Traction in modern day vehicles

What suspension advances would you attribute this perceived traction to? I would bet its tires & nannies.

FWIW, I've driven plenty of new cars but they don't seem like they have any more traction that my 20yr old E36 M3box does. They do have better ABS though.

iceracer wrote: Drove a Beetle all winter on a 35 mile commute. No thanks.

All I'm saying is that rear engine RWD has 60% weight over the driven wheels, just like you note as the primary advantage for front engine FWD, plus better utilized weight transfer during both acceleration and braking.

A lot of the traction in modern vehicles is due to higher quality shocks and better tire technology. If you put modern performance tires and high-quality aftermarket shocks on your classic, it will handle better and have much better traction.

ProDarwin wrote: What suspension advances would you attribute this perceived traction to? I would bet its tires & nannies. FWIW, I've driven plenty of new cars but they don't seem like they have any more traction that my 20yr old E36 M3box does. They do have better ABS though.

Yeah, I wonder how much traction they have when you pull all the ABS fuses.

I wish someone would put some of the "Golden Age of Muscle" cars up and do a head to head.

Old tires and shocks vs new tires and shocks. No other mods.

The reason for only two variables? The redneck dream car, gen 1 Camaro, with a 396 only turned the 1/4 miles at 14.8 and 99 mph.

Let me pull up next to you in my Chrysler 200. I hope you brought your Dale Earnhardt handkerchief to keep the tears out of your Pabst Blue Ribbon, because the all but forgotten also ran of the Chrysler lineup will walk away in the lap of luxury posting a 14.5 1/4 miles time at 97 mph.

The 'Maro is gaining on the big end, but it isn't enough. I know some mags have done it, but all I have seen have tweaked here and there trying to get the best times to show the best gains. (or are so biased with some brands and makes that I honestly believe they just knock of seconds.)

Throw on a set of Costco bought Michelins and a set of Rock Auto Bilsteins and lets see what those old cars are made out of.

Edit: I bet we could get this done with a stock gen 1 Miata or an old roadster of some sort. Article hint!!!

In reply to Flight Service:

Given the same exact tires, I'd guess that, given a pro driver, said top trim Camaro would beat a 200. It would also be hazing the tires the whole way down and be on the verge of swapping ends the whole time, while the 200 just kinda went.

Flight Service wrote: I wish someone would put some of the "Golden Age of Muscle" cars up and do a head to head. Old tires and shocks vs new tires and shocks. No other mods. The reason for only two variables? The redneck dream car, gen 1 Camaro, with a 396 only turned the 1/4 miles at 14.8 and 99 mph. Let me pull up next to you in my Chrysler 200. I hope you brought your Dale Earnhardt handkerchief to keep the tears out of your Pabst Blue Ribbon, because the all but forgotten also ran of the Chrysler lineup will walk away in the lap of luxury posting a 14.5 1/4 miles time at 97 mph. The 'Maro is gaining on the big end, but it isn't enough. I know some mags have done it, but all I have seen have tweaked here and there trying to get the best times to show the best gains. (or are so biased with some brands and makes that I honestly believe they just knock of seconds.) Throw on a set of Costco bought Michelins and a set of Rock Auto Bilsteins and lets see what those old cars are made out of. Edit: I bet we could get this done with a stock gen 1 Miata or an old roadster of some sort. Article hint!!!

so you're saying that drivetrain, tire, and suspension technology has improved in the last 45 years?

whoda thunk it..

Definitely some suspension advancements between Gen1 camaros and now... but I don't think that's where most of the speed is coming from. Also I don't think FWD mcstrut cars have gotten more advanced in any way over the past 25 years that would mke new ones

I bet the Pentastar puts more power down at the wheels than a stock SS396/350

Here's a SS396/325 making.... 200whp. http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/engines-drivetrain/sucp-0904-chevelle-ss396-dyno-test/

novaderrik wrote:

