Well, you can go by what each of us ordered, either MR or not, however, all you will hear is the natural bias that humans enjoy, by supporting our personal purchase. Or, you can do a bit of research on your own with professional and relatively unbiased reviews. It is there that you will find "unadulterated" responses and likely with some, some mechanical/electronic evidence of the value of the MR system. Some evidence of the MR enjoying a great reputation and hence value, is that as soon as GM bumped up against the patent lock they enjoyed on the technology, Ford & other manufacturers immediately developed their own MR and added the system to their own fleets. Hope this helps...Happy Motoring!
Without bias, I prefer to find out from engineers how the systems work for all driving applications and reach out to engineers to ask about the technology. Here is a bit of a conversation today:
I'm a mechanical engineer who did suspension testing and development work for Suzuki racing GSXR-1000s in Japan. Skyhook, groundhook, a bunch of different algorithms available for magride. I can tell you the switch in the C8 to individual accelerometers on each corner is a big leap forward, skyhook is the predominant algorithm, and unsprung weight makes a bigger difference with magride than passive.
Question-I keep reading people say they don't need it and don't understand the difference it makes even on softer surfaces over the base suspension. I have read MSRC improves over the base suspension as well correct?
Different principle completely. Passive suspension works on Force vs. Velocity curves for the dampers where the damper generates a certain amount of resistance to motion depending on shaft speed. I can get into linear vs digressive curves/pistons and the whole thing.
With Magneride I believe almost all programs in all cars are now using "skyhook" which is an algorithm that is designed to minimize chassis acceleration (stabilize the platform), as opposed to "groundhook" which aims to maximize tire contact. I think it was either the C5 or C6 where the more aggressive (sport or performance) setting was groundhook and many found it harsh (because the algorithm is working to maximize tire contact, not reduce chassis motion) and the cars were actually faster around a track using the "softer" tour setting because it was using skyhook and drivers found it more predictable. Randy Pobst commented on that at Laguna where once he selected the softer setting the car was way better - he didn't realize it was the magride algorithm he was changing. GM later updated the software which essentially replaced the groundhook algorithm with a second, "sportier" skyhook one.
Passive dampers can be excellent, but 2 areas where magneride will excel are in weight transfer into corners, and over rises. Because the damper FV curves can be adjusted on the fly damping can be added as needed to both comp and rebound to stabilize the chassis.
Bilstein IMO has had it right with their damper curves which tend to be digressive. At low shaft speed the damping force is high in situations like loading into a corner, under access or braking- giving good stability - but then it kind of flatlines limiting feedback at higher shaft velocities from things such as cracks, bumps etc. Depends on the driver as well as some prefer liner curves. The shake rigs provide great baselines because you can set what is called "critical damping" - one full sinusoidal motion to rest - at a variety of velocities, which in theory should be ideal.
With skyhook as the algorithm prioritizes chassis stability it can lead to some underdamped "wheel hop" over surface irregularities (the priority is a stable chassis), and to work would ideally would require an unsprung mass of 0. This is why I believe with the Z06 they opted for the carbon wheel option. It addresses this minor weakness of magride tuning. I think now though GM/BWI has possibly gone to a hybrid of skyhook with a minimum passive damping available at all times. They keep their latest developments pretty guarded.
BTW-his car is ordered with FE4 and Z51.
Scott
