I think Suzuki just need to increase suspension travel.
Yes, but if it had softer suspension with greater travel, the risk in it falling over is higher due to its proportions. A Jimny is taller than it is wide, much more so in the case of the JDM Kei versions which don't have the extra 15cm of track width allowed by the wheelarch extensions.
solid axles can provide very smooth ride if set up correctly like in a Range Rover classic.
Yes they can, but only if the vehicle they are fitted to is heavy relative to the weight of the axles. The Jimny, while heavy for its size, is light for something with solid axles. So the effect of that unsprung weight over potholes, ridges etc, is very much magnified. But the bottom line is that solid axles are chosen for their strength and (in off road applications) superiority in most more extreme circumstances than an independent setup, not for their cushy ride
A separate chassis can have great benefits in NVH.
Yes, it can. But in most cases it doesn't. On a vehicle with a separate chassis, the body is almost(*) never going to be as rigid and stiff as a monocoque because it doesn't need to be. Which means it is going to flex more, resulting in creaks and groans, which inevitably will get worse as the vehicle ages. Having a separate chassis also means double the potential for NVH as you have to deal with that between the road and the chassis, but also that between the chassis and the body. With a monocoque, its just between the road and the body. There are exceptions, but as a general rule, unless the vehicle is a large heavy and very expensive SUV, NVH will be worse on a vehicle with a separate chassis.
*The reason the Disco 3 and RR Sport were so heavy is because they were designed to be monocoque construction. But at the last minute, it was decided they should sit on a separate chassis to appease the traditionalists!.
|
