80 series guy needs advice on 200 series vs. LX 570 (1 Viewer)

[Taco2Cruiser]

It's useful to understand that AHC architecturally is not an airbag suspension system, but a hydraulic based system with remote dampening and spring (suspension) globes. With the front having multiple globes to implement multiple spring rates, to handle aggressive cornering or braking. Each wheel is also intertwined and linked in a fashion that allows for body control (aka posture control), in a way that no independent damper based system will mimic.

In regards to compression and extension lengths - it's the same travel as the LC, with the same droop and compression capacities depending on ride height. If an LC is modified with extended length shocks and long travel control arms, it can have the advantage for things like baja running where travel is king. To your point about lacking droop or compression travel, the great things about AHC is that you don't have to choose a compromise. Dynamic height selection allows one to choose max height for traversing obstacles, or a height that allows for good handling. Also, a high static lift is NOT a good height for high speed handling as suspension geometries in that range are... sloppy.

Ok, makes sense, ACH, on the LX, is something I haven't personally used. So that's why I ask. I've messed with A LOT of stuff, but a LX570 isn't one of them, so I'm not going to act like I know something I haven't had a personal experience with. So thanks for explaining that to me, I really mean that.

I still would like to talk about this ACH at its heightest ride height setting. Totally with you on a tall ride height is bad in roads, what I'm saying is that I NEED the heighest height the ACH could offer, and I need the shocks to still have more extension than the stock length because I don't want the terrible things associated with a shock that hits its limit with only a couple more inch of extension.

Again, compression isn't my worry, and road driving isn't my worry, my worry is I want my tires on the ground when I am driving at a moderate speed off road with all the hole and bumps that come with it. But I need the heighest setting or I'll be slamming the rear bumper on the ground constantly.

See the predicament? I revert to you guys. @DeckerT4R said he doesn't notice anything negative. And I'm not trying to "be right," and I don't think anyone is thinking, I'm think that we are against each other. Pretty good group here. But under what situation I'm describing, if you LXs say you still feel the LX is smooth while bombing down a dirt road and full height, then what would a LC have over an LX? Maybe nothing because if I could get my LCs ride height when I needed it, and it felt the same with taller coils and longer extending shocks, then maybe I choose the wrong 200 series.

Very interesting stuff.

 

[Tremek]

@TeCKis300 : great info and thanks for sharing, it sounds like you have a ton of experience on the LX470.

I haven't done the research myself but I'm given to understand that the LX570 faces some different problems when it comes to replacing the AHC system - and that unlike the 470, it's a thus-far unsolved problem.

Does any one happen to have more context on why AHC can't be replaced at this point and time on the 570?

 

[DeckerT4R]

Ok, makes sense, ACH, on the LX, is something I haven't personally used. So that's why I ask. I've messed with A LOT of stuff, but a LX570 isn't one of them, so I'm not going to act like I know something I haven't had a personal experience with. So thanks for explaining that to me, I really mean that.

I still would like to talk about this ACH at its heightest ride height setting. Totally with you on a tall ride height is bad in roads, what I'm saying is that I NEED the heighest height the ACH could offer, and I need the shocks to still have more extension than the stock length because I don't want the terrible things associated with a shock that hits its limit with only a couple more inch of extension.

Again, compression isn't my worry, and road driving isn't my worry, my worry is I want my tires on the ground when I am driving at a moderate speed off road with all the hole and bumps that come with it. But I need the heighest setting or I'll be slamming the rear bumper on the ground constantly.

See the predicament? I revert to you guys. @DeckerT4R said he doesn't notice anything negative. And I'm not trying to "be right," and I don't think anyone is thinking, I'm think that we are against each other. Pretty good group here. But under what situation I'm describing, if you LXs say you still feel the LX is smooth while bombing down a dirt road and full height, then what would a LC have over an LX? Maybe nothing because if I could get my LCs ride height when I needed it, and it felt the same with taller coils and longer extending shocks, then maybe I choose the wrong 200 series.

Very interesting stuff.

I am also not saying that I feel AHC is superior to the LC suspension, I truly feel they are equals however.

 

[TeCKis300]

P
Maybe you can point to some of those builds. It would be helpful and interesting to see what you're referring to, and what their goals were. I'd imagine some LX owners would also be interested.

