Maybe talk a little more about the more technical aspects of each. For instance, roll centers, instant centers, camber gain...that sort of thing. It would also be interesting to compare something like a modern Porsche 911 front suspension (last I remember they used struts) and an economy car...maybe like a Corolla, just to see how much and where they differ and if a Porsche really has that much difference in that type of design over a "lesser" vehicle.
i wanted to see how camber changes during cornering or with changes to ride height. also he mentioned DWBs being more costly to maintain, failing to mention that maintenance is far less frequent than with McPs.
Fun fact, the Porsche 911 GT cars have double wishbone suspension while the non-GT 911's use McPherson strut suspension. That's a unique scenario where the same model car has 2 different suspension configurations based on trim/designation
disagree , I have Audi A4 b8 2.0Q (double wishbone) and BMW 330ix F30 (McPherson) - BMW has much more handling in full stock suspension. Audi feels like a heavy weight ship in corners
Until you've tried a nice Mac strut ride, they can be really nice too. Ever driven both a second and third gen Mazda RX-7? The 3rd gen cars are much better overall, but I always thought the second gen cars had a little bit nicer and tighter on-center steering feel despite the 3rd gen cars having a much superior suspension overall and just being lighter, stiffer and just better cars. If you could find that oh-so-rare 2nd gen RX-7 that hasn't been crashed or abused they can be fantastic cars to drive, MacPherson struts and all. Problem is they're very old cars now and most of them that are still around have been crashed, trashed, stolen and abused very badly.
My Alfa 156 has double wishbone and she handles great, one big advantage of double wishbone is that the wheel is always perpendicular to the road surface, thus maximising the contact patch, whereas the McPherson moves in an arc, the inside wheel in a curve has minimum contact.
@@I_feel_just_like_a_rockstar I should have left room for the fact there are some brilliant mechanical engineers that can get around any limitation. (I am an electronics guy so I am always in awe of Mechanical Engineers.) It is just when you map out the camber change with body roll, it is much harder to get the tire where you want it when one of your pivots is a fixed point. Obviously the main reason MacPhersons go on normal passenger cars is to leave space for the front wheel drive. But that means high end all wheel drives need the space too. They are not going to just "make do". On the weight front, I was impressed when I looked at the front upper control arm on a Crown Vic and it looked like an aluminum dog bone. No more big honking stamped steel plate like they used to use, so i'd bet they got the weight problem down.
it is incorrect to say that mcpherson produces more body roll since the wheels are interconnected. McPherson is a completely independent design. What really happens is that it has an arc shaped travel, changing camber depending on its position, but that only affects the contact patch and the wheel incidence on the ground, not the roll of the vehicle
It depends, on "true" McPherson design both sides are in fact interconnected, since the antiroll bar is also working as the second half of the lower "triangle" structure as it is connected directly on the control arm thus providing the second connexion point to the subframe, preventing movement in the longitudinal direction. However most if not all cars use an evolution of this design (called "pseudo" McPherson) and it has been the case for, at the very least, 30 years. In this configuration there may or may not be an antiroll bar as the lower control arm is actually a "triangle" with 2 connexion point on the subframe.
Long arm short arm double wishbone moves the patch outwards as the spring gets compressed extremely. So it fights roll in extreme situations like break and turn at the same time. McPherson pulls in the patch here. So you need to brake before the corner. And when you have to avoid an accident you need to decide between brake and steer.
I think there were some tricks with geometry possible, so a double wishbone system can reject body roll by supporting the vehicle in the roll direction with its geometry rather than only relying on the spring. This is similar to the squat and dive resistance which is possible with double wishbones, something that also should have been included in the video.
I found the difference handling-wise by experience. I got my first cars about 20 yrs ago, and one was McPherson (Toyota Vios/Vitz) and the other was double-wishbone(Mitsubishi Galant), but I didnt know that at that time. The difference in handling on twisty roads was night and day. I owned the Toyota first, so I was used to being careful when driving on twisty roads because the back would sway out. When I got the Galant several months later, and drove on the same twisty road, I was amazed that I could go faster without any body roll. Years later I realized it was the Galant's suspension that caused the big difference in handling. Also years later, I found out the Miata has double wishbone and coupled with the perfect weight distribution, no wonder many enthusiasts swear by it.
I had a 99 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX that used the same suspension as the Galant, and yeah, it was the perfect balance of handling stability and comfort. Technically it was considered a multi-link front and rear (not a traditional double-wishbone). McPherson struts have improved since then though. I have a Toyota GR86 for example that handles very well with a front strut design, but I can't help but to wonder how it would feel with a double wishbone/multi-link front suspension. Mitsubishi was the best in the 90's!
No, the big difference is your vios is using torsion beam while your galant using independent suspension that makes it night and day Macpherson itself is pretty good hence why porsche is using it for their 911
Now a days there seems to be a double lower ball joint setup. The pivot rolls forward and rearward towards either pivot. I figure this would more precisely place the wheel in either way the car is steered. Very cool. Steve Smith autosoprts has a book on suspension design. Kind of in depth
For the creator: Your on the right track with this video. Learn from the comments and use it in the next video. Your subs and view will explode, I'm sure. Good luck!
Some of the best handling sportscar ever had four MacPherson struts, IE the Lancia Delta, X1/9, Porsche Boxster... As for reliability and security, in a Macpherson struts there are less things that can wear and break, and the limited lateral space occupied makes for more impact-resistant car structures.
McPherson struts, manual transmission, 50 years with no problems. Main determining factor in the amount of car "waddle" is the center of gravity. When I had to switch from a low center of gravity to a higher one as the car model design changed, I suddenly found my favorite twisty road to play on became a guessing game for when the balance shifted in a curve. The car lurched from side to side seemingly at random. Never found a way to balance that out. Another thing with the higher vehicle was what was in the trunk. Basketballs, soccer balls, footballs, anything with a slick bottom slid or rolled back and forth worse than a ship's utility boat in a light chop. Fortunately I don't get seasick, that would be just too much fun.
