Just put my name down for one of these:-

[Fr0dders]

I'll take it that you meant 21st century

Aaaaaanyway, let us take a closer look at the LC platform which the car will be built on.

The front suspension is a control arm design from Merc that was further developed by Chrysler. The rear end is a fully independent 5 link setup, also originally developed by Merc and further improved by Chrysler.

Yeah, sounds really pre-historic that. But hey, why let facts get in the way?

2 things

1) i was referring to the mustang GT, and its leaf springs. Not the forthcomming challenger.

2) no i mean 20th century. Leaf springs belong on horse and carts in the 19th century. Springs and shocks are much more 20th century technology. (we're only 7 years into this century, and i wasnt aware that had been major technological improvements in suspension in the past 7 years)

 

[[TW]Fox]

The front suspension is a control arm design from Merc that was further developed by Chrysler. The rear end is a fully independent 5 link setup, also originally developed by Merc and further improved by Chrysler..

In the same way the 300 uses suspension and platform originally developed by Merc and further improved by Chrysler?

Sounds good, doesn't it? Until you consider it was originally developed by Merc for the 1996 E Class, a car not reknowned for it's rewarding dynamics, and that the car still (despite looking awesome IMHO) corners like a newborn deer.

 

[Gibbo]

In the same way the 300 uses suspension and platform originally developed by Merc and further improved by Chrysler?

Sounds good, doesn't it? Until you consider it was originally developed by Merc for the 1996 E Class, a car not reknowned for it's rewarding dynamics, and that the car still (despite looking awesome IMHO) corners like a newborn deer.

Hi there

This is exactly my major worry with the new Challenger. Just because its based on Mercedes under pinnings to me is not a positive thing for the reasons you have outlined above. Its a perfect example of when an IRS setup is far worse than a live axle setup.

 

[JRS]

2 things

1) i was referring to the mustang GT, and its leaf springs. Not the forthcomming challenger.

The Mustang doesn't have leaf springs - the solid axle at the rear is coil sprung.

2) no i mean 20th century. Leaf springs belong on horse and carts in the 19th century. Springs and shocks are much more 20th century technology. (we're only 7 years into this century, and i wasnt aware that had been major technological improvements in suspension in the past 7 years)

Right, right. Just a quick point here though - the current Corvette Z06 uses leaf springs, yet is able to get around the Nurburgring faster than a Ferrari 430. Just because something is an old idea doesn't mean it can't be improved upon fairly heavily

In the same way the 300 uses suspension and platform originally developed by Merc and further improved by Chrysler?

Sounds good, doesn't it? Until you consider it was originally developed by Merc for the 1996 E Class, a car not reknowned for it's rewarding dynamics, and that the car still (despite looking awesome IMHO) corners like a newborn deer.

Slightly different platform. The 300 and Charger use the LX platform, a developed version of that Mercedes one which as you say wasn't anywhere near as good as a certain Bavarian rival. The Challenger uses the LC platform - shorter wheelbase for a lower polar moment, further development of the rear end which is where most of the original problems were and with different spring and damper rates to the LX cars.

Like I've said all along - it won't handle as well as a Saleen/Gibbo modified Mustang, certainly won't handle anywhere near as well as a hot BMW 5 series, but it won't fall off the road as soon as it sees a corner.

***edit***

Hi there

This is exactly my major worry with the new Challenger. Just because its based on Mercedes under pinnings to me is not a positive thing for the reasons you have outlined above. Its a perfect example of when an IRS setup is far worse than a live axle setup.

On the bright side, it should be fairly simple to modify it to your tastes if it does end up needing improvement.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Slightly different platform. The 300 and Charger use the LX platform, a developed version of that Mercedes one which as you say wasn't anywhere near as good as a certain Bavarian rival. The Challenger uses the LC platform - shorter wheelbase for a lower polar moment, further development of the rear end which is where most of the original problems were and with different spring and damper rates to the LX cars.

Which Mercedes was this platform developed for originaly?

certainly won't handle anywhere near as well as a hot BMW 5 series, but it won't fall off the road as soon as it sees a corner.

And you don't see the fact a performance Sports Coupe won't handle 'anywhere near as well' as an executive salooon as a problem?

 

[JRS]

Which Mercedes was this platform developed for originaly?

The LC? It isn't a Mercedes development. The LX is, as you say, Mercedes bits. I believe it's W220 S-class front suspension, W210 E-class rear suspension, both then modified by Chrysler. The LC then takes these, changes the springs and dampers to suit then sticks them on a shorter wheelbase

And you don't see the fact a performance Sports Coupe won't handle 'anywhere near as well' as an executive salooon as a problem?

It would be a problem, if the Challenger was a 'performance Sports Coupé'. But it isn't - it's a muscle car. It's supposed to be about lots of power and very little finesse. Hence sticking a large V8 into a chassis that can just about take it.

 

[[TW]Fox]

It would be a problem, if the Challenger was a 'performance Sports Coupé'. But it isn't - it's a muscle car. It's supposed to be about lots of power and very little finesse. Hence sticking a large V8 into a chassis that can just about take it.

Which is fine. Thats its place in the world and, for loads of people, loads of brawny, unrefined power and the ability to light the rear tyres is up is what they need. Thats what US Muscle Cars are about - brute force. It's the American way - its what they love, and why they care more about quarter mile times than anyone else - its their culture.

I don't have a problem with that, infact, actually, in America, there is nothing better than seeing a great muscle car.

It's the people who then try and argue they'll out handle M3's and whatnot that make me think 'huh'. Muscle cars don't outhandle M3's, never will out handle M3's, because they are not supposed to.

A US Muscle Car is a big hammer. An M3 is a surgeons knife. Two completely different takes on performance motoring and, IMHO, the way it should be.

 

[JRS]

snip

Which is why you never see me make any claims about muscle cars handling like BMWs All you'll see me claim is that if you take your time and set the chassis up right most won't fall over at the first sign of a corner despite American Car Steering Syndrome™, and that a solid axle or leaf sprung setup are not necessarily the hindrances that people like to make them out to be.

One more thing muscle cars have going for them of course beyond brute power and 1/4 times....true reliability.

Vid link

That car had been sat outside, open to the elements for nearly eight years. They dragged it out of the ground, took it home, stuck fresh oil and coolant in it, put fresh petrol in the tank and poured a little in the carb, and it fired right up

 

[silversurfer]

Sounds great, how is the exhaust not full of holes or is that why it sounds great

 

[Von Luck]

Looks like a buff MK3 Cortina GT to me, I like it.

 

[JRS]

Sounds great, how is the exhaust not full of holes or is that why it sounds great

I suspect it's practically on open pipes, yeah It was buried a bit into the ground when the owner dragged it out, so the exhaust pipes must be rusted up. The manifolds are apparently good though.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

I'll take it that you meant 21st century

the Mustang GT as standard, is hopless.

while you're there you might want to take this to mean hopeless too