What qualities makes the 914 suspension, so archaic... Options

[olav]

I've been noticing a lot of people mentioning that the suspension system in a 914 is no match for modern suspension system. Some even mention that a Neon's suspension is better.

What are the problems with the 914's suspension that make it so uncompetitive with the newer cars?

Is it that the 914's suspension in some peoples cars is so old ie old bushings, shocks, torsion bars that are worn, etc that newer cars just have newer parts which makes them better or is the actual design of the suspension been superceded?

Just curious.

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/confused24.gif)

[jhadler]

Hmm, equally prepared Peon..er... Neon vs. 914, the Neon would win...

Hmm... I would have to say that is a total load of steaming (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/post-2-1117899824.gif)

As for the innequities of the 914 suspension? Well... It's not that it's archaic per se but the technology is certainly getting long in the tooth...

The 914 has semi trailing rear and front Macpherson strut suspensions. They have their advantages and dissadvantages. The nice thing about them is that they're compact, saving space for things like fuel tanks, trunks, engines etc. The problem is that they are not optimal for a performance car.

The MacPherson strut is a successfull, but flawed, design. For a performance car, you want a suspension that will keep the contact patch of the tire flat on the ground through as many possible situations as possible. The front Macphereson strut suspension is great, but under heavy corner loading, it beomes a liability. As the body of the car rolls, and all cars will exhibit roll to one degree or another, the upper suspension pickup point will move to the outside of the turn. This has the undesirable result of creating a possitive camber effect on the front outside tire, the one doing most of the work. Possitive camber (or less negative camber) can result in less tire actually on the ground, and hence, less grip. But the 914 handles so well!!! Right, there are "patches" to this. A stiff front sway bar will reduce the amount of body roll, and hence, reduce the decambering effect on the suspension. The downside of the stiff sway bar is that you are now coupling the inboard and outboard suspension, and things like surface imperfections (bumps) will tend to negatively effect -both- sides instead of just one. In addition, with a stiff sway bar, you wind up -lifting- the inside wheel as the outside suspension compresses. And hence reducing the overall amount of tire on the ground. The effect of the coupling...

Well, how can this be changed? The SLA (Short Long Arm) suspension design is an exceptional design. All modern race cars will have some form of this suspension design. What is? Lot's of names, but most car makers call it a double wish-bone. The neat thing about it is, if you watch the camber curve vs. suspension travel, is that the camber of the road wheel stays nearly the same throughout the whole range of travel. Unlike the strut which changes as it compresses. In addition, it is FAR less susceptible to decambering effects from body roll.

So, is the 914 front suspension all washed up? Heck no! But it is definitely an older design, and with it comes some neccesary compromises.

As for the Pee-on...er... Neon. It too has a strut suspension, so no joy there. The neon is a capable, and fun, autoxer. But it by no means is a superior design.

Now... The dreaded miata... There's a cheap car, fun to drive, with a -fantastic- suspension design. It's no small wonder that they do so well at autoxes.

Anyway... equally prepared and equally driven?

914 vs. Neon ... 914 by a mile
914 vs. Miata ... That's a close call... with the 1.6? The 914 by a nose. With the 1.8? The Miata with the 70 HP advantage...

-Josh2