fd vs fc handling
09-18-05, 03:44 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
fd vs fc handling
ive heard many times that an fd is that much better at handling.
this question is not necessarily putting the fd against the fc or vice versca but i want to learn more about different suspension designs and why is one better than the other.
so comparing the two why is the fds suspension better compared to the fc. this of course is not comparing modded cars lets only talk about stock cars.
technical links on general suspension articles would also be appreciated.
thanks from someone trying to learn about suspension
this question is not necessarily putting the fd against the fc or vice versca but i want to learn more about different suspension designs and why is one better than the other.
so comparing the two why is the fds suspension better compared to the fc. this of course is not comparing modded cars lets only talk about stock cars.
technical links on general suspension articles would also be appreciated.
thanks from someone trying to learn about suspension
The following users liked this post:
eddierotary (11-04-20)
09-18-05, 09:20 PM
#2
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: WI
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the FC has mcphearson(sp?) struts in front with a multi-link rear suspension. I beleave an FD has double wishbones(both upper and lower control arms) on all four corners, add to that the FDs slightly stiffer more capible chasis, and you have a better handling car.
I've never driven an FD, but my FC has a few basic suspension mods(dampers/springs/bushings) and I'd be really surprised if a stock FD handled better.
I've never driven an FD, but my FC has a few basic suspension mods(dampers/springs/bushings) and I'd be really surprised if a stock FD handled better.
09-18-05, 10:45 PM
#5
Well here is an example. the RE Street Fd does like 56.8X on tuskuba raceway, the RE Street Fc does a 58.XX The video of the RE FC was done at 350hp, they did try it at 460ps or whatever it was making and got that time. the RE FD makes like 480 or something.
09-19-05, 12:12 AM
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
thanks...... but after further research in most race cars multilink is used, so wouldnt that be better than double wishbone? or is this jsut in extreme circumstances for racing whereas a street car would be better off with a double wishbone suspension..
Last edited by bacek; 09-19-05 at 12:20 AM.
09-19-05, 08:52 AM
#7
Lives on the Forum
bacek if you really want to learn about the different types of suspension and their pros/cons go to the Suspension and Handling Links sticky and think about buying some books.
Trending Topics
09-24-05, 02:57 PM
#8
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
basically to make it simple, an FC suspension will 'flex' and bend where as an FD will almost always stay in proper alignment under heavy cornering.
if your going straight on a public road it really doesnt matter, now does it?
if your going straight on a public road it really doesnt matter, now does it?
09-24-05, 08:07 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by potatochobit
if your going straight on a public road it really doesnt matter, now does it?
10-01-05, 06:25 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lexington, IL
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I own both an FC and an FD. I have also owned an Fb. which I autocrossed. This is just my opinion.
All three designs are competent. But there is a huge difference in weight of these cars.
The FB is a light car and was very predictable up to the limits of its suspension. After that, things got out of control badly, fast.
The FC was also very predictable and was a significant improvement over the FB in pushing the limits of the suspension envelope. The car was more forgiving at the limits of its suspension travel, in my opinon. It suffered from weight, however. That car is heavy. As the car aged, it lost a lot of its performance, so be careful about side by side comparisons unless the FC suspension has been freshened with new shocks and springs and maybe new bushings.
The FD has the best of both cars, low weight and a better suspension. All things being equal, however, I like the predictability of the FC suspension. If I could lose 600 pounds in the FC, I feel there would be very little difference with the FD until you began upping hoursepower. The FD has some problems controlling the impact of those twin turbos. It can be a tricky affair at best and you had better know how to drive, shift and apply horsepower when you enter a turn at speed or the whole thing will be a very unsettled mess.
All three designs are competent. But there is a huge difference in weight of these cars.
The FB is a light car and was very predictable up to the limits of its suspension. After that, things got out of control badly, fast.
The FC was also very predictable and was a significant improvement over the FB in pushing the limits of the suspension envelope. The car was more forgiving at the limits of its suspension travel, in my opinon. It suffered from weight, however. That car is heavy. As the car aged, it lost a lot of its performance, so be careful about side by side comparisons unless the FC suspension has been freshened with new shocks and springs and maybe new bushings.
