[kaylcar]

Main difference is cost and space saving. The torsion beam takes up less cabin space and is cheaper to manufacture and service. Nearly all Euro mini class cars up to Golf GTI use it. Golf GTi is one of the best handling cars? Anyone disagree?
Torsion beam is semi-independent, but you wouldn't notice the difference. Those "journos" who split hairs about "which is best" are missing the point because a good torsion beam design and set up can be much better than a full independent multi link or vice versa. It's not the system it's how it's set up with the rest of the car design that counts.

On the local journos, they are pretty lame when it comes to reviews, I prefer to read UK or OZ reviewers which have cars similar to our spec.

Hi Gunner,

What is the difference between multi-link and torsion beam?

What current cars using the multi-link?

[kaylcar]

err...the Golf GTi is a "non-performance car"....? haha.

allow me to share opinion.

1. torsion beam axle goes as far as 1980s. i did own one car with such set-up; it was a mitsubishi galant super touring E12 and the handling was even better than proton wira 1.6 of the following decade with multi-link set-up. this is personal experience.

but in my knowledge torsion beam design has its advantages especially if fitted in a non-performance oriented cars and those are:-

a. torsion beam reduces the overall size of suspension and makes the suspension well smaller. smalle suspension well will not 'eat' into cabin space.

b. torsion beam limits the flex rate between left and right suspension, to an extend that it is considered as stabiliser bar too. this reduces rolls during cornerings which contributes to good handling

c. torsion beam has fewer components less than multi-link set-up and this reduces maintenance cost. example a wira 1.6 has upper link, lower link, stabiliser link, lower arm and trailing arm that will wear out after a certain period.

d. torsion beam has fewer joints to the body and this greatly reduces the amount of noise transferred into cabin space compare to multi link whereby almost every link is bolted to the body.

2. its hard to blame the journalists on the little 'bias' of their media report. i'd rather rather point the reason to our automotive environment and the corporates involved. if one journalist has a negative criticsism on a specific model it will not make the distributor feel good and the effect is, they may hesitate to invite the media again in future.

it has been a culture in our country to say only nice things about a car tested, and if really necessary only 1 small weakness that they hope will not affect sales of the new car.

3. IMO ah tot was being helpful by saying in a way that to maintain an used car, like a BMW requires a lot more money than a proton and the advice is somehow seems honest and sincere.

[TheGunner]

Main difference is cost and space saving. The torsion beam takes up less cabin space and is cheaper to manufacture and service. Nearly all Euro mini class cars up to Golf GTI use it. Golf GTi is one of the best handling cars? Anyone disagree?
Torsion beam is semi-independent, but you wouldn't notice the difference. Those "journos" who split hairs about "which is best" are missing the point because a good torsion beam design and set up can be much better than a full independent multi link or vice versa. It's not the system it's how it's set up with the rest of the car design that counts.

On the local journos, they are pretty lame when it comes to reviews, I prefer to read UK or OZ reviewers which have cars similar to our spec.

The Golf GTI used torsion beam until the Mk IV, but for the Mk V and the current Mk VI they went the path of multi-link.

Examples of good handling cars running on a torsion beam set up include RS versions of the Megane and Clio. It is not impossible to come up with a torsion beam set up with superior handling characteristics to multi-link.

The Europeans do have a knack of tuning good handling characteristics into cars with torsion beam rear suspension, but thus far I do notice subtle differences between cars that use torsion beam and multi-link suspension.

The differences are admittedly minute, and noticeable only when pushed. The torsion beam setup has higher unsprung weight, and tends to give cars a livelier tail compared to multi-link.

[kaylcar]

have to disagree with the Gunner on this....unsprung weight is nothing to do with the axle, more the tires, wheels and brakes. In fact multi-links have more hanging out there than torsion beams, which is why the double wishbones etc.. tend to be manufactured from more expensive alloys than simple steel. The torsion beam doesn't move very far in a performance set up, which is why VW went for independent in the Mark V,which was crap...it's more "compliant" (soggy) ride, and they now "fixed" in the MkVI, but the ride is hard again! No gain in oversteer either.
not for Lambos but overkill for hot hatch.

The Golf GTI used torsion beam until the Mk IV, but for the Mk V and the current Mk VI they went the path of multi-link.

Examples of good handling cars running on a torsion beam set up include RS versions of the Megane and Clio. It is not impossible to come up with a torsion beam set up with superior handling characteristics to multi-link.

The Europeans do have a knack of tuning good handling characteristics into cars with torsion beam rear suspension, but thus far I do notice subtle differences between cars that use torsion beam and multi-link suspension.

The differences are admittedly minute, and noticeable only when pushed. The torsion beam setup has higher unsprung weight, and tends to give cars a livelier tail compared to multi-link.

[alldisc]

err...the Golf GTi is a "non-performance car"....? haha.

well, what do ya know. someone trying to show off as Mr. Know-Everything but at the same time is revealing his low level of knowledge.

firstly, lets trace back the origin of Golf which started life as a small family hatch. the GTI is a sports oriented spec for those wanting more power from the lesser equipped trim levels like 1.4CL, or 1.6 TDI.

the Golf 1.4CL is a "performance car"...?? haha

[cfa]

I suppose, any car can be considered to be a 'performance car' if compared to the the 'right car'

Waja can be considered to be a performance car if compared to Iswara

Golf 1.4 is a performance car compared to MyVi


But I would think that calling the Golf a 'Hot Hatch' is more accurate.

[madex]

have to disagree with the Gunner on this....unsprung weight is nothing to do with the axle, more the tires, wheels and brakes. In fact multi-links have more hanging out there than torsion beams, which is why the double wishbones etc.. tend to be manufactured from more expensive alloys than simple steel. The torsion beam doesn't move very far in a performance set up, which is why VW went for independent in the Mark V,which was crap...it's more "compliant" (soggy) ride, and they now "fixed" in the MkVI, but the ride is hard again! No gain in oversteer either.
not for Lambos but overkill for hot hatch.

I normally heard torsion beam mostly apply for cheap car becoz it is cheap. Top Gear UK complaint about the new Civic Type R (Euro version) which use torsion beams vs independent in EP Type R back in 2003. The car goes understeer at corner when foot at pedal. And the ride quality is horrid!

But never heard Golf MkVI ride is harder than MkV..... What do you mean they "fixed"? With what? Torsion beams?