Stiff Suspension - Test Drive Reaction

Early on, there were a few sites reporting this, but it appears to have perhaps been a misunderstanding/misinterpretation, maybe in regards to the slightly quicker steering ratio possibly? All the subsequent info directly from Toyota that I've seen has not shown any differences in the suspension.


ron

 

The fours with 16" rims have a larger turning circle, so did they compensate for that by giving it a quicker steering ratio?

 

They did implement the fours with the 16's with the slightly faster ratio steering rack, but I think they just wanted to make the steering wheel response a bit quicker to go with the wider/grippier/stiffer tires. It seems the narrower limitation on the steering rack stops was simply a byproduct of the wider tires taking up more room in the space challenged wheel wells.


ron

 

I have a C four with 16's and also test drove the C two. I thought that ride with the 16's was actually better than the 15's, maybe due to them tweaking the suspension. I used to have a Toyota Matrix with 225/50/16 tires and the ride was much harsher. I don't even notice little bumps and even the larger bumps that sound like you just drove over a crater don't jar your brains loose. The 15's seemed to transfer every little bump but then again the seats were also stiffer so that could be another difference. That being said I do prefer a slightly stiffer ride over the cushy, can't feel a thing, and wouldn't know if I was off-roading till I hit a tree suspension and steering.

The extremely tight turning radius of the 15s is much better than most small cars so the difference in turning radius is not bad for the 16s when you consider that. The turning radius of the 16s is only a little over a foot more than a 2012 Civic EX. I do much of my driving in DC and have no problem with U-turns on the narrow streets.

I have over 800 miles on my C since I bought it on the 12th of March and I've been extremely happy with it.

 

I PRAY to see a hybrid minivan like the Estima in Japan join the Prius family.

If this hit the US market there'd be almost no market for third row SUVs.

 

Unfortunately the current Prius HSD doesn't maintain it's effectiveness as you scale up in size. The V gets high 30's to mid 40's for most people, and that's just a slightly larger car! A minivan would get in the high 20's.

 

I agree to some extent. But if the HSD doesn't scale up at all, how do you explain the Camry Hybrid getting a solid 38 in mixed driving in Consumer Reports testing? I think it can scale up, but it requires a larger ICE like they use in the Camry Hybrid. The Prius V is using the same drivetrain as the Prius Liftback, and CR noted that it struggles a bit. A 2.0 liter might have been a better choice for the V.

One thing's for sure, it can scale down well, with a smaller ICE, as proven by the Prius C.

 

The Camry would probably be a better platform, but even then I doubt you would get 30 mpg.

 

This is getting way off topic for a suspension thread, but I think a 30 MPG hybrid minivan is achievable but would need some added tech like turbocharging the ICE, larger electric motors, and bigger batteries, all with a higher cost of course.

Or maybe it wouldn't even require all that. The Highlander hybrid, which is an SUV, and way less efficient of a design than a minivan, got 27 overall in CR testing, and that's with all wheel drive in Limited trim and a 3.5 liter V6.

 

Would the minivan be better with a stiff or soft suspension?:focus:

 

Soft of course.

Unless you're on the autobahn.

 

I personally love the handling of the C.
I am 67 and used to drive motorcycles. We have a Sequoia for long trips and big hauling, so this really fills the bill for running around town.