The proper use of the 3rd generation magnetic ride control system

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by JusticePete

#1 MRC is a damper. It is a very advanced electronic damper, but none the less a damper. There is no special application for MRC. It can be used on ANY car or truck and already has been. The GM Denali and Escalade have been using them in the front for quite a few years. Look for MRC to be on all higher end GM vehicles capable of carrying the current cost at retail in the short term.

#2 MRC is a safety feature. As the technology has advanced it has been integrated into the stability control system to reduce rollovers. That is a key reason you'll see MRC on more and more GM vehicles in the long term.

#3 The 40 second improvement at the Ring is certainly due in part to the MRC system. It is also due to the denser front sub-frame bushes, the improved toe links, six pot front brakes, 160 HP increase, improved wheel and tire setup, an increase to a 25mm front sway bar and a HUGE improvement in the rear sway bar geometry that is roughly three time more effective and in addition to that 28mm rear bar diameter of solid spring steel. Those are just the highlights of the long list of ZL1 upgrades over the SS. The MRC is sexy. Sexy sells. No matter how sexy, installing the ZL1 MRC system into a 2011 SS with FE3 geometry would not deliver the same result.

BTW, the old Camaro Ring time was set with an 80 or 85% developed suspension.

#4 I am sick and tired of hearing about the Camaro's weight or specifically the ZL1 at 4,100 pounds. It is a BIG car. If we shrunk it down to Mustang size or 10% smaller it would weigh 3,700 pounds. When the 6th Gen is released it will weigh in in full ZL1 like trim around 3,550 by my calculation. So what? The ZL1 can be flogged on a raod course and and brake fade is minimal. I don't have good hard data on heat soak, but what I do have indicates the engineers have done a good job in managing it. The weight gives the ZL1 a solid as a brick feel on rough roads and reduces racking on a road course. There is a reason the BOSS LS has much better track manners than the GT500. It is the brace that replaces the rear seat to reduce racking. There is no free lunch in setup and design.

The two cars are what they are. The 13 GT500 makes HUGE HP and suffers with a three link and brake fade. The ZL1 makes good power, suffers from size and heft while benefiting from numerous chassis and brake refinements. If you are a Blue Oval lover the GT is the best Mustang ever made. If you are a Bow Tie guy the ZL1 is the best Camaro ever made. And MRC is an advanced element of the ZL1 success, but it is NOT a magical silver bullet.

This thread can now return to bias, disinformation, misinformation, lack of information and in general deteriorate into GT500 vs ZL1 drivel.

Nice to hear from an expert!

Also the chassis in the Camaro is extremely rigid as the best chassis's should be, allowing for a brilliant suspension to work properly. The only issue is weight and it's been shown that can be reduced without too much penalty.

[Norm Peterson]

Intentionally out of order.

Originally Posted by JusticePete

#4 I am sick and tired of hearing about the Camaro's weight or specifically the ZL1 at 4,100 pounds. It is a BIG car. If we shrunk it down to Mustang size or 10% smaller it would weigh 3,700 pounds. When the 6th Gen is released it will weigh in in full ZL1 like trim around 3,550 by my calculation. So what? The ZL1 can be flogged on a raod course and and brake fade is minimal. I don't have good hard data on heat soak, but what I do have indicates the engineers have done a good job in managing it. The weight gives the ZL1 a solid as a brick feel on rough roads and reduces racking on a road course. There is a reason the BOSS LS has much better track manners than the GT500. It is the brace that replaces the rear seat to reduce racking. There is no free lunch in setup and design.

The two cars are what they are. The 13 GT500 makes HUGE HP and suffers with a three link and brake fade. The ZL1 makes good power, suffers from size and heft while benefiting from numerous chassis and brake refinements. If you are a Blue Oval lover the GT is the best Mustang ever made. If you are a Bow Tie guy the ZL1 is the best Camaro ever made. And MRC is an advanced element of the ZL1 success,but it is NOT a magical silver bullet.

They're BOTH big cars (and I like your thoughts on 10% - or whatever - smaller). 3880 lbs as listed for the GT500 in C/D isn't exactly "svelte", either.

I think the best that we as enthusiasts should be taking away from all of these comparisons is some direction to head off in with any performance modifications. Regardless of which car we happen to have.


Back to the MRC damper discussion,

#1 MRC is a damper. It is a very advanced electronic damper, but none the less a damper. There is no special application for MRC. It can be used on ANY car or truck and already has been. The GM Denali and Escalade have been using them in the front for quite a few years. Look for MRC to be on all higher end GM vehicles capable of carrying the current cost at retail in the short term.

Agreed. Essentially, it's the programming as much as or more so than the mechanical shock valving.

Will you let me add that it's a damper with nonlinear behavior based on more than just suspension "damped vibration" (i.e. shock piston speed and in a few cases position).

