A difficult time for the car was approaching. We don't want to worry about the oil price crisis of 1973, but about a test of the sporty middle class, the second part of which was published by Auto Motor Sport magazine in early 1972. We are primarily referring to the undercarriage pages.

The time is marked by the swan song of the rigid axle. As if it wants to show once again what it can do in the passenger car sector, sometimes even as the winner against the independent wheel suspension, here only represented by the BMW 2002. But more on that later.

The great thing about the composition was the mixture of the rear axle, which has been appearing again and again in slight variations since the end of the war with almost undiminished enforcement not only in the middle class, which is so important for the standard drive and which likewise prevails (front engine, rear drive).

In the form of the Fiat 125 Special, it was only guided by two leaf springs. Not only this construction made the car the cheapest in this quintet. However, it shared the bad grade for driving comfort, driving safety and handiness with the Ford Taunus GXL. The Ford rigid axle even had coil springs and was guided at links.

And although with the Opel Ascona 19 SR not much more effort was made apart from a panhard rod, the tuning seemed to be a lot better here. First of all, it was the steering, which shined through its precision and little actuation force. This was all the more remarkable as, of course, none of the five had the servo support that is common today.

Maybe it was because of the compact format compared to the Ford. When it came to driving comfort, it performed a little worse, but had its suspension travel under control even when loaded. When it came to the maneuverability of the steering, even the BMW 2002 was slightly at a disadvantage compared to the Opel. It was also the only two-door model in the test that was a little longer than the Opel.

It was probably not just its complex rear axle that made it the most expensive together with the Alfa. And while the Giulia Super was still based on the rigid axle, the BMW should have had a clear victory in terms of driving safety, but it went to the Alfa. The BMW only managed to score points against it in terms of driving comfort.

How can this be explained? It was the philosophy, which you can still feel today, although in a much reduced form, that stood in the way of BMW here. It was based on oversteering in the limit range. This is just right for sporty drivers who have long since become accustomed to countersteering in such a case.

However, driving safety also means that even inexperienced drivers have to get along with such a car and that is the understeer, which can be controlled to some extent by further steering. This is how the Alfa got its points, of course it also had the most complex guided axle, e.g. by an additional wishbone.

Something was added, namely the art of tuning, which played a major role in the chassis and especially the rear axle with the standard drive. Especially in the case of standard cars with a somewhat sporty touch for corresponding family fathers, and perhaps also mothers, the compromise between maximum cornering speed, handiness and still sufficient driving comfort is particularly difficult.