The weight isn’t really true. McPherson systems are inferior because the forces aren’t all aligned with the arms, so they introduce bending moments in the system. That requires having beefier parts in order to achieve the same rigidity as a double wishbone, so that means more mass. So this pretty much equals the extra components in the DW system
Also space which is why they are used on all or almost all transversely mounted engine/gearbox FWD cars. Longtitudinal mounted engine FWD cars usually have more room around the sides which allows double wishbones as the better option.
@@zahimiibrahim3602 Except for Honda. OK, back in the 90's. Transversely mounted engine/gearbox FWD cars such the Civic and Integra ran double wishbones. They dropped this setup in the early 00's. Cost and ease of maintenance.
Error: at 2:40 You show a double wishbone suspension which happens to use a Macpherson strut for the spring element, a blend of the two systems. But you call it a Macpherson.
제가 딱 이 증상이었습니다.!! 50mm볼트만 조여달라고 지방에 외제차 정비 잘 하는곳 몇 군데를 가봤지만 다 요크를 바꿔야한다, 디퍼를 바꿔야한다는 소리들만하고 이 영상을 보여줘도 믿지를 않더라구요... 어쩔수없이 자가정비소 가서 언더커버, 방열판, 머플러 뒤쪽만 탈거하고 드라이브샤프트랑 디퍼만 분리시킨상태로 50mm볼트 조이니까 볼트가 180도 정도는 돌아간거같습니다.(1m 살짝넘는 연장봉써서 빡쌔게 조였고 메뉴얼상 토크는 100Nm이니까 연장봉이랑 제 몸부게랑 계산해보면 비슷한 토크는 나올겁니다) 조이고 바로 80~90km/h로 달려봤더니 증상완화 되었습니다. 정말 감사합니다!!! 메르카바 화이팅!!
I say a mostly correct video. I own/have owned cars with both. Funny enough an MX5 and a Subaru, as you are showing in the video, among others. I think it all comes to tuning. My Peugeot with Mcpherson struts is devastatingly effective as was my WRX. In the double wishbone corner, an MX5 and an Alfa 147. Not much needs to be said about the Mazda, it is sublime. The Alfa, compared with the Paugeot, cars of comparable class and function, gives that little extra. It might not win on outright speed but it feels a lot more natural. The bad point is that for the Alfa the upper wishbone is a consumable, right at 60k kms.
I wish my Polo had a double wish bone system. The strut after a slow speed roll popped from the top and of course I'm lucky to be alive. Still miss my Polo, though.
Turns out when i lowered my 4th prelude the rear wheels actually cambered AND toed in, due to the toe arm design. Didnt know the rear toed in while cornering pretty genius design
Porsche has been sticking to multiple link McPherson on the front for decades as well as bmw and mercedes, for a good reason. The standard McPherson is what you said but the ML version of it is the way to go. Body roll can be fixed by well engineered sway bars. Have you tried the E60 with the hydraulic sway bar?
@@hanynowsky Idk, I always thought they use double wishbone, just like Audi. At least I have seen them in X5s and 5 series recently (and by that I mean F models, last 10 years..)
@@hanynowsky on the other hand, I suppose BMW with its whatever magical multilink McPherson with lengthwise mounted engines is completely different story compared to regular simple McPherson with sway bar in a Golf or something similar. and I think this video is a bit misleading because it completely omits rear suspension setup, which is arguably more important for the all-round handling characteristics.
@@kristiaan1 you are correct. It s very different from the classical McPherson found in Golfs and Hondas. And yes BMW and Mercedes switched to Double Wishbone starting 2009 in most models as they have gone towards Turbochargers and downsizing and most of their vehicles were shipped with the numb electric steering instead of the so lovely hydraulic rack and pinion. The video is indeed very simplistic and misleading.
Sorry but this info is blatantly wrong. Double wishbone does not have "dynamic camber changes mid corner", that's camber gain, and that's literally what macpherson struts do and double wishbone was designed not to do. 0/10 effort
Not totally correct, most double wishbone systems are also designed to gain camber upon compression by using shorter upper wishbones and longer lower wishbones. Camber gain can be more precisely designed by varying suspension geometry compared to a simple strut system.
No they, double a arms, technically don't gain positive camber like a McPherson strut does. Mcpherson struts tend to gain positive camber and roll over to the outside edge of the tire tread especially on the outside tire in a corner. That's something I liked about the 1990s Thunderbirds and even the front wheel drive Honda accords in similar years. They were four wheel independent suspension without those stupid McPherson struts. They kept the tires flat and planted to the road. Upper and lower A frames or wishbone types go more negative camber on the outside tire which is desirable to keep it flat and planted to the road.
And upper & lower A frames tend to gain positive camber on the inside tire in a corner, which is also desirable. Where a McPherson again doesn't. They always react exactly opposite of what would be ideal. That's why I say they're cheaper and easier to build and work just good enough for Joe schmoe, that's all. Nothing to be seen here....😅
Camber gain can be designed in on both it is important countering the effect of body roll and tyre tuck when cornering. On strut suspension getting the roll centre , camber gain, roll steer where the designer wants is more challenging.
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958 not much gain on P strut, other than what its set at. if you mean positive camber, usually positive isn't desirable. Take a look at the amount of negative camber F1 cars run especially in the front. The only race cars that use (pogo stick) macpherson strut suspension is possibly world rally cars, but I'm not 100% sure on that and probably some SCCA stock class type stuff in this country. If it was so great why doesn't F1, Indy car, Nascar, IMSA, etc. use it. Even dirt track cars don't use it. It works good on front wheel drive street platforms because it doesn't take up much lateral room in the engine compartment. And its cheaper to build and works good enough for the average drivers.
