How to get bmw type handling?
01-16-2008, 01:38 PM
#41
For the record, here is what I know about what BMWs have that make them handle as well as they do:
- 50/50 weight distribution
- Low center of gravity
- Low-ish polar moment of inertia (main masses close to the center of the car)
- VERY stiff chassis with different natural frequencies for bending vs. twisting
- Excellent suspension geometry
- Well optimized spring and sway bar rates (not too soft, not too stiff)
- Very good dampers
- RWD
This is all stuff that works together. Designing the car with some of those traits helps it to have (and take advantage of) the rest.
- 50/50 weight distribution
- Low center of gravity
- Low-ish polar moment of inertia (main masses close to the center of the car)
- VERY stiff chassis with different natural frequencies for bending vs. twisting
- Excellent suspension geometry
- Well optimized spring and sway bar rates (not too soft, not too stiff)
- Very good dampers
- RWD
This is all stuff that works together. Designing the car with some of those traits helps it to have (and take advantage of) the rest.
Last edited by d00df00d; 01-16-2008 at 01:40 PM.
01-16-2008, 04:44 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
For the record, here is what I know about what BMWs have that make them handle as well as they do:
- 50/50 weight distribution
- Low center of gravity
- Low-ish polar moment of inertia (main masses close to the center of the car)
- VERY stiff chassis with different natural frequencies for bending vs. twisting
- Excellent suspension geometry
- Well optimized spring and sway bar rates (not too soft, not too stiff)
- Very good dampers
- RWD
This is all stuff that works together. Designing the car with some of those traits helps it to have (and take advantage of) the rest.
- 50/50 weight distribution
- Low center of gravity
- Low-ish polar moment of inertia (main masses close to the center of the car)
- VERY stiff chassis with different natural frequencies for bending vs. twisting
- Excellent suspension geometry
- Well optimized spring and sway bar rates (not too soft, not too stiff)
- Very good dampers
- RWD
This is all stuff that works together. Designing the car with some of those traits helps it to have (and take advantage of) the rest.
01-16-2008, 05:32 PM
#43
nobody is saying that stock for stock pretty much all BMWs own pretty much all maximas (and most other nissans) in the handling category.
I think the thing is that people think that a moderately-modded maxima can't handle as well as a stock BMW - which isn't true.
I told my buddy Clay, who I work with (and who autocrosses miatas), about this "handle like a BMW" thread and he laughed. His comment was that my maxima (which he has ridden in many times) outhandles his stock '04(?) 330xi by a tone, no question about it. This is coming from a BMW owner, not a Nissan fanboi.
anyhow...
stock for stock, d00d hit the nail on the head with his comments.
i'll be happy to go in the twisties with a stock 2000 5-series (non-M5)....
I think the thing is that people think that a moderately-modded maxima can't handle as well as a stock BMW - which isn't true.
I told my buddy Clay, who I work with (and who autocrosses miatas), about this "handle like a BMW" thread and he laughed. His comment was that my maxima (which he has ridden in many times) outhandles his stock '04(?) 330xi by a tone, no question about it. This is coming from a BMW owner, not a Nissan fanboi.
anyhow...
stock for stock, d00d hit the nail on the head with his comments.
i'll be happy to go in the twisties with a stock 2000 5-series (non-M5)....
01-16-2008, 05:33 PM
#44
regardless of chassis stiffnes, the E30 M3 is a true driver's car. Nothing BMW has made since comes close. And nothing Nissan has made since the early z-cars does either....
01-16-2008, 06:11 PM
#45
E36 >>>>>>>>> A32 as far as chassis design is concerned.
01-17-2008, 11:24 AM
#46
An E36 is smaller, made of tougher stuff, and more extensively braced and triangulated than a 4th gen Maxima. Also, don't forget that managing chassis forces was a much higher priority in the design of the E36, and it's something BMW is very good at; the 4th gen Maxima focused more on packaging and interior volume and is one of the LEAST rigid cars on the road. There's no comparison.
01-17-2008, 12:26 PM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
.. me, on the other hand... i've been driving e36 coupes and maximas back to back for only 10 years 
besides... what's exactly "sloppy" supposed to mean? just curious.
01-17-2008, 12:34 PM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
An E36 is smaller, made of tougher stuff, and more extensively braced and triangulated than a 4th gen Maxima. Also, don't forget that managing chassis forces was a much higher priority in the design of the E36, and it's something BMW is very good at; the 4th gen Maxima focused more on packaging and interior volume and is one of the LEAST rigid cars on the road. There's no comparison.
it's just that E36 is really a bad example to use..
