Just curious: If only given these two choices, which would you opt for?

 

Live rear axle, rwd just feels right.

 

I can't help but wonder what car would be attached to the rest of the drivetrain, the dimensions/weight of the vehicle, bodystyle, how much power it's putting to those wheels, what company is engineering this car, etc... but to keep it simple in most cases and especially if it was a traditional FR type of car/layout like the RX-8 I would most definitely go with RWD/live axle if I hadn't already chose some different car.

 

Think Mustang = live rear axle

 

both are garbage

 

It totally depends on what exact cars we are talking about, for example

ITR > Mustang GT > Camry

 

Doesn't the older Civic Type-R (JDM and Euro-spec both) have a fully independent suspension (double wishbones I believe)? The newer one (Euro-spec at least) has a torsion beam axle.

I'm fairly sure (but don't quote me on this) the Civic Type-R can outhandle a Mustang. Power not being a factor of course.

I place far more emphasis on handling than power so I'd have to go with the FWD with fully independent suspension. On the other hand I think it's hard to find a FWD car with fully independent suspension unless it's a tuned version of an econobox (see Civic Type-R, Integra etc.). I mean what could be the practical reason behind putting fully independent suspension in a car not targeted at enthusiasts? I'm referring to fully independent on both front and rear wheels (I know many mid-size sedans use double wishbones on the front).

 

I was curious how negatively RX-8 drivers felt about the unsettling feeling when driving a Mustang around a corner at speed and when one of the rear wheels bump something, like a pebble, and the whole rear seems to shift.

For comparison, I'd compare the ultimate time attack FWD vs the ultimate time attack live rear axle car (Mustang).

If both are garbage, which is the stinkier garbage?

 

ryke12,
The Euro spec Civic does have a torsion-beam rear, taken from the Honda Fit, but they are fully independent I think. The torsion-beam functions as a spring.

Is there a current production Japanese sedan or coupe without a fully independent suspension system?

 

According to the AutoZine Technical School
http://www.autozine.org/technical_sc...21.htm#Torsion

Also, the Corolla, Matrix, Prius, Sienna and Yaris have torsion beam suspensions. The Tacoma has a live rear axle although that doesn't really count because it's a truck.

From the non-Toyota side, there's the Fit (with torsion beam), the Versa and the Sentra.

From what I see of torsion beam suspension though, it's really in the middle of being independent or not so... can we settle with a "maybe" on this point? Actually learning about independent suspension opened up another can of worms which I hadn't realized before.

From the Car Bible
http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible.html

So full independent suspension might be better, might not. It's really only the cheap version of it that seems to be debatable because multilink is something of a catch-all term for many different suspensions with the same general layout. I don't think any of us would argue that our rear multilink suspension is worse than a dependent suspension.

 

the ctr that matters, the japanese ctr has a fully independent suspension. so who cares about the euro version.

i would take the fully independent FF.

 

I always thought torsion beam suspensions actually had two independent torsion bars, one on each side, bolted to the chassis. If the torsion beam is connected from one wheel to the other, isn't that effectively an anti-roll bar instead?

It does make cost-cutting sense to have one that traverses the width of the car. Yes, in that case, it's not fully independent.