and uncomfortable ride and low profile tyres...
... I don't get it :-(
Several folks here are buying cars with outwardly sporting pretentions then complaining about the firm ride. What would you rather have instead?
Are the manufacturers missing a trick? Is there a market for warm hatch that turns in 20 mins after you feed in some steer -- but boy is it a soft place to sit in!? Maybe like old yank tanks? Big, modern-powerful but so soft you don't steer so much as bumble in an approximate direction.
It's not that there isn't choice available on the forecourts:
* from 4x4s with nearly 2ft of suspension travel
* to citroens with the magic carpet hydropneumatics
* to squidgy mattress imports
* to bog standard cars with the cheap mcpherson strut equiped
* to something special like a double wishbone front, multilink rear
Why would you choose a car only to complain of the "firm ride"?
|
I bought a pre-registered Octavia with sports suspension and this comes with 17" wheels and 225/45 section tyres. I test drove one on standard wheels first , then the actual car to confirm the ride was still acceptable. It still is after 15 months.
Maybe some people are unable to test drive the actual car they order and it arrives specced up with rubber band tyres.
Last edited by: Glaikit Wee Scunner Snr. {P} on Tue 7 Sep 10 at 11:47
|
>> * from 4x4s with nearly 2ft of suspension travel
Most SUvs seems to be on "sports" suspension. We just don't appear to get the soft riding / easy cruising SUVs that are popular in the US.
|
|
I have decided many car buyers buy on looks. Period..
|
>> I have decided many car buyers buy on looks. Period..
>>
And badge. How else can you explain the sales success of the bangle-BMWs?
|
>> * from 4x4s with nearly 2ft of suspension travel
But truck chassis and solid axles
>> * to citroens with the magic carpet hydropneumatics
Those days have gone. The C6 I drove was disappointing harsh. Almost Audi like at low speeds.
>> * to squidgy mattress imports
Best riding car I remember driving in years (apart from an S-Class) was an entry level Renault Laguna diesel on steel wheels with high profile tyres. Fabulous ride quality and didn't handle too badly either.
One of the things I liked about the Rover 75 was the ride/ handling compromise. Handled reasonably with a great ride and made an excellent long distance tourer. Reminded me in that respect of old Mercs (apart from the torque steer obviously).
|
>> But truck chassis and solid axles
There's different choices available depending on what you want. The Range Rover springs to mind for having neither of those:
Range Rover, monocoque chassis, independent suspension, 13 inches articulation / wheel, over 2ft across an "axle".
Not sure about the Land Cruiser but i'd be surprised if it hadn't gone soft on road in it's latest iteration, the one before last went to independent front suspension.
>> Those days have gone. The C6 I drove was disappointing harsh
Again there's other options depending on price bracket / age you want to go for. Lexus still seem to have wafting type ride down to a T in their bigger models. The C6 example only seems to suffer at low speeds, a google shows all reviews on the first 2 pages rating the ride very highly in the magic carpet way.
Maybe a more direct question would be better: would a high powered / high spec BMW X5 with american mattress springs sell in the UK?
EDIT: and would it be any good, or would it be torn apart for being wallowy & imprecise for twisty UK roads?
Last edited by: Skoda on Tue 7 Sep 10 at 14:00
|
As our raods get busier, and as there are moer potholes and speed humps, and as I grow older..
a comfortable ride and ease of entry and exit have become highest in my list of priorities...
|
>> As our raods get busier, and as there are moer potholes and speed humps, and
>> as I grow older..
>>
>> a comfortable ride and ease of entry and exit have become highest in my list
>> of priorities...
>>
>>
>>
I couldn't agree more and I'm only 39!!!!
The Subaru Legacy is a great compromise; nice compliant suspension but still with 45 section tyres for good handling/grip.
I remember an Audi A4 (2004 vintage) that I only had for 3 months. It had sports suspension and 235/45 section tyres. My wife refused to be a passanger in it.
|
Interesting thoughts Skoda.... I've been noticing for the past 15yrs or so folks are more and more likely to be excusing a poor ride with comments like...
*It's not too bad, it's a good ride on a smooth road, of course it's a bit hard but it has got the sports wheels etc*
Seems to be worse at the very small end of the scale and in the mid exective ranges.
