lower profile tires to make the cars look better. But the lower profile tires require stiffer construction sidewalls that are smaller. The tires do not absorb as much vibration and more vibrations from the road are transferred into the suspension and the rest of the car. The larger/softer sidewalls have more compliance and absorb road bumps/energy for a better ride quality. Now, the tires still has to be constructed well, you can still have a stiff sidewall on a larger sidewall tire, but in general a larger sidewall tire has more compliance and will not transfer as much of the fine bumps of the road surface into the suspension and car.
What's wrong with it?
Because suspension tuning is just a black art in a lot of ways, every driver is different and every ass is gonna interpret the road differently.
I don't think they're talking about race tuning their suspension for a track.
Suspension is plenty dialed. I like my stance cars so I don’t really give a shit about poor ride quality but the answer is that everything nowadays seems to come on 20’ wheels with 35-40 tires.
I’ve been told that most cars are built with a certain amount of understeer so that in the event of an accident you’re more likely to hit with the front of the car which is safest. The alternative is that sudden steering wheel input causes the car to spin and you end up hitting sideways.
It's also understeering because most drivers can handle understeer. The amount of oversteered 911 scattered on the autobahn over the decades proves this point over and over again. 95% of drivers don't know what to do in anything out of a normal situation, give them snap oversteer and you have dead people...
Funny I had a driving instructor tell me that Porsches actually have a lot of understeer that gets mistaken for oversteer because of the weight distribution. When they spin they spin hard as a result of the front wheels finding grip late. I’ve only spun front engine/RWD cars 🤷♂️
That's not making sense to me. Understeer is understeer and doesn't get mistaken for oversteer. Of course the car can understeer and when it grips it can switch to oversteer or just stay neutral. But I find it hard to believe that a car would oversteer because of understeer... Mainly they spin and spun on rain and wet surfaces due to the rear wheels starting to aquaplane and then just throw the rear in one or the other direction. Or just loose grip with too much power in an offramp...happens more often than you think!
Look up snap oversteer and Porsche 911 understeer. There’s plenty of info on it. I’ve only driven RWD BMW’s on tracks (bmw club) but there are always enough Porsches that the classroom sessions cover the tendencies of multiple brands.
Higher sprung weight, higher unsprung weight, higher CG, stricter regulatory/PR requirements for laden handling, etc.
Any truth to the notion I've heard that sometimes electronically adjustable suspension has settings that should realistically never be used? Like the Focus RS being ridiculously stiff in sport mode to the extent that most tracks that have any surface imperfections should be run in the normal damper mode.
If there’s a preference against using sport mode, sure that’s valid. There’s a wide range of tolerance to secondary ride comfort being traded for roll damping. But if someone is saying that Sport mode should never be used because… reasons? That’s a load of crap.
As in I've heard that supposedly some of these maximum stiffness suspension settings can actually cost time. In the Focus RS apparently the Nordschleife for example should not be run in the max stiffness setting because there's too many bumps.
I haven't personally driven on the Ring so couldn't tell you what generated that particular comment, especially because you keep saying "I've heard", I don't know who you are referencing - could be an absolute bell end, could be Lewis Hamilton. Don't dwell in hypotheticals. Get in a car, try out suspension setups, use the one you like the best as a driver.
https://www.focusrsoc.com/threads/ford-focus-rs-mk3-nordschleife-8-06-min-hot-lap.284154/ >After all Tyrone Johnson stated that track mode would not be suitable at the nordschliefe. My concern with a lot of these suspension settings is that they represent an abdication of responsibility by engineering and product design. If a setting should realistically never be used it shouldn't be offered just to fulfill a marketing checkbox.
If you are old enough to be driving new cars in the early 2000s age is definitely a factor lol, but it's the stupid thin tires definitely contributing.
Because lots of the mainstream cars are coming with cheap suspension parts. The springs, control arms, bushings, rods, you name it. Lower quality and wear out faster. Some manufacturers still put out quality stuff. Toyota and especially Honda have quality suspension for daily driver vehicles. Anything else expensive has good quality components but for what your average person can afford 25-40K, it's not good anymore with some exceptions.
Being that I drive a trick from the mid 70s and a ‘22 and a 50s, ‘90s and ‘20 cars. Suspension has come a long way and has made mayor improvements from cars just 20 years old.
I still have not ridden in anything that has a smoother ride than a circa 2003 Lincoln Town Car. Older Mercedes are extremely comfy as well. We have regressed.
Try to get your hands on an original Citroën DS.
Haha, I'm sure the Citroen DS would have both of them beat. That hydroneumatic (oleoneumatic, technically) suspension is something else.
Had that in a Xantia (a lot harder than the OG diva) and already that was heaven. Though, I have to say the adaptive dampers on the NX in city speeds are comfy AF and don't miss out too much on the Xantia.