Interesting consideration here, one which I don't know the technicalities of but I have no doubt some of you will!

I've always sort of believed that the genuine OEM Fiat parts are the best, as that's how the car is meant to perform etc. But then, some people on here talk about how for example sometimes the likes of Bosch / LuK / Sachs can make aftermarket parts that tend to go beyond Fiat's own quality / robustness and to be honest, I agree fully. Same with any car.

In terms of suspension however, I see people making silly choices to lower their cars, one person I know with a Clio actually heightened it! Both must have detrimental consequences in longevity, safety and comfort etc!

I wonder if there are aftermarket, non standard replacement parts, by GOOD, reputable companies like Sachs for shocks and springs who make, adjustable or other parts you can fit that with a bit of calculation to make the ride smoother. Not lower. Not necessarily higher. Just something that makes the Panda drive smooth as butter over bumps etc.

Or, in reality, is it impossible for the typical person with not much engineering experience to ever be able to find a technically non compatible part and expect it to improve comfort without trading off serious safety / technical risks?

Interesting thoughts. Often wondered how a garage with any mix of parts can do better than the original manufacturer unless seriously compromising some aspect of performance. The obvious one would be to lower and stiffen the suspension so it is idiotically useless on your average rough Road or speed hump. The customer might wish that of course. . . But it won't be faster or safer in any meaningful way. Going for something softer could also create a ditch finder. Personally might consider a well tested pneumatic suspension but then only on a heavier car or van. In that case it would keep ride hight at the manufacturers optimum over wide payload conditions, not something your average driver much needs in a small car.

To be honest a small car with small wheels will never ride smoothly.

(1) Short wheelbase.
(2) Light body with relatively heavy wheels and suspension parts = poor unsprung weight ratio so more forces get through to the body shell.
(3) No ARB at the back so the springs are stiffer to compensate for body roll.
My 500 axle rides a lot smoother especially with 500 springs but it also rides low so will need to go back to original springs.
(4) Aftermarket shocks and springs are generally harder than OEM because people think they are more sporty.

Air springs could well help but expect the handling to suffer quite badly. Unless the springs are individually valved, they will aggravate body roll in all directions.
Dont expect any of that for minimal money.

Citroen had the best system. Road springs were gas charged pressure spheres at each corner and at least one axle had one as an anti roll device. I believe the top models had seven spheres. Ride height was provided by hydraulic oil pumped into the suspension struts which was also moved about according to loads on the wheels. The original DS could even be driven with one rear wheel removed. The strut automatically jacked the hub right up away from the road.

A system like that would be great on any car or motorbike but it's out of the box thinking and wont come cheap so don't hold your breath.

Any manufacturer will spend a lot of time setting the suspension. As Dave says, the lighter the car the more difficult it is to make it ride smoothly, due to the smaller difference between sprung and unsprung weight.
Older French cars, 70s/80s, tended to be softer to compensate for their poor roads at the time. Very soft, but a bit bouncy.

Softer springs will make each bump softer, but needs longer travel to avoid hitting the bump stops. The downside is more body roll and pitch as you accelerate/decelerate.
Stiffer springs tighten the handling, but more of the shock is transmitted to the car body, and those of the passengers.

The damper (usually called the shock absorber, but really it is the spring that does that.) controls the compression and rebound of the spring. Any metal object when hit will have a natural frequency and would continue to oscillate for a long time. American cars typically had soft dampers, hence the number of times they'd bounce after each bump. Fine for ride comfort, poor for cornering, but when the next corner is a hundred miles away, not such a problem.
In Europe, we like the bounce to be sorted before the next bump.
If we make the compression damping too stiff, it resists the spring compressing and we feel more of the bump through the car.
If we make the rebound damping stiffer, it can lead to the car reducing its ride height over a series of bumps, as the spring has not fully recovered before hitting the next, so again, it gets stiffer.
The damping also has to avoid certain oscillating frequencies, or the car's occupants will get car-sick.
Complicated isn't it.
The manufacturer has spent a lot of time on this, the 'lowering' kit companies have not, unless they just mimic the sporty model of the range, e.g Panda 100hp, Golf GTI, etc.
Sometimes a manufacturer will make different damping rates for different models, making the more luxurious models softer, or changing it for different engines, due to their weight differences. Aftermarket damper manufacturers will usually set a damping rate that is a compromise between all the OE ones, to provide one part number for the whole range. The difference will be difficult to detect, especially when replacing worn ones. Any good brand name will work fine.