Back in my early days you knew a Cortina was an ordinary family car with few comforts and a poor ride. Step up to a Rover 200 and it was a world apart. Same true really of the later Cortina compared with a mid-80s Audi 100.
Roll on to vehicles perhaps post-95 and suddeny folks were finding many aspirational mid-range cars came with a poor ride... perhaps worse than their current car... and this is still true today.
I very much liked my 2001 Mondeo but on the Ghia X wheels/tyres it was very sharp. My current C5 Tourer on steel springs is a massive improvement and ride was a major factor in its choice.
Agree the Rover 75 was excellent and 100% agree re the Laguna too. I was amazed at the ride quality/refinement of a bog standar diesel I looked after just after they came out.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 7 Sep 10 at 15:07
|
Ride was one of the reasons I went for the C5 - my general comute has no "drivers" roads, so comfort became a priority, and I have to say that the C5 does a very good job. If I lived in an area with less traffic and some decent A/B roads then my choice would have been different.
Not sure if anyone here has driven the DS3 but the reviews point to it being a good balance between ride and handling
|
Every car rides well on a smooth road :-) but people don't seem to realise the alternatives to the standard Audi stiff suspension.
There are many ways to make a car both handle well and have a comfortable ride, but I have only driven a few cars which do it well. Usually (but not always) the important factor is a high tyre profile.
Cases
Merc A-Class with 65 Section tyres - not a great ride TBH
Ford S-Max with 45 Section tyres - rides pretty well
Subaru Forester with 65 section tyres - rides amazingly well
|
For the past 10 years, when buying a car, I always take a test drive: over speed humps.
Anyone who does not and then complains about a stiff ride is a numpty.
Caveat emptor ...
Or you can't give some people common sense...
(like people buying BMWs in hilly areas and not buying snow tyres and then complaining they are stuck when it snows..)#
It's called doing basic research...
"Time spent on reconaissance is seldom wasted" - my former FD..
#Like anyone buying a petrol engined car doing 25mpg and complaining about petrol prices..
Never mind : fools and money..
|
[in a y**dish accent] .............I should have got 25mpg from my petrol car!
I would still be driving a Subaru if I could get 25mpg from an 3.0 Outback.........
|
Many manufacturers in this country provide cars for the public to buy that do not give you the full option to have smaller wheels and higher profile tyres if you wish to.
E.g. the top of the range Skoda Superb estate has bigger wheels on it than the medium range or cheaper spec ones do, but you can't specify the smaller ones. So despite the fact you might like to have all the toys on your car, you are obliged to compromise on the comfort in the process... or see if the dealer will swap things around on another car.
Another example, Range Rovers have gradually had bigger and bigger wheels allocated as standard in the UK. I have no doubt in some Land Rover markets you can still order one with 17" wheels..try doing that here.
If you take say, a bog standard Vx Astra with basic wheels and high profile tyres, you'd have to be a madman to run out of handling with it...so why would you really need bigger wheels and low profile tyres on one...other than looks.
The British buyer has, through ignorance, allowed aesthetics to get in the way of practicality...and we all now suffer because we've all been lumped together.
|
|
I'm convinced that some people choose a brand new car based on what it looks like in the showroom. They like the look of large alloys with low profile tyres. They take a quick test drive just to make sure they like the look of the car from the driving seat. To some people it's all about the looks. I couldn't care less what the car looks like provided I can have it in a bright conspicuous colour. I choose a car based on its function, which includes a lengthy test drive, and always place a factory order to enable me to get exactly the specification I want. I wouldn't buy a brand new car that's standing in a showroom if you paid me. The dealer chooses what he's going to have in his showroom based on the looks of the cars. He wants his showroom and the contents to look atractive.
|
I would buy a car on looks. I'd definitely want something that looks good....but...i'd compromise looks slightly for comfort when it comes to the wheels/tyres, so that I could have comfort as a priority. I'd definitely not want a crashy, hard ride or even an average ride.... and neither would I want some wallowy, squealing monstrosity...there is a middle way.
Trouble is, unless you're planning on buying brand new AND can find a manufacturer to play ball in that dept, you're stuck with other people's choices...and IMO they aren't always wise.
|
Complaints of stiff suspension - Glaikit Wee Scunner Snr. {P}