One other thing that is not discussed is the need to reduce the scrub radius for Front Wheel Drive use. This is more easily achieved if the upper wishbone outer ball joint is located above the wheel. Cannot do that with Macpherson.
There is a system used on high-power Ford front wheel drive cars. They have a modified McPherson strut, with the steering pivoting independently of the strut. It is particularly beneficial on powerful front drive cars.
When you lower a car with McPherson Struts, you need to rise the pivot points of the control arm the same amount, or you just threw the geometry out the window and end up with either something very stiff, or not adjustable to the caster, camber, and toe setting you desire.
I would claim that 4 times out of 5 MacPherson is heavier than a proper dwb - or even 9/10. One of the worst features of MacPherson is that when lowering a car the roll centers fall 2.5 to 3 times as much as the lowering of the car and then you need a stiffer AR-bar which is ok for a track car but road tuned cars do not like excessive warp-stiffness. Also MacPherson tends to loose camber gain quickly when dropped. Further more MacPherson has a lot more friction as the dbw. And yet, most cars with MacPherson handle still well. Also I think the big noise about Porsche GT3 having a dbw and being like "night and day" compared to the older MacP is pure marketing bs. When something is so good to begin with there is no way to make it "night and day" better. It certainly is a little bit better.
If designing a car for yourself go for wishbones, if designing a car to mass produce go for McPherson struts on the front; McPherson struts also have a naturally high roll centre which is another reason manufacturers like them for the front, also they work well on 911’s and similar with a light front end.
My Ballade/Civic cornered well at speeds over 100mph, where a Corolla with struts wanted to go straight at below 60mph. The Honda had double wishbone suspension.
At 0:53 he says " double wishbone suspensions allow the rear to toe in". Unless you have four-wheel steering, I don't you think you have a steering knuckle on your rear tires. Is this computer generated text and voice?
@@pavelslama5543 OK, my mistake sorry I was responding to the video which appears to show it connected to a rack. At least that was how it looked. I should have been specific. You are correct, you can adjust toe but I suspect your toe adjustment doesn't have such a rack connection. I always fall for that. I recall my driver's test 43 years ago and I answered according to the picture, not the words. I never learn....
Upper and lower control arms suspension. It's been tried and true time tested over decades. Also used with torsion bar as well as coil springs. I also prefer rear wheel drive. McPherson Struts enabled transverse engine front wheel drive in cars, for space. Not a fan of all that. I have no choices either selecting a sedan this day and time.
out of all the cars to have no excuse for having them.... what were the pros again? cost and packaging? it's an expensive sports car with the engine in the back. as for having a trunk, my civic has a B18 between its double wishbones and a trunk in the back you could live in.
Some of those pictures show an upper control arm used with a Mac strut, bringing in the inflexibility and weight of a big strut AND complexity of added components, as well as taking up more space, right where it says "SPACE EFFICIENT" in the overlay.
Have a '94 Integra w/ double wishbone front. Thing handles like a performance car. With good tires you have to be going crazy illegal speed to make the thing slide or even squeal. Unless you're drifting it, but drifting a 'teg makes as much sense as drag racing one. Not built for that, built to be quick and handle like a dream. If you want it to be fast, the ultimate tuner.
😊🙏 Always wanted to know this ... Thank You So Much OBD Insight for this well presented tutorial on the difference , con & pro of Double-Wishbone or Macpherson Suspensions ... 🙏🌷🌿🌏✌💜🕊
Strut design requires heavier metals on struts to hold the weight of the car. Steel and cast iron parts are used for them, adding weight. Double wishbone allows upper and lower arms to share weight, with suspension dampers handling only dynamic load. Each of the three can be made in lighter aluminum, reducing overall weight for practical applications
I have Audi A4 b8 2.0Q (double wishbone) and BMW 330ix F30 (McPherson) - BMW has much more handling in full stock suspension. Audi has sports Bilstein B6 shock absorbers but it still far from BMW handling due to wrong wiight distribution.
When McP struts first came into consumer cars, ca. 1978 (?), I found that they had to be stiffer because their dynamic range was smaller. In other words, if you allowed a McP to travel as far as a dbl wishbone, you loose alignment at the outer ranges of the travel. Consequently, stiffness was added to prevent the system from "bottoming out", thus jarring the car and its inhabitants to pieces. Subsequently, younger buyers were propagandized into buying the cheaper, stiffer suspensions. The older dbl wishbone was a softer, smoother ride which has its place in the market, particularly with today's decaying roads.
My old 1957 Ford Zephyr had Macpherson Struts and probably (almost certainly) wasn't the first car so equipped. It's not a new idea! It's used primarily because it's cheap and the cons don't show unless you are using a good percentage of the handling available, something the vast majority of motorists never do. So the manufacturers get away with their cheapskating (one point of view) or, looked at another way, get to build more cheaply, so, at least in theory, the end product is less expensive. As for me, I like to utilize about 105% of my cars roadholding ability, so it's double wishbones and RWD for me, end of!
Они ещё, к тому же лучше гасят колебания. Только требуют большего внимания для шаровых опор, так как их там две: нижняя и верхняя. А в стойке Макферсон лишь одна- нижняя.
Так я и не понял как макферсон держит развал.Получается при вертикальном давлении на колесо всю нагрузку получает стойка амотризатора и её шток тянет на излом?
My car has double wishbone on the IRS and Modified Macpherson strut up front (that has been furher modified to with coil overs to become an unmodified Macpherson strut) Shits wild
I do not thing the struts version provide space saving. The shock tower required is taking engine bay space reducing the available width and creating serious engine access issues.