Sure thing. Examples of those to have modified AHC on the LX570 are still more rare. As the popular assumption on the 200-series forum is its for soft-roaders and a hindrance. Overtime, as more examples and understanding in the system grows, you'll see more hardcore owners that are willing to modify stuff, also modify the LX570 (as it has for LX470s)

The general principle between the LX470 and LX570 are the same. Sensor lift to desired height (up to 1.25" just moving an adjuster, or lots more with a combination zeroing of AHC and/or modified sensor brackets). Then spring spacers to increase carrying capacity, especially for higher lifts, or replacement springs or even air bags for more spring rate.

LX570:
LX570 AHC height modifications (lift it!)

LX470:
2-2.5" AHC Lift Using King Coils & Shock Spacers
AHC Sensor Adjustment for Lift
Will the AHC on a 470 compete with a 2.5" OME lift?
I LOVE my AHC.

 

[Markuson]

OK. I thought you meant more along the lines of overriding AHC somehow. Certainly heavier springs, etc. can be added for load.

I think one thing is clear...that the LX is extremely capable, and if you want to push it, it is able to be pushed.

It's interesting that some iterations of LC 200 can be had with AHC--or at least appears so from the video I posted.

 

[TeCKis300]

I am also not saying that I feel AHC is superior to the LC suspension, I truly feel they are equals however.

I'll say it. Stock for stock. They are not.

The specific area where the standard LC suspension is superior is for extreme use durability and serviceability in the field. Which makes sense given its more straightforward nature.

Aftermarket vs AHC - that's a more interesting discussion.

Not trying to incite a flame war here, and trying to discuss objectively: 3rd party suspension can be made better and more capable for specific use cases. Yet, that will almost always come at some detriment to other use cases. AHC by nature, is to offer the broadest set competencies, with little compromise (except cost and complexity).

 

[Reckless]

With prices of LC/LX's coming down, I plan on buying another 200. I have been leaning towards a LC but thinking about changing it up with an LX. Although I am not sure I will like the look of KO2s and RW on a LX. The LC comes off looking aggressive but the LX looks out of place. My friends recognize me on the road not by my LC but by my KO2s. According to them I am the only person with KO2s in our area.

One thing I am still not able to get used to is not needing spare vehicles. With my previous germans, I needed more than 2 cars as they would always be heading to the mechanic at the same time for various issues. Luckily the dealer would pickup and drop off my cars from 25 miles away to keep me happy. They had a whole file cabinet dedicated to my S600 repairs (over $60k in 5 years of warranty repairs).

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

Alright... i'm tired of others people videos and Toyota literature. It's good stuff, but I'm a real world testing kind of guy.

Good thing I just have extras of everything laying around.

There is your stock LC200 shock, with the same extension and compression lengths as a LX with a BP-51 for a LC.

LC, with an aftermarket shock will get about .6" of addition extension to keep the wheels on the ground and limit the shock slamming its limits everything you bounce down a trail.

So if you can switch out stock rear coils for heavier ones? I don't know @TeCKis300, can you? Then I would I think the LX would actually be a better choice for everything including offroading.

Gassp, did Taco just say that?!

 

[Tremek]

Something we haven't really covered much of is durability and cost to maintain the AHC system. For anything more than on-road, standard duty use, on the face of things I would be more trusting of an aftermarket solution engineered to keep heat down and be serviceable in the future, like the BP-51 pictured above, over the OEM sealed shocks, but more importantly, all the AHC's hydraulic supporting bits.

Offroad, towing, etc all fall under severe use guidelines from mfrs, and I suspect putting either an OEM monotube on an LC or an AHC shock on an LX through rougher terrain or weight is going to drastically increase wear and tear no matter what.

It looks like the LX shocks themselves aren't too expensive, but the rest of the system is not cheap - the sensors you guys are adjusting are $326 each, valving parts are over $1k each, the (a?) pump is almost $2k, and sundry other parts are well over $1k each. In short, this is a complicated and expensive system to service when it will eventually need something.

@Reckless mentioned his S-class' repairs, and I was reminded of how ugly the hydraulic suspension repair costs were on the 2000s-era S class. Hydraulic globes were a given to be replaced between 50-100k miles on those to the tune of $6k for just the globes across the car as they would start to leak. While I'm not aware of rampant issues on the LX570 versus what Mercedes saw in the 2000s (not a huge surprise really given Toyota's prowess for reliability, comparatively, versus the Germans) - that doesn't diminish that when that system eventually needs maintenance, the maintenance costs themselves will be much higher than a shock/coil setup.

