Super Chevy and DSE Test

**Steve Chryssos** · 03-31-2006

Maybe this belongs in the suspension topic. I think it belongs here since it speaks to the philosophical concept of Pro-Touring performance as a whole.

All too often, the "1g" lateral acceleration number is tossed around like it is somehow easily attained (Alcino's short wheelbase, lightweight, killer Mustang II excluded). At the same time there is a constant clamoring for real world before/after product and system testing.

Well, the May 06 issue of Super Chevy is in my dirty paws, and the numbers are in! So the big question is: Are You Happy?

They tested a 1969 Camaro with complete front and rear DSE suspension, Fikse wheels and high performance rubber. The car represents the top of the bell curve for pro-touring enthusiasts where comfort and ride quality are important factors. Build cost for their test vehicle is also within reason since the car is powered by a crate 383. The only anomaly is the choice of "pricey" Fikse wheels. Obviously they could have tweaked the tuning or chosen a "stiff" car with a cage or dropped a ton of weight to exaggerate the numbers. But instead they chose to test the car in real world trim where ride quality and amenities are paramount.

BEFORE
A stock, full weight F-body with high performance radials is good for about .75g (I can't imagine what these cars did in 1969 on rubber of that era.)

AFTER
The DSE test car--with full front and rear suspension upgrades--generated .84g's of grip. That's a healthy gain, but it's nowhere near the lofty expectations of the message board myopics. So now you know. I'm willing to sacrifice ride, comfort and amenities for performance, so I am quite comfortable with the results.

Are you?

Sponsored Links

**EFI69Cam** · 03-31-2006

What were the before and after slalom speeds?

I'm not a suspension guru, but it seems to me that driving the car in a circle to find the tires breaking point is not the same as a slalom speeds.

Seems to me that the lateral g number is like the RWHP horsepower from a chassis dyno and the slalom speed is like the 1/4 time. Or how well can the car use its traction.

**Rick Dorion** · 03-31-2006

I guess, assuming original leafs, I would like to have seen an upgrade with their leaf springs, then the quadra-link.

**DLinson** · 03-31-2006

I don't think the lateral G measurement is a good gage either. I've discussed this with Kyle before and he said that he uses the slolum testing to gage the vehicle performance.

Isn't .84 G on line with some of today's sportier cars like the Mustang and the 4th gen Camaros? I guess that's a big part of Pro-touring, making an old muscle car drive and handle like a late model. It's not going to win on track day but that's not the point for a lot of pro-touring cars. If it were, we would probably call this "Pro-tracking" instead?

Take the test car in the magazine, through on different springs and shocks and you may bump the numbers up into the .9 range and closer to 1g with some autocross tires. It probably won't make for a comfortable driver but it's a different goal for the car.

Dennis

**MarkM66** · 03-31-2006

Haven't seen the newest issue yet.

What size and brand of tires are on it?

**Steve1968LS2** · 03-31-2006

It's VERY uncommon for a musclecar to attain better than (or even close to) .90g on non-R-Compound tires.

The cones is more than a measure of traction, it's also a test of the suspension and how it reacts to constant changes in direction.

**Steve1968LS2** · 03-31-2006

Originally Posted by DLinson

Isn't .84 G on line with some of today's sportier cars like the Mustang and the 4th gen Camaros?

Yes, .84 is a great number for a new car to get.. I don't think Johnny's ''05 Mustang was better than that (corvettes excluded

)

**Steve Chryssos** · 03-31-2006

Originally Posted by EFI69Cam

What were the before and after slalom speeds?
I'm not a suspension guru, but it seems to me that driving the car in a circle to find the tires breaking point is not the same as a slalom speeds.
Seems to me that the lateral g number is like the RWHP horsepower from a chassis dyno and the slalom speed is like the 1/4 time. Or how well can the car use its traction.

I'm with you. I'm just trying to avoid confusing the issue with too much info. Since lateral acceleration is the buzzword, I started there.
**Baseline numbers: About 41-42 mph on a 420 foot course.
DSE front and rear upgrades: 58.39 mph avg.

**I pulled the baseline numbers from another article in the same issue since the "front upgrades only" test (April issue) does not include factory stock numbers.

Rick, The leaf spring numbers were posted in the April issue and also serve as the before numbers in the may issue. 55.55mph avg and .81g. That's front suspension upgrades and wheels/tires only.

