Lets talk suspension

[Midship Runabout]

Originally Posted by RZNT4R

Hey there, I was looking at that pic and comments and I couldn't resist doing my first post on it.

This isn't an SLA setup, it's missing too many links, with just 2 I-arms in plain sight. Looking at how the components are layed out and taking into consideration the little bit of arm visible in the bottom right corner, this should be similar to a ford/mazda control blade. It's interesting to note that the top link uses a ball joint and not a bushing, for a consistency in camber I presume.

There does not seem to be a toe link in sight. Perhaps because the "control blade" is tubular and not pressed steel, thus much stiffer.

Also, the front should be MacPherson. Subarus are tight in the nose because of the wide engine. there's just no room double wishbone up there.

Thank you for the info.
hmmmm i guess i never really thought about how wide a boxer is. good point

[4agze]

don't matter what coilover or non coilover ill change it to a better spring rate and better strut rebound, I'm thinking 14kg front/ 12kg rear

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by 4agze

don't matter what coilover or non coilover ill change it to a better spring rate and better strut rebound, I'm thinking 14kg front/ 12kg rear

So pretty much same as me then.

[4agze]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

So pretty much same as me then.

lol didn't see your replay but yeah something like that but im thinking joining another of the R&D on a small shop here in socal so I can get free stuff.

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by 4agze

lol didn't see your replay but yeah something like that but im thinking joining another of the R&D on a small shop here in socal so I can get free stuff.

Lucky you, I envy ya. Send some on my way too lol

[RZNT4R]

Originally Posted by Dixie Normous

Thank you for the info.
hmmmm i guess i never really thought about how wide a boxer is. good point

A quick follow up.

While at work, the rear suspension on an '06 RAV4 struck me in the eye, and it's mechanical workins seemed to jive with the pic of the FT, minus some expected differences.



You can see the two main structural lateral arms, one really fat under the coil and one smaller and slightly curved attaching at the top of the knuckle. The big pressed steel longitudinal link would be equivalent to the tubular arm visible in the bottom right of the FT picture, and the small toe link at the bottom/front of the knuckle is the only thing I can't find in the FT pic. An eccentric at the end of the lower arm might be doing that job.

[shiznit]

Originally Posted by RZNT4R

Also, the front should be MacPherson. Subarus are tight in the nose because of the wide engine. there's just no room double wishbone up there.

Subarus are tight in the nose because the engine is mounted ahead of and over the front axle, the FT-86 won't have that problem. But since the platform already uses MacPherson you are probably right that they will keep it.

[RZNT4R]

Originally Posted by shiznit

Subarus are tight in the nose because the engine is mounted ahead of and over the front axle, the FT-86 won't have that problem. But since the platform already uses MacPherson you are probably right that they will keep it.

That's not quite the full scope of the situation...

Yeah subarus are tight in the nose, but that's with the engine slightly forwards of the front axle. I was under an impreza before leaving work, and they even kink the subframe inwards behind the engine to fit control arm that's a bit longer.

The FT however, had the engine sitting right between the wheels, taking up space from the suspension, as evidenced by this pic from geneva.

http://s10.directupload.net/images/100313/vr5678pj.jpg

You can see the oil pan amongst the exhaust bends, right between the wheels.

[Midship Runabout]

Originally Posted by RZNT4R

The FT however, had the engine sitting right between the wheels, taking up space from the suspension

I was hoping for more of a S2K setup. Technically mid engine but not really.

[RZNT4R]

Well, it was easy in the S2000's case to push the firewall back and fit a whole I4 behind the front axle since it's a 2 seater, but the FT needs a bit more space since it's a 4 seater.

The engine should already be very far back in the engine bay, the open hood shot in the original GT5 reveal trailer hinted that unlike the traditional subaru rear throttle/airbox layout, they had to put the throttle on the front of the manifold and plumb the intake tube between the AC compressor and alternator (now on either side of the engine), so I don't think they could have pushed the engine any farther back.

But given that a boxer is only 2 cylinders long, even if it's right over the front axle, there's next to no weight protruding forwards, so I don't think you have to worry, it's not any less front midship than the S2000.

[Matador]

Originally Posted by RZNT4R

Well, it was easy in the S2000's case to push the firewall back and fit a whole I4 behind the front axle since it's a 2 seater, but the FT needs a bit more space since it's a 4 seater.

The engine should already be very far back in the engine bay, the open hood shot in the original GT5 reveal trailer hinted that unlike the traditional subaru rear throttle/airbox layout, they had to put the throttle on the front of the manifold and plumb the intake tube between the AC compressor and alternator (now on either side of the engine), so I don't think they could have pushed the engine any farther back.

But given that a boxer is only 2 cylinders long, even if it's right over the front axle, there's next to no weight protruding forwards, so I don't think you have to worry, it's not any less front midship than the S2000.

This.

[shiznit]

Originally Posted by RZNT4R

That's not quite the full scope of the situation...

Yeah subarus are tight in the nose, but that's with the engine slightly forwards of the front axle. I was under an impreza before leaving work, and they even kink the subframe inwards behind the engine to fit control arm that's a bit longer.

The FT however, had the engine sitting right between the wheels, taking up space from the suspension, as evidenced by this pic from geneva.

http://s10.directupload.net/images/100313/vr5678pj.jpg

You can see the oil pan amongst the exhaust bends, right between the wheels.

Nice pic, good find. I was hoping for a full front midship configuration like RX8 or S2000 (both at the top of my list if I can't hold out for the Ft-86) but I guess with the car that small and the need for a back seat sacrifices have to be made.

Btw, I was working on my 2.5RS coupe yesterday and saw what you said about the subframe. All that weight pushed up forward makes me want to experiment with a carbon fiber hood...

Originally Posted by RZNT4R

But given that a boxer is only 2 cylinders long, even if it's right over the front axle, there's next to no weight protruding forwards, so I don't think you have to worry, it's not any less front midship than the S2000.

Someone on NASIOC had a theory that the engine is not based on the EJ 2.5L family but on the EZ H6 3.0L family with 2 cylinders removed but keeping some of the other components making it even more compact longitudinally. I'll try to find the exact post.

[[es vi: eks]]

The last FR flat 4 engined Sports coupe had this double wish bone set up up front in 1950.
Its in front of the axle but the motor is pretty light.
And still handle very well

[bigbcraig]

Just for a reference, though.. that kind of design wouldn't work today. The car had ZERO space or a modern bumper or crumple zone, andeven a small front-end collision would mean totalling the car.

Just look how little room is in front of the front axle!