Originally Posted by RubyTuesday2014

I tell you what, you go buy an M3 and drive it for 18 months and compare it to the Mustang GT and let me know what you think like I have.

I think you need to lay off what I am saying and don't take it so hard. I am a software engineer, I used to work for IBM, I currently write iPhone apps(I have written 26) and my nature is to make things better. So it is not a matter of what I think is better so much is that IT IS better for certain things when it is proven in the world.

The SRA DOES have it's good points. It can take a lot of abuse and tow like hell like in my truck. A IRS would be crap for that. An IRS is only BEST in corners(and it may be only marginally better) then a SRA, but I like something that is better...YOU DON'T? If I had a drag car, a SRA would be better.

But, a 1250+ HP F1 Formula race car does not have a SRA. I wonder why?

Originally Posted by RubyTuesday2014

Well, so far I haven't been spooked. Not much does, not even when the cop pulled a gun on me a long time ago on a traffic stop(I grew up with guns), but that's another story.

My settings are approximately 3 turns from full hard and I need to take a day and go to the Houston Police academy race track or go to Hennessey's track and try different settings to see how it reacts. As it is set now, I don't think I would change much on the front. It doesn't dive at all. Before the upgrade, I stood on the brakes many times to measure the nose dive and it was alot. Now it is almost nothing.

Originally Posted by RubyTuesday2014

Well, so far I haven't been spooked. Not much does, not even when the cop pulled a gun on me a long time ago on a traffic stop(I grew up with guns), but that's another story.

My settings are approximately 3 turns from full hard and I need to take a day and go to the Houston Police academy race track or go to Hennessey's track and try different settings to see how it reacts. As it is set now, I don't think I would change much on the front. It doesn't dive at all. Before the upgrade, I stood on the brakes many times to measure the nose dive and it was alot. Now it is almost nothing.

Originally Posted by Brandon302

I'm not taking anything you say as offensive and am not defensive with my responses. I also will never buy a new M3 until it is worth it's 80k price tag. As a software dev you should know then that to improve you have to be able to know how something works. The reason for arguing this point is that you are looking to change something prematurely. Did you ever track your M3, and if not why not? What I may be defensive about is the fact that an IRS would fix all your issues when it sounds like you don't know how to drive the car, which I mean no disrespect saying. And F1 cars don't have 1250 HP, that is their power to weight.

Originally Posted by Brandon302

Does the adjustable suspension have 5 clicks to it, 1 being softest and 5 hardest? If so try 3 or 4 front and 2 or 1 rear, similar to the Grand Am cars.

Originally Posted by Brandon302

Does the adjustable suspension have 5 clicks to it, 1 being softest and 5 hardest? If so try 3 or 4 front and 2 or 1 rear, similar to the Grand Am cars.

Originally Posted by RubyTuesday2014

Certainly, the IRS does break loose on a hard slide, but it doesn't hop. It is more of a controlled slide sideways.

You have to think of the hop on a SRA, that when one wheel leaves the ground, it pulls the other one.

Originally Posted by RubyTuesday2014

It does not have clicks at all. It is a continuous turn...there are roughly 9 turns...'ish

Originally Posted by cdynaco

Just throwin stuff out here... I drive the car, didn't engineer it. My left to right roll isn't bad, but I do get a bit of dive on hard braking. At first I thought about getting an anti-dive kit. But then I put it in the context of weight transfer during curves. I want some movement under acceleration to move that weight to the rear wheels. (Same goes for launch on the quarter.) And the engineers designed that in Bullitt to match its suspension. They also dropped the rear springs just slightly to eliminate any wheel hop. They designed a 'system'.

My favorite two lane drops 4000' feet in 30 minutes. No shoulder, some sheer drop off, tight corners. So many of the curves are down hill so that's where I try - at a minimum - to be acceleration neutral so the weight doesn't shift too far to the front.

That sounds kool! I have driven so many times down mountains that my ears pop like on a jet coming down, but it is faster.

Of course coming back up is much more fun because its easier to accomplish weight transfer to the rear, and rather than braking all the way down, I'm up in higher rpm's in the power band, under acceleration all the way back up. Regardless of the rough road, dips, bumps, sinks, 180* turns, the rear is just planted!

Now you have to realize going up, gravity is doing a lot of the work on keeping the back wheels planted. It has nothing to do with the car.

Perhaps you have firmed the front up so much you don't get weight transfer to the rear to avoid the movement of the rear axle you've commented about. Some say 'skip' and I think they're suspension is just too firm. Plus if you've dropped by an inch, perhaps you've reduced travel and you aren't getting the absorption by the suspension an SRA needs.

Originally Posted by RubyTuesday2014

They don't have an SRA. They wouldn't handle very well

Originally Posted by RubyTuesday2014

Well, maybe. But all out race cars, their suspension is so stiff, they really bounce. But if they were not stiff, they would roll too much and the body would drag even more.

Originally Posted by Brandon302

That and the fact that the chassis was developed with an IRS being the rear.

Originally Posted by cdynaco

Right. Completely different league. They have so many other design specialties besides "IRS v SRA" that there is no way to even discuss with street rides.

Originally Posted by RubyTuesday2014

Well, maybe. But all out race cars, their suspension is so stiff, they really bounce. But if they were not stiff, they would roll too much and the body would drag even more.

Originally Posted by cdynaco

It doesn't necessarily 'leave the ground' if the suspension is set properly. That's where so many talk theory and are exaggerating.
And when one tire suddenly has less weight to the pavement because of a bump, it transfers weight to the other tire - increasing its traction - it doesn't 'pull it'.
A slide is a slide. The best way out of it is hard acceleration - which SRA does better than half shafts.
Have you driven on packed snow and ice with washboards with SRA?

Originally Posted by cdynaco

It's not straight up. You are climbing the side of the Cascades and as the road switchbacks through draws, some of the tighter 130 - 180* turns are level, then climb. If you drove it you would feel the weight transfer I am describing.


Yet they tweak the suspension for each track. And many times that is to soften the suspension for more absorption. Sometimes one side of the car more than others.

Originally Posted by Brandon302

This is not entirely true, since you stated stiff suspension causes bounce which causes loss of traction. Case in point, the Grand Am Mustangs have very stiff front ends and very soft rears, so the front will lift and the rear stays planted through out the course.

Originally Posted by RubyTuesday2014

Duh, All cars that I have ever owned. The front is stiffer. It would be almost undrivable if the back was as stiff as the front.

Originally Posted by Brandon302

Alright, in any event have you tried softening the rear and see if it is any better?