Accord 2008 and fuel octane

jim beam wrote:
> M.A. Stewart wrote:
>> Tony Harding ) writes:
>>> ACAR wrote:
>>>> On Jan 16, 3:33 am, Tony Harding > wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So a CR-V can out corner a Porsche? My money's on the P-wagon.
>>>>>> did you notice the part where i said "the compromise compensation is
>>>>>> wider tires"? how much wider are the tires on the porsche vs. the
>>>>>> cr-v?
>>>>>> or any honda come to that. [since you're into reviews, you may also
>>>>>> want to compare the head-to-heads of the honda s2000 vs. the boxter.]
>>>>> Do you have a link?
>>>> Here's a link to a "strut-encumbered" Civic TypeR beating a S2000 at
>>>> the track.
>>>> http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=123912
>>>>
>>>> (Rumor mill (Temple of VTEC) says the S2000 is about to go out of
>>>> production.)
>>>>
>>>> BMWs also carry a strut suspension.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps it's fair to say that suspension engineering and
>>>> implementation details play a significant role in delivered
>>>> performance.
>>> Thanks - that's it in a nutshell.
>>
>>
>>
>> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda
>> did with
>> the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"... they had to mount the
>> steering rack about four feet off the ground, with frickin' Ford Twin
>> I-Beams for tie rods, to try and get rid of the inherent 'bump steer' of
>> Mr. MacFarty's wonky design.
>
> but they don't /want/ to know about the reasoning - they just want to
> watch ricer videos on the net.

LOL, this NG is priceless! :-D

jim beam wrote:
> ACAR wrote:
>> On Jan 17, 10:11 pm, jim beam > wrote:
>>> ACAR wrote:
>>>> On Jan 17, 6:57�pm, (M.A. Stewart) wrote:
>>>>> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what
>>>>> Honda did with
>>>>> the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"...
>>>> yeah, they built a TypeR that can outhandle a S2000.
>>>> we can debate betamax vs VHS next; same theory/practice argument.
>>> drifting is not handling big guy
>>
>> the link at Edmunds is to a 3-lap race at a road course in Japan.
>> some drifting by the S2000, not entirely intentional
>> try it, you'll rice it.
>> [there's more to the story as there were other "heats" taken by a
>> lightly modified S2000]
>>
>> - there's limited tire adhesion, so the
>>> problems of geometry are lost in the overall slippage. that's why you
>>> have macpherson on rally cars and wishbone on [successful] circuit cars
>>> - one slides, the other doesn't.
>>
>> I'm not disputing the theoretical superiority of double A-arm
>> suspensions for the pavement. (As you know, part of the beauty of this
>> design is the flexibility to engineer in (or out) the handling/
>> response desired.)
>> I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions
>> are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions.
>
> unless there's a fundamental oversight by the designer, they are though.
> macpherson simply cannot get around the geometry problems that
> wishbones can.
>
>
>> The last Accord we
>> bought is a competent handling car but nothing more.
>
> again, what is the tire width? compare like with like. camry has a
> wider stock tire width than accord. drives great in a straight line and
> on moderate curves. but despite the compensation of the wider tire, it
> can't hang with the accord in the twisties.

And that's all due to the struts? I doubt it.

ACAR wrote:
> On Jan 18, 9:30 am, jim beam > wrote:
>
>>> I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions
>>> are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions.
>> unless there's a fundamental oversight by the designer, they are though.
>
> a double A-arm suspension can't be crappy?
> really?
>
>> macpherson simply cannot get around the geometry problems that
>> wishbones can.
>
> double A-arm suspensions certainly can be well designed.
> and some aren't.
>
>>> The last Accord we
>>> bought is a competent handling car but nothing more.
>> again, what is the tire width? compare like with like.
>
> one might argue that designers include tire considerations when
> designing suspensions so comparing like with like is to keep OEM
> sizes, not forcing a single size onto the cars.
>
>> camry has a
>> wider stock tire width than accord. drives great in a straight line and
>> on moderate curves. but despite the compensation of the wider tire, it
>> can't hang with the accord in the twisties.
>
> camry?
> who picked that as the standard bearer for strut suspension design?
>
> what else ya got?

BMW (as someone posted)
Porsche (as I posted)
....

jim beam wrote:
> ACAR wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 9:30 am, jim beam > wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions
>>>> are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions.
>>> unless there's a fundamental oversight by the designer, they are though.
>>
>> a double A-arm suspension can't be crappy?
>> really?
>>
>>> macpherson simply cannot get around the geometry problems that
>>> wishbones can.
>>
>> double A-arm suspensions certainly can be well designed.
>> and some aren't.
>>
>>>> The last Accord we
>>>> bought is a competent handling car but nothing more.
>>> again, what is the tire width? compare like with like.
>>
>> one might argue that designers include tire considerations when
>> designing suspensions so comparing like with like is to keep OEM
>> sizes, not forcing a single size onto the cars.
>>
>>> camry has a
>>> wider stock tire width than accord. drives great in a straight line and
>>> on moderate curves. but despite the compensation of the wider tire, it
>>> can't hang with the accord in the twisties.
>>
>> camry?
>> who picked that as the standard bearer for strut suspension design?
>>
>> what else ya got?
>
> buy a book and read it. right now, you're just trolling.