Last thing - if I'm not mistaken the LX570 also does not get KDSS? Would that thusly imply that the LX can't auto-disconnect its sway bars as KDSS allows for, and thus that might impede an LX's articulation versus a comparable LC?

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

Something we haven't really covered much of is durability and cost to maintain the AHC system. For anything more than on-road, standard duty use, on the face of things I would be more trusting of an aftermarket solution engineered to keep heat down and be serviceable in the future, like the BP-51 pictured above, over the OEM sealed shocks, but more importantly, all the AHC's hydraulic supporting bits.

Offroad, towing, etc all fall under severe use guidelines from mfrs, and I suspect putting either an OEM monotube on an LC or an AHC shock on an LX through rougher terrain or weight is going to drastically increase wear and tear no matter what.

It looks like the LX shocks themselves aren't too expensive, but the rest of the system is not cheap - the sensors you guys are adjusting are $326 each, valving parts are over $1k each, the (a?) pump is almost $2k, and sundry other parts are well over $1k each. In short, this is a complicated and expensive system to service when it will eventually need something.

@Reckless mentioned his S-class' repairs, and I was reminded of how ugly the hydraulic suspension repair costs were on the 2000s-era S class. Hydraulic globes were a given to be replaced between 50-100k miles on those to the tune of $6k for just the globes across the car as they would start to leak. While I'm not aware of rampant issues on the LX570 versus what Mercedes saw in the 2000s (not a huge surprise really given Toyota's prowess for reliability, comparatively, versus the Germans) - that doesn't diminish that when that system eventually needs maintenance, the maintenance costs themselves will be much higher than a shock/coil setup.

Last thing - if I'm not mistaken the LX570 also does not get KDSS? Would that thusly imply that the LX can't auto-disconnect its sway bars as KDSS allows for, and thus that might impede an LX's articulation versus a comparable LC?

OOOO, really good point on the LX not having KDSS, I didn't think of that. That would sway me back to a LC over a LX real fast.

Durability, I don't worry about that with Toyota. I usually don't say wide general ideas like that, but everything can fail, just have to be ready to fix them, either by yourself, or with your money.

I remember when OBDII came out, growing up in shops and people started saying they couldn't work on their cars anymore. No, its still just as easy as it always was, just have to learn how to work on it.
Its like the guy who doesn't trust EFI and says that he likes having a carb because he can work on it, no, he just doesn't know who to work on EFI.
All the way back to the guy that said, "you can't know what the horseless carriage is thinking, I know if my horse is hurt, can't work on those... automobiles"

 

[TeCKis300]

Something we haven't really covered much of is durability and cost to maintain the AHC system. For anything more than on-road, standard duty use, on the face of things I would be more trusting of an aftermarket solution engineered to keep heat down and be serviceable in the future, like the BP-51 pictured above, over the OEM sealed shocks, but more importantly, all the AHC's hydraulic supporting bits.

^Absolutely. In the early years, the unfamiliarity of dealerships with the system also caused issues (such as filling the system brake fluid). Fortunately, there's plenty of info now and the system has proven durable on the LX470. More durable again, it seems on the LX570. There's no real wear items that require service, but the potential areas when they do happen are spring globes at much higher miles (150k+), or the hydraulic shocks leaking (quite rare as they are simple large diameter monotube hydraulic cylinders). The only regular service is AHC fluid flush (awesome to be able to flush shocks onboard!)

Also note that the system has some 5L of fluid. In terms of overheating the shocks (e.g. washboards), the system has waaay more fluid than any remote res system. So it has much more heat sinking and dissipation ability.

Last thing - if I'm not mistaken the LX570 also does not get KDSS? Would that thusly imply that the LX can't auto-disconnect its sway bars as KDSS allows for, and thus that might impede an LX's articulation versus a comparable LC?

KDSS itself has an interesting background. It's technology created by Tennecos Kinetic. And has been adapted by Toyota in various guises. AHC itself is a full suspension variant implementation of the Tennecos Kinetic suspension, and related to the system that's present in modern day McLaren's. KDSS as it applied to the GX/LC/4R/FJ is a simpler derivative of that technology only to address roll.

IIRC, the LX will RTI higher.

KDSS can fully disconnect it's sway bars, but the firm main spring are in play.
AHC has tender sway bars and tender supporting springs always engaged, but it can fully disconnect it's internal hydraulic sway/spring mechanism resulting in more articulation overall.

 

[TeCKis300]

Went looking for the resource I recall this from. Correction: LC200 RTIs higher*.

