AN OPEN CHALLANGE -- Suspension Competition!!!!!

[Pbum5]

AN OPEN CHALLENGE -- Suspension Competition!!!!!

One of the Classic Mustang Magazines needs to put on a competition for all the aftermarket suspension companies out there.

TCP, Global West, Maier, Ron Morris, Griggs, etc….

We all have seen these aftermarket kits and some have even purchased them. We hear great things but have nothing tangible to rate them. We all wish we had a stable of Stangs with different setups to judge which one we like best.

Is a front coil over (TCP) really much better than a beefier stock type (Maier)?

Is a rear coil over or Stock with a Panhard or Watts link or New Cobra Style the way to go for a rear suspension?

So here is an open challenge.

Each manufacture can bring their prepped car and see what is does.

Slalom, Skid Pad, and a few other tests by some unbiased drivers.

We all would get a lot of useful information about the new wave of suspension kits.

Have a Stock, and factory Shelby Mustang go out and set the baseline and then see what all the improved mustangs due compared to that.

Just a thought…

 

[180 Out]

It would be a start if the mags doing these install "tech" stories would just baseline THE project car and then repeat. 200' skid pad, 420' slalom, 70-0 braking, and perhaps a few laps around a road course. 0-60 and quarter mile times too, if relevant.

It seems to me that if you brought five different cars together with five different aftermarket manufacturers' kits, there would be too much variation from one car to the other in other relevant things -- weight, torsional stiffness, and tires to name three -- to make any valid conclusions about the relative goodness of the kits themselves. I suppose some glaring comparative weaknesses/strengths could arise, but my guess is the differences from one kit to another is too fine to measure unless they're all being tested on the same basic car.

 

[66ford289]

180 Out is right about the variation, even if you kept the same car, switching through 5 or so suspensions would be a feat within itself. I do think that having an open competition would be interesting. Not to compare the companies but to show the difference between the said baseline cars and the aftermarket products. (I know there have been articles about these upgrades but I haven't seen a spread-sheet with the hard numbers.) The gap should be big enough to knock out small variations; if these companies are doing things right

 

[atomicpunk]

I'd love to see this, but doubt we ever will. Most articles seem to avoid useful comparisons.

 

[DarkBuddha]

Forget the competition, forget the variations, forget the differences, forget the hype, and forget baseline... I just want to see some real performance numbers for some of these suspension setups.

But I think it is possible and reasonable to create a challenge style competition. For example, all the competing companies could be limited to using

1. '68 Mustang notchback (generic and cheap)

2. identical motor setup, like Ford Motorsport 345hp GT40 crate motor with Holley 750 4160 (generic and cheap)

3. standard geared C4 (from same company).

4. 3.50 rear gear ratio with clutch type limited slip

5. identical wheel size and tires (even aren't ideal to any particular company's setup)

6. Fixed weight limit, but weight distribution can be manipulated any way they want.

7. Established interior design requirements (for function and safety)

8. Whatever suspension parts they wanna use that are regular production parts from their catalog.

And ultimately, those companies can probably build and sell whatever car they build for a profit, so it's not like they'd take a loss on the thing.

Seems reasonable to me...

 

[66ford289]

I'd love to see this, but doubt we ever will. Most articles seem to avoid useful comparisons.

It seems most of it is replacing worn equipment with new high tech aftermarket pieces and judging it all by the reliable seat-o-the-pants-ometer . Not to say I don't enjoy reading how inadequate my Mustang is.

 

[mdjay]

Maier would win...

Simply because Mike will "drive" circles around them.

The driver is a big intangible...

 

[gtss]

Send all of your money and Mustangs to me, I will aquire the necessary parts, perform the comparison and report the results.

I think it would be a very interesting comparison, but as stated before there would have to be many controlled variables
G

 

[Taranis]

Maybe the manufacturer's don't want a side by side comparisson because the facts will give customers too much information. If customers have hard data, we can say "It's not worth that much to me for this marginal gain in performance."
While, right now, there is no hard data to speak of and many people are buying these expensive kits. There is a large perception that these kits are great. Why would the manufacturer's want to ruin that?

 

[Hack]

Maybe the manufacturer's don't want a side by side comparisson because the facts will give customers too much information. If customers have hard data, we can say "It's not worth that much to me for this marginal gain in performance."
While, right now, there is no hard data to speak of and many people are buying these expensive kits. There is a large perception that these kits are great. Why would the manufacturer's want to ruin that?

Bingo!

The manufacturers pay for ads in the magazine - the magazine publishes whatever the manufacturers want.

I haven't ever seen a car magazine that is written for the readers. They are all written for the companies that are out there selling products. The mags don't want to lose possible future ad money by writing that one of their advertisers sells a product that is more expensive and doesn't function as well as the product sold by another advertiser.

