Eibach Multi Pro R2

[Vorshlag-Fair]

My own set as well as all the sets of AST's I sold (and I'm sure Dave Lowum can vouch for this), had a sway bar bracket that was of a very similar design where it was a tab welded to a collar that was pinched onto the threaded portion of the strut. Also they did not have the angle build in either, so when the strut was in the car, there was a lot of angle on the upper end of the pivot of the sway bar link. We should be fair about pointing out things like this. IF AST has changed this, great and I'm glad to know it, but the original solution wasn't even that good. Now that I think about it, it was also not recessed to the rear of the strut, but actually was on the centerline of the strut when viewed from the front or back.

Yep, your set of AST 4100s was from at least 3 years ago? I thought you and AST divorced way back. The S197 sets have been revised since then, and the 4150 is completely different. I never liked adjustable stabar brackets and AST agrees - and they have moved on and don't use that anymore. Old news.

Notice the welded stabar bracket above - all of the new 4150 struts are built with fixed/welded stabar brackets now. We had them make a bunch of other updates and changes as well - the rear shock is a completely different unit than the old ones you sold (and I had them make our 4100s that way - gained 2.5" of bump travel). I'll post up more about these 4150s when they arrive later this week. We have the entire 2012 production run coming here.

As for the rates. 225/200, there or there about is not at all a weird setup (if it's front/rear and not the other way around) for a nice street setup. I'm not a huge fan of these for other reasons, but spring rate is not one. They are building a kit to make the most folks happy, they aren't building a hard core race kit. Even at that, there are those that compete and win using softer rates (though stiffer than this) than what others think is correct.

Let's look at some real data:

• Stock S197 Spring rates: 112 #/in Front, 160 #/in Rear (from my 2013 GT)
• Shelby Mustang S197: 300 #/in Front (this is mere rumor of course - there is zero real spring rate data out there for the M-5300-P springs. I guess nobody has a spring rater??)
• Starting point on our Vorshlag/AST set-up: 450F/175R

The base '13 Mustang GT has super soft spring rates (we just checked them here on our spring rater at Vorshlag an hour ago, after pulling the stock suspension off and replacing it with remote reservoir AST doubles). I tracked this car recently on the stock springs/shocks and it was TERRIBLE. A big parade float that lurched from full droop to full bump on the craptastic stock dampers. From what we can gather the 4.6L Shelby GT has almost triple the front rate of the base GT, and yet almost no additional rear rate. And they handle dramatically better than the regular S197 GTs in stock form. And yes Sam, we know you beat the Shelbys in F Stock, but it hasn't happened again since.

Why did they jack the front rates up and not the rears? Well to keep the nearly 56% front weight bias in check in brake dive/body roll. Keeping the stock front/rear spring rate biases only makes it handle more like the push-heavy stock suspension. Modified suspensions tend to move well away from stock front/rear spring rate biases. We always recommend upping the front rates much higher than the rears on S197s for this reason. And almost every GRAND AM and WC Mustang S197 race team agrees, as most of them run... 450F/175R. We've tested with softer front rates and the car starts flopping around like a dead fish. Jacking the rear rates up faster than the fronts kills the ride and corner exit traction. The ride goes to pot because a solid axle car like this has the rear springs working in parallel so they are additive in bump, therefore you need to double the rear rate for bump use (but not in roll). That 250#/in rear spring becomes 500#/in in bump... ride goes to crap in the hurry.

We don't get to 250#/in rear rates until we exceed 600#/in up front. Otherwise the balance is terrible. Of course this isn't how Sam likes to set up his cars, but it is how most racers set-up their cars. You can fake a little bit of that in bars. Again, this is just my opinion... but it is from running 50+ competition events and private tests in S197s with coilovers, trying dozens of spring set-ups. I let the clocks tell me when it is working better, not the internets.

Of course many dampers out there cannot deal with 450#/in rates, and the ride goes to crap anyway. The Chinese/Eibach level shocks probably don't have the valving sorted out any better than the many physical errors in the rest of those coilover kits.

I ran 18x10 and 18x10.5" fronts on my 5.0 when I ran ESP part time in 2011 with a good old set of Koni's on it. They didn't stick out at all, no trickery required, no custom wheels required. In fact my avatar is my 2011 5.0 on those 18x10.5's with 315 Hoosier's mounted on regular old Koni Sports.

