Fragile suspensions in modern front-wheel-drive cars

[Rick]

@Whiskey_Dickens

You’ll only damage your tires if the broken part is affecting suspension geometry.

Worn shocks (as you mention) and broken sway bar end links (as Gary T and I mention) won’t affect geometry, having zero effect on tire wear.

Excessively worn shocks or struts can cause a condition known as cupping or scalloping.
It can look like someone scooped out a chunk of thread.
Scroll down here for an example of cupped tires. Wheel Balancing Machine Guide | Derek Weaver Co.

[Whiskey_Dickens]

@Rick

Excessively worn shocks or struts can cause a condition known as cupping or scalloping.
It can look like someone scooped out a chunk of thread.
Scroll down here for an example of cupped tires. Wheel Balancing Machine Guide | Derek Weaver Co.

I forgot those scenarios where the wheel is so out balance that it leaves the road and slams back into the pavement so as to cause scalloping. Happens all the time. Thank you for mentioning it
I don’t think the wheel weights are usually considered part of the suspension system by most definitions though.

[Rick]

I have seen in on cars with balanced tires but bad shocks. Since it was my own car I know the ride wasn’t bad but boy it tore up the tires. Replaced the shocks and it was all better.

[Hail_Ants]

@Whiskey_Dickens

Massive over-generalization which borders on incorrect.

Most cars switched to unibody construction in the 1960’s and by the 1970’s cars with a frame were the rare exception.

Chrysler, Dodge, and Plymouth switched all of their models to unibody in 1960-61(save for the Imperial model).

I was a GM guy and never owned a Chrysler or Ford back then. And every mid-size or even two-door coupe (Camaro/Firebird F-body) General Motors car was body on frame, control arm/ball joint suspension in the front, leaf springs in the back (I never owned a ‘compact’ GM car). And looking at that second link about Chrysler’s 1960-61 ‘unibody’, that doesn’t really look like what I consider a true unibody, it’s more just a frame and body welded together rather than bolted on.

[jz78817]

@Hail_Ants

I was a GM guy and never owned a Chrysler or Ford back then. And every mid-size or even two-door coupe (Camaro/Firebird F-body) General Motors car was body on frame, control arm/ball joint suspension in the front, leaf springs in the back (I never owned a ‘compact’ GM car). And looking at that second link about Chrysler’s 1960-61 ‘unibody’, that doesn’t really look like what I consider a true unibody, it’s more just a frame and body welded together rather than bolted on.

F-bodies were not BoF; they had a bolt on front subframe but the remainder was unitized. The B and D bodies (Chevy Caprice, Cadillac Fleetwood) were the last BoF cars GM produced.