Hydropneumatic suspension v transverse leaf springs

Lancia & Peugeot not the only adoptees of transverse leaf spring - my Bristol 401 has the same system. Have no direct experience {yet :(} of how it handles rough roads but some fellow Aussies did really well {1st in class} on the last 'Peking to Paris' in one with plenty of appallingly rough sections.
Regards,
Rob
 
dayofthejackal said:
Two of my favourite cars are my 1971 D special and my 1969 Lancia Flavia sedan.

Don't get me wrong I love my hydropneumatic Citroens ( I've got a CX , GSA and an X7 C5 daily driver ) .

How come the good old leaf spring in the Flavia handles even the smallest of potholes so much better than any of the Citroens whilst at the same matching the general ride of its French counterparts ?

My thoughts are that Lancia had been tweaking suspension since the 1920s from its sliding pillar on and got very good at what they did and the physics of Citroen's set up even with added computers doesn't have a sufficient reaction time to deal with sudden changes in road surface .

I would be very interested in the comments / observations of others.
Click to expand...
The torsion bar suspension on my Renault 16TS was every bit as good ironing out bumps, but with rear passengers, it used to sag a bit. As for my C5, not having a good run with it atm.
 
img5338_34807.jpg
 
baldrick56 said:
Lancia & Peugeot not the only adoptees of transverse leaf spring - my Bristol 401 has the same system. Have no direct experience {yet :(} of how it handles rough roads but some fellow Aussies did really well {1st in class} on the last 'Peking to Paris' in one with plenty of appallingly rough sections.
Regards,
Rob
Click to expand...
My mum bought a brand new Datsun 1000 from the Melbourn motor show in 1970, it handled like an M.G.B. nothing could corner like it. I was surprised to see that the front suspension was a transverse leaf spring. The first thought that came into my mind was the old Ford front suspension, just like the Ford in the picture, which I think is a model B. Sorry that should read model A
 
baldrick56 said:
Lancia & Peugeot not the only adoptees of transverse leaf spring - my Bristol 401 has the same system. Have no direct experience {yet :(} of how it handles rough roads but some fellow Aussies did really well {1st in class} on the last 'Peking to Paris' in one with plenty of appallingly rough sections.
Regards,
Rob
Click to expand...
You can add 1970 Datsun 1000 to that list too. When Nissan decided to rebrand all their Datsun cars they went to coil front suspension.
 
Last edited:
dayofthejackal said:
Two of my favourite cars are my 1971 D special and my 1969 Lancia Flavia sedan.

Don't get me wrong I love my hydropneumatic Citroens ( I've got a CX , GSA and an X7 C5 daily driver ) .

How come the good old leaf spring in the Flavia handles even the smallest of potholes so much better than any of the Citroens whilst at the same matching the general ride of its French counterparts ?

My thoughts are that Lancia had been tweaking suspension since the 1920s from its sliding pillar on and got very good at what they did and the physics of Citroen's set up even with added computers doesn't have a sufficient reaction time to deal with sudden changes in road surface .

I would be very interested in the comments / observations of others.
Click to expand...
I would love to own a Lancia Flavia to go with the D. What a great combination.

Please feel free to show photos.

Regards Syd
 
The Flavia was Lancia's first FWD car ( 27 years after Citroen's TA ) designed under the direction of Antonio Fessia. The flat four engine is said by some to have been copied by Subaru. The sedan is fairly non-descript looking , beautifully put together and a pleasure to drive. Variants were a Vignale convertible and a Zagato coupe. If you want to see a world class line up of Lancias head to Castlemaine , Victoria for the September meeting every second year ( odd years ).
 
dayofthejackal said:
Two of my favourite cars are my 1971 D special and my 1969 Lancia Flavia sedan.

Don't get me wrong I love my hydropneumatic Citroens ( I've got a CX , GSA and an X7 C5 daily driver ) .

How come the good old leaf spring in the Flavia handles even the smallest of potholes so much better than any of the Citroens whilst at the same matching the general ride of its French counterparts ?

My thoughts are that Lancia had been tweaking suspension since the 1920s from its sliding pillar on and got very good at what they did and the physics of Citroen's set up even with added computers doesn't have a sufficient reaction time to deal with sudden changes in road surface .

I would be very interested in the comments / observations of others.
Click to expand...
You are quite correct in your assessment - with one notable, in my experience, exception. And that are D's with the older style removable shock bodies. One of the basic differences are the diameters of the 'bypass' hole that allow minor wheel movements to be absorbed. The other difference is that D's have much softer seats compared to all later models that I am away of. The replaceable shocks incorporated a 2.00mm bypass - for front and back spheres. D's and CX's with the fixed or riveted shocks have, in the front, 1.80mm and rear 1.60mm regardless of actual sphere design. SM's are 1.45 and 1.25mm. One of the main reasons that the spheres got smaller and smaller bypass holes was, I have to think, a way of trying to reduce body roll under fast cornering as well as providing a more 'sporty' ride - which was becoming more and more the 'rage' as roads, overall, where improving. My own experience is that the older two part spheres (with more gas volume) give a better overall ride than the later welded units with less volume - though in the case of the CX an increase in pressure was used to try and overcome that. OTOH IFHS spheres for D's have the exact same pressure as the factory's specification for the two part spheres. Others may disagree but that has been my experience with some 57 years of Cit driving with D's, SM and an XM with the Hydractive 1 system.
 

Attachments

  • Shock Body.jpg
    Shock Body.jpg
    45.3 KB · Views: 103
Last edited:
Citroenfan 1 said:
You are quite correct in your assessment - with one notable, in my experience, exception. And that are D's with the older style removable shock bodies. One of the basic differences are the diameters of the 'bypass' hole that allow minor wheel movements to be absorbed. The other difference is that D's have much softer seats compared to all later models that I am away of. The replaceable shocks incorporated a 2.00mm bypass - for front and back spheres. D's and CX's with the fixed or riveted shocks have, in the front, 1.80mm and rear 1.60mm regardless of actual sphere design. SM's are 1.45 and 1.25mm. One of the main reasons that the spheres got smaller and smaller bypass holes was, I have to think, a way of trying to reduce body roll under fast cornering as well as providing a more 'sporty' ride - which was becoming more and more the 'rage' as roads, overall, where improving. My own experience is that the older two part spheres (with more gas volume) give a better overall ride than the later welded units with less volume - though in the case of the CX an increase in pressure was used to try and overcome that. OTOH IFHS spheres for D's have the exact same pressure as the factory's specification for the two part spheres. Others may disagree but that has been my experience with some 57 years of Cit driving with D's, SM and an XM with the Hydractive 1 system.
Click to expand...
Any early DS19 owner will confirm this.
The ride is significantly softer than later Dees.
The body roll is a little more too because of the thinner anti roll bar.
And with the narrower tyres running at low pressure you don't get the slap from small bumps, because the tyre contact patch is much longer.
 
DoubleChevron said:
that's boss womens car ..... I've managed to kill the range rover, so I'm back to the CX and ugly pink car at the moment again ..... the 60's and 80's were great times right :dance:

Honestly, the CX probably has more "computers" than the 407 :eek:
Click to expand...
Did you actually kill the rangie, or did it die of spite and jealousy because you other car is a French beauty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top