When you check out the definitions of live and independent axles, also look at Beam axles. The 95-99 Maximas have a beam axle, it saved weight and gave more trunk and interior space than earlier Maxs. Unfortunately, it also degraded the handling somewhat from the 89-94 Maximas.

I owned both an 89 and a 92 with independent strut axles front and rear and they ride more smoothly than the newer Ms but the new ones weigh about 150- 175 lbs less and are quicker than the earlier cars because they lost some weight with the beam axle and the VQ engine got an update with more torque. It was 206 ftpds vs 193 or so, can't remember exact figures.

Take note, the new Altima has an indendent rear axle and I predict the next Maximas will have them also. Independent axles are better at ride control than either live or beam axles. Beam axles, my opinion, are better than live axles for one overiding reason, bump steer. Bump steer is when you are turning the car the live axle hits a bump and the rear end hops a few ft laterally. and you give up a measure of control negociating a turn. My 82 Mustang had a live axle and 2 shocks per wheel(one verticle and one horizontal from the axle to control bump steer. It wasn't enough, I got rid of the car because it was so annoying to drive.

Boomer

 

This is wild. My Brother-in-law just bought an 80's 5.0 GT Mustang. Not wishing to be totally ignorant about American cars, I asked him whether it had a live rear axle or a fixed axle. He's a mechanic so I felt sure he would know the answer. Well he didn't and in fact asked me what the hell I was talking about. I felt kind of silly because I didn't know the difference either and was hoping he would enlighten me without knowing it.

It was one of those "Tim the Toolman" moments when you pretend to know something in order to make conversation.

Of course thanks to Boomer, I now know the answer.

 

Aw, shucks, Flyingscot. Your flattery will embarass me. I think more of myself as "Tim" than an authority on anything automotive. I'm just obsessed with them.


A while ago someone in Ford's SVT group(I think) developed an independent rear suspension that would fit on the rear of Mustangs utilizing the existing attachments for the live axle. It was pretty ingenious, I thought, since all you had to do was unbolt the live axle and bolt in the independent one. It added weight, but the weight distribution improved from 57/43 to about 55/45. It also eliminated the bumpsteer and improved the handling.

The enemy, as we all know, is still weight and tuners Saleen and Rousch kept the live axles to save weight and added more bracing to the axle. As far as I know, all SVT Mustangs use the independent rear. The new supercharged SVT Cobra uses it, I believe they put it on the 99 model first.? We also know, more power cures all ills, including weight penalties, so supercharge the car.

So what if the SVT Cobra weighs 3665 lbs, it has 390 hp with an iron block and an independent suspension front and rear! The iron engine for longevity, the independent axle for handling and the supercharger for added power. Reasonable combo fix for a chassis and body that date back to the mid '70s. I still prefer the Z, but I admire the ingenuity of the SVT group for their innovations in updating the Mustang.

Boomer
BR/FR/AT

 

Boomer,

You are quite the car enthusiast, so we can forgive a slight indescretion in the re-counting of the Vette's chassis make-up! (I am just kidding with you, of course). Actually, if you look at the Vette chassis, you would likely see something with much lesser mass because of it's structure - it looks like a big backbone with the hydroformed rails running parallel and a hoop for the hatch. If the 350Z's structure is designed in the fashion of the previous 300ZX, I would expect to see more bracing up top than the Vette. I have a Road and Track special edition that included a cutaway of its structure and you could definitely see what was needed to account for T-tops and the hatch. I suppose the weight penalty of that kind of strucutre is offset by the ligher motor, carbon fiber driveshaft, aluminum suspension bits and the slightly smaller size vs. the fiberglass bodied Vette.

As far as the '03 Cobra goes, I think that is just too much weight for a performance-oriented vehicle - same with the M3 and M5. However, it's hard to criticize the performance numbers.

PS - A lot of us Mustang enthusiasts think Ford went with the iron block for cost reasons rather than longevity. A lot of folks are already supercharging existing aluminum Cobra engines with that much power and more, although without the full benefit of all the engineering that went into the '03 Cobra motor.

 

well I was thinking about this weight issue, first of all my hat goes off to the corvette Z06. That car with its 5.7 L V8 weighs 3100 lbs, the MB SL55 weighs 4310 lbs both cars are similar in size.

More to the point why the S2000 weighs 400 lbs less than the 350Z. The S2000 is a convertible the top weighs less than a tin roof and glass hatch, figure a savings of like 50 lbs. The Z has a 7 gallon larger gas tank, curb weight is measured with a full tank so this is another 50 lbs. The Z has larger wheels and tires 17/18 vs 16" on the S2000 figure like 10 pounds per wheel/tire so 40 lbs here. The engine 2.0 L vs 3.5 L is probably like 100 lb difference. So the Z is not so far off in this comparison.

 

In almost every comparison of a convertable to the hardtop, the hardtop weight less. You might think it would weigh more but ive almost never seen one that does. Look at the CLK, 330Ci, Corvette, Mustang, Volvo C70, in both coupe and cabriolet forms, i think the cabrio's are heavier every time.

Now the gas, engine, and wheels your for sure correct about, but still doesnt amount to 400 lbs..... I think the Honda is also a few inches shorter. The question is why the Z isnt significantly lighter than my G35! thats the question, unless it is, and they dont weigh so acurately?

 

well I thought of this too, the S2000 is designed from the start as a convertible so they didn't remove the top and add structure somewhere else to make it ridgid again. The Z while not a convertible is a hatchback and needed to add stiffness in the form of that strut brace.

Also I was not trying to say the Z was a light as the S2000 except for the engine/gas/roof, just that when you look at the whole picture the Z is not that far off the mark. Also not the same thing, but when chevy eliminated the hatch glass from the corvette to make the hard top later the Z06 they saved like 20-30 lbs jist from the glass.

I think the Z is not a lot lighter than the G35 because it must use stronger/heavier components maybe because it has more power.