[Polo08816]

Originally Posted by cSurf

We're not taking about rifles. We're talking about dampener technology on an relatively pricey, performance-oriented SUV (or SAV, for the marketing folks).

By your logic - simpler is better - the OP should look for a car with leaf springs. Surely leaf springs are more reliable and easy to repair than shocks/struts/springs.

On dampener technology; dampeners are meant to resist and release energy created by spring compression. DHP/EDC does a much better job of both. Not just because fluid density and volume can be altered, but because there's hardware and software that communicate between axles and with other sub systems- helping make those fluid density/volume decisions based on a variety of parameters (eg. slam on the brakes, the dampeners firm and offer greater resist spring compression/brake dive). Sure, it's a more complex system... but denying that it's superior tech (for what is a nominal increase in upfront cost) is spurious.

Leaf springs ARE more reliable and easier to repair. That's why they're used pretty often in towing applications. Are they the best design suited for a performance car? No.

DHP/EDC does NOT alter fluid viscosity. Like we've discussed before, it is not equivalent to GM's Magnetic Ride Control. Not even close. Also, if the DHP damper replacement cost is 2-3x the cost of a traditional damper is the price increase "nominal"?

If DHP is so great, why does BMW even bother to offer a M Performance Suspension kit (static suspension) for the F30 3 Series RWD sedan. The consensus on the F30 forums is that the M Performance Suspension kit is the superior performance setup.

Originally Posted by exon

see it here:

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/t...ive_drive.html

But regardless of definitionof "real time" (you can say 1000hz, someone can say 10khz. In computer world it might be Mhz range....), say if a system can only adjust damping 10 times per second (so that's more like mid-corner adjustment instead of mid-bump), that still provides way better ride/handling mix than a fixed setup.

Again, if DHP is so great, why does BMW even bother to offer a M Performance Suspension kit (static suspension) for the F30 3 Series RWD sedan. The consensus on the F30 forums is that the M Performance Suspension kit is the superior performance setup. This is largely due to the fact that the major deficiency on the stock Sport suspension is not enough spring. The issue wasn't dampening. Again, DHP cannot overcome the lack of spring rate.

This is a good find, however, Adaptive Drive is available on the 5 Series (and other higher end models). It is not available on the F25 X3 or F30 in the form of DHP.

Originally Posted by bichoo

Quite the interesting discussion here.
I have no experience using DHP since I didn't get it on my first X3 and not available on my 2016 X3 in Canada. However, I do have the MSport suspension now. I can say this:

1) Pre-LCI, 19" LS2 RFT tires: on standard suspension it is the root cause of the firm uncomfortable ride, unless the pavement is smooth. However, because of the low profile and RFT hard side wall, corning stability was excellent.
2) Pre-LCI, 19" Pilot Sport (non-RFT): Less firm, much more comfortable, however noticeable loss in cornering stability.
3) Pre-LCI, 18" Pilot Alpin (non-RFT): Too soft, and much more loss in handling and overall stability but was fine for the winter months.

4) LCI, 19" staggered Pirelli (RFT) on MSport suspension: Firm, but comfortable firm compared to LS2s, car is much more composed and smooth. Aside from the sport suspension, I heard that LCI improved both the standard and sport suspension. Pre-LCI MSport did offer DHP in Canada but LCI is now only offered with sport suspension and no DHP, perhaps there was a reason for this.
5) LCI, 20" 310M: I test drove this because I wanted the 20" wheels, however on MSport suspension, it was way too firm so opted to not get it. I have heard that with DHP, it is much better.

There's definitely a strong correlation among your experiences.

Generally, smaller diameter/greater sidewall height offers greater compliance over abrupt bumps in the roads such as potholes. The problem with potholes is that such a huge change is happening over such a small period of time that the suspension often times doesn't even fully compress before someone experiences wheel/tire damage. The only real good solution against pothole damage is sidewall height and non-RFT. DHP helps, but it is generally secondary. Using exon's terms... the transient state for potholes happens so quickly that the suspension is not really equipped to respond to the change.

With that being said, the increased "stiffness" of a RFT usually doesn't overcome the performance decrease from increased unsprung weight. If RFTs were so great, then why do the 2016 340i Track Package and the M3 come with non-RFT tires stock?



F30 forums suspension hierarchy: http://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...nce+suspension

There's some debate on DHP vs. Sport suspension, but there's a general consensus that the M Performance Suspension kit is the superior suspension setup. If there's a static suspension setup that is the clear winner over a complex DHP system that can allegedly adjust in real time, then it simply doesn't convince me that DHP in it's current form is a worthwhile investment. You're introducing a lot of complexity and cost in a system that cannot, in its current implementation, outperform a well designed static suspension setup. Subpar tires have been the culprit of almost all of the grievances I have heard in terms of the static suspension feeling too "stiff" or "crashy".