If you want to make your car softer, first make it heavier, then you'd nee stiffer springs, and dampers to suit. Be prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of £ or € to get it right.

Are you all still with me?

portland_bill

You've always got the most comprehensive answer, and I can actually understand it too!

Very interesting.

I'm concluding that the answer probably is no, not for the associated cost and sketchy result over a compromise between comfort/safety/reliability.

I suppose the Italians have already made it bouncy enough whilst keeping their cars legal, safe and reasonably long lasting! And no coil spring set can match that for the sort of money I have! Lol

Thanks to everyone who replied

It's possible to effect ride quality, good and bad by altering shocks, springs and bushes, but you tend to get nowt for nowt.

Hard bushes like polybushes tend to tighten up the steering feel, but transmit more vibration through the cars body, softer bushes isolate this but give a sloppy feel.

And as already written, softer springs and dampers will make the car roll, dive and pitch more.

A way manufacturers get around this, particularly for "premium" cars is to suspend the suspension.

Instead of bolting the suspension parts direct to the cars body/chassis, they get bolted to a subframe and that is bushed and bolted to the body/chassis.

Jaguar have used this system for years, they can still set up sporty spring/damper rates, yet isolate it from the rest of the car.

It's made the old E type rear set up a must for stock cars and hot rods, a quick look at a pic of one and you can see why, hubs, suspension, driveshafts, brakes and diff all in a neat package bolted in a small frame that bolts in and out very easily.

So it still gives a controlled ride, but isolates a lot of NVH (noise, vibration and harshness) from the cars body and it's occupants.

The drawbacks of these systems is a cost in money to produce and weight.

Everyone thought the Jag X Type was a Mondeo in a frock, but Jaguar threw away Fords suspension as it wasn't good enough and built their own at an enormous cost, nothing is interchangeable between the two.
Drive them back to back and you will instantly know where the money's been spent (obivously it wasn't the styling!)

The original Mini was meant to run without subframes like a lot of small, cheap cars do, but the body wasn't really rigid enough to hang the suspension to it directly.
Subframes were added but it pushed up the weight and the production costs.
But together with the Molten suspension it made a great riding and handling car, if a little under powered in it's original state, it was dragging quite a lot of extra weight around with it!

Other systems have been used, like air and hydropneumatic suspension, but they've tended to be niggly and unreliable, they also tend to be more expensive to fit and maintain.

It is mostly down to the ratio between sprung and unsprung weight.
Unsprung weight includes the wheels and all the attached suspension components. Sprung weight is the rest of the bodywork, drive train and everything fixed to it. Get the bodywork heavier and the suspension components lighter and you have more control over suspension settings.

You can see from this that a bigger and heavier car has more chance of adapting ride settings to the owners preferences. I also run an upmarket car that is known for its owner-adjustable suspension, but weight also has disadvantages.

The Panda was designed for economy - both to buy and to run. It does the job well. It is lightweight, but also light on fuel, tyres, brakes etc. But, like any mass produced vehicle, it is a compromise.

Differing spring/damper settings can make a softer or harder ride, but each change is a trade off. You can see this easily in the ride difference between a normal Panda and the 100. Corner the 100 on a smooth road and it's a go-kart, but put it on a bumpy road and it has square wheels.

The ratio between sprung and unsprung weight is paramount, but after this you hit the principle of diminishing returns. That is, you can vary suspension design and settings, but the benefits will be small, and will often come with drawbacks in other areas.

The rear suspension is one of the major limiting factors in the Panda/500; it was chosen for cheapness over performance.

No twist beam design is ever going to come close to the capabilities of a proper independent rear suspension setup.

Softening the springs and stiffening the beam help a little (as was done in the later 500's), but objectively the 500 rear suspension is still c**p by modern standards.

jrkitching said:

No twist beam design is ever going to come close to the capabilities of a proper independent rear suspension setup.