**baz67** · 03-31-2006

I think that is awsome for DSE to have the balls to do that. How many venders are willing to let everyone know how thier products perform in real number tests in such a public venue?

**EFI69Cam** · 03-31-2006

Originally Posted by streetfytr68

I'm with you. I'm just trying to avoid confusing the issue with too much info. Since lateral acceleration is the buzzword, I started there.
**Baseline numbers: About 41-42 mph on a 420 foot course.
DSE front and rear upgrades: 58.39 mph avg.

**I pulled the baseline numbers from another article in the same issue since the "front upgrades only" test (April issue) does not include factory stock numbers.

Rick, The leaf spring numbers were posted in the April issue and also serve as the before numbers in the may issue. 55.55mph avg and .81g. That's front suspension upgrades and wheels/tires only.

I don't know for sure but 16+mph improvement seems huge. If that is over and above what the car did with tire upgrade, this is even more amazing to me.

**Rick Dorion** · 03-31-2006

Yes, I know. I just don't know if the leafs are true originals or upgraded. If original, then it seems there would be a benefit in adding that one upgrade in between for incremental improvement. All in all, I do applaud the testing and data availability.

**MuscleRodz** · 03-31-2006

Not having the issue in hand, it sounds like this was done with a leaf rear. I wonder what differences there would be with a Quadra-link rear? Kudos to DSE for standing behind their products with real world numbers.

Mike

**Steve Chryssos** · 03-31-2006

The May issue is Full DSE front with Quadra-Link. I assume that the previous month was with DSE 175 lb leafs. So the May issue shows apples to apples gains for the Quadra-Link--or at least it shows the quantitative gains: .81g to .84g. Gains in ride quality are difficult to measure.

And perhaps they should have used a sidebar to satisfy the benchracers with numbers based on hardcore tuning (springs/sway bars, shock valving, etc) where ride quality might be sacrificed in the name of numbers. Doing so might have added perspective to the real world numbers.

**DJW32** · 03-31-2006

Originally Posted by MuscleRodz

Not having the issue in hand, it sounds like this was done with a leaf rear. I wonder what differences there would be with a Quadra-link rear?

Mike

Mike,
This was with the Quadra-link.

The article was a great read

edit*Steve and I posted at the same time...damn computer is slow

**MuscleRodz** · 03-31-2006

Ride quality is purely subjective. I have a '97 Chevy One ton crew and it has as nice of a ride as my '94 1/2 ton Chevy did, although neither one is as nice as my parents Lexus and don't expect them to be. If the ride quality of my '68 Camaro is comparable to my 1 ton, I will be happy. To others, they may hope it is as good as their BMW or Mercedes daily drivers.

Mike

**Steve Chryssos** · 03-31-2006

The quarter mile stuff is hard to peg as well. Too many variables. No such thing as a 383 in 68. But the Leaf Spring to Quadra-Link data is apples to apples:

All other things equal:
Leaf Springs: 15.16 @ 98.62 mph
Quadra-Link: 14.28 @ 101.22 mph

Lemme see.......That's damn near a second with no engine changes.

**DJW32** · 03-31-2006

Steve,
Was the car equipped with dse 3" springs first? I don't have the article in front of me

**harshman** · 03-31-2006

Originally Posted by streetfytr68

**Baseline numbers: About 41-42 mph on a 420 foot course.
DSE front and rear upgrades: 58.39 mph avg.

55.55mph avg and .81g. That's front suspension upgrades and wheels/tires only.

Holy Hell!!!
If you guys have ever seen a test in person those numbers are flat out hauling ass!! 58.39 - that isn't a typo?

**Rick Dorion** · 03-31-2006

It was never specified, if I'm remembering correctly. I thought the rear leafs were only referred to as original.

**Steve Chryssos** · 03-31-2006

Originally Posted by harshman

Holy Hell!!!
If you guys have ever seen a test in person those numbers are flat out hauling ass!! 58.39 - that isn't a typo?

That's right!! Your car was tested, wasn't it? No, I checked, no typo. Can you post numbers for your car? I don't know if your course was comparable.
The slalom in this test was 420 feet 70 feet apart. The Skidpad was only 125 feet in diameter. I don't see enough data in the article to fill in the blanks.

Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?	I want to create an account To login, enter your password:
Enter your password:
Forgot your password?	Stay logged in

Login / Register Close Panel

Thread: Super Chevy and DSE Test

Display

Super Chevy and DSE Test

Testing