542 to 538, LC to LX respectively.

*Note that the LX570 is doing this with 20" wheels. Interesting is the LX470@573 (stock 18" wheels)

582 - 2010 Ford SVT Raptor
579 - 2010 Dodge Power Wagon, presumably with its front swaybar electronically disconnected
573 - 2006 Toyota Land Cruiser with AHC/AVS
542 - 2008 Toyota Land Cruiser with KDSS
539 - 1998 Toyota Land Cruiser with neither KDSS nor AHC/AVS
538 - 2009 Lexus LX 570 with Adaptive Variable Suspension
519 - 2004 Lexus GX 470 with KDSS
491 - 2010 Toyota 4Runner Trail Edition with KDSS
486 - 2009 Nissan XTerra PRO-4X
472 - 2008 Hummer H2
435 - 2011 Lexus GX 460 with KDSS
428 - 2003 Lexus GX 470 without KDSS
422 - 2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee
400 - 2009 Toyota Sequoia
302 - 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee with air suspension at standard height
265 - 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee with air suspension raised to full height

Interesting read:
LX 570 misconceptions: RTI myths and ARB bumpers
https://plus.google.com/115479414905422234350/posts/4UjKS2hBWR9?fd=1

 

[DeckerT4R]

I'll say it. Stock for stock. They are not.

The specific area where the standard LC suspension is superior is for extreme use durability and serviceability in the field. Which makes sense given its more straightforward nature.

Aftermarket vs AHC - that's a more interesting discussion.

Not trying to incite a flame war here, and trying to discuss objectively: 3rd party suspension can be made better and more capable for specific use cases. Yet, that will almost always come at some detriment to other use cases. AHC by nature, is to offer the broadest set competencies, with little compromise (except cost and complexity).


View attachment 1468652
View attachment 1468653
View attachment 1468654

I agree with this..... I believe
You are saying that the AHC is good at a lot of things. The LC will be great at something specific but will not be great at everything and will suffer more in the other areas than an LX because of its lack of adjustability.

 

[DeckerT4R]

Went looking for the resource I recall this from. Correction: LC200 RTIs higher*.

542 to 538, LC to LX respectively.

*Note that the LX570 is doing this with 20" wheels. Interesting is the LX470@573 (stock 18" wheels)

582 - 2010 Ford SVT Raptor
579 - 2010 Dodge Power Wagon, presumably with its front swaybar electronically disconnected
573 - 2006 Toyota Land Cruiser with AHC/AVS
542 - 2008 Toyota Land Cruiser with KDSS
539 - 1998 Toyota Land Cruiser with neither KDSS nor AHC/AVS
538 - 2009 Lexus LX 570 with Adaptive Variable Suspension
519 - 2004 Lexus GX 470 with KDSS
491 - 2010 Toyota 4Runner Trail Edition with KDSS
486 - 2009 Nissan XTerra PRO-4X
472 - 2008 Hummer H2
435 - 2011 Lexus GX 460 with KDSS
428 - 2003 Lexus GX 470 without KDSS
422 - 2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee
400 - 2009 Toyota Sequoia
302 - 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee with air suspension at standard height
265 - 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee with air suspension raised to full height

Interesting read:
LX 570 misconceptions: RTI myths and ARB bumpers
https://plus.google.com/115479414905422234350/posts/4UjKS2hBWR9?fd=1

From that article: The Lexus LX 570 is actually on par with the Land Cruiser in RTI. While not surprising in the sense that both are based off of the same platform, it is surprising since their suspensions differ so greatly. While the Land Cruiser, like the 4Runner Trail Edition, has Toyota's Kinetic Dynamic Suspension System ([6]--think "automatic hydraulic swaybar disconnects" and you'd be close), the LX has a completely different air suspension setup called Adaptive Variable Suspension (AVS) with Active Height Control (X-AHC) [11]. I was a bit curious as to whether it'd hamper the Lexus's performance as the case with the current-gen Grand Cherokee's setup, but this proved not to be the case. Go Lexus.