I agree - an 18x10.5" can fit these cars. The problem is the commonly used Enkei 18x10.5" wheel that so many ESP racers with S197s use does fit in the front (see above) but.... it sticks out a lot when used on the back (see below).

I know because I bought that same wheel and tested with it. It was just... terrible. And as far as I can see that is the only 18x10.5" 1-piece wheel out right now, and it don't fit the back. You can get custom wheels made with differing front/rear offsets to fit these cars, of course, and if you want to push the limits you can go 12" rear under stock fenders, as we've shown. But an 18x10 ET43 wheel is about the only set-up that can fit front and rear without sticking out on either end.

What bothers me is the aversion, near phobia of using even an 18x10" wheel front and rear on these cars? I see so many track and autocross guys on forums fumbling around on little 8" and 9" wide wheels, or "staggered set-ups" on these very big, hugely FAT ASS Mustangs. Bizarre.... that's the number one performance improvement trick on the 3600+ pound S197: add as much wheel/tire as you can afford. 18x10" wheel and 295/35/18 tire should be the starting point for anyone with track or autocross pretensions. And they work fine on the street, too. My wife and I daily drive both of our track/autocross prepped S197 Mustangs on 18x10" wheels. Zero issues.

I dunno... it seems like we're going round and round and getting nowhere. Fixating on spring rates for low-end shocks is probably an enormous waste of time. Run them soft, go with 250F/200R, it won't make a whole lot of performance difference if you are on skinny little tires anyway.

Cheers,

 

[steve13gt]

Eibach is saying 225 front 250 rear

My own set as well as all the sets of AST's I sold (and I'm sure Dave Lowum can vouch for this), had a sway bar bracket that was of a very similar design where it was a tab welded to a collar that was pinched onto the threaded portion of the strut. Also they did not have the angle build in either, so when the strut was in the car, there was a lot of angle on the upper end of the pivot of the sway bar link. We should be fair about pointing out things like this. IF AST has changed this, great and I'm glad to know it, but the original solution wasn't even that good. Now that I think about it, it was also not recessed to the rear of the strut, but actually was on the centerline of the strut when viewed from the front or back.

As for the rates. 225/200, there or there about is not at all a weird setup (if it's front/rear and not the other way around) for a nice street setup. I'm not a huge fan of these for other reasons, but spring rate is not one. They are building a kit to make the most folks happy, they aren't building a hard core race kit. Even at that, there are those that compete and win using softer rates (though stiffer than this) than what others think is correct. I know Terry runs stiffer in front and softer in back than what I opted for. To each his own, doesn't make what they did *wrong*. In fact I think what they were trying to do was exactly what a major company has to do for the general public. And I run rates like that all the time on street cars, and many folks here on this site, really like the result. Do I run more on a competition car? Yep. Did we set Dave Lowum's car up with more rate? Yep (BTW, he has, and sold him and helped him setup his AST's. I mention this because I just don't want to hear I have some issue with higher rates, the dampers, whatever).

I ran 18x10 and 18x10.5" fronts on my 5.0 when I ran ESP part time in 2011 with a good old set of Koni's on it. They didn't stick out at all, no trickery required, no custom wheels required. In fact my avatar is my 2011 5.0 on those 18x10.5's with 315 Hoosier's mounted on regular old Koni Sports.

 

[steve13gt]

So your telling me you tested the OEM suspension yourself, and the rear suspension rate, truly is higher in the rear? Although it may not be ideal for handling, is it actually higher in the rear, after everyone said No no no no never? Eibach is sending me more springs, I am going to run 350 front, and either 225 or 250 rear.. Likely 250 rear, as that is what is already back there. I can always go down to 225 after if I find its too stiff

Yep, your set of AST 4100s was from at least 3 years ago? I thought you and AST divorced way back. The S197 sets have been revised since then, and the 4150 is completely different. I never liked adjustable stabar brackets and AST agrees - and they have moved on and don't use that anymore. Old news.

Notice the welded stabar bracket above - all of the new 4150 struts are built with fixed/welded stabar brackets now. We had them make a bunch of other updates and changes as well - the rear shock is a completely different unit than the old ones you sold (and I had them make our 4100s that way - gained 2.5" of bump travel). I'll post up more about these 4150s when they arrive later this week. We have the entire 2012 production run coming here.



