I just don't understand how mmarshall cannot agree that the Verano/Astra/Cruze and Cascada are off the the Delta II platform.

The big SUVs from GM are all off the same platform, the Escalade, Tahoe, Suburban are all related.

Same thing for LX of LC from the 200 series

Or the GX460 and Prado from the 150 series which I think the 4Runner uses.

It's pretty straightforward.

 

Yeah...I'm getting tired of it myself. You can only tell it like it is so many times, and then it gets annoying. I'm still a pretty patient person, though, and am used to it. I don't get irked easily.

 

You maybe annoyed, but all I am pointing out is that the Verano/Crzue/Astra and Cascada all come from the Delta II platform. Perhaps the Verano is a rebadged Opel, which I would not dispute. I am not sure how you can refute this? Even CR (which I don't think is a very good publication" states that the Verano is based off a Cruze.

I would hate for a Crzue, Verano, Cascada or even Astra (if they read this forum) shopper to get the incorrect information.

 

Then you shouldn't participate in it when it comes up. That drives it.

 

I well-researched the Verano's design and construction before I bought one....just as you probably did your Corolla. In fact, because I was so used to the GM of the past I had known for decades, I was actually expecting a redone Chevy compact when the Verano first came out (before my test-drive). After an inspection and test-drive, I saw I was wrong.

Anyhow...with all due respect, I'm off to another subject. We've been on this long enough.

 

whether cars are or are not off the same or similar platforms doesn't mean much necessarily good or bad as much will be done in the engineering to bring each unique vehicle to market.

 

Exactly. GM has gotten better from the bad old days of badge engineering in the 80's/90's/, where all their cars looked/drove the same despite having different(or sometimes the same) bodies, interiors, and engines across brands and at different price points.

 

True in general, but GM's Opel based/rebadged products still seem more solidly-built than most of the others.

 

I would be highly sceptical that an Opel chassis is superior in design, efficiency and flexibility to that of the American designs for GM.

 

Part of Cascada sales may (?) depend on how quick VW can get its act together and some respectability again on the diesel issue. With the Chrysler convertibles gone (IMO a marketing error on on FCA's part), the VW Eos convertible and Audi A3 Cabriolet will probably be two of the Cascada's prime competitors, since other VW and Audi convertibles are in either lower or higher-class price ranges than the Cascada. Neither the Eos or A3 convertibles are currently offered with diesels in the American market (and all current U.S. VW/Audi diesels are on hold), but VW's bad reputation on the diesel issue could affect the sale of gas engines, too......and push prospective buyers into Cascadas.

Take a Cascada out for a spin when you get a chance, Jill....though Toronto this time of year can be simply too cold with the top down. But sample one when the weather warms up a little.....I don't think you will be disappointed with it.

 

Please elaborate on this statement. Please.

 

If I may interject, in general, IRS is less "busy" on a bumpy road, especially in turns, because each rear wheel can react to bumps separately, without passing the impact through the beam or live rear-axle to the opposite rear wheel, causing slight kicks in the rear end and sometimes in the steering. With IRS, the impact, instead, passes directly up into, and is absorbed by, the rear suspension, or passed onto the frame. As Steve (SW15LS) points out, in general, that smooths out the handling and response on bumpy roads and bumpy curves. But other factors can also come into play, such as issues of unsprung weight (the amount of weight under the springs/suapension actually pushing them up on a bump), tire design/PSI, bushing-firmness, cross-bracing on the front suspension across the engine, front/rear sub-frames, frame-stiffness, and, of course, the stiffness of the suspension itself.

However, a well-designed rear suspension can minimize the cross-bumping effect of a beam or live rear axle. Even the simplest and most compact of suspensions today (such as McPherson struts) are far more sophisticated and efficient than they were decades ago.

 

Not much I can add to what mmarshall said right above. The independent nature of the suspension helps keep the car feeling planted even when the suspension is reacting to road irregularities through a corner. A solid rear axles car can become "unsettled" feeling under these circumstances as both wheels react to road irregularities from the opposite side.

I would add that while its possible to minimize the cross bump effect, its always a compromise or a workaround and is never ideal. You reach a certain point in the price and mission statement of a car where you don't want it to be a compromise anymore and you want the core components of the car to be ideal for the application. Thats my issue with Buicks being "premium" yet still utilizing an economy car rear suspension.

 

i have found, from actual experience over the years, that tire pressure and air temperature can make as big or bigger difference in the ride-quality than the design of the suspension itself. That's because cold temperatures stiffen up both the fluid in the shocks and the rubber in the tires....even lower-PSi tires can ride stiffer in the winter. Conversely, at warm temperatures (particuarly above 80 degrees) and or when the tires have been sitting in bright sunlight, thereby increasing the air pressure, they will ride noticeably more softly. In my Veranon (yes, with a beam-rear axle)....in the summer, it glides right over the exact same bumps, on the exact same roads, with noticeably harshness than it does in the winter, even with higher tire PSIs in the summer. That's because the tire rubber itself is more flexible when it's warm.

I've also noticed more or less the same effect in the cars I've owned with IRS....Mazdas, IS300, Outback, etc.......

 

Mike...come on...lets be real...the car would be much improved on an IRS. A solid rear axle is an economy car suspension, and a setup that many carmakers are eschewing even on economy cars because an independent setup is just better.

You're not going convince me that somehow...for the Verano and Cascada the solid rear axle was the right choice and not just the "cheap, good enough" choice.