01-17-2008, 12:45 PM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
E30 design goes back to the days when engineer had had all calculations done without any use of computers and then doubled and tripled everything. as of E36... computers and CAD happend to it.
01-17-2008, 01:33 PM
#50
Did those Maximas all have stock suspension, by the way? Because if they did, it's going to be difficult to compare unless you're really sensitive and know what you're looking for (which, judging by your next question, you don't really seem to).
And what criteria did you use to evaluate chassis rigidity when you drove?
A whole hell of a lot.
A car with a flexible chassis is easily unsettled by bumps and undulations in the road, requires a lot of steering corrections to keep it going straight, steers and handles poorly and inconsistently, and develops squeaks and rattles faster. Again, the E36 is among the better cars on the road in those departments (except maybe rattles, due to cheap-ish interior materials), whereas the Maxima is... not.
That doesn't sound like a good way to tell. I thought the parts of the chassis that matter to handling were not the parts you'd be straightening out after an accident big enough to damage them.
Last edited by d00df00d; 01-17-2008 at 01:36 PM.
01-17-2008, 02:05 PM
#51
A car with a flexible chassis is easily unsettled by bumps and undulations in the road, requires a lot of steering corrections to keep it going straight, steers and handles poorly and inconsistently, and develops squeaks and rattles faster. Again, the E36 is among the better cars on the road in those departments (except maybe rattles, due to cheap-ish interior materials), whereas the Maxima is... not.
That doesn't sound like a good way to tell. I thought the parts of the chassis that matter to handling were not the parts you'd be straightening out after an accident big enough to damage them.
01-17-2008, 02:21 PM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 1,341
It's pretty much the same stuff in terms of Young's modulus (structural engineering symbol E). E for all steels fall within a relatively narrow range of values. This basic material property is primarily related to chassis stiffness.
But not in terms of strength. HSLA steels are considerably stronger than mild steels in both tensile and yield stresses. We still haven't got to "toughness" yet - that's an integration under the stress-strain curve and also involves something called "ductility".
Then it gets a bit complex. HSLA may allow lighter structure for a given amount of structural capacity, but the structure itself could actually be slightly less rigid. Buckling becomes a more important issue as well, as once that happens - well, there goes some of your strength and stiffness. A good thing, probably, in crumple zones. But not within the passenger cell. Your suspension tuning is ultimately dependent on both regions.
I would not venture to make any "eyeball" estimates.
Norm
But not in terms of strength. HSLA steels are considerably stronger than mild steels in both tensile and yield stresses. We still haven't got to "toughness" yet - that's an integration under the stress-strain curve and also involves something called "ductility".
Then it gets a bit complex. HSLA may allow lighter structure for a given amount of structural capacity, but the structure itself could actually be slightly less rigid. Buckling becomes a more important issue as well, as once that happens - well, there goes some of your strength and stiffness. A good thing, probably, in crumple zones. But not within the passenger cell. Your suspension tuning is ultimately dependent on both regions.
I would not venture to make any "eyeball" estimates.
Norm
01-17-2008, 02:39 PM
#53
If you are seriously claiming that the A32 chassis is as rigid as the E36, you are smoking some crack. Newer cars will beat out an E36 for sure, but an A32? Please.
01-18-2008, 01:49 PM
#54
I had stage 2 SFC, Blehms stage 2 LTB, rear STB, and rear lateral link replacement before you even JOINED the ORG and thats not all the suspension/chassis mods. Just wanted to clarify that for he who know all.
Last edited by Delvin; 01-18-2008 at 01:56 PM.
01-19-2008, 07:56 PM
#55
lol the easiest way to put the argument
cars that have always been made to perform vs. cars that just have big bad a$$ motors that makes them rockets
buy a BMW or G35&M35/45 and be happy
cars that have always been made to perform vs. cars that just have big bad a$$ motors that makes them rockets
buy a BMW or G35&M35/45 and be happy
Last edited by Crusher103; 01-20-2008 at 11:33 AM.
01-20-2008, 02:32 PM
#57
Well its official a maxima does handle better then a BMW. I autoxed today and got a 43 sec time (to compare I was in STX class a Mini cooper s on track tires got 40s) a BMW 330i (DP class) so its official, Maxima > BMW
02-27-2008, 02:27 PM
#59
Newbie - Just Registered
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8
I'm thinking of grabing a set of stock G35 18x8s for my 97 I30, which is still on the 16 inch BBSs. Looking at your post it seems that these may be too big and actually detrimental to my ability to handle? Am I wrong in thinking (slightly) bigger is better?
Why did you choose the size you have now?
