Ford Fiesta ST Beats Toyota GT86 on the Track in EVO Test

[WolfpackS2k]

the "renderings" I've seen recently look way better than that (i'll look around for them shortly). However I'm still not fond of Mazda's current design language being applied to the Miata.

[ayau]

The OE tires don't produce enough grip to induce enough body roll to affect tire camber anyway, lol.

I think the double wishbone vs mac strut debate is overrated. Could the ft86 handle even better with double wishbone in theory? Possibly. Keep in mind you're also adding weight, cost, complexity, etc.

Let's look at it in the real world. With sticky tires and proper coilover setup, the ft86 can keep up with a similarly prepped S2000 in the corners. Suspension geometry is just one variable to make a car go fast.

[regal]

Originally Posted by ayau

I think the double wishbone vs mac strut debate is overrated. Could the ft86 handle even better with double wishbone in theory? Possibly. Keep in mind you're also adding weight, cost, complexity, etc.

.

Yes and it is an absolute PITA to rebuild a double wishbone suspension, on my roads they end up loose and rickety in short time. The '86 suspension will be much easier to maintain and upgrade.

[ansibe]

Originally Posted by Rampage

Under 300HP RWD does not > FWD. Look no further than Continental Sports Car challenge ST, Pirelli World Challenge Touring Car, British Touring Car Championship and FIA World Touring Car Championships where FWD regularly dominates RWD. Believe it or not FWD does have some advantages over RWD such as less parasitic loss through the drivetrain. Today's performance tires are not overtaxed by sub 300HP engines even when they have to do the steering too.

Properly set up a FWD car will exhibit oversteer just like a RWD car. On the street, understeer will save your ass while oversteer will bite you in it. The BRZ is made to understeer from the factory for this very reason. FR-Ss (and some BRZs) are being wrecked because average drivers do not react properly to an oversteering car.

I would still not buy a Focus or a Fiesta but the fact is they are pretty good performance cars and they can give the GT86/FR-S/BRZ fits on the street or the track.

For the record, I love the FT86. If I did not have the car I am currently driving I would buy one in a heartbeat.

What rampage said! EXACTLY what he said!

all 4 tires "steer" a car. Setup is crucial, and done at the factory for the safety of normal drivers.

I was stunned when the fiesta beat the ft86! On equal power i was sure the rwd car would walk all over it. Aren't our cars the best handling cars you can buy (for less than $80k)?

I wouldn't even consider trading my BRZ for a fiesta. But I am impressed.

[FT_Monk]

Rear wheel drive "feels" better, allows "slippery" driving style through the corner (with the right driving skill). Unfortunately the FT will need more power to have better lap times.

[Lasse]

Fiesta is a quite horrible car. It's get way too much credit. Its a nice, cheap hot hatch, but you really cant compare to it against gt86. 86 is much exiting car to drive in when you are not pushing it. When you push these cars, obviously fiesta is good too. Still, 86 is more exiting car cos of balance and rwd. It has huge potential too, which fiesta doesn't have. 86 looks like a proper sports car and you just enjoy to own that car. Fiesta lacks all of those aspects.

Fiesta is a good hot hatch, lil too overhyped tho.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by regal

Yes and it is an absolute PITA to rebuild a double wishbone suspension, on my roads they end up loose and rickety in short time. The '86 suspension will be much easier to maintain and upgrade.

McPherson strut takes most of the loads on the strut. Double wishbone pushes all the loads through the ball joints. One of several advantages to struts.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Chapman realized struts were lighter.



Not for good engineering reasons. They are cheaper for production. That's a financial reason, not an engineering reason.

Struts aren't lighter. Aluminum would be lighter.

McPherson struts have a number of engineering advantages. Unsprung weight can be lighter. Ball joint loads are much lower. Geometry is very rigid and very little adjustment can be made so alignment stays correct. The strut itself has to be more robust than a normal damper so is very durable.

Good enough for Porsche so...I think the engineering question is beyond doubt.

McPherson struts aren't fitted to Porsche for economy reasons.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

You know... when I first bought the FRS and had the hood open it was glaringly obvious why they chose Macs up front (excluding the financial reason).. the boxer engine takes up a wide area in the engine bay essentially making Macs up front a necessity.

Kind of makes me curious... If Toyota did this exact car but without a boxer engine, would they still have opted for Macs up front?

Originally Posted by fatoni

double wishbone is not going anywhere and i would be shocked if the miata ever changed the recipie that kept the thing a success for two decades. the mr2 came with mac struts because of packaging issues (and im sure cost didnt help).

911's and M3's run macpherson struts up front, and they don't need to for packaging reasons. The old inline 4's and 6's in M3's definitely didn't need the width, and 911's have nothing up front needs room.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

You know... when I first bought the FRS and had the hood open it was glaringly obvious why they chose Macs up front (excluding the financial reason).. the boxer engine takes up a wide area in the engine bay essentially making Macs up front a necessity.

