Do you consider the S2000 suspension to be advanced technology given and compared to the suspension of other cars on the market. What would you consider to be advanced technology and which cars have "advanced technology" suspensions.

 

Not really. Double-arms have been around for a long time. It is more advanced than your average street car with struts,mult-link...having double wishbones all around is not something you see on most cars.

It should have been made in aluminum though...

 

That's a pretty vague question, you know? Advanced in what sense? Which aspect of the suspension?

There don't really seem to be a lot of new suspension configurations, just different implementations of what has come before. The S2000 uses short-long-arm, unequal length arm, or double wishbone suspension, which sacrifices compactness for better compensation for the camber gained when the car leans. Since it's neither new nor complex I wouldn't call it "advanced" but it is high-performance.

As far as suspension components themselves, the only really new thing is electronically controlled shocks which have shown up in the Corvette and a few other cars. The S2000 doesn't have those, although it does have remote reservoirs on its rear shocks -- which is pretty fancy, although not really new.

 

Well, it has been mentioned in magazine article that "the suspension in a 1986 Acura Integra is more technologically advanced than a 2000 Ford Mustang."

So in that sense, how advanced is the S2000. I guess the word advanced is being used incorrectly for the word high-performance.

 

The 1986 Integra uses double wishbone suspension, I believe. Same as the S2000. The 2000 Ford Mustang has a "live" rear axle, meaning that the rear axle and differential move with the suspension as a single rigid unit.

Any suspension where the rear wheels can move independently is "more technologically advanced" than a Mustang. A large number of cars fall into that category.

 

Some people criticize the Corvette for having "primitive" leaf springs, which calls up images of a live axle with longitudinal leaf springs that serve as suspension locating elements. What the Corvette actually has is double wishbone suspension on all four wheels, with transverse composite-material leaf springs instead of coil springs to save space. It's a little sad that the people who like to pick on how primitive the Mustang suspension is, will then criticize the Corvette on the same grounds, and not know the difference between the two...

 

The 86 integra uses a beam rear axle. The front suspension is macpherson struts on torsion bars. Not uber-advanced, but effective.

 

The first gen integra was based on the previous gen Civic, which had the struts and beam axle. In 1990 the DA chassis integra finally picked up the wishbones of the EF Civic (1988-1991).

I don't think the suspension is particularly advanced for all the reasons already mentioned here. Our '89 Civic Si autocross car was built 16 years ago and the suspension is just as "advanced" as my S2000. I think more so on that car given what else was made back then and the fact that it was sold in the US as an economy car.

Peter

 

D'oh, I didn't realize that there were such differences in the suspension between the '86 and '88 Civics.

So, I wonder how that magazine reckoned that the '86 Integra suspension (front strut, rear beam axle) was more advanced that the '00 Mustang suspension (front strut, rear live axle).

 

Probably because stock for stock, the Mustang is a pig and the Integra isn't. Or the magazine didn't get the facts right, and thought the 1st gen integra has wishbones all around.

Magazine editor get the facts wrong? Never