Pontiac Solstice Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Great to see that some one got rid of the struts on the concept and went with the current design.

Lets hope GM does't "dumb down" the car with garbage like traction control, ABS, stablitrak, etc. Let it be a pure drivers car.

I'm concerned about the rear suspenion though. There is a toe link (The one in the back) that will cause excessive changes in toe during full suspension motion. (Like autocross) The origanol Fiero had this same problem. This can be fixed by using two lower lateral links and one leading link instead of a ball joint and cast control arm. The toe link may now be removed. Now the spindle may only go up and down, no rotational movement, no toe changes. Worked great in '88!

Gearheadotaku
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Gearheadotaku said:
Lets hope GM does't "dumb down" the car with garbage like traction control, ABS, stablitrak, etc. Let it be a pure drivers car.
I agree, but I think that GM will at least use active handling and traction control if they can do it and still keep the price down. They have the technology in many other cars in the line-up and could quite easily add it to the Solstice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Gearheadotaku said:
I'm concerned about the rear suspenion though. There is a toe link (The one in the back) that will cause excessive changes in toe during full suspension motion. (Like autocross) The origanol Fiero had this same problem. This can be fixed by using two lower lateral links and one leading link instead of a ball joint and cast control arm. The toe link may now be removed. Now the spindle may only go up and down, no rotational movement, no toe changes. Worked great in '88!

Gearheadotaku
Interesting. Glad someone who knows more about suspension than I do is taking a look at this! :) Why do you think they did it this way? Is it less expensive to produce? Different ride?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
Gearheadotaku,

Before you pass judgement on how the rear suspension has been done, you might want to crawl under a Corvette first.

Not to be pedantic (so please don't take this the wrong way), but:

Toe change in jounce and rebound is a function of a bunch of things, most have to do with critically placing the locations of the inner and outer parts of the links and geometry of the upper and lower control arms.

The <88 Fiero rear was a strut suspension - with toe links it's difficult to get a good toe curve. It was actually a kludged up Citation front suspension.

The 88 changed to what is called a "tri-link" strut suspension. Much better toe control, no upper and lower ball joints.

Both of these types are very different animals from a "short-long arm" suspension. With the short-long arm, using toe links is a very good way to control your toe change curves.

I'm very interested in how this little beast drives, as the chassis looked like a mini-corvette at the Detroit Auto Show - I bet these guys know what they're doing and have probably learned a lot from the old Fiero days.

Reference: "Race Car Vehicle Dynamics" by Milliken & Milliken and "Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics" by Gillespie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Solstice man,

Didn't think about the control arms, just saw the toe link and jumped to conclusions. What year Vette do you refer to? I have an '88, and yes, there are toe links back there. But once again, with no ball joints, no rotation. I'd like to look at a kappa chassis again to learn more. The long (Front to back measurement) of the lower control arm looked odd. Like a FWD arm from a late N-body turned around from the opposite side. Working from month old memory here, I could be very wrong.
In the end, I am looking forward to driving this car. all signs point to something good. Now if they would build a hard top model.....
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top