-- Jim Fink writes:
-- >How different are the GT springs on a B, anything significant...?
--
-- I know that in 1968, the GT rear springs had one extra leaf when
-- compared to those of the Roadster. Presumably this was to carry
-- the extra weight of the roof and all those heavy things people put
-- into the extra cargo space of the hatchback.
The GT's springs are about 23%-25% stiffer than a roadster's springs,
front and rear. Remember that the GT weighs almost 300 pounds more
than the roadster due to the roof, hatch, and all that glass; even
though it's mainly concentrated at the rear, handling balance required
stiffer springs up front as well as in back.
This of course means that GT springs are a quick high-performance
replacement for roadster springs, and a path I'm considering taking
with my next stage of MGB suspension development. I like the B's
balance with stock springs and a stiffer front anti-roll bar; it
just rolls too much in the corners.
Note also that the MGB is one of those weird cases where adding a
stiffer front anti-roll bar will *reduce* understeer, no matter what
Fred Puhn and Carroll Smith say; they're talking about purpose-built
race cars that are already in a reasonable state. The B's front
suspension is designed to add positive camber under roll, which in
turn is meant to reduce the contact patch and provide understeer.
By limiting body roll, you avoid reducing the contact patch, meaning
that there's more rubber sticking you to the ground; this difference
is more significant than the weight-transfer induced understeer that
a stiffer front bar traditionally provides. (Some FWD cars work the
same way, interestingly enough.)
|