ERROR The images shown at the beginning of the section on MacPherson struts (2:17) and in the summary 4:26) are NOT a MachPherson strut It too is a double A-arm suspension, only it is showing the rear suspension (no steering linkage and orientation resembling semi trailing arm) instead of the front suspension. You'll note that unlike a MacPherson strut, the coil spring and shock absorber are NOT locating members, but is separated from the wheel hub/spindle
I have a Mazda Miata. It has the double wishbone suspension and handles like nothing else! Formula1 race cars use double wishbone suspension exclusively. That says a lot.
Mick-fur-son or mack-fur-son is generally what I've heard. I've heard mack-fear-son before, but very uncommon. MacPherson is a common last name around here and they all say it "mick-fur-son."
Struts mean the tyre diameter is limited. The cup of the strut will eventually rust through as water collect sin cup. Best to drill a small hole at the lowest point.
Mcpherson struts are located by an anti roll bar, Chapman struts can be unsupported by an anti roll bar and used between multiple linking arms, they are what you mean I think. Basically a 'coilover'. A true Mcpherson strut is a ford of Britain invention and the whole idea is a single lower arm located for and aft by the roll bar.
He's wrong about the tendency to roll. That's entirely down to the spring strength of each type of suspension. MacPherson strut are no more likely to roll on a bend than double-wishbone. But I prefer double wishbone.
The Toyota Camry and Avalon used the best of both worlds in their double-wishbone MacPherson strut front ends.In late 1984 (2nd year of the Camry) one of the line workers was doodling on a paper towel at the dinner table, and figured he could eliminate about 50 parts and 60-70 pounds from the Camry's front end and make it BETTER. They STOPPED THE LINE and re-tooled the worker's design and he got $400,000 for the improvement. In 1985, the Camry got a 2.5L 163 HP V-6, which the original front end could have never handled. I owned the original 1983 1/2 FIRST production Camry LE. Then I drove the V-6. Night and day difference in ride and HANDLING. I ended up buying a gall-bladder surgery instead of a new car. I drove the '83 1/2 Camry 14 years and 330,000 miles, and sold it to a co-worker (at the time) and she's STILL driving it with 2.2 MILLION miles on it-engine and transaxle haven't been touched. BTW, an '88 3L V-6 Camry has the mileage record. 6.3 MILLION miles. BP gives him Castrol Syntec and maybe free BP fuel. I've seen the BP commercial with the car in it.
Maybe talk a little more about the more technical aspects of each. For instance, roll centers, instant centers, camber gain...that sort of thing. It would also be interesting to compare something like a modern Porsche 911 front suspension (last I remember they used struts) and an economy car...maybe like a Corolla, just to see how much and where they differ and if a Porsche really has that much difference in that type of design over a "lesser" vehicle.
i wanted to see how camber changes during cornering or with changes to ride height. also he mentioned DWBs being more costly to maintain, failing to mention that maintenance is far less frequent than with McPs.
Fun fact, the Porsche 911 GT cars have double wishbone suspension while the non-GT 911's use McPherson strut suspension.
That's a unique scenario where the same model car has 2 different suspension configurations based on trim/designation
My 5th generation Civic had double wishbone suspension. The combination of ride and handling was sublime.
McPherson for manufacturer and double wishbone for customer.
You nailed it!
disagree , I have Audi A4 b8 2.0Q (double wishbone) and BMW 330ix F30 (McPherson) - BMW has much more handling in full stock suspension. Audi feels like a heavy weight ship in corners
Some of the best handling sportscar ever had four MacPherson struts, IE the Lancia Delta, X1/9, Porsche Boxster...
@@sergey9627 production costs are still king, silly comparison, as changing platform construction will kill profit, require new construction.
I’d go double wishbone suspension over McPherson any day.
I have both
In the future, you will get a spongy bit of rubber and you will be happy....
in Double Wishbone you get in trouble when the upper ball joint fails!!
Until you've tried a nice Mac strut ride, they can be really nice too. Ever driven both a second and third gen Mazda RX-7? The 3rd gen cars are much better overall, but I always thought the second gen cars had a little bit nicer and tighter on-center steering feel despite the 3rd gen cars having a much superior suspension overall and just being lighter, stiffer and just better cars.
If you could find that oh-so-rare 2nd gen RX-7 that hasn't been crashed or abused they can be fantastic cars to drive, MacPherson struts and all.
Problem is they're very old cars now and most of them that are still around have been crashed, trashed, stolen and abused very badly.
I built off-road rally cars, always double wishbone and never struts.
2:20 picture is double wishbone while you are talking about McPherson suspension
Totally. Wrong photos throughout.
My Alfa 156 has double wishbone and she handles great, one big advantage of double wishbone is that the wheel is always perpendicular to the road surface, thus maximising the contact patch, whereas the McPherson moves in an arc, the inside wheel in a curve has minimum contact.
Depends on the shape of the lower arm. With a correct arm length thé arc also negates the effect of the body roll.
@@pavelslama5543 true
Now I know why my Polo 86c spun the inside wheel when accelerating out of tight corners
Plus double wishbone is totally "programmable" with body roll allowing camber change, caster, and anti-dive to be set for the car and even it's use.
@@I_feel_just_like_a_rockstar I should have left room for the fact there are some brilliant mechanical engineers that can get around any limitation. (I am an electronics guy so I am always in awe of Mechanical Engineers.) It is just when you map out the camber change with body roll, it is much harder to get the tire where you want it when one of your pivots is a fixed point. Obviously the main reason MacPhersons go on normal passenger cars is to leave space for the front wheel drive. But that means high end all wheel drives need the space too. They are not going to just "make do".