 

[Taco2Cruiser]

From that article: The Lexus LX 570 is actually on par with the Land Cruiser in RTI. While not surprising in the sense that both are based off of the same platform, it is surprising since their suspensions differ so greatly. While the Land Cruiser, like the 4Runner Trail Edition, has Toyota's Kinetic Dynamic Suspension System ([6]--think "automatic hydraulic swaybar disconnects" and you'd be close), the LX has a completely different air suspension setup called Adaptive Variable Suspension (AVS) with Active Height Control (X-AHC) [11]. I was a bit curious as to whether it'd hamper the Lexus's performance as the case with the current-gen Grand Cherokee's setup, but this proved not to be the case. Go Lexus.

ah, see that's what I was wondering, I'm going off of things like rovers and the current grand cherokee when it comes to adjustable height, but since your telling me it's not suffering from the issues those platforms have, I'm even more curious now.

Now I know why the LC vs LX conversation hasn't been solved yet. @DeckerT4R, we need to go offroading man!

 

[silverhorse]

good info guys, I'm learning a ton!!! thanks

 

[Tremek]

Saying you're not worried about reliability is ... odd, given that those components add weight, complexity, and cost to the truck to do what coilovers more or less are capable of. Toyota's design may be better than Mercedes, but nothing is infallible.

A more important point to make however: there's been so much focus on height above that I feel we need to remind the discussion that height alone does not solely determine the capability of the suspension, whether you're going down the road at speed or up a trail. Rebound, dampening, and other considerations make far more of a difference, and what some of you seem to be ignoring is that the ability to change the height of the suspension in the LX does NOT reflect an ability to modify rebound and dampening on the fly with any degree of sophistication, which is far more important than ride height for quality of ride as well as handling and control, especially at speed. So the assertion that AHC can be "great in every situation" is, sorry to say, total hogwash.

How other manufacturers are addressing these kinds of shortcomings is varied, but there are some very innovative approaches: I have a car with magnetorheological suspension, which uses a fluid with magnetic particles suspended in it that increases viscosity when an electric current is applied to it. In my car, the suspension's ECU is adjusting that viscosity 1,000 times a second, independently on all 4 corners. This doesn't adjust the height, but as I wrote previously that's secondary to rebound and dampening control for suspension performance.

If hydraulic suspensions were as good as you're evangelizing @TeCKis300 we would be seeing more OEMs using them. Instead, we're seeing less usage (Peugeot/Citroen, the originators of this system on road cars, killed their usage in 2015, Mercedes abandoned ABC on the S class, updated to a new system called MBC, which is only available on RWD cars, is even more hideously expensive and isn't trickling down to the rest of their line as a result of this. Most Mercedes models are using air versus hydraulic due to these considerations.)

So what of other high-end 4x4s? Mercedes' AMG G500 4x4 Squared - a crazy off-roader, a money-is-no-object exercise, uses gas bypass struts and coils. Then of course the Raptor is using Fox remote reservoir coilovers.

Another innovative approach is on the new Chevy Colorado ZR2 (F&R factory lockers etc - built for off-roading), which is using DSSV spool valve shocks made by Multimatic whose DSSV shocks are also being used on a host of sports and supercars - including the Aston Martin One-77, Chevrolet Camaro Z/28, Mercedes-AMG GT, Ford GT (which Multimatic builds for Ford) and the Camaro ZL1 1LE.

Coil-and-shock as well as coilover suspensions, when set up properly, are still extremely effective, even if the height itself is not auto-adjusting. If that was the priority from manufacturers to optimize suspension performance on, I maintain we would see more of these globe and pump hydro systems from OEMs as well as the aftermarket.

I can't wholly determine the logic of Lexus continuing to run with AHC aside from ride comfort (which is good on hydropneumatic setups) but for anyone looking to decrease complexity, weight, cost, anyone that wants to modify the suspension themselves as well as to avoid costly replacement of hydraulic system parts down the road, when given the choice between an LC or an LX, the LC comes out ahead on all counts for very few meaningful trade offs.

 

[DeckerT4R]

ah, see that's what I was wondering, I'm going off of things like rovers and the current grand cherokee when it comes to adjustable height, but since your telling me it's not suffering from the issues those platforms have, I'm even more curious now.

Now I know why the LC vs LX conversation hasn't been solved yet. @DeckerT4R, we need to go offroading man!

Let's do it! I am positive my offroad driving skills are not up to par with yours but when we go to expo east we should find a place to go!

 

[TeCKis300]

Saying you're not worried about reliability is ... odd, given that those components add weight, complexity, and cost to the truck to do what coilovers more or less are capable of. Toyota's design may be better than Mercedes, but nothing is infallible.