.

Click to expand...

twist beam setup is very capable if set up properly. many a time a twist beam equiped car has outdone an independant rear suspension car round a track.

i wouldnt underestimate twist beam setups.

but yes, with fiat especially, it is all about cheapness.

The twist beam allows just two pivot bushes to attach the axle to the car body. Fully separate swing arms would need two bushes on each side.

The issue with the Panda and 500/Ka is the weight of moving parts. We can have light weight at high costs because any imperfections will lead to failures. Or we can have adequate function at low costs with over built parts to be sure everything is strong enough.

The old Mini had cast iron swing arms each running on two bronze bushes with rubber donut springs. The Panda has steel tube swing arms for less weight but all the stuff added to carry brakes etc is heavy. The basic one sided welding method is cheap but provides all sorts potential for stress cracks. Solution is simple - make it all thicker and heavier so the the weak areas are plenty strong enough.

Performance Minis had a solid tube beam axle with a pair of rose jointed arms each side and a pannard rod for lateral location. All very nice but in the process you lost the boot space and needed a different fuel tank as well. Not exactly practical.

Later people came up with better ideas. A cross beam with cast aluminium swing arms and coil over shocks. There is no ARB on this one and the inner wheel arch needed modifying to make space for the coil-over.



This is what it replaced (also no ARB).

It's worth pointing out, as a general idea, that none of the manufacturers make their own parts.

Only my experience at working for Ford, but a part will be designed and then manufacturers would tender for the rights to product said part. Each manufacturer had to have and maintain a required quality standard, and prove that they had the ability to meet demand, provide assurance of continuity etc.

Sometimes a contract ends, or supply is greater than demand, and you end up with a load of OE products boxed under the supplier brand, or any products that don't meet OE specification will be sold in this way (Bosch tend to do this with MAFs, O2 sensors etc.)

These tenders tend to work in a very stringent way, i.e. you could have a contract to supply 50,000 rear silencers for a 500, for a set price of £2m (i.e. £20 each). If the model it was for didn't sell well, they would put pressure on the supplier to reduce the supply costs etc. Sometimes additional contracts can be sought from cheaper suppliers.

It makes it all a mixed bag, but you can end up with much higher quality components from OEM products, or much lower. It tends to depend what parts they are. The reputation of the manufacturer normally speaks for its own quality, i.e. Bilstein.

chuff said:

It's worth pointing out, as a general idea, that none of the manufacturers make their own parts.

Only my experience at working for Ford, but a part will be designed and then manufacturers would tender for the rights to product said part. Each manufacturer had to have and maintain a required quality standard, and prove that they had the ability to meet demand, provide assurance of continuity etc.

Sometimes a contract ends, or supply is greater than demand, and you end up with a load of OE products boxed under the supplier brand, or any products that don't meet OE specification will be sold in this way (Bosch tend to do this with MAFs, O2 sensors etc.)

These tenders tend to work in a very stringent way, i.e. you could have a contract to supply 50,000 rear silencers for a 500, for a set price of £2m (i.e. £20 each). If the model it was for didn't sell well, they would put pressure on the supplier to reduce the supply costs etc. Sometimes additional contracts can be sought from cheaper suppliers.

It makes it all a mixed bag, but you can end up with much higher quality components from OEM products, or much lower. It tends to depend what parts they are. The reputation of the manufacturer normally speaks for its own quality, i.e. Bilstein.

Click to expand...

Fascinating information.

As a business student the way in which these companies and their suppliers operate is just superb to read about too!

SB1500 said:

Fascinating information.

As a business student the way in which these companies and their suppliers operate is just superb to read about too!

Click to expand...

The reality is a bit disappointing.

I earnt a lot, and didn't really ever get to do a lot. You work on such a macro scale that you forget (or never get to realise) that you're working on a car.

FIAT were a PITA too, as they made the Ka but we never had any technical info on it (at least in Engineering in the UK). I don't even think it runs on ETIS IDS diag. Most cars are designed 8 years in advance of release, and the 'new' Ka was supposed to be out 2 years ago, but the JV with FIAT over-ran.