Let's look at some real data:

• 
  [*] Stock S197 Spring rates: 112 #/in Front, 160 #/in Rear (from my 2013 GT)
• Shelby Mustang S197: 300 #/in Front (this is mere rumor of course - there is zero real spring rate data out there for the M-5300-P springs. I guess nobody has a spring rater??)
• Starting point on our Vorshlag/AST set-up: 450F/175R

The base '13 Mustang GT has super soft spring rates (we just checked them here on our spring rater at Vorshlag an hour ago, after pulling the stock suspension off and replacing it with remote reservoir AST doubles). I tracked this car recently on the stock springs/shocks and it was TERRIBLE. A big parade float that lurched from full droop to full bump on the craptastic stock dampers. From what we can gather the 4.6L Shelby GT has almost triple the front rate of the base GT, and yet almost no additional rear rate. And they handle dramatically better than the regular S197 GTs in stock form. And yes Sam, we know you beat the Shelbys in F Stock, but it hasn't happened again since.

Why did they jack the front rates up and not the rears? Well to keep the nearly 56% front weight bias in check in brake dive/body roll. Keeping the stock front/rear spring rate biases only makes it handle more like the push-heavy stock suspension. Modified suspensions tend to move well away from stock front/rear spring rate biases. We always recommend upping the front rates much higher than the rears on S197s for this reason. And almost every GRAND AM and WC Mustang S197 race team agrees, as most of them run... 450F/175R. We've tested with softer front rates and the car starts flopping around like a dead fish. Jacking the rear rates up faster than the fronts kills the ride and corner exit traction. The ride goes to pot because a solid axle car like this has the rear springs working in parallel so they are additive in bump, therefore you need to double the rear rate for bump use (but not in roll). That 250#/in rear spring becomes 500#/in in bump... ride goes to crap in the hurry.

We don't get to 250#/in rear rates until we exceed 600#/in up front. Otherwise the balance is terrible. Of course this isn't how Sam likes to set up his cars, but it is how most racers set-up their cars. You can fake a little bit of that in bars. Again, this is just my opinion... but it is from running 50+ competition events and private tests in S197s with coilovers, trying dozens of spring set-ups. I let the clocks tell me when it is working better, not the internets.

Of course many dampers out there cannot deal with 450#/in rates, and the ride goes to crap anyway. The Chinese/Eibach level shocks probably don't have the valving sorted out any better than the many physical errors in the rest of those coilover kits.

I agree - an 18x10.5" can fit these cars. The problem is the commonly used Enkei 18x10.5" wheel that so many ESP racers with S197s use does fit in the front (see above) but.... it sticks out a lot when used on the back (see below).

I know because I bought that same wheel and tested with it. It was just... terrible. And as far as I can see that is the only 18x10.5" 1-piece wheel out right now, and it don't fit the back. You can get custom wheels made with differing front/rear offsets to fit these cars, of course, and if you want to push the limits you can go 12" rear under stock fenders, as we've shown. But an 18x10 ET43 wheel is about the only set-up that can fit front and rear without sticking out on either end.

What bothers me is the aversion, near phobia of using even an 18x10" wheel front and rear on these cars? I see so many track and autocross guys on forums fumbling around on little 8" and 9" wide wheels, or "staggered set-ups" on these very big, hugely FAT ASS Mustangs. Bizarre.... that's the number one performance improvement trick on the 3600+ pound S197: add as much wheel/tire as you can afford. 18x10" wheel and 295/35/18 tire should be the starting point for anyone with track or autocross pretensions. And they work fine on the street, too. My wife and I daily drive both of our track/autocross prepped S197 Mustangs on 18x10" wheels. Zero issues.

I dunno... it seems like we're going round and round and getting nowhere. Fixating on spring rates for low-end shocks is probably an enormous waste of time. Run them soft, go with 250F/200R, it won't make a whole lot of performance difference if you are on skinny little tires anyway.

Cheers,

 

[modernbeat]

So your telling me you tested the OEM suspension yourself, and the rear suspension rate, truly is higher in the rear? Although it may not be ideal for handling, is it actually higher in the rear, after everyone said No no no no never? Eibach is sending me more springs, I am going to run 350 front, and either 225 or 250 rear.. Likely 250 rear, as that is what is already back there. I can always go down to 225 after if I find its too stiff

Yes. I did the testing this afternoon on our spring rate tester and handed the results over to Terry. Those rates he quoted are accurate.

And the stock rates are almost never set up for handling. They are set up so that people with a heavy right foot don't spin off the road backwards.