The FD has the best of both cars, low weight and a better suspension. All things being equal, however, I like the predictability of the FC suspension. If I could lose 600 pounds in the FC, I feel there would be very little difference with the FD until you began upping hoursepower. The FD has some problems controlling the impact of those twin turbos. It can be a tricky affair at best and you had better know how to drive, shift and apply horsepower when you enter a turn at speed or the whole thing will be a very unsettled mess.
10-01-05, 06:35 AM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ENGLAND, UK
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mazda99Nikon
I own both an FC and an FD. I have also owned an Fb. which I autocrossed. This is just my opinion.
All three designs are competent. But there is a huge difference in weight of these cars.
The FB is a light car and was very predictable up to the limits of its suspension. After that, things got out of control badly, fast.
The FC was also very predictable and was a significant improvement over the FB in pushing the limits of the suspension envelope. The car was more forgiving at the limits of its suspension travel, in my opinon. It suffered from weight, however. That car is heavy. As the car aged, it lost a lot of its performance, so be careful about side by side comparisons unless the FC suspension has been freshened with new shocks and springs and maybe new bushings.
The FD has the best of both cars, low weight and a better suspension. All things being equal, however, I like the predictability of the FC suspension. If I could lose 600 pounds in the FC, I feel there would be very little difference with the FD until you began upping hoursepower. The FD has some problems controlling the impact of those twin turbos. It can be a tricky affair at best and you had better know how to drive, shift and apply horsepower when you enter a turn at speed or the whole thing will be a very unsettled mess.
All three designs are competent. But there is a huge difference in weight of these cars.
The FB is a light car and was very predictable up to the limits of its suspension. After that, things got out of control badly, fast.
The FC was also very predictable and was a significant improvement over the FB in pushing the limits of the suspension envelope. The car was more forgiving at the limits of its suspension travel, in my opinon. It suffered from weight, however. That car is heavy. As the car aged, it lost a lot of its performance, so be careful about side by side comparisons unless the FC suspension has been freshened with new shocks and springs and maybe new bushings.
The FD has the best of both cars, low weight and a better suspension. All things being equal, however, I like the predictability of the FC suspension. If I could lose 600 pounds in the FC, I feel there would be very little difference with the FD until you began upping hoursepower. The FD has some problems controlling the impact of those twin turbos. It can be a tricky affair at best and you had better know how to drive, shift and apply horsepower when you enter a turn at speed or the whole thing will be a very unsettled mess.
The fc as stated is very predictable and therefore a better handling car for a less skilled driver IMO.
rgds
10-02-05, 08:38 PM
#12
Originally Posted by BNA_ELLIS
The above statement is as a very accurate description. The fd handles better than fc but really requires a better driver to get the best out of it IMO.
The fc as stated is very predictable and therefore a better handling car for a less skilled driver IMO.
rgds
The fc as stated is very predictable and therefore a better handling car for a less skilled driver IMO.
rgds
10-03-05, 02:33 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roen
Isn't it possible to retrofit a double wishbone suspension onto the FC chassis? What would happen to the FC's suspension potential if that were to occur?
10-04-05, 04:50 PM
#17
Originally Posted by Mazda99Nikon
The FC was also very predictable and was a significant improvement over the FB in pushing the limits of the suspension envelope. The car was more forgiving at the limits of its suspension travel, in my opinon. It suffered from weight, however. That car is heavy. As the car aged, it lost a lot of its performance, so be careful about side by side comparisons unless the FC suspension has been freshened with new shocks and springs and maybe new bushings.
The FD has the best of both cars, low weight and a better suspension. All things being equal, however, I like the predictability of the FC suspension. If I could lose 600 pounds in the FC, I feel there would be very little difference with the FD until you began upping hoursepower. The FD has some problems controlling the impact of those twin turbos. It can be a tricky affair at best and you had better know how to drive, shift and apply horsepower when you enter a turn at speed or the whole thing will be a very unsettled mess.
The FD has the best of both cars, low weight and a better suspension. All things being equal, however, I like the predictability of the FC suspension. If I could lose 600 pounds in the FC, I feel there would be very little difference with the FD until you began upping hoursepower. The FD has some problems controlling the impact of those twin turbos. It can be a tricky affair at best and you had better know how to drive, shift and apply horsepower when you enter a turn at speed or the whole thing will be a very unsettled mess.
