Sick of these cars riding like tanks

Zack

Zack

Turbo Marauder
Anyone else fed up with the ride?
I'm referring to the rear.
It's horrible!!
I've never liked the ride from day 1, and after 12 years I've almost had enough.
Does the ride improve by converting to coil springs? I'd be willing to convert if it meant going over railroad tracks didn't feel like the world was gonna end.
 
Zack said:
Anyone else fed up with the ride?
I'm referring to the rear.
It's horrible!!
I've never liked the ride from day 1, and after 12 years I've almost had enough.
Does the ride improve by converting to coil springs? I'd be willing to convert if it meant going over railroad tracks didn't feel like the world was gonna end.
Click to expand...

What exactly is the problem? too harsh, too loose:confused:
 
My experience with the Marauder has been if the ride height is too low, the car rides extremely harsh, and unstable, too high it rides like a cattle truck unless you have adult passengers in the back, im still on oem shocks, thinking of trying at set of QA1s.
 
You can drive my DD Ranger for a few days.....

The Marauder will suddenly feel like it's riding on a cloud!

(Do you have the stock suspension..... or lowered + aftermarket/hard bushing control arms??)
 
Not lowered, new shocks, non-leaking bags
Rides horrible when you hit a decent bump or worse.

Go ride in a town car of the same year....like floating in a cloud.
And almost the same EVERYTHING
 
Send a pm to member lifespeed. He has tried all kinds of suspension setups, shocks etc..and I beleive he chose Grand Marquis rear air springs for his rather than the stiffer Marauder air spring, altough he is in Cali where roads tend be nice year round, he'll have some good info still.
 
Get town car air bags. I think the bags are different in how they react to bumps. I dont think coil springs would help.
 
RubberCtyRauder said:
Send a pm to member lifespeed. He has tried all kinds of suspension setups, shocks etc..and I beleive he chose Grand Marquis rear air springs for his rather than the stiffer Marauder air spring, altough he is in Cali where roads tend be nice year round, he'll have some good info still.
Click to expand...

I was just about to edit my post to say to contact lifespeed. The man is anal about suspension, i mean that in a good way.
 
Really DD a ranger and suddenly the MM feels glorious.
Drive Caddy and MM seems like a ranger.
My all time favorite ride...1989 Colony park! Smooth powerful and big as hello.
Whats EAD??
 
It's the shocks, I have KYBs now and I'm thinking I'm going back to the double adjustable Naakes in the rear. I had it fine tuned to be super smooth.
 
I've always felt a HUGE difference between my MM and GM rear ride. The MM is super stiff, it even makes something creak in the trunk going over bumps, not sure but I think its the decklid. The GM even with worn suspension is like a cloud.
 
Just drove mine today... Going to stiffen up the QA1's a bit more, I was not happy in the corners today, too floaty!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk so I may sound retarded.
 
Since the sidewalls on these cars are huge I've noticed for me tire selection makes a big difference. I'm actually getting ready to order new struts/shocks because mine is getting "floaty' and it bugs me.

The OEM BFG's actually have a really stiff sidewall. The Nitto 420's were good. The Motivo 850's I have now are OK, the falkens I tried were so dangerous feeling it was like driving with 10psi in slicks. I flipped a U'y and made the shop swap em.

Its hard going from a Fox with a full Maximum motorsport coil over suspension that rides like an M3 to the floaty MM sometimes.
 
Vortech347 said:
Since the sidewalls on these cars are huge I've noticed for me tire selection makes a big difference.
Click to expand...
I bought my car with 27" tall rear/26" tall front tires = around 1" shorter than stock. It handled awesome. I did not like the look.
I put 28" tall rear/27" tall front = closer to stock, and the rear end was like a baby carriage.
Zack control arms and Addco rear sway helped get most handling back - but the shorter/less sidewall height tires alone did make the car better.