If anyone would like to have their springs tested, we will do it. If you want to keep the results private, there's a fee. If we can publish the results, it's free. We've been doing it for years for the BMW guys and have started testing more and more cars since we have been developing suspension packages for them.

http://www.vorshlag.com/tech_springrates.php

 

[steve13gt]

I have the springs from a 2013 track package, I am curious what they use. However I am in Canada, and the cost to ship them there and back would be pretty high. Unless you guys wanted to know for your own use. I really don't care if its made public.

 

[modernbeat]

You are welcome to ship them if you want them tested. I think the only one's we'd be intrested in paying the shipping for is the FR3 setup found on the 2006+ Shelby GT, not the GT500.

 

[steve13gt]

It doesn't concern me enough to send them out, not to mention I'd have to disassemble the front struts. If you ever really want to know though, Im your guy haha.

 

[OkieSnuffBox]

I'm also curious how the Track pack rates stack up........still far too soft regardless.

 

[Norm Peterson]

FROM EIBACH, just putting it out there, not saying its true, or that I believe them

-----------------------
After a bit of research I have also found the OEM spring rates for the 11-13 models. In 2011 Ford moved to a softer rate, while increasing to larger OEM sway bars.
Stock Rates
Front = 122lbs
Rear = 154lbs

As discussed before Spring rates are best tuned to the environment that you are driving the car and your personal liking.
The supplied rates are a 100lb increase from OEM plus the 10 clicks of compression will be more than enough to use as a “baseline” to see if you will need to change the rates down the line
Front = 225lbs
Rear = 250lbs

I will be putting this together tomorrow morning and shipping before the weekend. Hopefully this new spring setup will get you more of what you are looking for.

Thank you.

Even if those stock rates (and the rather similar 114/142 numbers in that MVMS paper) are good numbers, it's not as simple as "adding 100 lbs/in rate to both ends and calling it good".

That coilovers sit the springs on a wider base than the OE "big spring" seats argues for a relatively lighter rear coilover rate, and that's before considering pitch. Maybe +100/+50 for 225/200 or +100/+25 for 225/175 using Eibach's approach to the math - and that's assuming that the starting point of 125/150 is somewhere near right to begin with (which it either isn't, or it is and we aren't being told about something else).


Norm

 

[SoundGuyDave]

I'm trying to dig up references, but does anybody remember the shock at how much bushing preload there was on the front swaybar on the '12+ cars? How it seemed "stuck" at the chassis mounts? That bushing will add rate to the front, and not just in roll, but in pitch as well. Also, has anybody figured out the actual motion ratios for the rear axle, as they apply to wheel rate? Seems like they'd be different in pitch and roll, but we may want to consider taking this discussion into the realm of wheel rate, and not just look at the raw spring rates... IIRC, the front suspension has a motion ratio of around .95, so reasonably close to 1:1 from spring rate to wheel rate, but the swaybar stiction will add DIRECTLY to the wheel rate, in effect becoming a torsion bar. The springs themselves will add at a rate of (MRsquared*spring rate). Thus, the effective front wheel rate becomes torsion+spring.

Granted, when Ford does the suspension calculations for the front, they're targeting a wheel rate number that is significantly lower than any of us would ever consider for corner-carving duty. It wouldn't shock me to see that they're using swaybar torsion to try to give a little "sportiness" in the corners while maintaining a "cushy" ride characteristic for the Soccer Moms. It could be that their focus groups concluded that the 10-11 GT ride was considered "harsh" by too many people... If you doubt that, think of all the NVH crap in the cars, and how many TSBs are associated with NVH issues.

 

[steve13gt]

Although the 2013 might have gotten lighter rates. I know my track pack car was noticeably harsher than my buddies 2012 GT. May the track pack use boss 302 spring rates or something, I doubt it though.

 

[sheizasosay]

You are welcome to ship them if you want them tested. I think the only one's we'd be intrested in paying the shipping for is the FR3 setup found on the 2006+ Shelby GT, not the GT500.

Any interest in doing this for dampers?

 

[modernbeat]

Any interest in doing this for dampers?

Yes, but it's a LOT more work to do dyno plots. Terry and I will talk about it and see how feasible it is for us right now.

 

[Sam Strano]

Although the 2013 might have gotten lighter rates. I know my track pack car was noticeably harsher than my buddies 2012 GT. May the track pack use boss 302 spring rates or something, I doubt it though.