02-27-2008, 05:20 PM
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 1,341
Bigger in terms of either width or load capacity usually does mean better, particularly on wider wheels. Bigger in diameter is at best equal. Sort of.
Sort of, because it's possible for new developments in tire design or compounding to improve a new 18" tire beyond what's previously available in 17's (and then not offer this new tire model in 17's either). But you need to hear reliable reports, don't just read the advertising copy (which will always be a glowing sales pitch to convince you that they're the greatest things since sliced bread).
Norm
Sort of, because it's possible for new developments in tire design or compounding to improve a new 18" tire beyond what's previously available in 17's (and then not offer this new tire model in 17's either). But you need to hear reliable reports, don't just read the advertising copy (which will always be a glowing sales pitch to convince you that they're the greatest things since sliced bread).
Norm
02-27-2008, 07:16 PM
#61
Bigger in terms of either width or load capacity usually does mean better, particularly on wider wheels. Bigger in diameter is at best equal. Sort of.
Sort of, because it's possible for new developments in tire design or compounding to improve a new 18" tire beyond what's previously available in 17's (and then not offer this new tire model in 17's either). But you need to hear reliable reports, don't just read the advertising copy (which will always be a glowing sales pitch to convince you that they're the greatest things since sliced bread).
Norm
Sort of, because it's possible for new developments in tire design or compounding to improve a new 18" tire beyond what's previously available in 17's (and then not offer this new tire model in 17's either). But you need to hear reliable reports, don't just read the advertising copy (which will always be a glowing sales pitch to convince you that they're the greatest things since sliced bread).
Norm
I'd say also to be careful reading reviews. Most reviewers have little to no idea what they're talking about...
For a Maxima, you'll get the best handling from a good tire on a 16" or 17" rim, 7" to 8" wide. Get the lightest wheel you can find (unless you have a stiff suspension and drive over tons of potholes), and the best tires you can get.
02-27-2008, 08:37 PM
#62
02-27-2008, 10:42 PM
#63
Newbie - Just Registered
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 8
Well said.
I'd say also to be careful reading reviews. Most reviewers have little to no idea what they're talking about...
For a Maxima, you'll get the best handling from a good tire on a 16" or 17" rim, 7" to 8" wide. Get the lightest wheel you can find (unless you have a stiff suspension and drive over tons of potholes), and the best tires you can get.
I'd say also to be careful reading reviews. Most reviewers have little to no idea what they're talking about...
For a Maxima, you'll get the best handling from a good tire on a 16" or 17" rim, 7" to 8" wide. Get the lightest wheel you can find (unless you have a stiff suspension and drive over tons of potholes), and the best tires you can get.
02-27-2008, 11:26 PM
#64
So are the 18"s not only overkill, but actually a downgrade from 17"s? I know on some smaller cars going more than an inch or two over stock will actually interfere with your ability to corner, but on a Maxima it just seems like it has so much room in those wells that an 18" wheel would be almost on the small side. Would a set of 17" x 7" at like... 235/45 would be better then a set of 18"x8" on a similar compound?
An 18" will have:
more responsive handling (less sidewall flex)
worse ride
higher likelihood to bend (less sidewall)
slightly less overall traction (less sidewall compliance)
worse braking and acceleration (higher moment of inertia)
higher tire cost
than the same wheel in 17"
02-28-2008, 06:06 AM
#65
what he said.
I've run 15, 16, 17, and 18 on my car, and the best lap times I got was from the 17x8s I was running, which is the widest I can fit in the rear wheel wells on my 3 gen. the 4 and 5 gen can go a bit wider, but I'd still stick with the 17s.
tire price is also a big issue when you start buying tires monthly for a track car. 16" and 17" slicks aren't much different from each other in terms of price, but the 18" tires have a huge jump in price.
I've run 15, 16, 17, and 18 on my car, and the best lap times I got was from the 17x8s I was running, which is the widest I can fit in the rear wheel wells on my 3 gen. the 4 and 5 gen can go a bit wider, but I'd still stick with the 17s.
tire price is also a big issue when you start buying tires monthly for a track car. 16" and 17" slicks aren't much different from each other in terms of price, but the 18" tires have a huge jump in price.
03-04-2008, 01:20 PM
#66
My 4th gen never been out of comission though, mainly because its stock except for springs and struts.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
trsandrew
7th Generation Maxima (2009-2015)
17
04-08-2016 06:45 PM
trsandrew
Group Deals / Sponsors Forum
2
10-25-2015 02:47 PM
REDinLV
7th Generation Maxima (2009-2015)
4
10-18-2015 05:31 AM