[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by edward

Isn't how the car feels the most important part?

Absolutely, for most people this is true. If you're chasing performance then we'd be having a slightly different conversation.

Who cares if the designers are cheating Newtonian physics? A semi-related example would be the Nissan GT-R: It's a heavy car that goes around tracks faster than simulations say it should. I recall some Ferrari engineers saying the car is so fast because of how it feels (inspiring driver confidence, etc.)

What you're saying here agrees with what I said, the suspension/technology is COMPENSATING for the excessive mass and the unequal weight distribution (53/47)

When a car is designed, they figure out the packaging first based either on performance, utility, or marketing goals. Placement of the engine and figuring out where the mass is located, creating a simplified model and analyzing it is how a suspension gets developed, a different mass profile will result in a radically different analytic model with a completely different feeling when driving and a completely different suspension setup.

I think we are in agreement though, a suspension makes a chassis configuration work (well or poorly) but I argue that placement of mass is more important than this developed suspension when it comes to handling, it's the physics. You can slam your Mustang and make it stiff as a rock and it can outgrip a brand new Ferrari or whatever super car but you are inherently fighting the physics of the vehicle whereas a mid-engined or rear-engined would be more agreeable to the rigors of a track due to their inherent instabilities. As per your original example, Toyota used the suspension to compensate for a twitchy mid-engine platform with the MR2. An unstable system is quicker to respond, that's why the 911 works so well ("nasty" is subjective, as stated earlier I think it's brilliant).

The suspension doesn't "compensate" for anything - The goal of the suspension is to a) control the mass of the car (ideally preventing body roll) and to b) keep the tires in as constant of a connection with the pavement as is possible (ideally minimizing camber change in bump and rebound.) Traditionally it has been impossible to maximize the effectiveness of both goals A and B, however with new active suspension technologies (See: McLaren 12C) it's possible to do a lot, and have some added benefits like increased ride comfort.

I'll conclude with the Porsche 911 and the Ford Focus ST. Both cars are excellent performers, despite having disadvantageous engine positions. The recent 911s don't have the nasty handling characteristics associated with a swing-axle suspension geometry, and the Focus doesn't feel like a front wheel drive, again thanks to a lot of chassis/suspension work.

I'm a bit confused here, I guess A is for comfort and B is for performance but the first paragraph doesn't say anything about how the suspension interacts with the mass other than that new technologies mean we have better control, which is true. The second paragraph just illustrates how incredibly different those vehicles are due to the placement of their engine and how much work went into compensating for that; torque vectoring, active suspension compenents, special differentials etc.

My argument is that this isn't as important as having a good chassis setup.

Yup, with enough money you can make a school bus handle like a lotus, agreed. But why bother with that kind of effort when you can start with an MR2? Design is a world filled with shades of gray.