Not comparing apples to apples. Damping rates and tires vary much more on those two cars than the actual spring rates do. Even the Boss doesn't use very stiff springs. Well, frankly they are too stiff in the rear relative to the front, but IMHO that's the case with every one of the "performance" option cars. And they get away with it because the front sway bar is in bind, which adds some wheel rate to the front (in a funky non linear way), but keeps the front soft in ride. It's odd.

 

[Sam Strano]

I'm trying to dig up references, but does anybody remember the shock at how much bushing preload there was on the front swaybar on the '12+ cars? How it seemed "stuck" at the chassis mounts? That bushing will add rate to the front, and not just in roll, but in pitch as well. Also, has anybody figured out the actual motion ratios for the rear axle, as they apply to wheel rate? Seems like they'd be different in pitch and roll, but we may want to consider taking this discussion into the realm of wheel rate, and not just look at the raw spring rates... IIRC, the front suspension has a motion ratio of around .95, so reasonably close to 1:1 from spring rate to wheel rate, but the swaybar stiction will add DIRECTLY to the wheel rate, in effect becoming a torsion bar. The springs themselves will add at a rate of (MRsquared*spring rate). Thus, the effective front wheel rate becomes torsion+spring.

Granted, when Ford does the suspension calculations for the front, they're targeting a wheel rate number that is significantly lower than any of us would ever consider for corner-carving duty. It wouldn't shock me to see that they're using swaybar torsion to try to give a little "sportiness" in the corners while maintaining a "cushy" ride characteristic for the Soccer Moms. It could be that their focus groups concluded that the 10-11 GT ride was considered "harsh" by too many people... If you doubt that, think of all the NVH crap in the cars, and how many TSBs are associated with NVH issues.

I used to have it around, not sure I still do. It was 11 Newtons I think, but I don't recall the scale of measure.

Again, what Ford did isn't all that relevant because it's odd and not what any of us, regardless of out personal affiliations and other leanings will likely opt to follow.

Normally I'll follow a path that is: High quality dampers, mild to moderate spring rates based on use. Pretty stiff front bar, mild to moderate rear bar based on use, springs used, RC heights, etc. I also look at the tires, stagger, how the car is driven... and most critically. I start with wanting to hear from the horse's mouth (the car owner and driver) what their particular dislikes are with the car from the start. Because what I personally think is less important than what they think of the car, and how best to improve that based on their findings. After all, it's their car, and their money. I'm not here to sell parts. I'm here to sell what I think are the *right* parts for the job. And that's the reason I don't always do the same setup for everyone. I adapt, I change. Not everyone who's sick has the same illness.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Last item first - it's pretty common for OE's to adopt a sort of "big bar soft spring" approach for just that reason. Even a pure one-wheel bump works against only about half of the bar's rate in roll.

I'm trying to dig up references, but does anybody remember the shock at how much bushing preload there was on the front swaybar on the '12+ cars? How it seemed "stuck" at the chassis mounts? That bushing will add rate to the front, and not just in roll, but in pitch as well.

I think you have to be a little careful here, as some bushings add rate while others primarily add friction, which is damping.

The OE control arm bushings add rate, and I've heard it amounts to roughly 10 lb/in at the wheel. I suppose it could be calculated, since it's due to the bonded rubber bushing in torsional shear.

Any bushing that adds "stiction" - sticks a bit and then slips like a sta-bar chassis side bushing or any other poly bushing in pure uni-axial rotation - really doesn't have a rate per se. Just a nonlinear amount of friction. That said, until it "lets go", a sta-bar bushing changes the rate of the bar a little since it redefines its boundary conditions.

You'd really have to refine the analysis to the point where you're looking at the sum of forces due to bar and spring rates times displacements and total damping forces over time. Probably not worth the effort since you'd be testing and likely tweaking from there.


Actually, I'm not so sure that a sta-bar on an independent suspension isn't actually adding a little net heave force or stiffness (not sure which yet). This might be a question to submit to Mark Ortiz.

Also, has anybody figured out the actual motion ratios for the rear axle, as they apply to wheel rate? Seems like they'd be different in pitch and roll, but we may want to consider taking this discussion into the realm of wheel rate, and not just look at the raw spring rates...

It's probably simpler to use the rear spring rate, the lateral separation of the upper spring seats, and the cosine of the spring angle. Roll is assumed to be small enough to not materially affect the spring angle.