No doubt it works very, very well. But it's still somebody else's programming and somebody else's opinion of what I should consider optimum (or close enough). Maybe it is, but I guess I've got too much of an independent streak in me to believe it without proof or question. I'm not dissing the MRC system here . . .

#2 MRC is a safety feature. As the technology has advanced it has been integrated into the stability control system to reduce rollovers. That is a key reason you'll see MRC on more and more GM vehicles in the long term.

This one's a lot tougher for me to accept. With a little experience of electronics activating inappropriately or at unreasonably low threshholds, I'm not entirely trustful of any of them. So I'm not exactly yearning for yet another one. On the other hand, I won't be buying an SUV, so the MRC-ESC linkup is probably a moot complaint at least for now.

#3 The 40 second improvement at the Ring is certainly due in part to the MRC system. It is also due to the denser front sub-frame bushes, the improved toe links, six pot front brakes, 160 HP increase, improved wheel and tire setup, an increase to a 25mm front sway bar and a HUGE improvement in the rear sway bar geometry that is roughly three time more effective and in addition to that 28mm rear bar diameter of solid spring steel. Those are just the highlights of the long list of ZL1 upgrades over the SS. The MRC is sexy. Sexy sells. No matter how sexy, installing the ZL1 MRC system into a 2011 SS with FE3 geometry would not deliver the same result.

Couldn't have said it better.


Norm

[FxsX24]

Originally Posted by shank0668

"Not trying to put the ZL1 down" Then completely call's it a piece...

The ZL1 is lacking in power.... That is it's downfall. Certainly not handling or braking. It really doesn't help that it's on a sedan chassis, the car is massive.

actually the stock brakes on a roadcourse are not that great

[ShnOmac]

Originally Posted by FxsX24

actually the stock brakes on a roadcourse are not that great

Source? Any info?

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by FxsX24

actually the stock brakes on a roadcourse are not that great

Not according to RP.

[2012ZL1]

I get jokes

[Fenderaddict2]

Originally Posted by oldfriend

Just have one question to make , have you ever took the time to look at how big is the chip on one of your shoulder , or may be on the two shoulders ?Next time you are in front of a mirror just take a look and let us know , thanks , Oldfriend .

Certainly less of a chip than the typical Camaro owner... you guys are used to carrying around more weight.

Seriously. some of you are bleedin' idiots!!!

I was not putting down the technology, but praising it and saying "Can you imagine what it could do for the Camaro if it wasn't hindered by weight? Then it would be ALL for benefit rather than overcoming shortcomings. Chips on my shoulder, indeed.

I'm done with this post, as they say "Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference." Going back to more intelligent gatherings.

See ya at the track.

[Fenderaddict2]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Better hope that Ford learned enough from their first attempt at grafting an IRS onto a stick-axle chassis to go deeper than just the bolt holes.

Ditto if you're suggesting a "one-off" conversion from a high-end "Pro-Touring" shop.


Norm

The current chassis was developed with IRS, latter dumped for budgetary reasons. Currently there is a Shelby testing a future IRS system in the current chassis. I'll take either if someone at Ford wants to sneak it out the back door. ;-)

[LOWDOWN]

I suspect, if they're testing the next-Gen IRS, they're using the rear platform and pickup points of that next-Gen platform as well...grafted onto or totally replacing the current platform...and cunningly disguised as a reg'lar ol' SRA Stang...

[Bob Cosby]

I'm a knuckle-dragging drag racer that will morn the loss of the SRA when it finally goes away...

[101fng]

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

I'm a knuckle-dragging drag racer that will morn the loss of the SRA when it finally goes away...

Ditto.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

I'm a knuckle-dragging drag racer that will morn the loss of the SRA when it finally goes away...

No need for worry. Somebody will figure out soon enough how to make the 9" fit yet another chassis that was never intended for it to be in, and make it work for launching.


Norm

[FxsX24]

Originally Posted by ShnOmac

Source? Any info?

source is member Bob196 (who does not post), he took his car to watkins glen for a HPDE event (was his 3rd event, moved up to middle class) and was limited my the stopping distance of the car.
he could wait 150 feet more with the SS and a set of racing brakes (less speed into the corner with the ss also) for many corners.

they are good if you are a beginner , but when you are pushing the car, they are the detractor on the car in stock form

the stock brakes may be better with vs the stock SS brakes, but no comparison to a performance brake

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by FxsX24

source is member Bob196 (who does not post), he took his car to watkins glen for a HPDE event (was his 3rd event, moved up to middle class) and was limited my the stopping distance of the car.
he could wait 150 feet more with the SS and a set of racing brakes (less speed into the corner with the ss also) for many corners.

they are good if you are a beginner , but when you are pushing the car, they are the detractor on the car in stock form

the stock brakes may be better with vs the stock SS brakes, but no comparison to a performance brake

Are you now talking about an SS?