LOL... Dave, as noted above I'm with you 100% on progress, but I think you missed my point. If we followed the "outdated technology" point of view, then Hotchkis, Global West, Ride Tech, Eaton Detroit, and a number of other companies marketing leaf springs had better close down those operations. BTW, I wonder where the transverse corvette leaf spring fits? It was an "independent" suspension, yet it employed a horse and buggy leaf spring!
What I was asking, was there any gain from using (obviously less expensive) alternative rate leaf springs like the Hotchkis/Global West over stock spec leaf springs. And of course using those springs in concert with other suspension parts like sway bars, traction bars, slide-a-links, relocated rear shocks, adjustable shocks... assuming the front end was "improved" as well. There's all kinds of opinions about 3 or 4 link setups, and torque arm setups, ladder bar setups. But can the 1st Gen owner build a better handling car _without_ going the multi-link route. Not necessarily _better_ than a 4-link, but significantly better than any _stock_ 1st Gen.
I've been a believer all my life that almost anything mechanical can be improved if the time and energy is applied to research it and test it. My last ride was a Ford SVT Lightning. Ford's SVT engineers changed spring rates, ride height, shocks, and a bunch of other things to make the truck totally out-handle a standard F150 and in fact out handle many cars. In my own truck, I ran Hotchkis leafs, Strange adjustables, Ground Force coils, different sway bars, and with a 3" front and 4" rear drop over the stock SVT... my truck handled like it was on rails compared to a stock Lightning. Granted it wasn't a race car... but it was pretty amazing considering the weight and lack of any real aerodynamics.