Basically, [RollStiffnessDueToSprings] = [SpringRate] x [SpringSeparation]^2 x {cosine(SpringAngleFromVertical)}^2 / 1375

SpringStiffness is in lb/in, SpringSeparation is in inches, RollStiffness is in ft-lb/degree

You could then convert that result back to solving for wheel rate by dropping the cosine term and substituting rear track for spring separation if it's the wheel loads that you want to know, but knowing just the roll stiffness should be enough for most purposes.


Norm

 

[Department Of Boost]

Of course many dampers out there cannot deal with 450#/in rates, and the ride goes to crap anyway. The Chinese/Eibach level shocks probably don't have the valving sorted out any better than the many physical errors in the rest of those coilover kits.

Do you do all of your own re-valving/rebuilds in house?

Have you ever disassembled the R2’s?

 

[sheizasosay]

So yes, shock makers sometimes miss these variables. Especially Chinese built shocks, like these Eibachs. The spring rates they have are all kinds of wrong, and the top mounts are terrible, and the swaybar bracket is done the worst way possible - a screw on type bracket (that can rotate and screw up a wheel) AND with a giant chunk of metal right where the wheel needs to sit. So many mistakes it is hard to list them all. But they are cheap! And have lots of knobs and hoses and shiny bits, so people buy them. And they say "built in America", and people believe that lie.

I spend a lot of time reading in this section, but not much posting. I’m here to learn.

But after reading your posts lately I would like to make some comments.

Selling and having “The Best” sounds like a great way to go. Who wouldn’t want to? You’re missing something though. What are the 99% of us who can’t afford “The Best” to do? Just leave our cars stock?

And frankly your posts lead me to believe that unless I have a pocket full of money, don’t bother giving you a call. The vast majority of the Mustang crowd can hardly imagine spending $2000 on coilovers, let alone $3000, $4000, $5000, $6000……… And according to you all you can get for $2000 is “Chinese Junk”.

It seems like you have a pretty cool shop there, do neat builds and you sell a lot of high end stuff. Should I feel inferior because I can’t throw money around like you and your customers can? Because that is the tone I get from your posts.

I’d rather deal with someone who understand the average Joe like Sam Strano. He won’t make me feel like I’m not good enough because I have a budget.

And as a parting gift, a word to the wise. I’ve spent a lot of years in sales, I’ve run large sales teams, done lots of advanced sales training and sold everything from industrial equipment to motorsports products. And one very important thing that my time in sales has taught me is that you NEVER disparage the product/item/service you are selling against. You instead sell the advantages/benefits/etc of yours. When all you do is rip apart the “competition” you torpedo your own credibility and run the very real risk of loosing the sale because no one wants to sit there an listen to negativity piled on negativity.

You are selling some nice products. You should have no problem selling them on their benefits opposed to your perceived shortcomings of what you are selling against.

Good luck

 

[DILYSI Dave]

I don't think the options presented are many thousands of dollars or stock. But simply that if you're not going to drop a few grand on some European DNA monotubes, then you're probably better off with Koni yellows and decent springs than with a chinese coilover. I got years of competition use out of off the shelf Koni yellows, and many more years out of a set of revalved yellows. I'm hopeful that my JRZ triples will be superior, but I'm also aware that I'm WELL down the road of diminishing returns. For 99% of the folks on here who drive their car to work and the occasional autox or track day, I think that the $1000 packages from Sam are more than sufficient, and a better solution than a low end coilover. $.02

 

[modernbeat]

Sheizasosay, it's not that $1000 suspension can't be an upgrade, or that you have to start out with $2000 to have decent suspension. It's that the R2, which is not a good shock, coupled with cheap components, sells for $2150. Better quality shocks with better quality components sell for slightly more than that.

Why spend that money on the R2 with it's Chinese and South American made components and bad design when a few dollars more buys a quality European made damper with US made components that can be rebuilt and revalved and the camber plates can be reconfigured to match any future suspension purchase?

If your budget is $500, or $1000 there are good off the shelf solutions that have some drawbacks related to the price. But if that is all the budget allows, then those are the options. But if the budget allows a $2000+ suspension, the R2 is not the best choice. And even if you have $5000 to spend on suspension, the $5000 dampers still might not be the best choice. I've put a lot of people on a set of $1800 dampers that performed far beyond what they hoped they would and talked a lot of people out of double-adjustable dampers when they weren't the right part to meet their goals.