[AutoTechnician]

If I had the guess, it's marketing fluff for shocks that have disc-type valving with two (or more) damping circuits.

The "low speed" or "low frequency" circuit is in play on roads with decent surface quality. The low-speed circuit would probably have a high damping rate to provide a firm ride and help control body movements during aggressive driving. The "high speed" or "high frequency" circuit, is basically a blow-off for the low-speed circuit if there is a sudden spike in pressure. Basically it is for when you hit a pothole, or are just driving on very rough roads. It will have a much lower damping rate to help isolate harsh bumps from the cabin.

This is just a guess though, it's hard to tell what marketing buzzwords mean a lot of the time. Might be worth sending Ralph a message on twitter or something to clarify.

Standard shocks typically have fixed porting, so if you make them soft for potholes, they may be too soft for normal driving. Fancier shocks add disc-type valves which offer more flexibility, but multi-circuit shocks are a step above yet.

 

[AutoTechnician]

It's amazing how diversified some of those Japanese companies are.

Anyways, it looks like I was a little off in how the shocks work. It seems they have a mechanism inside that reacts to high frequency bumps, say if you were driving on a consistently rough road and is able to soften the damping.

 

[AutoTechnician]

Additionally, since your autox example is thrown out the window, on the street the SRT4 had little trouble with STi's.
.

Mike

The SRT4 may have little trouble with WRXs, but not an STi. An STi is almost a full second faster to 60, and about 8/10ths faster in the quarter. The updated SRT-4 closed the gap, but the STi is still a fair bit faster.

 

[AutoTechnician]

As if American cars of the 60s and 70s were any different. Most of those old iron-behemoths rusted into pieces before anything mechanical even had a chance to break.

All vehicles from all makes had pretty poor reliability in the 60s, but the reality was by the mid-late 70s, Toyota and Honda had cleaned up, and were producing extremely reliable and durable vehicles. Those are the vehicles that gave them the reputation that have now. Good on Toyota's marketing team for realizing it, and actually using that brand-equity to sell new vehicles.

Chrysler's marketing is clueless in comparison, and just keep releasing these weird commercials that don't really advertise the vehicle. They remind me more of something that would impress peers in a film/advertising class, rather than actually be effective.

 

[AutoTechnician]

The Charger and Challenger ads are okay. The Dart ones are pretty bad honestly. Two of them tell me 41 MPG while drifting, despite the 41 MPG models not really being "sporty", while all the others say absolutely nothing about the car.