D2-AUTOSPORT

Bro you truly have a love for domestic cars! I didnt even think modded AVEO's existed! Damn your good to find THAT!

mmarshall

Yes....but there is a reason for that, although it is mostly just common sense and doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Run-flat tires, of course, have to support the weight of the entire car and the load in it, with no air at all, for up to 50 miles at 50 MPH ( generally their recommended limits ). That requires an extremely strong sidewall made out of durable materials. Those materials just don't give much when you hit a bump......air or no air. It is just one of the concessions, along with their relatively high cost and limited availability, that you have to make when you choose them. They also sometimes don't wear very well ( like on the run-flat Toyota Sienna ), because the super-hard sidewalls don't always allow the surface tread to flex while cornering to stay even with the road surface, so you end up wearing out the outside edges. This problem, though, to an extent, has been dealt in the latest run-flat Corvettes by suspension changes.

mmarshall

The Aveo is not a domestic, except for the Chevy nameplate. It is a Korean Daewoo subcompact built in Korean plants for Chevy. See my description of the car in an earlier post.

D2-AUTOSPORT

I saw that lengthy excerpt I was just making a general reference to the name plate. Much in the same vein as the GTO not being a domestic either.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

Yes, my new MX-5 has the option of run flats (because it has NO spare either way!) but I had NO interest. (And since it has no spare it comes with a mini sealing slime bottle / inflator kit in the trunk )

RiceMaster

You're not hallucinating and it's not the wheel/tire combos. It's very simple, Toyota suspensions in general just ain't that good. It's too soft and their chassis just aren't stiff enough. When driven over nice roads, it's very good, when it hit bumps on rough roads, it's extra bad. Soft suspension with bad tuning will do that. It can't control the slop resulting in a less stable ride. Larger impact will also cause more reverberations through the body. Econo cars are slightly more stiffly sprung giving them a more stable ride. I don't think the Aveo rides smoother, it's just more stable in the rough giving you the impression of smoother. The GS is a Lexus, it's designed to be extra smooth and refine, but it's not as stable, it wasn't design to be so. Mine rides like a heavier and more isolated camry, it's moves are sloppy and mushy, but there is plenty of extra cushion between you and the road that econocars lack. Plus, it's possible the shocks on your GS is about to go and that's the thing you remember most. Toyota generally use weak shocks that don't last very long.

Low-pro tires will not have a major impact til you start running below 40series and running wider rims causing car to want to follow grooves in the road. Impact from broken pavements are felt much more clearer. Other than that, low-pro are actually better when combined with a firmer suspension. They ride more stable, offers more grip, sharper and quicker steering response, less slack overall. Since there is practically no give to them, they allow your suspension to work to it's full potential, you just have to do what us Ricers do and constantly avoid manholes and slow down when entering drive ways and speed bumps to avoid bending your nice rims.

Over inflated hi-profile tires will make car ride worse than properly inflated low-pro wheel/tire IMO.

mmarshall

There's some truth to this, but in general, short of computer-controled suspensions like Cadillac/GM's MagnaRide that change damping and stiffness with steering input, vehicle speed, and road surface, there is almost always a compromise between ride and handling....what benefits one will take from the other. This law generally holds true whether you are talking tires, shocks, or general suspension design. Better handling means a firmer ride......a softer ride means less-sharp steering response and more body roll.
I general, Mercedes and BMW have come closest to achieving the best and most ideal compromises in combining both ride and handling with a conventional suspension....and BMW clearly leads the industry in the design of their power steering and road feel.
Yet, even with a computer-controlled suspension, you cannot have firmness and softness combined AT THE SAME TIME....once again, the old ride vs. handling law kicks in. The shocks will stay soft when you are driving straight and level, but firm up in sharp turns to control body roll, so you get a relatively soft ride in easy driving and more firmness while agressively cornering....you can't have both at once.

This also works, in general, for tires as well. While many factors are involved.....things like rubber compound, air pressure, suspension design, etc.....in general, a lower profile gives better handling at the expense of ride; a higher-profile better ride at the expense of handling. You can't have both ride and handling at the same time. It is simply one of the laws of physics that engineers have to deal with when they design a vehicle....and as I stated previously, Mercedes-Benz engineers have probably mastered the suspension compromises needed better than any other auto company; BMW for steering.

RiceMaster

Nicely said mmarshall. But I think it's more a personal taste than anything. Which is why Camry outsells all cars despite losing all car magazine shootouts. I personally don't care for BMW or Mercedes suspension tunning. Mercs are all around too soft, and BMW too rough yet too much roll for daily driving. Both have numb and slow steering IMO.

JZA80MHU38

BMW has numb and slow steering??? You must be driving some really nice exotic cars or cars that are built for track purpose then...

mmarshall

You find BMW power steering NUMB? That is quite a statement. Most auto enthusiasts, myself included, consider it the industry benchmark....even in the otherwise disappointing Chris Bangle models, though Porsche admittedly comes close.

You are correct, though, that much of the Camry's popularity comes from its luxury car-like ride softness and noise isolation at a family-sedan price. Many people, especially as they age, prefer comfort over handling.

DASHOCKER

iTrader: (2)

LoL..I find Ricemasters statement too funny Ricemaster is the Roadmaster..

RiceMaster

I think the same thing can be ask of those who feel BMW steering are quick with awesome feedback. Those owners or fans must be driving some really nice camries and SUVs before.

There are alot of other stock cars that offers superior driving dynamics to any BMW. If vehicles built for track purposes were my background, then I would say many exotics will also feel numb and slow.

A Camry or sportscar doesn't try to be anything else. Both know exactly what they were design for. A BMW is like hot chick shopping at the mall.

JZA80MHU38

Glad I am not the only one.

Lil4X

I think the consensus here is that basically every car is a compromise. If you want sharp handling, you are going to sacrifice some degree of comfort, quiet, or appearance. An F1 car has fairly narrow sidewalls, but they are not extreme. That sidewall has to flex sufficiently under side loading to keep the contact patch flat on the track, but not so much as to make the handling squirmy. A wide tire with a very thin sidewall may be stylish, but it is not an optimal handler, given a streetable suspension, and it's going to deliver a pretty solid THWACK!! with every tar strip it encounters.

I remember taking the skinny OEM Goodyears off my new '67 Mustang after only a couple thousand miles (and one hundred-mile run through the Arizona desert at over 110 (degrees and mph) - the fabric of all four tires had separated from the rubber and the tires couldn't hold air for more than 30 minutes. I learned about racing a carload of pretty ladies in a similar car (Cougar) from that.

I put on a set of the then-new Firestone "Wide Oval" tires that were every muscle-car owner's dream. They stuck, they handled pretty well, but they were extremely heavy and flexed not at all. They were rough as a dried cob but they put a HUGE (for 1967) contact patch on the ground, with a 2-ply polyester carcass and 2 fiberglass bias belts, they were high style, but delivered a pretty miserable ride. They wore out in about 18K, thanks to that soft but grippy compound. Ah well, there for about six months, I was stylin'!

mmarshall

Yeah....I remember the Wide Ovals, too.....and the old TV ads for them.
But.......welcome to the 21st Century. Today's ultra-low-profile high-performance tires do much the same thing as the old Wide Ovals did 40 years ago....cost too much, wear out quickly, give a lousy ride, slide all over the place on slippery roads, and offer little impact protection.