On the weight front, I was impressed when I looked at the front upper control arm on a Crown Vic and it looked like an aluminum dog bone. No more big honking stamped steel plate like they used to use, so i'd bet they got the weight problem down.
it is incorrect to say that mcpherson produces more body roll since the wheels are interconnected. McPherson is a completely independent design. What really happens is that it has an arc shaped travel, changing camber depending on its position, but that only affects the contact patch and the wheel incidence on the ground, not the roll of the vehicle
It depends, on "true" McPherson design both sides are in fact interconnected, since the antiroll bar is also working as the second half of the lower "triangle" structure as it is connected directly on the control arm thus providing the second connexion point to the subframe, preventing movement in the longitudinal direction.
However most if not all cars use an evolution of this design (called "pseudo" McPherson) and it has been the case for, at the very least, 30 years. In this configuration there may or may not be an antiroll bar as the lower control arm is actually a "triangle" with 2 connexion point on the subframe.
I was just going to say the same thing! But you got to it first.
Also, the body roll example at 03:58 shows a double-wishbone design...
Long arm short arm double wishbone moves the patch outwards as the spring gets compressed extremely. So it fights roll in extreme situations like break and turn at the same time.
McPherson pulls in the patch here. So you need to brake before the corner. And when you have to avoid an accident you need to decide between brake and steer.
I think there were some tricks with geometry possible, so a double wishbone system can reject body roll by supporting the vehicle in the roll direction with its geometry rather than only relying on the spring. This is similar to the squat and dive resistance which is possible with double wishbones, something that also should have been included in the video.
I found the difference handling-wise by experience. I got my first cars about 20 yrs ago, and one was McPherson (Toyota Vios/Vitz) and the other was double-wishbone(Mitsubishi Galant), but I didnt know that at that time. The difference in handling on twisty roads was night and day. I owned the Toyota first, so I was used to being careful when driving on twisty roads because the back would sway out. When I got the Galant several months later, and drove on the same twisty road, I was amazed that I could go faster without any body roll. Years later I realized it was the Galant's suspension that caused the big difference in handling. Also years later, I found out the Miata has double wishbone and coupled with the perfect weight distribution, no wonder many enthusiasts swear by it.
Still rolling my Galant in 2024 :)
I had a 99 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX that used the same suspension as the Galant, and yeah, it was the perfect balance of handling stability and comfort. Technically it was considered a multi-link front and rear (not a traditional double-wishbone). McPherson struts have improved since then though. I have a Toyota GR86 for example that handles very well with a front strut design, but I can't help but to wonder how it would feel with a double wishbone/multi-link front suspension. Mitsubishi was the best in the 90's!
No, the big difference is your vios is using torsion beam while your galant using independent suspension that makes it night and day
Macpherson itself is pretty good hence why porsche is using it for their 911
I like driving my Miata.
Now a days there seems to be a double lower ball joint setup. The pivot rolls forward and rearward towards either pivot. I figure this would more precisely place the wheel in either way the car is steered. Very cool. Steve Smith autosoprts has a book on suspension design. Kind of in depth
you're pronouncing mcpherson wrong
It’s text to speech
@@aaronsomeone5751 wouldnt be surprised if it was written and edited by ai aswell
You're spelling Macpherson wrong. Just sayin'.
At least it's not being pronounced McPheeerson, like a lot of people do for no obvious reason.
😅
For the creator: Your on the right track with this video. Learn from the comments and use it in the next video. Your subs and view will explode, I'm sure. Good luck!
For a slow and small city car Macpherson is enough. As reliability, stability and security requirements grow, Wishbone is preferred.
Some of the best handling sportscar ever had four MacPherson struts, IE the Lancia Delta, X1/9, Porsche Boxster...
As for reliability and security, in a Macpherson struts there are less things that can wear and break, and the limited lateral space occupied makes for more impact-resistant car structures.
my car has the double wishbone, and it's exactly what you said this is pretty stable especialy in corners
Yeah, it was a very informative and technically sound presentation. Full compliments to the creative team.
McPherson struts, manual transmission, 50 years with no problems.
Main determining factor in the amount of car "waddle" is the center of gravity. When I had to switch from a low center of gravity to a higher one as the car model design changed, I suddenly found my favorite twisty road to play on became a guessing game for when the balance shifted in a curve. The car lurched from side to side seemingly at random. Never found a way to balance that out.
Another thing with the higher vehicle was what was in the trunk. Basketballs, soccer balls, footballs, anything with a slick bottom slid or rolled back and forth worse than a ship's utility boat in a light chop. Fortunately I don't get seasick, that would be just too much fun.
Some of his strut pics are actually pics of double wishbone suspensions, just with a strut like shock spring tower
The weight isn’t really true. McPherson systems are inferior because the forces aren’t all aligned with the arms, so they introduce bending moments in the system. That requires having beefier parts in order to achieve the same rigidity as a double wishbone, so that means more mass. So this pretty much equals the extra components in the DW system
Macpherson is ubiquitous for one reason - cost.
Also space which is why they are used on all or almost all transversely mounted engine/gearbox FWD cars.
Longtitudinal mounted engine FWD cars usually have more room around the sides which allows double wishbones as the better option.
@@zahimiibrahim3602 Except for Honda. OK, back in the 90's. Transversely mounted engine/gearbox FWD cars such the Civic and Integra ran double wishbones. They dropped this setup in the early 00's. Cost and ease of maintenance.
Exactly! the Accord as well. One thing I always liked about the Hondas.
I find they age better. Double-wishbone can get pretty bad when the bushings wear out. MacPherson suspensions are way more tolerant of worn bushings.
@@joels7605 yeah, well they only have a bottom A frame so. But the McPherson top strut mounts go to hell too so there's that.
Error: at 2:40 You show a double wishbone suspension which happens to use a Macpherson strut for the spring element, a blend of the two systems. But you call it a Macpherson.
제가 딱 이 증상이었습니다.!!
50mm볼트만 조여달라고 지방에 외제차 정비 잘 하는곳 몇 군데를 가봤지만 다 요크를 바꿔야한다, 디퍼를 바꿔야한다는 소리들만하고 이 영상을 보여줘도 믿지를 않더라구요...