Flight Service wrote: I wish someone would put some of the "Golden Age of Muscle" cars up and do a head to head. Old tires and shocks vs new tires and shocks. No other mods. The reason for only two variables? The redneck dream car, gen 1 Camaro, with a 396 only turned the 1/4 miles at 14.8 and 99 mph. Let me pull up next to you in my Chrysler 200. I hope you brought your Dale Earnhardt handkerchief to keep the tears out of your Pabst Blue Ribbon, because the all but forgotten also ran of the Chrysler lineup will walk away in the lap of luxury posting a 14.5 1/4 miles time at 97 mph. The 'Maro is gaining on the big end, but it isn't enough. I know some mags have done it, but all I have seen have tweaked here and there trying to get the best times to show the best gains. (or are so biased with some brands and makes that I honestly believe they just knock of seconds.) Throw on a set of Costco bought Michelins and a set of Rock Auto Bilsteins and lets see what those old cars are made out of. Edit: I bet we could get this done with a stock gen 1 Miata or an old roadster of some sort. Article hint!!!

so you're saying that drivetrain, tire, and suspension technology has improved in the last 45 years? whoda thunk it..

Thats not what I am getting at. It eliminates variables. We know what it weighs, we can dyno the power, let's eliminate the tires and shocks, and what is left is chassis.

In reply to Driven5: The traction part is true.

But the Beetle had a terrible condition of under steer, due to the 40% on the front wheels. Got really white knuckle a few times.

iceracer wrote: But the Beetle had a terrible condition of under steer, due to the 40% on the front wheels.

If 40% on the non-driven front is the cause of understeer problems, have you also experienced 40% on the non-driven rear causing problems with oversteer for FWD cars?

Driven5 wrote: If 40% on the non-driven front is the cause of understeer problems, have you also experienced 40% on the non-driven rear causing problems with oversteer for FWD cars?

Yes,very easy to upset the rear end if braking at the limit with a turn or especially a downhill turn while braking.New cars with stability control aren't as noticeable with the nanny kicking in early to help out but before that lots of fwd's that left the road did so backwards or at least on the way to being backwards if a turn was involved(winter driving).

I experienced a very noticeable difference between 2 different fwd chassis of the same era in simple putting power down on ice a few yrs ago.Buddies ice race prepped a corolla gts and it sucked large,drove well enough but just couldn't put power down and propel itself.Car languished in the back half of the field. Found an EF civic hatch(same vintage as the corolla)and quickly prepped it prior to the last weekend of the yr,took the tires directly off the corolla and the car was instantly on pace with a win and a 2nd place first time on track. 3rd race buddy was in 2nd when the E36 M3 hit the fan and the car was a right off after a big crash.Corolla was sold and replacement civics found for the following season.

Point is that the suspension design must play a big role in putting power to a slick surface even in a straight line.

ProDarwin wrote: What suspension advances would you attribute this perceived traction to? I would bet its tires & nannies.

It used to be that they didn't care about acceleration geometry, and got antidive under braking by angling the control arm so the rear pivot was higher than the front. But the new thinking is different.

See the angle the lower control arm's pivot axis is at, with the rear pivot significantly LOWER than the front? Notice how the strut is not inline with the ateering axis?

I've been seeing this more and more on newer cars. The control arm angle gives a bit more traction when accelerating (similar to antisquat in a rearend) while the angle of the strut will counter that with antidive when braking. Hyundai seems to be the best for this.

Now you know how the "anti lift kits" for Subarus work. Anti lift is a misnomer, they aren't anti-lift so much as PRO-lift but lift is what you want to happen at the front end of the car.

This is assuming strut geometry. What are people doing with Tinkertoy suspensions?

Can't find a better angle so you could see the two lower links, but notice the upper link is nowhere NEAR on the same plane as the ground. They're building a lot of antidive (increasing caster with compression travel) into the upper control arm so that they can build pro-squat (wheel centerline moves forward with droop) into the lower links geometry.

In reply to kevlarcorolla:

So is FWD naturally more prone to unintentional understeer or unintentional oversteer in the snow? While it may have happened a small handfull of times, off hand I don't recall ever having a FWD car oversteer on me in the snow without it happening intentionally.

Given stock setup and same tires front and rear fwd is prominently understeery,that obviously changes based on throttle application.Slick surface and throttle off/touch of brake pedal(not handbrake)while turning the wheel is a pretty surfire way to induce varying levels of oversteer...touch the throttle at that point and the transition to understeer begins.