That's also why the mags rarely spend time on doing things yourself or encouraging people to get 80% of the improvement with 20% of the investment. The magazines merely encourage the consumer to spend, spend spend!

 

[Pbum5]

Yup,

All good points.

Some manufactures do have a lot to risk if their products don’t perform as advertised. But the best setup will be the standard for years to come.

I know there are a lot of variables but they could be simplified by setting some parameters.


- A single driver could do all the testing. Like Road and Track of Car and Driver does.


Not likely to happen but it would be nice.

 

[thehueypilot]

I remember a few years back Mustang & Fast Fords did one of the first install article's on how to install TCP's new rack and pinion set up. I was interested until I read a little side bar note that the rack failed shortly after installation and they had to send it back for another one. Now I'm not saying anything bad about TCP but the Magazine glossed over this and I don't think most people noticed it. I agree that the magazines don't want you to know if it is a good product or not. They won't bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[Taranis]

Maybe hemmings Mustang can do an article? They have no advertisements....

 

[DarkBuddha]

I haven't ever seen a car magazine that is written for the readers. They are all written for the companies that are out there selling products. The mags don't want to lose possible future ad money by writing that one of their advertisers sells a product that is more expensive and doesn't function as well as the product sold by another advertiser.

You should totally get a subscription to Hemmings Mustang magazine! No ads (except for Hemmings itself), real DYI type articles, even some written by and about members of this forum. A real enthusiast magazine.

 

[TBP]

Seems to me with such a wide variation in the way these systems are designed, that you still won't have any good tangible data. One setup will be better than another at A, but vice-versa at B. It would seem to me that just doing a little bit of research into what you want your car to be able to do will eventually lead you to the type of suspension setup you need. Just my opinion though.

 

[Taranis]

That't the problem, there is no tangible evidence to do research on... All info I've seen are manufacturer's claims and subjective consumer info. (of course, I can say I've done TONS of research because of this #$*ing dial-up )
A comparisson chart like Dodgestangs wheel fit chart would do wonders if filled with test results. Yes, you have to take that information with a grain of salt because of the different driving habits, different setups, and different experience level, but with enough people participating, one can have a pseudo-clear picture of the product instead of through maunufacturer-supplied rose-colored glasses.

Just my opinion. Maybe Consumer Reports will do it?

 

[TBP]

I guess my point was, I may want to build a straight line drag racer, and you may want to build a road racer. I don't think a comparison as detailed above would be all that useful for us.

 

[WORTH]

Taranis hit it on the head, if everyone knew how little they got off of all these HIGH PERFORMANCE mods, nobody would waste their money on them.

 

[Red Barchetta]

I guess my point was, I may want to build a straight line drag racer, and you may want to build a road racer. I don't think a comparison as detailed above would be all that useful for us.

A comparison as detailed above would not be useful for a car setup for drag racing. Having a drag setup in a street driven car can be hazardous while have a road race setup in a street driven car would be rough riding at worse IMO.

Therefore, taking it from a road race/street driving perspective, such a comparison would definitely be beneficial. Other than the issue of having a base platform to compare all of the suspension systems on, the other big issue is time and cost. That's why, again, IMO, a magazine will never try and do such a comparison.

There is something that a magazine could do, however, the technical apptitude of most magazines lies somewhere between high school auto shop and shady tree mechanic. I have yet to read an article written by an editor in any magazine that goes into any technical explanation beyond what's in the manufacturers instructions.

So what could a magazine do? Simple. Get all of the technical information from the manufacturers and apply it to 1 car and then give the readers the specs on what they get. In other words, get the TCP setup, Griggs setup, GW, etc. and go into deep technical detail about the setup. Give us roll centers (in static, droop and roll), instant center, jacking forces, wheel rates, camber gain (jounce & rebound) and every other variable involved. They should write the article at a decent technical level. Don't dumb it down as it's not a "Bolt on bling for your 'stang" type of article. Don't undsertand what they're saying? Then go pick up a couple of suspension books to get up to speed. Now you'll understand the theory and be able apply it in relation to the specs of the different suspension options. We can't ask the magazines to do it all. The reader needs to step it up as well. If the reader won't make an effort to educate themselves, then they have no business modifying their suspension. The last thing I want a magazine to say is "you're too stupid to understand what's going on, so don't bother learning, just use brand x because we say so." The first part won't happen, but the last part is implied quite a bit in todays magazines.

 

[Marshall]

Taranis hit it on the head, if everyone knew how little they got off of all these HIGH PERFORMANCE mods, nobody would waste their money on them.

You are wrong mate, I have the RRS struts / discs and they're worth every penny over the stock suspension for daily driving.

Marshall