All in all, I wouldn't really recommend it as a career path. Glad to be out.

Goudrons said:

Everyone thought the Jag X Type was a Mondeo in a frock, but Jaguar threw away Fords suspension as it wasn't good enough and built their own at an enormous cost, nothing is interchangeable between the two.
Drive them back to back and you will instantly know where the money's been spent (obivously it wasn't the styling!)

Click to expand...

Out of interest, how much Mondeo was actually in the X-Type? And which Mondeo was it based on? Given that the mk3 Mondeo and the X-Type were launched at similar time, I'd always assumed that the 2 cars were developed together, and off the same basic floorpan and platform, but when I dared to compare the X-Type to most audis on a previous thread, another user claimed that the Jag was based on the old 1993-2000 Mondeo platform.

chuff said:

It's worth pointing out, as a general idea, that none of the manufacturers make their own parts.

Only my experience at working for Ford, but a part will be designed and then manufacturers would tender for the rights to product said part. Each manufacturer had to have and maintain a required quality standard, and prove that they had the ability to meet demand, provide assurance of continuity etc.

Sometimes a contract ends, or supply is greater than demand, and you end up with a load of OE products boxed under the supplier brand, or any products that don't meet OE specification will be sold in this way (Bosch tend to do this with MAFs, O2 sensors etc.)

These tenders tend to work in a very stringent way, i.e. you could have a contract to supply 50,000 rear silencers for a 500, for a set price of £2m (i.e. £20 each). If the model it was for didn't sell well, they would put pressure on the supplier to reduce the supply costs etc. Sometimes additional contracts can be sought from cheaper suppliers.

It makes it all a mixed bag, but you can end up with much higher quality components from OEM products, or much lower. It tends to depend what parts they are. The reputation of the manufacturer normally speaks for its own quality, i.e. Bilstein.

Click to expand...

As an addition to this, many OE suppliers can produce large quantities of a product, but smaller numbers are unviable for them. So once a model goes out of production, replacement parts are sourced from another supplier who can do the smaller quantities. This was usually the case with exhausts and radiators with Rover, and often with water pumps too. All sold as 'OE' replacements, but may, or may not be the same spec. The aftermarket water pumps were often a better quality than original fit.

portland_bill said:

As an addition to this, many OE suppliers can produce large quantities of a product, but smaller numbers are unviable for them. So once a model goes out of production, replacement parts are sourced from another supplier who can do the smaller quantities. This was usually the case with exhausts and radiators with Rover, and often with water pumps too. All sold as 'OE' replacements, but may, or may not be the same spec. The aftermarket water pumps were often a better quality than original fit.

Click to expand...

True.. Parts have to be supplied for a minimum of 10 years after production stops mind, but it does depend on how many people bothered to buy the car anyway!

Some companies just make better components, but either don't do it at a price the manufacturer wants, or they don't arrange good enough kickbacks with the right people....

You'd be surprised at the politics - a lot of new cars will have Delphi components with a Bosch ECU (or vice versa, etc.). Neither will want to disclose information with each other, so when you're trying to resolve issues with PID communication (interrogating a component for a reading, or generally programming the ECU for fault code ranges etc.) it becomes an absolute nightmare.

Well, a relation of mine has a 1990 Ford Orion and we can't find half the parts it needs anymore, including a sun roof which fell off! Lol

To be fair though, that is a car that left production 25 years ago, lol!

SB1500 said:

Well, a relation of mine has a 1990 Ford Orion and we can't find half the parts it needs anymore, including a sun roof which fell off! Lol

Click to expand...

Isn't a 1990 Orion just an Escort MkV with a boot?

There's plenty of Escort parts around.

Parts are still available for the Punto Mk2/2A

People keep Citroen CXs on the road - hardly the most simple or rot proof car ever built

The Panda 169 is only recently out of production. The end of critical parts production really is a long way away. Even more so with Fiat who rarely make huge design step changes and the Panda 169 which is about as simple as it gets.

However would the same apply to the Abarth 500 1.4 MultiAir Turbo - Unlikely.