2008vistablue

very interesting

foolio2k4

Why would you think those kinds of technology would fit better for t-birds.

MR is hands down THE suspension component for a high performance road car. We all know theres a tradeoff in suspension firmness and level of comfort. Electronic Adjustable Suspensions and MR reduces that tradeoff of harshness and comfort.

active roll bars arent only beneficial in slalom maneuvors. Think of it in terms of a safety standpoint. If any of its drivers must take emergency maneouvers it will still give that level of handling expected.

I like tinkering with my cars, so I personally wouldnt want all the MR or active-roll bars.

However, If I was a person that just enjoyed the car as it is and didnt want the hassle of mechnanically tinkering with the car, I would instantly take a car with MR.

Definately one reason why my next car is a CTS V. I loved driving that car. Plus, the V is quicker than the new gt500 around VIR. AND it gives better ride comfort.

Norm Peterson

Because that's Ford's more comfort-oriented upscale nameplate and would be expected to fall closer to the Corvette/Cadillac price point. Not that the Mustang has to be UNcomfortable, but comfort isn't its main mission and arguably shouldn't be. Think "reasonably affordable performance" and "reasonably useful as a daily-use car" instead.


I keep coming back to thinking "touring car" here.
Or "technical tour-de-force".
I guess I'm not laid-back enough to think from the point of view of the first, and not convinced that the benefit:cost and benefits:drawbacks of the second are worth it.


When it crosses over from one "setting" or "program" to the other, you'll get some "nonlinearity". For the person who never drives much past about half of a car's capability (this covers most folks), there might not be much difference in tactile feedback. For the person who drives based simply on the position of the various controls, it won't even matter. But if you are conscious of what's really happening, having the car send you disparate messages as you encounter slightly different situations is going to make it hard to trust.


I don't think we have the same definition of "handling". With respect to maneouvers, you may very well get the same measured ultimate performance and perhaps even similar transient behaviour - but the "feel" will be different. I can claim with near-absolute certainty that I would not have wanted anything active doing its thing a couple of years ago when I suddenly found myself having to execute a 65+ mph 3-cone slalom around the scattered remains of a disintegrated truck tire. And that was back when my car's suspension was completely stock; it was that trustworthy. Wish I'd had some sort of data acquisition.


Amen to that. Even if you didn't tinker with the active bits, you'd be stuck hoping that the programming would still play nice with the tweaks that you did with/to the passive components.


Maybe some day, ride quality will move up on my list of priorities. Then again, I'm 63 already and still actively prefer a stiffish ride as long as it isn't flat-out ka-blam harsh (*cough* Tokico Illuminas *cough*), so maybe not. Even though its handling behaviour is quite good (ESC off), the 2.5GT Subie in my sig is actually softer than I'd prefer (it moves around on its suspension a bit more than necessary).


Norm