Torsion Beam or double wishbone

[fourbanks]

i see the corolla has a double wishbone rear suspension and the Yaris Cross the Torsion Beam. My Mazda 2 litre has the Torsion Beam which i'm part exchanging for my corolla next week. My own findings of the Torsion Beam are very positive, so hope the double wishbone is just as reliable next week and in the years ahead 

[forkingabout]

Torsion beam is cheap to make & is confused by broken road surfaces so the back end can skip during corning.

Double rear wishbones are much better for ride & handling.

FWIW: The AWD version of the Yaris Cross also use double rear wishbones as the torsion beam system just won't fit.

[fourbanks]

2 minutes ago, forkingabout said:

Torsion beam is cheap to make & is confused by broken road surfaces so the back end can skip during corning.

Double rear wishbones are much better for ride & handling.

FWIW: The AWD version of the Yaris Cross also use double rear wishbones as the torsion beam system just won't fit.

Both the 4-wheel drive and 2WD is now torsion beam on the Yaris Cross it's showing? The spec must have changed?  

[forkingabout]

[fourbanks]

2 minutes ago, forkingabout said:

Thanks for the update 

[Spo2]

1 hour ago, fourbanks said:

i see the corolla has a double wishbone rear suspension and the Yaris Cross the Torsion Beam. My Mazda 2 litre has the Torsion Beam which i'm part exchanging for my corolla next week. My own findings of the Torsion Beam are very positive, so hope the double wishbone is just as reliable next week and in the years ahead 

Double wishbone is better- IMO only Toyota, Honda, Kia and Hyundai offer them in C-segment vehicles as standards. Other makers of car, generally offer them in larger-engined or expensive vehicles. 

[fourbanks]

9 minutes ago, Spo2 said:

Double wishbone is better- IMO only Toyota, Honda, Kia and Hyundai offer them in C-segment vehicles as standards. Other makers of car, generally offer them in larger-engined or expensive vehicles. 

Mazda went for the Torsion Beam as it was cheap but solid and use large shock absorbers through the springs at an angle. They found Torsion Beam to be better than Double wishbone after many advancements of the Torsion Beam

 

[Spo2]

14 minutes ago, fourbanks said:

Mazda went for the Torsion Beam as it was cheap but solid and use large shock absorbers through the springs at an angle. They found Torsion Beam to be better than Double wishbone after many advancements of the Torsion Beam

 

Yes, Mazda has the contrarian strategy. They did not downsize the engine, did not go with turbo instead made Skyactiv X (made grandiose comments about efficiency but it did not translate into real-world), made EV with low range etc. however their car design is nice. They are trying to move to the premium segment with their CX60.

[Cyker]

Torsions beams are a cheap easy solution, like McPherson struts.

They work well when set up correctly so for normal cars there's no point doing anything more complicated, as other types need a lot more rods and bushes and things.

The only reason they use double wishbones in the AWD ones is it's much easier to have a driven axle with one of those than with a torsion beam, as the driven axle and MG-R messes up the balance and introduces packaging problems.

The biggest problem with torsion beams and mcpherson struts is they have far less adjustability, and you can't tune them to work consistently under a variety of different loads and movements like you can with double and esp. multi-link., but those take up more space and are more complicated and expensive, so you tend to see them more on performance cars and track toys and off-road vehicles as they don't really offer much benefit on a normal road car.