어쩔수없이 자가정비소 가서 언더커버, 방열판, 머플러 뒤쪽만 탈거하고 드라이브샤프트랑 디퍼만 분리시킨상태로 50mm볼트 조이니까 볼트가 180도 정도는 돌아간거같습니다.(1m 살짝넘는 연장봉써서 빡쌔게 조였고 메뉴얼상 토크는 100Nm이니까 연장봉이랑 제 몸부게랑 계산해보면 비슷한 토크는 나올겁니다) 조이고 바로 80~90km/h로 달려봤더니 증상완화 되었습니다.
정말 감사합니다!!! 메르카바 화이팅!!
The addition of additional components
I say a mostly correct video. I own/have owned cars with both. Funny enough an MX5 and a Subaru, as you are showing in the video, among others.
I think it all comes to tuning. My Peugeot with Mcpherson struts is devastatingly effective as was my WRX. In the double wishbone corner, an MX5 and an Alfa 147. Not much needs to be said about the Mazda, it is sublime. The Alfa, compared with the Paugeot, cars of comparable class and function, gives that little extra. It might not win on outright speed but it feels a lot more natural.
The bad point is that for the Alfa the upper wishbone is a consumable, right at 60k kms.
I wish my Polo had a double wish bone system. The strut after a slow speed roll popped from the top and of course I'm lucky to be alive. Still miss my Polo, though.
Turns out when i lowered my 4th prelude the rear wheels actually cambered AND toed in, due to the toe arm design. Didnt know the rear toed in while cornering pretty genius design
Porsche has been sticking to multiple link McPherson on the front for decades as well as bmw and mercedes, for a good reason.
The standard McPherson is what you said but the ML version of it is the way to go.
Body roll can be fixed by well engineered sway bars.
Have you tried the E60 with the hydraulic sway bar?
which Mercedes or BMW (with lenghtwise built engine, that is ) has McPherson in the front?
@@kristiaan1 what is the bmw E60 front suspension called?
Isn t it a
multi link McPherson ?
Same goes for the Bmw E60 M5 with its V10.
@@hanynowsky Idk, I always thought they use double wishbone, just like Audi. At least I have seen them in X5s and 5 series recently (and by that I mean F models, last 10 years..)
@@hanynowsky on the other hand, I suppose BMW with its whatever magical multilink McPherson with lengthwise mounted engines is completely different story compared to regular simple McPherson with sway bar in a Golf or something similar.
and I think this video is a bit misleading because it completely omits rear suspension setup, which is arguably more important for the all-round handling characteristics.
@@kristiaan1 you are correct.
It s very different from the classical McPherson found in Golfs and Hondas.
And yes BMW and Mercedes switched to Double Wishbone starting 2009 in most models as they have gone towards Turbochargers and downsizing and most of their vehicles were shipped with the numb electric steering instead of the so lovely hydraulic rack and pinion.
The video is indeed very simplistic and misleading.
Absolutely no qualifications in this regard, I merely wanted to understand if I could take what you were saying for granted. Now I know that I can. 😊
Sorry but this info is blatantly wrong. Double wishbone does not have "dynamic camber changes mid corner", that's camber gain, and that's literally what macpherson struts do and double wishbone was designed not to do. 0/10 effort
Not totally correct, most double wishbone systems are also designed to gain camber upon compression by using shorter upper wishbones and longer lower wishbones. Camber gain can be more precisely designed by varying suspension geometry compared to a simple strut system.
No they, double a arms, technically don't gain positive camber like a McPherson strut does. Mcpherson struts tend to gain positive camber and roll over to the outside edge of the tire tread especially on the outside tire in a corner. That's something I liked about the 1990s Thunderbirds and even the front wheel drive Honda accords in similar years. They were four wheel independent suspension without those stupid McPherson struts. They kept the tires flat and planted to the road. Upper and lower A frames or wishbone types go more negative camber on the outside tire which is desirable to keep it flat and planted to the road.
And upper & lower A frames tend to gain positive camber on the inside tire in a corner, which is also desirable. Where a McPherson again doesn't. They always react exactly opposite of what would be ideal. That's why I say they're cheaper and easier to build and work just good enough for Joe schmoe, that's all. Nothing to be seen here....😅
Camber gain can be designed in on both it is important countering the effect of body roll and tyre tuck when cornering. On strut suspension getting the roll centre , camber gain, roll steer where the designer wants is more challenging.
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958 not much gain on P strut, other than what its set at. if you mean positive camber, usually positive isn't desirable. Take a look at the amount of negative camber F1 cars run especially in the front. The only race cars that use (pogo stick) macpherson strut suspension is possibly world rally cars, but I'm not 100% sure on that and probably some SCCA stock class type stuff in this country. If it was so great why doesn't F1, Indy car, Nascar, IMSA, etc. use it. Even dirt track cars don't use it.
It works good on front wheel drive street platforms because it doesn't take up much lateral room in the engine compartment. And its cheaper to build and works good enough for the average drivers.
One other thing that is not discussed is the need to reduce the scrub radius for Front Wheel Drive use. This is more easily achieved if the upper wishbone outer ball joint is located above the wheel. Cannot do that with Macpherson.
There is a system used on high-power Ford front wheel drive cars. They have a modified McPherson strut, with the steering pivoting independently of the strut. It is particularly beneficial on powerful front drive cars.
for the driving pleasure and fun, I'll choose the double wishbone! :)
When you lower a car with McPherson Struts, you need to rise the pivot points of the control arm the same amount, or you just threw the geometry out the window and end up with either something very stiff, or not adjustable to the caster, camber, and toe setting you desire.
I would claim that 4 times out of 5 MacPherson is heavier than a proper dwb - or even 9/10.
