Why macpherson struts?
09-22-2003, 10:59 PM
#1
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: kalifornia, USA
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why macpherson struts?
Why has porsche continued with the macphearson strut suspension? I'm not trying to stir a debate,but have always been curious about why they've never adopted any alternative layouts. Does anyone have an answer?
09-23-2003, 05:03 AM
#2
Instructor
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: California
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost is one factor but perhaps it's largely a matter of unsprung weight. Though Macpherson struts are simple designs they are effective and much lighter in weight than other forms.
09-23-2003, 06:34 PM
#3
Pro
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah - it's twofold. Unsprung weight (as mentioned above) and packaging. A Mac takes up a heck of a lot less space than a double wish, and gives you a better amount of wheel travel in the same space. Other makers have used the double wish as a bit of a marketing gimmick. The flip side is that Mac's are notoriously difficult to set properly in production, plus their capabilities diminish pretty rapidly when a given axle (end) begins to push @ 1,500lbs (rule of thumb). With no motor upfront, and the time to properly install the suspension cradle, Porsche is far better off in using the Mac.....
J
PS - It's "McPherson strut" when used at the front, and "Chapman Strut" when used at the rear. Read Paul F's book on the 911 for interesting comments on early McPherson strut use in the 901/911.
J
PS - It's "McPherson strut" when used at the front, and "Chapman Strut" when used at the rear. Read Paul F's book on the 911 for interesting comments on early McPherson strut use in the 901/911.
