TomServo92

Great suggestion. I'll second it.

max2000jp

I am curious to why they no longer use IRS, did the rules change or was it an unfair advantage?

An IRS suspensions greatest benefit is how it handles mid corner bumps. You don't have to be at the limit to notice this. All people driving on the street will benefit from this. Since a small minority of owners will ever track their car, this is a huge benefit. As for getting ultimate numbers, I am one who likes the feel of the car. Porsche is well know for this and it is why all the mags drool over their cars. In my experience, IRS cars have a better feel, which inspires a lot more confidence in the chassis/suspension.

Devildog19

Great suggestion. I'll second it.
[/b][/quote]

Third!!!

PONY XPRESS

Again, I wasn't comparing an F1 car to a factory car, rather other race cars. A live axle race car isn't the most technologically advanced vehicle. You are arguing about live axles, which are an inferior technology. Yes you can make a live axle to handle well, but an IRS setup is better. Heck the 125CC CRG kart I race doesn't even have a suspension, but will pull roughly 2.5 g's in a corner. Again, you are going against the wisdom of experienced engineers.
[/b][/quote]

You didn't answer my question.

What don't you like about the way your 05' handles?

Soccer2789

Ok, please, lets not compare the performance of an IRS system in a chassis dating back to the 70's with a solid axle in a chassis designed recently. Of course the new chassis will handle better (even with its dated rear suspension).......

holderca1

We can when it was used last year.

Wolf

IRS vs Live, I don't know. What I do know is that I am going to NYC April 1st to see it in person! I wanted to be there on public preview day, but Easter weekend was not a possibility with the Mrs. So I'm cashing in the Mastercard points for the hotel and bringing the camera for the end of the show. Of course by then it will be plastered all over the net, but I want to see it in person. :worship:

slavehand

Please, please, please, please post them as soon as you can, please!

TomServo92

We can when it was used last year.
[/b][/quote]

I thought you wanted this argument to end? :scratch:

Soccer2789

but not as a direct comparison of how the two systems perform like it was used previously, i.e. "the solid axle is a better technology because the 05 gt handles better than the 04 cobra w/IRS". This argument has no validty because the two systems are on different chassis, one from the late 70's and the other from the 20th century. Thats the point i was making B) .

Jason

Route 66

Do you think Ford will us Quaker State or Penzoil in the 07. Which one do you think is better. :scratch:

rhumb

The reported lack of an IRS in Ford's premier Mustang would be very disappointing, even a bit embarrassing. One can stomach a lively axle in the more low-budget GT as the penny-pinching decision that it was, but once Ford wants to rise in the food chain with a viable SVT variant, then such a technical, marketing or economic decision makes little sense.

Sure, a live axle can be made to handle quite well in rather undemanding circumstances such as smooth road cornering and the drag strip, which is singularly undemanding of any suspension (look what top fuel dragster ride on to get an idea of an Nth degree drag suspension). On the other hand, for an idea of Nth degree handling, look what, say, a Formula 1 cars runs on.

Yes, the Stang's live axle is worlds better than the outgoing models, though that's damning it with faint praise given how bad the outgoing model's was. But even it gets more upset by midcorner bumps than a comparable car's IRS. Add another 150-200 hp to the equation with even more aggressive (stiffer) suspension and the live axle's Achille's Heel will become all that much more apparant, especially as compared to the sophistated suspension of its competitors at that price range.

But if Ford intends the Cobra to be more than a narrow focus, brutish, straight line charger, such a pose would be seriously undercut by a live axle, which rather quickly loses its composure in any more challenging handling situation and driving conditions. Pulling .95Gs on a smooth skidpad become little more than bench racing fodder when real world cornering plummets to .25G by a live axle utterly flummoxed by the lumps and bumps of everyday streets and roads that the 99% of any Cobras will be driving on 99.99% of the time. Indeed, it is in real world driving, rather than the track, that a good IRS's benefits will really come to the fore.

This is especially disappointing from Ford, this "good enough" attitude, in light of the excellently engineered products now coming from Daimler Chrysler. And even GM is showing surprising signs of engineering competence with the exquisitly well done Vette Z06, Solstice, Sky, and even the GTO (styling issues aside).

While I don't think I'll change anyone's mind here, and Ford has perhaps already made up their minds too, but hopefully this will get them thinking more in terms of ultimate performance rather than good enough to foist on John Q Public.

jsheehan

I think the guys point was that you shouldn't consider he solid rear axle a step back from the previous cobra when the curent GT can outhandle the previous cobra with the IRS. Even if the new cobra has a solid rear axle, it will still outhandle the old model by a considerable margin.

Yes, IRS is a superior technology to a SRA, but this shows that the handling of the car has a lot to do with how these two systems are set up.

Route 66

OK, I'm goint to put my pennys worth of thought in here. I see people will be dissapointed if Ford dosn't have about 450 to 500 hp in the next svt or IRS. Right? Isn't this what we constantly read? If the next svt will be $40,000, how can you expext it to have all that stuff. I plan on buying the 07 model next year around the $40,000 mark. Even if it dosn't have IRS or 500 hp. I would love 450 though, but will see in a month. My oil debate is still out there. Quaker State or Penzoil?

KansasCityTim

Penzoil

max2000jp

The benefits we are seeing can be attributed to the stiffer chassis structure and the front suspension. The longer wheelbase and weight distribution also helps. As said earlier, I am sure that a properly setup IRS would really do wonders in this car.

max2000jp

Personally, I would rather see Ford try and trim the Cobra down in weight. A 3200 lbs Cobra with 420 hp V8, Close ratio 6 speed, and IRS rear suspensioned car would be great. Sell it around 40k and you have a winner. Personally, I like Mobil 1.

PeterPienaar

Nuthin'. Nuthin' at all.

Dumb question with regard to the AWD though: can you do burnouts with it?

TomServo92

I agree with everything you said. However, here's a fact that hasn't been talked about much. We all want lots of HP & TQ and a suspension and structure that will put it to ground. I'm sure nobody will dispute that. But, given Ford's financial situation, I'm sure development funds are at a premium. I don't doubt that they had to consider carefully where those development funds would be spent. IMO, engine development won out over suspension and here's why: Ford problably believes (and with good reason) that if they didn't provide a serious upgrade in power given what the competition is doing, there would be more of an outcry than there will be without an IRS given that the current suspension is a vast improvement over the previous Mustang, even considering the previous Cobra's IRS. In other words, they've given us an improved suspension even with the archaic rear design so the priority is on the power. I believe that soon we'll see the rear suspension addressed. Maybe not next year but soon.

rhoover2

You have hit the nail on the head with that comment. I work here and the cash flow is not what it should be. With all of the new model launches and the stock price as low as it is we are hurting for liquid assets. I heard a figure the other day on what it would take to design and build an IRS and it was a figure that would put the Cobra price out of sight. MAYBE down the line for the Shelby the IRS will come in.