A few weeks ago I was talking to my friend 'The KIA Man'. I mentioned the new Golf would be 100kg lighter than the present model. He said that would mean it would have a worse ride because it was lighter. I told him that was utter codswallop. He didn't agree and said 'why do you think Rolls-Royce makes such big heavy cars?'. I had said it depends how a car is set up. He said it didn't make any difference. I did tell him about long travel 2CV suspension, but I'm sure he didn't believe me. And mention that low profile tyres can give a car a worse ride. He said it was down to physics - the heavier the car, the better the ride. In theory it is but lots of cars disprove that theory.

I've just read the following piece from the CAR magazine website. Could some of the engineers on here explain why the 100 kg weight saving helps? And what does really make a car ride well irrespective of weight.

The other major improvement is in the ride quality. We’re not so much talking about Golf VII bettering Golf VI here, but about Golf vs the rest of the compact car world. True, the test cars were fitted with relatively uncritical 17in wheels and tyres, but even in combination with the optional sports suspension the level of compliance felt creamier and cushier than what the premium brands can offer for a lot more money. That the wheelbase has been stretched by 50mm certainly helps, and so does that 100kg weight saving. The new chassis – here with a multilink rear axle, which is replaced by a less sophisticated torsion beam in cars packing less than 120bhp – will expertly soak up bumps and potholes, iron out crests and dips, compensate for aquaplaning grooves and patchwork blacktop. Only over broken-up surfaces tackled at low speed or when encountering serious obstacles like a banked railway crossing does the 225/45 footwear approach its limit of compliance.

Edited by Avant on 18/01/2013 at 21:54