Seefo

iTrader: (5)

wow, that sounds like a fucked solution.

I was reading about ALMS BMW cars, apparently the GT3 BMWs petitioned the ALMS counsel to allow them to run double wishbone on the fronts instead of macpherson. An exception to the rule about it being the road car and all that jumbo.

falcon

iTrader: (13)

Yeah he was considering doing the conversion, but it involves a half tube front end and a lot of money. The car is still lightning fast so I don't think he cares. It's a trailer'd track queen and dosen't see the road so the tires get no camber wear. I'll see if I can find a pic

falcon

iTrader: (13)

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Would drive:

Seefo

iTrader: (5)

SuperGT!

Very cool falcon, thanks for the input on this. I figured the solution would be some kind of control arm/strut angle modification, but I guess running more camber than needed is an easy way to do it.

falcon

iTrader: (13)

Oh lawd... excellent post, would drool over again.

falcon

iTrader: (13)

Yes, and one of the good things about top had camber adjustment, is the ability to change it quickly for street and track use. I use a very good alignment guy here in Vancouver who mainly works on Subarus. He has set up cars for friends for street and track use, and makes a mark on the top hat so you can add your camber for the track, then go back to less agressive for street use so you don't chew up your tires.

Sorry my writing sounds like engrish... travelling in Europe for the last 3 months and living in Germany right now has killed my english grammar and writing skillz... lol

Baxt3r

On most macstrut cars you have a toe change with your camber adjustment, which is very much the case on subarus. I used to gain close to 3/4" of toe out going from min camber to max camber on my camber plates when I owned my wrx.

I was really bummed when I first learned this car would be powered by a boxer engine. From cylinder head to cylinder head on the ej20 and ej25 its roughly 32" wide. Of course they didnt design the front suspension to be unequal a-arm; the frame rails have to be so far apart for engine clearance that theres no room in the track width to have room for an upper a-arm. I wish Toyota just chose to put a 4 banger in this chassis with the exhaust ports on the passenger side away from the steering shaft and brake booster. With an I4 they could manufacture an Sti version without 3 foot long runners on the exhaust manifold, and you could easily change the spark plugs. I think Toyota could have had a much less compromised final product if they didnt cheap out and have Subaru design the drive train. I guess if I were to buy a 4 cylinder coupe Id pick up a nice used hyundai genesis coupe 2.0T over the brz and save a few grand.

JasonC SBB

Does the BRZ have McStrut fronts?

18psi

iTrader: (76)

unfortunately yes

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

I have to ask, are MacPhersons really that bad? If you want an inexpensive sports car, you have to make some concessions.

Oscar

iTrader: (2)

Enjoy your positive camber on bump travel. And the fact that need eleventy million degrees of static camber for decent cornering.

You might notice I don't care much for Mcfailson suspension.

falcon

iTrader: (13)

Lol... you and I seem to think much alike. That's why that BMW has like 4-4.5* of static camber.

Seefo

iTrader: (5)

I think MacPherson is a bit crippled in most applications, but lets not forget with proper tuning you can probably get a decent setup (ie, porsche, bmw). While it is not ideal, if the car is built from the ground up with macpherson in mind, and a specific ride height directly for performance, then it seems like its plausible to avoid the positive camber bump curve.

With that said, I don't expect that level of research and dedication to be applied in a <25k car, or even a <35k car.


BTW, the genesis coupe is also macpherson.

owenwilliams

This car has got a LOT of attention in the UK car press over the last few months. It's apparently been designed to not have too much grip (hence the 215 tyres - which some journalists in the UK are saying are still unnecessarily wide), not too much power, and generally fantastic dynamics.
I think the reason it's perhaps been getting more attention in the UK than the US is probably because the UK car magazines are usually a lot more fussed about the subjective aspects of cars - the steering feel, etc - as opposed to the lateral-G and lap times that are focussed on in the USA.
I've yet to see a negative review of it from the UK press yet. For e.g. - http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evoc...ota_gt_86.html

I'd probably want more power. But the rest of it sounds fantastic to me

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Not really true. Jalopnik and Speedhunters have been drooling at the mouth at any mention of the BRZ or it's variants.

owenwilliams

Fair enough, did not know that. I stand by my comments re. the differences between UK and US car mags though. Last time I went over the pond I naturally bought every car mag I could, and couldn't believe how different the US style of review was to that of the UK. 'Twas properly interesting
..that's off topic though!

cardriverx

iTrader: (12)

I am just guessing here, but no one who calls themselves an automotive engineer would design the cars suspention to transition to positive camber in bump with the stock setup under normal conditions. I am not that well educated on McPherson struts (I have only done some work with our FSAE car - double wishbone F/R), but I do know that it would be ridiculous if the car would transition into positive camber with a stock setup. And I mean they designed this car to be a sports car and to see track time.

Now if you put on 275 wide slicks without changing the suspension settings, that goes out the window.

falcon

iTrader: (13)

IIRC McQueerson is also cheaper to make?

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

It is getting a ton of attention in the USA from enthusiast groups like magazines (print and electronic) and online forums. There is an entire forum dedicated to the cars that sprang up when they were just concepts and there is a ~100 page thread on SupraForums, as one example.

I think you are absolutely right in how it is perceived from the potential owners on their sides of the pond, though. The UK, for example, has a lot of reasons why they might favor smaller, lower powered cars with a handling emphasis.

In contrast, there are logical reasons "muscle cars" flourished in the USA and why the Challenger, Charger, Mustang and Camaro can be successful here despite being the size of a small frigate. These include things like fuel costs and space. While not universal (I'm looking at you, Boston), most US cities were designed with cars in mind and have wide roads and ample parking for larger autos. Also, we are generally well-fed.

I believe it is a combination of packaging and costs.