Pedders
17-06-2009, 02:05 PM
Pedders recently had a visit form the Australian Ford Forums. At the time we provided cars for road testing including my VE Omega.
I thought you would find the comments and the data logger details of some interest. I would like to take the opportunity of thanking them for allowing us to use sections of their article in this post.
The full article can be viewed at:
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11263615
VE Omega – 3 different settings
Test 1 – 18 Front & 10 Rear
It wasn’t hard to see why this is the setting that Scott uses for his daily commute as it provided a very good ride / handling balance that made the car considerably more balanced and pleasant to drive than the normally quite wallowy Omega. In all of the test data this setting looks to have provided substantial reduction in the impact of pitch and roll although the large bump still had a moderate impact – more so than the XR6.
http://www.pedders.com.au/PS_images/assets/LS1/18-10.jpg
The data used to best depict this is the large bump. In the chart above it is impacted at point where the graph spikes but the car is back in normal attitude within 0.3 of a metre although the longitudinal pitch is still noticeable.
Test 2 – 30 Front & 30 Rear (full Hard)
It also wasn’t hard to see why this wouldn’t be the preferred setting for most people as a daily drive. The large bump produced a big spike in the data and caused us both to wince as we drove through it but the data also showed just about zero secondary response to the bump which tells us that it is very well tied down on those settings. Overall the car felt more nervous on these settings but as a track day option it would probably make an excellent choice.
http://www.pedders.com.au/PS_images/assets/LS1/30-30.jpg
Here the greater impact of the bump can be seen – there is more longitudinal pitch compared to the previous graph but less yaw and considerably less roll although the recovery time was longer.
Test 3 – 0 Front & 0 Rear (full Soft)
The most noticeable thing about these settings (although it doesn’t appear in the data) is the reluctance of the car to actually turn in comparison to the previous settings – it simply felt a lot harder to drive on these settings and the data indicates that the pitch and roll were both up about 15% over the medium settings used in Test 1. Without a standard car for comparative purposes it is hard to say how much better than factory the car is on these settings but my brief drives in VE’s would suggest that while it is no match for the intermediate settings it is still better balanced than the factory set up which always seems to be lacking in rebound control. Please note that the actual data for this test continues beyond the snapshot below but they are all scaled to the same distance frame.
http://www.pedders.com.au/PS_images/assets/LS1/0-0.jpg
Hope you found some interesting reading here.
Scott
I thought you would find the comments and the data logger details of some interest. I would like to take the opportunity of thanking them for allowing us to use sections of their article in this post.
The full article can be viewed at:
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11263615
VE Omega – 3 different settings
Test 1 – 18 Front & 10 Rear
It wasn’t hard to see why this is the setting that Scott uses for his daily commute as it provided a very good ride / handling balance that made the car considerably more balanced and pleasant to drive than the normally quite wallowy Omega. In all of the test data this setting looks to have provided substantial reduction in the impact of pitch and roll although the large bump still had a moderate impact – more so than the XR6.
http://www.pedders.com.au/PS_images/assets/LS1/18-10.jpg
The data used to best depict this is the large bump. In the chart above it is impacted at point where the graph spikes but the car is back in normal attitude within 0.3 of a metre although the longitudinal pitch is still noticeable.
Test 2 – 30 Front & 30 Rear (full Hard)
It also wasn’t hard to see why this wouldn’t be the preferred setting for most people as a daily drive. The large bump produced a big spike in the data and caused us both to wince as we drove through it but the data also showed just about zero secondary response to the bump which tells us that it is very well tied down on those settings. Overall the car felt more nervous on these settings but as a track day option it would probably make an excellent choice.
http://www.pedders.com.au/PS_images/assets/LS1/30-30.jpg
Here the greater impact of the bump can be seen – there is more longitudinal pitch compared to the previous graph but less yaw and considerably less roll although the recovery time was longer.
Test 3 – 0 Front & 0 Rear (full Soft)
The most noticeable thing about these settings (although it doesn’t appear in the data) is the reluctance of the car to actually turn in comparison to the previous settings – it simply felt a lot harder to drive on these settings and the data indicates that the pitch and roll were both up about 15% over the medium settings used in Test 1. Without a standard car for comparative purposes it is hard to say how much better than factory the car is on these settings but my brief drives in VE’s would suggest that while it is no match for the intermediate settings it is still better balanced than the factory set up which always seems to be lacking in rebound control. Please note that the actual data for this test continues beyond the snapshot below but they are all scaled to the same distance frame.
http://www.pedders.com.au/PS_images/assets/LS1/0-0.jpg
Hope you found some interesting reading here.
Scott