One of the worst features of MacPherson is that when lowering a car the roll centers fall 2.5 to 3 times as much as the lowering of the car and then you need a stiffer AR-bar which is ok for a track car but road tuned cars do not like excessive warp-stiffness. Also MacPherson tends to loose camber gain quickly when dropped. Further more MacPherson has a lot more friction as the dbw.
And yet, most cars with MacPherson handle still well. Also I think the big noise about Porsche GT3 having a dbw and being like "night and day" compared to the older MacP is pure marketing bs. When something is so good to begin with there is no way to make it "night and day" better. It certainly is a little bit better.
If designing a car for yourself go for wishbones, if designing a car to mass produce go for McPherson struts on the front; McPherson struts also have a naturally high roll centre which is another reason manufacturers like them for the front, also they work well on 911’s and similar with a light front end.
Which one lasts more km until replace bushings
My Ballade/Civic cornered well at speeds over 100mph, where a Corolla with struts wanted to go straight at below 60mph. The Honda had double wishbone suspension.
At 0:53 he says " double wishbone suspensions allow the rear to toe in". Unless you have four-wheel steering, I don't you think you have a steering knuckle on your rear tires. Is this computer generated text and voice?
My rear MacPherson strut also allows for a toe in settings.
@@pavelslama5543 OK, my mistake sorry I was responding to the video which appears to show it connected to a rack. At least that was how it looked. I should have been specific. You are correct, you can adjust toe but I suspect your toe adjustment doesn't have such a rack connection.
I always fall for that. I recall my driver's test 43 years ago and I answered according to the picture, not the words. I never learn....
What is a Macrson strut suspension?
Upper and lower control arms suspension. It's been tried and true time tested over decades. Also used with torsion bar as well as coil springs. I also prefer rear wheel drive. McPherson Struts enabled transverse engine front wheel drive in cars, for space. Not a fan of all that. I have no choices either selecting a sedan this day and time.
I have two sports cars and they have the two different sytems. They both run perfectly.
Why do the old 911s have MacPherson suspension? Or is it not exactly the same because it is torsion?
Like guy said. Packaging. You get a trunk.
.lol.
out of all the cars to have no excuse for having them.... what were the pros again? cost and packaging? it's an expensive sports car with the engine in the back.
as for having a trunk, my civic has a B18 between its double wishbones and a trunk in the back you could live in.
😂😂😂. Spot on!
Some of those pictures show an upper control arm used with a Mac strut, bringing in the inflexibility and weight of a big strut AND complexity of added components, as well as taking up more space, right where it says "SPACE EFFICIENT" in the overlay.
How about De Dion rear suspension? Torsion bar suspension? Hydropneumatic suspension?
Upper and lower control arm, is that double wishbone setting?
Yep
Have a '94 Integra w/ double wishbone front. Thing handles like a performance car. With good tires you have to be going crazy illegal speed to make the thing slide or even squeal. Unless you're drifting it, but drifting a 'teg makes as much sense as drag racing one. Not built for that, built to be quick and handle like a dream. If you want it to be fast, the ultimate tuner.
Which type of suspension is related to what type of road/ terrain conditions?
Which is good ..???
😊🙏 Always wanted to know this ... Thank You So Much OBD Insight for this well presented tutorial on the difference , con & pro of Double-Wishbone or Macpherson Suspensions ... 🙏🌷🌿🌏✌💜🕊
People forget that MacPherson strut suspensions can be very good, and generally cost less.
Strut design requires heavier metals on struts to hold the weight of the car. Steel and cast iron parts are used for them, adding weight. Double wishbone allows upper and lower arms to share weight, with suspension dampers handling only dynamic load. Each of the three can be made in lighter aluminum, reducing overall weight for practical applications
What is "Mack-Fur-Sin"?
Good to know. What about Torsion beam / Twist beam suspension which are common for cheap, budget cars?
McPherson for me all day, because of my country's bad roads. Double wishbone maintenance costs just aren't worth the advantages.
I have Audi A4 b8 2.0Q (double wishbone) and BMW 330ix F30 (McPherson) - BMW has much more handling in full stock suspension. Audi has sports Bilstein B6 shock absorbers but it still far from BMW handling due to wrong wiight distribution.
When McP struts first came into consumer cars, ca. 1978 (?), I found that they had to be stiffer because their dynamic range was smaller. In other words, if you allowed a McP to travel as far as a dbl wishbone, you loose alignment at the outer ranges of the travel. Consequently, stiffness was added to prevent the system from "bottoming out", thus jarring the car and its inhabitants to pieces. Subsequently, younger buyers were propagandized into buying the cheaper, stiffer suspensions. The older dbl wishbone was a softer, smoother ride which has its place in the market, particularly with today's decaying roads.
My old 1957 Ford Zephyr had Macpherson Struts and probably (almost certainly) wasn't the first car so equipped. It's not a new idea! It's used primarily because it's cheap and the cons don't show unless you are using a good percentage of the handling available, something the vast majority of motorists never do. So the manufacturers get away with their cheapskating (one point of view) or, looked at another way, get to build more cheaply, so, at least in theory, the end product is less expensive.
As for me, I like to utilize about 105% of my cars roadholding ability, so it's double wishbones and RWD for me, end of!
My MR2 has McPherson suspension.
Usually ok, but many vehicles were lost by snap oversteer, when the contact to the road suddenly gets lost.
My MR2 has MacPherson with multilink lower arm both front and rear, and its extremely stable under all circumstances.
Double is my best.
How about leaf springs? Can you explain on video, pros and cons
Double Wishbone Handles Way Better than Macpherson struts
My choice is Double Wishbone
Они ещё, к тому же лучше гасят колебания. Только требуют большего внимания для шаровых опор, так как их там две: нижняя и верхняя. А в стойке Макферсон лишь одна- нижняя.
Some of the best handling cars ever had four MacPherson struts. IE the lancia Delta, or the Porsche Boxster.