I just finished "Sandworms of Dune" and they didn't address front
suspension at all???

Tony Harding wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> ACAR wrote:
>>> On Jan 17, 10:11 pm, jim beam > wrote:
>>>> ACAR wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 17, 6:57�pm, (M.A. Stewart) wrote:
>>>>>> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what
>>>>>> Honda did with
>>>>>> the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"...
>>>>> yeah, they built a TypeR that can outhandle a S2000.
>>>>> we can debate betamax vs VHS next; same theory/practice argument.
>>>> drifting is not handling big guy
>>>
>>> the link at Edmunds is to a 3-lap race at a road course in Japan.
>>> some drifting by the S2000, not entirely intentional
>>> try it, you'll rice it.
>>> [there's more to the story as there were other "heats" taken by a
>>> lightly modified S2000]
>>>
>>> - there's limited tire adhesion, so the
>>>> problems of geometry are lost in the overall slippage. that's why you
>>>> have macpherson on rally cars and wishbone on [successful] circuit cars
>>>> - one slides, the other doesn't.
>>>
>>> I'm not disputing the theoretical superiority of double A-arm
>>> suspensions for the pavement. (As you know, part of the beauty of this
>>> design is the flexibility to engineer in (or out) the handling/
>>> response desired.)
>>> I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions
>>> are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions.
>>
>> unless there's a fundamental oversight by the designer, they are
>> though. macpherson simply cannot get around the geometry problems
>> that wishbones can.
>>
>>
>>> The last Accord we
>>> bought is a competent handling car but nothing more.
>>
>> again, what is the tire width? compare like with like. camry has a
>> wider stock tire width than accord. drives great in a straight line
>> and on moderate curves. but despite the compensation of the wider
>> tire, it can't hang with the accord in the twisties.
>
> And that's all due to the struts? I doubt it.

i'm sorry, is this a matter of faith? does faith leave room for doubt?

Tony Harding wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> ACAR wrote:
>>> On Jan 18, 9:30 am, jim beam > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions
>>>>> are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions.
>>>> unless there's a fundamental oversight by the designer, they are
>>>> though.
>>>
>>> a double A-arm suspension can't be crappy?
>>> really?
>>>
>>>> macpherson simply cannot get around the geometry problems that
>>>> wishbones can.
>>>
>>> double A-arm suspensions certainly can be well designed.
>>> and some aren't.
>>>
>>>>> The last Accord we
>>>>> bought is a competent handling car but nothing more.
>>>> again, what is the tire width? compare like with like.
>>>
>>> one might argue that designers include tire considerations when
>>> designing suspensions so comparing like with like is to keep OEM
>>> sizes, not forcing a single size onto the cars.
>>>
>>>> camry has a
>>>> wider stock tire width than accord. drives great in a straight line
>>>> and
>>>> on moderate curves. but despite the compensation of the wider tire, it
>>>> can't hang with the accord in the twisties.
>>>
>>> camry?
>>> who picked that as the standard bearer for strut suspension design?
>>>
>>> what else ya got?
>>
>> buy a book and read it. right now, you're just trolling.
>
> I just finished "Sandworms of Dune" and they didn't address front
> suspension at all???

i think you and acar should keep rubbing the baby oil on each other's
pistons - you're evidently very happy doing that together.

jim beam wrote:

<snip>

>>> buy a book and read it. right now, you're just trolling.
>>
>> I just finished "Sandworms of Dune" and they didn't address front
>> suspension at all???
>
> i think you and acar should keep rubbing the baby oil on each other's
> pistons - you're evidently very happy doing that together.

Um, not my thing, but thanks anyway for the idea.

Polfus wrote:
>
> "Tony Harding" > wrote
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> buy a book and read it. right now, you're just trolling.
>>>>
>>>> I just finished "Sandworms of Dune" and they didn't address front
>>>> suspension at all???
>>>
>>> i think you and acar should keep rubbing the baby oil on each other's
>>> pistons - you're evidently very happy doing that together.
>>
>> Um, not my thing, but thanks anyway for the idea.
>
> I have left over baby oil and can't get a whole jug of it on my
> "piston"...is this a design flaw?

LOL - great post on which to end the thread.