Why do these cars have weird front LCA geometry?

[gnalan]

I can understand the front bushing bolting on the way it does, since the LCA is designed to move up and down, but why is the rear bushing designed the way it is? Wouldn't it be better to have the rear bushing designed the same way as the front bushing? What's the design purpose of the rear LCA bushing bolting on vertically?

[SuperHerman]

It takes a difference force. You have up and down force and forward and back force. Volvo opted to address these in this manner. Other makers, such as BMW, use an additional arm. In the end it is a design decision which balances costs, longevity, serviceability and ride quality/manner. The entire suspension design has to be looked at to understand how the forces are compensated for to achieve the desired results.

[gnalan]

The older Volvo's didn't have the vertical mount on the LCAs. Do they suffer with as much suspension issues that we do on our P2s?

[oragex]

I was thinking the same, the vertical bushing would take mainly the braking and accelerations forces but perhaps also give a slight rotation to the CA so the steering doesn't feel 'too sharp'. Volvo may have also designed the P2 platform with a certain smooth driving dynamics in mind. I think new there cars felt a little like a flying carpet on smooth roads. The steering on 2001-2003 was exceptionally smooth and weighted, an absolute marvel that I haven't seen on any other cars including Audi. Perhaps the bushing orientation was also helping. I think the original spring seats -infamous for their failure at age, would give a certain 'floating in the air' sensation, very nice, and had to be made rather soft for this reason - perhaps why it wouldn't last the life of the car. Speaking of bushings, perhaps one very clear design mistake were the sway bar bushings, clearly too tiny and fragile, improved somewhere after 2005