So I have some experience with both the PM3L and the MM TA.
If you go PM3L one upper has to be removed or fixed so it doesn't perform as intended (a fix would be to keep the car legal in some class requiring both uppers to be in place). In my case I just removed the DS upper and replaced the PS upper with a rod-ended piece. This was a custom one-off I bought from a C-C.com member. The PHB was already on the car and had been for several years. With a PM3L as I configured it, I also had to increase rear spring rate to something like a TA requires - I went with H&R Super Race rears. This mod transformed the car (already had C/Os on the front). Turn in was more predictable understeer and corner exit had much more traction. Mid-corner oversteer was easier to control. Most important for me was the ride quality so dramatically improved it was a night and day difference. But that rod-ended upper did transmit a lot of gear noise into the cabin. And you could center the axle with the PHB since the one upper was rod-ended.
And the rod-ended upper put a lot of stress on the upper chassis mount. It never failed or cracked during the 3 seasons I ran the car in this configuration, but the concern led to the MM TA. I put the T/A on and just for G&Gs, added the MM K member at the same time. The TA was even better than the PM3L and with a lot less NVH. I also had to increase the rear spring rate again since the TA allowed the rear axle to articulate much better. Here is where I went with an H&R TA spring of 375-420 IIRC. Ride quaity was even better due to reduced NVH and much more peace of mind not woring bout the rod-ended PM3L ripping out the upper mount.
All in all, either option works wonders for the car's handling and ride quality. A note of caution. If you go with a rubber bushed stock upper instead of a rod-ended upper, watch the bushing material. There is so much twisting and stuff going on that it won't take long for those rubber bushings to tear.
Connect With Us