Ive noticed most native FWD vehicles with independent rear suspension going down the road have an excessive amount of negative rear camber. I know that they initially have some built in to try to help the inherently dangerous handling of FWD vehicles.
The problem is especially once the rear springs settle or wear from the weak rear springs carring even a modest load, that the rear camber becomes ridiculously negative and makes it impossible to get even close to proper tire wear.
Now even some pickups and the new tahoes have weak independent rear suspension.
Its so evident driving down the road seeing these saggy rear end vehicles it makes me sick. Pay close attention and you will see the same thing.
FWD vehicles put Acceleration, braking and steering on the same tires. Way too much to put on two tires, hence deadly understeer.
This also ties into another thread on here about the ridiculously wide tires on vehicles now. All of this has gotten out of control with everything being a FWD based 400 hp vehicle with tires so wide it would make a 70s drag car envious.
Sounds like you need to take some driving lessens on how to drive a FWD vehicle, and learn to rotate your tires and check the alignment more oftenâŠ
If your car has more negative camber then normal, try running a more performance Asymmetrical tire with a little harder compound on the inside tread, it will help you get more even treadwear..
Run for the hills!
Hide!
The FWD cars are going to kill everyone, as theyâve apparently been doing since the '80s. Itâs a wonder that weâre not all dead.
Ok i concede. FWD offer the best, most predictable and safest handling.
The point is the negative rear camber. Look as you drove down the road. When these FWD or AWD vehicles are loaded up the negative rear camber is excessive amd eats tores amd your not going to tell me smy different.
Gove me a solid rear axle any day. Even older minivans had solid beam rear axles as did the older GM FWD cars.
Say what you want about the rear camber. But in the pic you posted, that car is clearly broken in one way or another. When I saw the pic, I was trying to figure out what joke I was missing.
Be aware that it is common for cars (and trucks) to be styled with the body curving in along the bottom - the widest part of the car being mid door height.
That means you canât see camber very well - you have to measure it.
And from what I understand about handling, a bit of camber helps. But from a tireâs perspective, high camber causes inside shoulder wear as well as irregular wear if the toe is excessive.
And this is true for RWD as well. Itâs just the independent rear axle cars have a slightly bit better handling and ride. Again, true for both FWD and RWD.
Ruh-roh, Didnât know at the time I took drivers Ed we were driving such a dangerous car, a FWD coupe, capable of smoking the front tires for a hundred feet, a brand new 66 Toronado. Yet did not experience gross understeer.
I suspect what Old-Day-Rick is seeing are improperly modified vehicles. Have seen a few that have been lowered, wide rims&tires, tires nearly touching the wheel well lip.
RWD vehicles may also have independent rear suspension, mine does. It feels different than my previous solid axle RWD, but that is a subjective, not objective observation.
I agree some FWD cars are running around with too much negative camber. You WANT that when loaded down because it helps the tire carry the cornering loads better so the car doesnât go from friendly understeer to oversteer.
That said, I think some manufacturers realized they screwed up the suspension design and had to fix it with more negative camber at the rear⊠and it will wear out the rear tires prematurely which is why tire rotation is so important to tire life.
As for the solid or beam axles⊠The GM minivans had a small amount of negative camber built into them. With a load they would flex a small bit and add more. At the end of durability testing at GM theyâd usually show 1.5 degrees of negative camber! The axle bent permanently.
My 100K mile 1975 Old Starfire (like a Chevy Monza) had 0.75 degrees negative camber on each side of the solid rear axle. My 100K mile 1989 1/2 ton Suburban had a whopping 1.5 degrees of negative camber. The axle was quiet and worked fine but had sagged over the years and miles. And then I FORCED my Camaro road race car to have 0.70 degrees negative camber (0.75 was the legal max. by the rules) so the rear would grip better.
I think that the perfect car for the OP would be one of the Auto Union race cars of the 1934-37 era. They had a rear-mounted V-16 engine, and the oversteer was so extremeâand unpredictableâthat a large number of skilled race drivers died in those cars. This was one of Ferdinand Porscheâs early designs, incidentally.
The âsolutionâ that Auto Union found was to hire motorcycle racers, rather than anyone who had previously raced the typical front engine/RWD race cars. Drivers who had been used to the âdeadly understeerâ of the typical front engine/RWD racer were unable to control the âsaferâ oversteer of the Auto Union race cars.
Edited to addâŠ
Another âbonusâ is that those old Auto Union race cars had narrow, bias-ply tires, no A/C, and none of those pesky modern passenger protection technologies. I.E.âthe perfect vehicle for the technophobe who yearns for The Good Old Days.
Thereâs âless to go wrongâ⊠if you survive your drive.
Uh not always. My FWD Ford Focus ST oversteered. So does my FWD Mini Cooper S. My dadâs 73 Ford Torino RWD understeered like crazy. Have no idea where your ideas come from but it all depends on suspension design. Not which wheels are driving.
Solid rear axle. Thereâs a reason no racer uses them. Bad handling at the limits. Hit a bump on one wheel and the other wheel goes. twitchy . Thatâs why cars nowadays have independent. You know. Each wheels absorbs its own bumps.
oversteer of the Auto Union race cars.