This keeps mispronouncing Macpherson and showing coil over shock double wishbone as Macpherson in several places.
This is AI generated.
what kinda suspension system were used in 60s 70s or 80s American comfortable cars?
Semi-Elliptic cart springs lol
Thanks I was always curious what the different suspension set ups were
Off-road 4x4’s need the double wishbone.
Так я и не понял как макферсон держит развал.Получается при вертикальном давлении на колесо всю нагрузку получает стойка амотризатора и её шток тянет на излом?
I prefer double wishbone in all kind of cars the problem is only that most of my cars does have McPherson and are difficult to rebuild.
My car has double wishbone on the IRS and Modified Macpherson strut up front (that has been furher modified to with coil overs to become an unmodified Macpherson strut)
Shits wild
I do not thing the struts version provide space saving. The shock tower required is taking engine bay space reducing the available width and creating serious engine access issues.
ERROR
The images shown at the beginning of the section on MacPherson struts (2:17) and in the summary 4:26) are NOT a MachPherson strut
It too is a double A-arm suspension, only it is showing the rear suspension (no steering linkage and orientation resembling semi trailing arm) instead of the front suspension.
You'll note that unlike a MacPherson strut, the coil spring and shock absorber are NOT locating members, but is separated from the wheel hub/spindle
Double wishbones are costly for the consumer too. They need replacement every 4-5 years
I have a 27 yo car that still has the original wishbones. I'm taking it to the track this weekend.
Have a 31 yo Integra with the originals, handles like a race car. No, it's not for sale.
I have a Mazda Miata. It has the double wishbone suspension and handles like nothing else!
Formula1 race cars use double wishbone suspension exclusively. That says a lot.
Interestingly, the Boxster has macpherson struts front and back.
Also the Lancia Delta had. Some of the best handling cars ever had four MacPherson struts.
GT3 has double wishbone . A car for track racing,
terima kasih pencerahannya...menambah wawasan dan pengetahuan saya..👍🙏
Baugs!
The new mustangs now use macpherson. Along and finally with an independent rear suspension.
Rear suspension at 2:24 has double wishbone.?
Mazda miata has double wishbone front and rear
So do the 90's Civic sedans!
How tf are the wheels of an axle with mcpherson suspension interconnected?
Informative. Thanks. ❤
I ended up with a double wishbone in the front and a mcpherson on the rear axle.
Twice gave picture of double wishbone suspension when talking about Macpherson
Left this video the moment I heard "Macreson".
MacPherson: muhk·fur·suhn
Mick-fur-son or mack-fur-son is generally what I've heard. I've heard mack-fear-son before, but very uncommon.
MacPherson is a common last name around here and they all say it "mick-fur-son."
MacFearson sounds weird - the people saying that way use the ‘er’ phoneme correctly in any other word though - strange
Stress on second syllable.
I had a car with McPherson struts, and I thought they were just cheaping out...tying into the shock like that!
Struts mean the tyre diameter is limited. The cup of the strut will eventually rust through as water collect sin cup. Best to drill a small hole at the lowest point.
The existence of a “MacPherson” suspension suggests the existence of a “PCPherson” suspension.
Nice.
@3:58 he speaks about MacPherson but shows q Double WishBones front suspension architecture.
I have learnt a new word today.
Mcpherson struts are located by an anti roll bar, Chapman struts can be unsupported by an anti roll bar and used between multiple linking arms, they are what you mean I think. Basically a 'coilover'. A true Mcpherson strut is a ford of Britain invention and the whole idea is a single lower arm located for and aft by the roll bar.
There are reasonable mcPherson versions: the one from E90 BMW with 2 lower arms and the one from Megane 2 RS with double axis.
My ALFA 156 has DW - suspension on it and it lets you everything you want on the road.
I like the five Link in the back of my Corvette
Wishbone suspension is stronger. Macpherson restrict the tyre size that can be fitted.
Uhhh... no.
thx, i like doublewishbone
At least 2 of the systems pictured are hybrid between Double wishbone and Mcpherson strut.
Good of both
I dumped a Toyota Tacoma because snow chains won’t fit on the front wheels. The Tacoma uses McPherson struts which have no business on trucks.
He's wrong about the tendency to roll. That's entirely down to the spring strength of each type of suspension. MacPherson strut are no more likely to roll on a bend than double-wishbone. But I prefer double wishbone.
McPherson Easy AND unexpensive?
Un which universe?
my choice is not what I want, what is best, but what I can afford
I’m just saying I got an eg which has double and e30 with mcpherson, idk why the e30 just feels better
For our road conditions MacPherson is better
Mack Firson??
Rarely does a manufacturer change something unless it is to increase profits.
I have solid axles in my jeep jk and no steering or racing :)
The Toyota Camry and Avalon used the best of both worlds in their double-wishbone MacPherson strut front ends.In late 1984 (2nd year of the Camry) one of the line workers was doodling on a paper towel at the dinner table, and figured he could eliminate about 50 parts and 60-70 pounds from the Camry's front end and make it BETTER. They STOPPED THE LINE and re-tooled the worker's design and he got $400,000 for the improvement. In 1985, the Camry got a 2.5L 163 HP V-6, which the original front end could have never handled. I owned the original 1983 1/2 FIRST production Camry LE. Then I drove the V-6. Night and day difference in ride and HANDLING. I ended up buying a gall-bladder surgery instead of a new car. I drove the '83 1/2 Camry 14 years and 330,000 miles, and sold it to a co-worker (at the time) and she's STILL driving it with 2.2 MILLION miles on it-engine and transaxle haven't been touched. BTW, an '88 3L V-6 Camry has the mileage record. 6.3 MILLION miles. BP gives him Castrol Syntec and maybe free BP fuel. I've seen the BP commercial with the car in it.