Unibody rigidity

Are we still in 4 figures Nm/degree-wise or we're long in 5 digit territory?

I see the % improvement in the press from time to time but no actual
figures for any car[s].

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 1:48:51 AM UTC+8, I hate front wheel drive, most torque must go to the rear wrote:
> Are we still in 4 figures Nm/degree-wise or we're long in 5 digit territory?
>
>
>
> I see the % improvement in the press from time to time but no actual
>
> figures for any car[s].

I had a 1997 car, and put lowered sports suspension on it. When parked on
uneven ground, the front doors were hard to close, which means not enough
rigidity. The next model was beefed up (probably to get more stars in crash tests) and was quite stiff, had no such problems.
and was

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 01:33:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Sunday, April 13, 2014 1:48:51 AM UTC+8, I hate front wheel drive, most torque must go to the rear wrote:
>> Are we still in 4 figures Nm/degree-wise or we're long in 5 digit territory?
>>
>>
>>
>> I see the % improvement in the press from time to time but no actual
>>
>> figures for any car[s].
>
>I had a 1997 car, and put lowered sports suspension on it. When parked on
>uneven ground, the front doors were hard to close, which means not enough
>rigidity. The next model was beefed up (probably to get more stars in crash tests) and was quite stiff, had no such problems.
>and was


I had a 1980 Citation (MT Car of the Year!!!) and it was the most
flexible car I have ever owned. Felt like a wet noodle.

Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 01:33:00 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, April 13, 2014 1:48:51 AM UTC+8, I hate front wheel
>> drive, most torque must go to the rear wrote:
>>> Are we still in 4 figures Nm/degree-wise or we're long in 5 digit
>>> territory?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see the % improvement in the press from time to time but no
>>> actual
>>>
>>> figures for any car[s].
>> I had a 1997 car, and put lowered sports suspension on it. When
>> parked on uneven ground, the front doors were hard to close, which
>> means not enough rigidity. The next model was beefed up (probably
>> to get more stars in crash tests) and was quite stiff, had no such
>> problems. and was
>
>
> I had a 1980 Citation (MT Car of the Year!!!) and it was the most
> flexible car I have ever owned. Felt like a wet noodle.


NYS bought some of the first generation Chrysler mini-vans and
discovered that the chassis was not even close to sturdy. They would
open the sliding door and then discover that after they got the people
in that the door wouldn't close and you could see ripples in the roof
panels from the stress. Chrysler used the same approach to repair them
as they did the K-Car convertibles. Extra rocker panel braces to stiffen
the unibody.

--
Steve W.

My 1981 Buick Century: Noticed lots of squeeks and rattles. I relocated the strikers inward on all four doors in that thing, and it actually began speaking German! Seriously - the body felt tighter, the suspension responded more readily to both the road and my inputs. It felt more like an Autobahn burner than a cushy Detroit rolling library.


My 1996 Ford Contour: Much taughter little sedan than the Buick for sure. But I read in the chassis manual I bought for it that both the front and rear glass "must be properly mounted and sealed to insure body rigidity."

Are unibodies(like that Mondeo/Contour) that dependent even on the fixed glass for total rigidity??

My 1981 Buick Century: Noticed lots of squeeks and rattles. I relocated the strikers inward on all four doors in that thing, and it actually began speaking German! Seriously - the body felt tighter, the suspension responded more readily to both the road and my inputs. It felt more like an Autobahn burner than a Detroit rolling library.


My 1996 Ford Contour: Much taughter little sedan than the Buick for sure. But I read in the chassis manual I bought for it that both the front and rear glass "must be properly mounted and sealed to insure body rigidity."

Are unibodies(like that Mondeo/Contour) that dependent even on the fixed glass for total rigidity??

My 1981 Buick Century: Noticed lots of squeeks and rattles. I relocated the strikers inward on all four doors in that thing, and it actually began speaking German! Seriously - the body felt tighter, the suspension responded more readily to both the road and my inputs. It felt more like an Autobahn burner than a cushy Detroit rolling library.


My 1996 Ford Contour: Much taughter little sedan than the Buick for sure. But I read in the chassis manual I bought for it that both the front and rear glass "must be properly mounted and sealed to insure body rigidity."

Are unibodies(like that Mondeo/Contour) that dependent even on the fixed glass for total rigidity??

wrote:
> My 1981 Buick Century: Noticed lots of squeeks and rattles. I
> relocated the strikers inward on all four doors in that thing, and it
> actually began speaking German! Seriously - the body felt tighter,
> the suspension responded more readily to both the road and my inputs.
> It felt more like an Autobahn burner than a cushy Detroit rolling
> library.
>
>
> My 1996 Ford Contour: Much taughter little sedan than the Buick for
> sure. But I read in the chassis manual I bought for it that both the
> front and rear glass "must be properly mounted and sealed to insure
> body rigidity."
>
> Are unibodies(like that Mondeo/Contour) that dependent even on the
> fixed glass for total rigidity??

Most newer vehicles use the glass as a structural part. The glass is
also used in concert with the airbags for passenger restraint during
accidents.

--
Steve W.

Steve W. wrote: "Most newer vehicles use the glass as a structural part. The glass is also used in concert with the airbags for passenger restraint during "

Doesn't say much for the 'rigidity' of unibody does it? I guess it goes with the territory: Remove the subframe(body-on-frame vintage), and that strength has to some from someplace else. Thicker guage sheetmetal? Now that's an idea.

Utilizing the glass in concert with the airbag does, however, make sense.

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:09:38 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> Steve W. wrote: "Most newer vehicles use the glass as a structural part. The glass is also used in concert with the airbags for passenger restraint during "
>
>
>
> Doesn't say much for the 'rigidity' of unibody does it? I guess it goes with the territory: Remove the subframe(body-on-frame vintage), and that strength has to some from someplace else. Thicker guage sheetmetal? Now that's an idea.
>
>

Reducing weight and increasing the stiffness of the parts that the drivetrain is bolted to is a good thing to do. If you can meet both goals at the same time, it's simply good engineering. It's not that radical a comcept - some motorcycles have been using the engine as a stressed part of the frame for a while.

>
> Utilizing the glass in concert with the airbag does, however, make sense.