It is better, for most applications, because most applications are not utility/offroad. I've said this countless times in as many ways as possible for you. However, they solid axles exist in utility/offroad vehicles and will continue to. No obstacle course needed. Again, they continue to roam the roads as well as off-road without issue.
1. While cars can often mean "sedans, crossovers, and coupes" here, the terms cars and trucks are also often used interchangeably. They're both used to get a pint, drop the kids off, pick up groceries, etc. SUVs are just as large in volume, and sometimes even heavier. There's no difference in paperwork, taxation, or license to an owner. When someone asks who's "car" they're taking to the game, no one cares if it's got a bed in the back or not.
View attachment 552454
hmm..
2. We were going back and forth and your first request for cars I thought was kind of stupid, because no cars, as in "sedans, crossovers, and coupes", use solid axles. They shouldn't. I never said they should. It's a dumb question.
3. Later when you said this (I've quoted this before)..
.. I realized maybe you didn't want a list of "sedans" and this (see above) is what you wanted, so that's exactly what I gave you. There was no stipulation in your statement there about vehicles with beds, or that they still had to be in production.
Calm down man. What I quoted were your words. It sounded like you wanted such a list.
It does. No one says "lets take your Heavy Duty Truck to the market", they say "let's take your car to the market", and when it happens to be that "your car" is a Heavy Duty Truck, no one cares and you go to the damn market.
Dishonest. Quote me. I've been saying exactly the opposite consistently. How many times have I told you IS/air is appropriate for Range Rovers, for example? It's got to be nearly a dozen times. No wonder you're so worked up if that's somehow what you're getting out of what I'm saying. I could say "The ball is red", and you'd say "Stop being dishonest! You keep telling me the ball is blue!"
Already covered this many times. It tells me they are appropriate for those applications. However, a Defender is not in the category of "cheap slow cars to super cars". It is in the category of utility/offroad, where coincidentally much of its competition still uses solid axles, because they too are in the same niche where solid axles work well.
<--- Disclaimer: This is not arguing "that unless you have a race car or a super fast car, solid axles is better than IS"
I've stated many times that IS has advantages. That is obviously one of them. However, (I've said the following before many times as well) it is not always necessary. Where a solid axle is used, it is because the issue of coupled wheels and unsprung weight are not a high priority. Those issues are high priorities on most vehicles, but not all.
<--- Disclaimer: This is not arguing "that unless you have a race car or a super fast car, solid axles is better than IS"
I've told you over, and over... and over, that in the context of improving solid axles, it cannot be changed. You cannot decouple the wheels and keep a solid axle. Proof:
Again, I addressed this directly already. Proof:
Notice, I did not state you could "eliminate" unsprung suspension weight (which IS does not completely do either, although it does decouple), I said you could "reduce" it. Will it be enough of an improvement? That depends on the application. The intended market might not care (trucks and 4x4s), or they might demand further refinement to the point where IS is considered, which is what happened in the L322.
<--- Disclaimer: This is not arguing "that unless you have a race car or a super fast car, solid axles is better than IS"