S4 TII ~2,845 lbs
S5 TII ~2,987 lbs
FD R1 ~2800 lbs
FD Touring ~2862 lbs
those are pretty dang close. and if you're talking about a s4 TII, it could actually weigh less than an FD if its a touring. maybe it FEELS heavier?
10-05-05, 11:35 AM
#20
Lives on the Forum
There's absolutely no sense in trying to re-engineer an FC just so you can put a double wishbone suspension under it. If that one quailty is so important to you then don't start with an FC.
There's a hell of a lot more involved than just bolting some links on, especially since the FC structure was designed for the suspension it already has. The pickup points for anything else will be in the wrong places.
There's a hell of a lot more involved than just bolting some links on, especially since the FC structure was designed for the suspension it already has. The pickup points for anything else will be in the wrong places.
10-05-05, 02:26 PM
#21
Full Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Morgan Hill, California
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DamonB
There's absolutely no sense in trying to re-engineer an FC just so you can put a double wishbone suspension under it. If that one quailty is so important to you then don't start with an FC.
There's a hell of a lot more involved than just bolting some links on, especially since the FC structure was designed for the suspension it already has. The pickup points for anything else will be in the wrong places.
There's a hell of a lot more involved than just bolting some links on, especially since the FC structure was designed for the suspension it already has. The pickup points for anything else will be in the wrong places.
10-06-05, 12:35 AM
#22
Since I'm here to learn, and this topic is very widely discussed, why, specifically, is it a poor idea, besides cost, to engineer a double-wishbone suspension for the FC? Coming from Ted's site, it seemed to be a good idea, but there really weren't any specifics given. Nor was there any specific information given in your response, besides "There's a hell of a lot more involved than just bolting some links on."
From my understanding, when you develop a body, you're supposed to tune a suspension to properly, well, suspend the mass of a car and keep the wheels and the body moving independently. Isn't a suspension just a type of spring, damper and other force-adjusting bars? Does it really matter what type of suspension it is? All suspensions work towards the same goal, some are just more effiencient at that than others. I just never knew that certain bodies needed specific types of suspensions.
From my understanding, when you develop a body, you're supposed to tune a suspension to properly, well, suspend the mass of a car and keep the wheels and the body moving independently. Isn't a suspension just a type of spring, damper and other force-adjusting bars? Does it really matter what type of suspension it is? All suspensions work towards the same goal, some are just more effiencient at that than others. I just never knew that certain bodies needed specific types of suspensions.
10-06-05, 09:09 AM
#24
Lives on the Forum
Originally Posted by Roen
I just never knew that certain bodies needed specific types of suspensions.
For instance the FC has a strut front suspension. This means there is one locating member at the bottom (an a-arm) that ties into the bottom of the chassis and the sole upper locating member is the strut that ties into the strut tower. If you just want to bolt on a double wishbone suspension there is no where to mount the top wishbone on the structure because it was not designed with that in mind.
Sure some monkey could just weld some brackets on but it would not be structurally efficient and at minimum would require new upper and lower arms, a different upright and quite possibly different steering geometry. You would have just re-engineered the entire front of the car and that is pointless because in the end it's no longer an FC; it's some bastardized product. It would make much more sense to start with a structure that is optimized for what you want to do suspension wise.
Originally Posted by Roen
From my understanding, when you develop a body, you're supposed to tune a suspension to properly, well, suspend the mass of a car and keep the wheels and the body moving independently. Isn't a suspension just a type of spring, damper and other force-adjusting bars?
There are many ways to skin a cat but if outright tire performance is the goal of the suspension you'll find that every purpose built racecar uses unequal length double wishbones at front and rear except where limited by the rules (NASCAR, TransAm etc). Strut type suspensions are cheaper because they use fewer components and are easier to build, but they have poorer grip performance than a proper double wishbone design. Mostly this is due to the fact that a strut suspension cannot introduce camber gain through its motion. OTOH there are many cars with strut suspensions at one or both ends that handle very well. It takes more to build a well handling car than just bolting on some parts.
Last edited by DamonB; 10-06-05 at 09:11 AM.