Kind of makes me curious... If Toyota did this exact car but without a boxer engine, would they still have opted for Macs up front?

You can't be serious. You could fit a V8 in that engine bay. Wait a minute, somebody has.

Subaru's own flat six would fit easily.

There is no reason a double wishbone wouldn't fit.

Facts are facts. The McPherson strut as currently designed (quite different from McPherson's original design) is a superior suspension set up for road cars. The only real drawback is one of its great advantages: alignment stays fixed for the service life of the bushings and ball joints. Only toe needs correcting and hardly ever in normal service.

The real puzzle is why Subaru bothered to fit double wishbones at the back.

[Kostamojen]

Originally Posted by Suberman

The real puzzle is why Subaru bothered to fit double wishbones at the back.

Trunk space. Seriously.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Struts aren't lighter. Aluminum would be lighter.

McPherson struts have a number of engineering advantages. Unsprung weight can be lighter.

"Judge, I have no further questions"

Originally Posted by Suberman

Good enough for Porsche so...I think the engineering question is beyond doubt.

Wow, that's a nice strawman. How long did it take you fit all that stuffing inside?

A) Porsche put their engine in the wrong place but has "made it work" and made it work quite well. However, that's not a proper argument for putting the engine behind the rear axle. The sentence: "because Porsche does it" isn't a valid argument for it being the preferable or not. There's a lot of Porsche engineering I do not want, so the "because porsche does it" argument could be used universally by both of us to prove our opposing views.

B) here's my own strawman: Formula cars don't use Mac Struts and Colin Chapman didn't use them on his race cars. Well that must mean that they are no good and not suitable for racing! (which of course isn't true.)

Edit: B2) The Ferrari 458 has double wishbones up front so they must be superior!!

Originally Posted by Suberman

McPherson struts aren't fitted to Porsche for economy reasons.

Are you sure? Are you sssuuuuuurreeee? Porsche has bean counters too.

Porsche also hast to consider "change of design" as well. They have a pretty dedicated subscriber base that is sensitive to change, part of the reason why every 911 looks the same (unless you're a Porsche enthusiast).

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by Suberman

You can't be serious. You could fit a V8 in that engine bay. Wait a minute, somebody has.

Subaru's own flat six would fit easily.

There is no reason a double wishbone wouldn't fit.

Facts are facts. The McPherson strut as currently designed (quite different from McPherson's original design) is a superior suspension set up for road cars.

Reading comprehension owns.

There is all that room in the engine bay because of the Macs. I was saying that there may not have been as much room available in the engine bay if double wishbones were used up front. Sure you can maintain width in your engine bay with double wishbones up front (honda did it for years with FWD models) but with current crash test requirements the engineering and financial challenge to continue using double wishbones up front is a disincentive.

And "facts are facts" is a pretty poor argument to use when you're imposing conjecture into the discussion. Referring to current Macs as a "superior suspension setup" for road cars. Especially when we're discussing them as how they function "on track" not on the road.

In all your arguing you have not explained (yet) how a suspension design with no dynamic camber curve is superior to a suspension design with a dynamic camber curve on a race track. Please explain that to the class as how a lack of camber curve is the superior option for applying the rubber to the road. Especially since you're trying to say that Macs would be superior to DW's on the rear of a RWD car.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

In all your arguing you have not explained (yet) how a suspension design with no dynamic camber curve is superior to a suspension design with a dynamic camber curve on a race track. Please explain that to the class as how a lack of camber curve is the superior option for applying the rubber to the road. Especially since you're trying to say that Macs would be superior to DW's on the rear of a RWD car.

Who says macpherson struts can't have a camber curve similar to double wishbones? It's geometrically possible to have more camber gain from a strut than double wishbones. It's just easier to adjust the camber curve with wishbones.

How many people actually take that into consideration though? Running adjustable upper or lower control arms will change the camber curve, lengthening the upper (or shortening the lower) wishbone will give it less camber gain through it's range of motion, the curve is driven by the difference in length between the two arms. Sure it's a small adjustment, but it could make a difference.

To adjust the curve in a strut car you have to relocate the attachment point of the lower control arm, if the arm is further below horizontal when resting it'll gain more camber until it is compressed past horizontal. You also have to take into account the length from the knuckle to the upper mount as well.

Another thing to consider is how much camber gain is actually needed in a given situation. Camber gain is needed to keep the tire flat when there is more body roll. If you have zero body roll you don't need any camber gain.

One BIG reason you don't see race cars running struts is because with double wishbones you don't effect the whole suspension setup just to change out a spring or damper. On a strut car you'll have to reset camber, caster, toe, etc after pulling the strut, on a car with double wishbones you just unbolt the shock/spring and put the new one in.