I went through this on another car = GM A-body 1971 GTO

typically, these don't handle.
some guy spent a ton of time and money sorting it out for sleeper cornering ability. About 6 alignment spec sheets in the console. HUGE sway bars front/rear, KYB shocks, special lowering springs, 70-81 T/A front spindles and steering box.
IT CORNERED LIKE A CORVETTE!
IT HAD ALL FOUR WHEELS/TIRES THE SAME SIZE. THE WHEELS WERE ZERO OFFSET = CENTERED RIM OVER THE HUB.

I cleaned up the look by putting larger rear tires and stock style wheels on, and the handling was CRAP!!
Sort of like a Marauder = taller rear tires than fronts just for looks.
Mount 4 equal size tires on zero offset wheels and get it aligned by a good chassis shop = winning!
 
I think there are a number of things in the rear suspension that contribute to the overall harsh ride, the air bags seem to be a bit too firm, the oem shocks left a lot to be desired, my passenger side rear started to leak after 7K!

The tiny 8" wide wheels were severely too narrow to begin with, when i widened to 10" wide it was a night and day difference, i had the Nitto 295s.

Couple the rear suspension with Metco control arms, and Watts link, Addco sway bars, and it becomes way more stable, but a little more harsh as you "feel" every crack in the road, now that im on 20s the ride is extremely stable, and not as harsh as with the 18" wheels, but it still needs a better shock, so im going to try a set of QA1s single adjustable,the double adjustable is overkill for the street, and a pain to dail in, not going to replace my bags since they are still functional, hoping just the shock upgrade will make me happy with the rear.
 
Ok, I think there are two different ideas conflicting here. If you want good road following over rough roads with good handling you need softer springs and more roll stiffness. If you want less lean in corners and good transitional response (turning from left to right) you need stiffer springs and roll stiffness. For the best road following on rough surfaces you need softer springs and less roll stiffness. Town Cars are made for comfort, so softer springs and less roll stiffness, hence a beautiful smooth ride. Stock CV/MGM next step up in springs, but no roll stiffness. They ride great, but don't handle good. The CVPI/MGM LSE has stiffer springs and more roll stifffness so better cornering and transitional response on SMOOTH surfaces. The MM was designed to corner at high speeds and not lose control and to have better transitional response in turns. The limiting factor is the weight of the car. The stiffer springs and roll stiffness mean the tires will skim across the rough surface and not follow it.

Now the 89 Colony Park is a great riding car because it has progressive rate springs in the rear (a relative has a mint condition one with air shocks in the back). So, minor bumps and road irregularities are soaked up by the soft portion of the spring. As it gets more loaded the rate increases so it will have less lean in the corners.

The MM was not designed for rough roads, it's too heavy and the springs are too stiff. That's why you see pre-runner off road vehicles with long progressive rate springs. They stay glued over the small bumps and increase resistance over the jumps.
 
vegasmarauder said:
Ok, I think there are two different ideas conflicting here. If you want good road following over rough roads with good handling you need softer springs and more roll stiffness. If you want less lean in corners and good transitional response (turning from left to right) you need stiffer springs and roll stiffness. For the best road following on rough surfaces you need softer springs and less roll stiffness. Town Cars are made for comfort, so softer springs and less roll stiffness, hence a beautiful smooth ride. Stock CV/MGM next step up in springs, but no roll stiffness. They ride great, but don't handle good. The CVPI/MGM LSE has stiffer springs and more roll stifffness so better cornering and transitional response on SMOOTH surfaces. The MM was designed to corner at high speeds and not lose control and to have better transitional response in turns. The limiting factor is the weight of the car. The stiffer springs and roll stiffness mean the tires will skim across the rough surface and not follow it.

Now the 89 Colony Park is a great riding car because it has progressive rate springs in the rear (a relative has a mint condition one with air shocks in the back). So, minor bumps and road irregularities are soaked up by the soft portion of the spring. As it gets more loaded the rate increases so it will have less lean in the corners.

The MM was not designed for rough roads, it's too heavy and the springs are too stiff. That's why you see pre-runner off road vehicles with long progressive rate springs. They stay glued over the small bumps and increase resistance over the jumps.
Click to expand...


DING DING DING! Winner^^^^
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top