A more important point to make however: there's been so much focus on height above that I feel we need to remind the discussion that height alone does not solely determine the capability of the suspension, whether you're going down the road at speed or up a trail. Rebound, dampening, and other considerations make far more of a difference, and what some of you seem to be ignoring is that the ability to change the height of the suspension in the LX does NOT reflect an ability to modify rebound and dampening on the fly with any degree of sophistication, which is far more important than ride height for quality of ride as well as handling and control, especially at speed. So the assertion that AHC can be "great in every situation" is, sorry to say, total hogwash.

How other manufacturers are addressing these kinds of shortcomings is varied, but there are some very innovative approaches: I have a car with magnetorheological suspension, which uses a fluid with magnetic particles suspended in it that increases viscosity when an electric current is applied to it. In my car, the suspension's ECU is adjusting that viscosity 1,000 times a second, independently on all 4 corners. This doesn't adjust the height, but as I wrote previously that's secondary to rebound and dampening control for suspension performance.

If hydraulic suspensions were as good as you're evangelizing @TeCKis300 we would be seeing more OEMs using them. Instead, we're seeing less usage (Peugeot/Citroen, the originators of this system on road cars, killed their usage in 2015, Mercedes abandoned ABC on the S class, updated to a new system called MBC, which is only available on RWD cars, is even more hideously expensive and isn't trickling down to the rest of their line as a result of this. Most Mercedes models are using air versus hydraulic due to these considerations.)

So what of other high-end 4x4s? Mercedes' AMG G500 4x4 Squared - a crazy off-roader, a money-is-no-object exercise, uses gas bypass struts and coils. Then of course the Raptor is using Fox remote reservoir coilovers.

Another innovative approach is on the new Chevy Colorado ZR2 (F&R factory lockers etc - built for off-roading), which is using DSSV spool valve shocks made by Multimatic whose DSSV shocks are also being used on a host of sports and supercars - including the Aston Martin One-77, Chevrolet Camaro Z/28, Mercedes-AMG GT, Ford GT, and Camaro ZL1 1LE.

Coil-and-shock as well as coilover suspensions, when set up properly, are still extremely effective, even if the height itself is not auto-adjusting. If that was the priority from manufacturers to optimize suspension performance on, I maintain we would see more of these globe and pump hydro systems from OEMs as well as the aftermarket.

I can't wholly determine the logic of Lexus continuing to run with AHC aside from ride comfort (which is good on hydropneumatic setups) but for anyone looking to decrease complexity, weight, cost, anyone that wants to modify the suspension themselves as well as to avoid costly replacement of hydraulic system parts down the road, when given the choice between an LC or an LX, the LC comes out ahead on all counts for very few meaningful trade offs.

Complexity is fine. It's when complexity is not matched with sufficient testing and validation, does it become an issue. And this is Toyota we're speaking about, who's very reputation is built on unflinching reliability.

In regards to dampening - absolutely right that damping is just as important, if not more important than height. I'm not evangelizing anything, but hope rather to inform those who have been unaware of the technology that's been applied to the LX. I'm familiar with the other systems you've mentioned. I have a turbo sports car, so dampening performance is not lost on me. Just hope you are aware enough of the convolution of suspension factors, not to be so quick to dismiss Toyota's solution.

One thing to understand is that AHC is NOT an analogue system relying on old school spool valves, special valve/shim magic, and bypasses to tactilely adjust dampening based on stroke position, speed, and pressure. It's a full blown electronic over hydropneumatic ACTIVE dampening suspension. It's the difference between carbs and EFI, where every adjustment is not truly isolated and is a compromise. I'm nostalgic too and there were some incredibly magic things done in the analogue world (I make do with coilovers on my turbo). But those buzz words don't apply to the digital damping adjustment world, much like your electronically controlled magnetorheological shocks. Yet magnetorheological shocks don't have the ability to raise and lower, and provide RTI performance, among a host of other things, so it's not exactly the right technology solution here.

If we want to talk about pinnacle suspension performance, Mclaren and the MP4-12C is well recognized as having one of the standout setups, that is incredibly supple on-road, yet spectacularly performant on track, with height adjustability. If you look at its bits - external valves, accumulators, pressure globes, cross-linked suspension - not unlike AHC (except AHC is even more complex!) Not to mention the similar banned for world rally championship Citroen suspension.
Read yourself - 2012 McLaren MP4-12C: Suspension Walkaround

 

[steenh]

Let's do it! I am positive my offroad driving skills are not up to par with yours but when we go to expo east we should find a place to go!

I'll be up for that!