In a message dated 12/15/2000 4:14:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, ross@fnsg.com
writes:
> Now that your spit is camber compensated, how does it drive? I'm
> debating updating the rear suspension v. the camber compensated
> and I'd like any input anyone has ...
Joe Curry, are you listening? :-)
This question has become one on the level with the Ford v. Chevy (or MoPar)
debate. The main advantage of the camber compensator is that it is a single,
bolt-on piece that will do wonders for an early (READ: non-swing-spring)
Spitifre or GT6 (or even Herald/Vitesse). It literally does keep the rear
wheels from tucking under. Some, including Kas Kastner himself (who
incidentally helped design the compensator), feel it is even better than the
swing-spring.
And that's where the debate comes in. The later Spitfires, with swing-spring
AND fatter front sway bar (needed to compensate for increased oversteer
resulting from the swing-spring) arguably handle much better than the early
cars without compensators. In fairness, I have never seen an honest
comparison with the same vehicle equipped one way and then the other, and
it's not fair to compare the relatively light-weight '63 on bias-ply Dunlop
Gold Seals on 3.5" rims with the much heavier, say, '80 Spitfire on 5" wheels
and 155SR13 or better radials and a wider rear track!
To add the swing-spring setup, one does also need that fatter front sway bar,
and one needs to plug two then-unused stud holes on the top of the
differential. IF you figure on all-new parts either way, the swing-spring
conversion is probably at least twice as expensive. Note also that the camber
compensator really is NOT necessary on a swing-spring-equipped car (IMHO).
I've driven and autocrossed lots of Spitfires -- early and late -- including
early cars with and without compensators. But I've never done such driving
one right after another, so I'm not sure I can honestly say which is "better"!
--Andy Mace
|