In fact in fwd ice racers I try and teach the new drivers(we hold rookie schools every Saturday at lunch break)to go around the corners with very little steering wheel changes and do nearly all trajectory changes with the throttle.Very simple once you get the hang of it,if your moving away from the bank less throttle and if your line is moving you closer to the bank your not going fast enough so throttle up!

Thanks for the suspension info,I'll need to look at making up a way to space down the tercel lower control arm rear mount.Might involve making a new arm though so not happening for this year with the season starting in a couple weeks.

I already added castor with use of ebay camber plates turned sideways,can't see a way to move bottom of the strut without redesigning a new spindle and I'd love to hear/see ideas on that topic...new thread?

In reply to kevlarcorolla:

In other words, FWD cars don't typically have problems with oversteer in the snow...Which seems to directly contradict the assertion that weight distribution would be the actual reason an air-cooled Beetle might have understeer problems in the snow. It appears to me that it's more likely some combination of other vehicle design factors, like the suspension design, and/or the driving techniques used.

kevlarcorolla wrote: I already added castor with use of ebay camber plates turned sideways,can't see a way to move bottom of the strut without redesigning a new spindle and I'd love to hear/see ideas on that topic...new thread?

Doing that will be just about impossible without a new knuckle.

There's a give and take. Changing the angle of the control arm to get acceleration bite will cause pro-dive when braking, which may not be what you want, that is when you need to attack the caster changes with knuckle geometry. Acceleration and braking forces work front-to-back but braking also puts a torque on the knuckle, this is how the forces can be tuned. I sometimes think about doing some overhung strut attachment thing where the strut ears are on the side of the strut body but that looks like all sorts of bad idea when it comes to making it strong enough to not break.

Oddly enough, this is one of the few things Fox-bodies and 3rd-gen F-bodies did right with their front suspensions.

Also oddly enough, looking at the SCCA RallyCross rules, I may bump my Volvo up from Stock to Prepared, since playing with this sort of thing is technically legal by the rules. And technically legal is the best kind of legal!

I still think its weight largly weight dependant,of course other factors are at play no doubt.

For example an AE86 I ice raced was nearly undrivable with a welded diff(same with the kazz lsd I tried)it wouldn't turn with the front wheels worth a damn no matter what technique was used or chassis changes/ballast added/removed.Only way to drive it was HARD and very sideways with lots of throttle ALL the time and never let the rears stop spinning mid corner or you were hooped...sounds fun but it wasn't with 20 other cars on track.

Switched it out at 5am in -34 weather for an open diff and all was right in the world again,drove like a dream in comparison....still no match for the damn MR2's though.

i'm with #1 OP , rented a 2014 Hyundai Sonata, for a month ,drive to Seattle WA, and back.

must be me,absolutly one of the best cars i have ever driven, fast Interstate runs at 75-80+ hours on end, few times over 120 mph. handling and brakes were fantastic.

Super quiet inside, open window at 80 and noise was defening. and after 4900 miles fuel average was 33.2 MPG.

for a daily driver, $25,grand cant be beat. a after 7-8hrs in the seat(each day), could actually still walk,good seats.

and drove a HYD. Elantra, nice car but not up to Sonata quality.

Hmm,what about milling an aluminum spacer to fill in the space normally filled with the spindle with a thru bolt to pinch it all together.

Think the bolts in single shear would handle the loads on ice?

kevlarcorolla wrote: Hmm,what about milling an aluminum spacer to fill in the space normally filled with the spindle with a thru bolt to pinch it all together. Think the bolts in single shear would handle the loads on ice?

You're thinking the way I was thinking, although I was also thinking of some 1/8" plate bent and wrapped around to make it double shear on the knuckle. With a plate on top to connect it to the original ears.

Doing this WILL tweak bumpsteer a bunch because it will push the outer tie rod pivot down.

Good idea with the bent plate for double shear,I'd have to check but with the lowered ride height bumpsteer might be minimal.

Toe change on ice isn't nearly as noticable as with grip.