theedge67

The top reasons I am happy Ford stuck with the live rear axle:
1) Makes the car more affordable for the average 'Joe', which is who the car appeals to. If you want Lambo handling, go get a Lambo.
2) Nailing it at a stoplight and walking the rear end sideways, leaving 2 patches of scorched pavement...not necessarily in a perfectly straight line.
3) Big empty parking lots late at night.
4) According to C/D, "Not even the most recent independent-rear-suspension SVT Cobra can match the new GT's skidpad grip, which now also surpasses a Nissan 350Z Touring's, come to think of it." This "buggy axle" must not be so bad after all.
5) It's part of the car's heritage and it just feels right. I don't want to drive a car that feels like an Eclipse or an Audi, or a Cavalier. I want a Mustang that feels like a MUSTANG.

rhumb

A properly developed IRS is not necessarily expensive or unaffordable to the average "Joe." This argument would justify leaf springs, drum brakes, AM radio only, no A/C, etc. Look at the suspension and handling say, the Mazda RX-8 offers at $27K. Excellent handling need not be the sole realm of the well heeled. It's the challange of offering not more for more, but more for less in the spirit of the original Ford flathead V8, for example, by offering top drawer engineering to the average Joe, not consigning him to only what's worthy of his station.

Just as doable in an IRS car. More a function of a great motor than a so-so suspension.

Ummm, what... See item 2 perhaps? I'd rather a car work well outside of big, dark parking lots.

Probably says more about the cobbled together IRS of the last Cobra rather than anything about a well-engineered IRS. And flat skidpad grip is one of those unreal world test numbers that have a limited application to the real world, being mostly a function of big, sticky tires and very stiff (lateral) suspension tuning. The ideal skidpad vehicle would be a no-suspension go-cart, which I hope your not suggesting as a Mustang design ideal. It's not that the buggy axle is so bad, per se, but that modern suspensions are so much better in a far wider range of situations.

In other words, the Stang should reincorporate a generator, drum brakes, leaf springs, point distributors, carburators, recirculating ball steering, cast iron motors, etc. Not sure what you mean by "feeling" like an Audi or Cavalier(huh?) -- don't want it to perform too well or be too capable? Perhaps a nice set of skinny bias-ply tires, limpid shocks and vague steering is what's really needed for that "heritage" Mustang feel. Better the Mustang's heritage be defined by its strengths rather than its weaknesses.

In any case, according to some reports of an Aussie-developed platform for the NextStang, it seems even Ford is realizing the limitations of the bespoke D2C platform and is taking a page from the GM Camaro development strategy. And aside from trucks and tractors, the Aussie's have pretty much pitched lively axles out into the Outback quite a while ago.

We may yet have to suffer a great handling, great riding, up-to-date Stang yet that's the equal of any modern, affordable performance car over any road (you could always slap on a set of skinny bias-ply tires to get some of that old-school "feel" however :-)!

Stangfriik

Hasn't the challenger always been more expensive than the mustang though? Personally, if the challenger is out by the time I can afford either the mustang or the challenger and the production model looks a lot like the concept, I'll probably pick the challenger as I think it looks incredible.

theedge67

I don't have time to argue every point (busy day) but as for the "feeling" of a mustang, I'll say this. My friend has a '04 GTO (IRS) that I have driven several times and been a passenger in many times. It is a nice car, very refined and very high class. It is not as much fun to drive as the Mustang. I can't put my finger on it, but it is just boring to drive. It is smooth over the bumps and corners, and it handles very well. When you push on the go pedal, it goes. But thats it. It just goes. It sounds boring, rides boring, very much looks boring. It does not have the same fun factor the Mustang has.
My friend has driven the 'Stang several times and he asked me after the first time if I wanted to trade. I declined. Even he agreed the stang is more fun. Performance figures aside, it's all about the fun factor, and I'm not sure a IRS would give the same feel.

theedge67

One more thing, I found this on Car and Driver's review of the '05 Mustang when they first came out. My favorite quote about the car so far!!

"Speaking of gushing forth, let's move on to thrust. Three easy steps here: (1) Disable the traction control—a large button up high on the dash, just as Don Garlits intended. (2) Zing the revs to four grand. (3) Dump the clutch. The Mustang squats an inch, then launches straight, hard, and true, painting five to ten feet of expensive P Zero Nero stripes, depending on road texture. In a flash, the V-8 bangs off the rev limiter, and the tires bark on the upshift to second like deep-chested Newfoundlands. Beautiful, man—smoke, noise, velocity, enraged neighbors. Unalloyed essence of Mustang."
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...-gt-page2.html

Hollywood_North GT

Don't forget the wind-up windows!

elvism

will suit me either the new mustang or new camaro. i had a 84 Z28 h.o and i enjoyed back then. i never thought i own a mustang because it was like its us(chevy) vs (mustang). we'll see in near future which one i go for.

Hollywood_North GT

Yeah, there's no way this...



...can be as good as this...

rhumb

That says little about inherent traits of an IRS and loads about the character and tuning of the GTO in general. Certainly IRS systems haven't made the Vette Z06 or Viper into mellow power cruisers.

The GTO was aimed more as a refined, gentleman's high performance car than a raucus tear-about car. It was bigger, heavier, and tuned a touch softer in the suspension, and by dint of the IRS's broad-spectrum capabilities, still retained excellent handling that could surpass the lighter Stangs on rougher, tougher roads that would make that live axle quite lively and turn the Stang into a bucking bronco (which could be fun in some sense if not particularly fast or safe).

The Stang certainly is more involving of the senses, and more fun in that sense, but that's due to its trimmer, lighter size and its sharper all around tuning.

The heavy GT500 perhaps in some sense mimics the GTO in a way as a big, heavy, VERY powerful power cruiser. I haven't driven one of those yet (benchracing alert), but from what I've read, while it's very, very fast, it's not quite as balanced, involving or as fun as the Stang GT -- an illustration of the difference of how fast a car goes and how a car goes fast.

Sounds perhaps like your buddy picked the wrong type of car for his personal wants than anything being particularly wrong with the GTO itself.

V10

This has more to do with the S197s better F/R weight balance than it's live rear axle.

With that said, skid pad tests are over rated. Relatively poor handling cars can turn in big skid pad #s as the car is moving in one direction. A better test of handling is when the direction of the vehicle changes. The slalom is a better handling test. Even better is C/Ds lap times on a race track. In the lap time test, the S197 Mustang fares rather poorly.

theedge67

I'm not trying to totally diss the IRS, I'm just trying to say that for me, a Mustang = Live Axle. The current generation 'Stang's axle is very refined and perfectly tuned if you ask me. I think an IRS stang could be almost TOO refined. To me, a Mustang is inherently a little rough around the edges, unrefined,...I want to drive the car, not have the car drive me. Not saying I want to go back to caveman days with generators and bias tires, just that I like the way the car drives and handles with a live axle. It just feels like a Mustang should.

I think that is part of the reason the Mustang has been so successful over the years. Ford has upgraded and enhanced/refined the car over the past 40 years, but it still retains its heritage and it's basic overall design/idea...A simple, sporty, cheap, car with lots of bang for the buck. When you start making the car more and more complex and expensive, while you might end up with a better overall car, it can put it out of reach of its main audience-the younger generation with less disposable income.

theedge67

I believe a very substantial part of this problem lies in the brakes, as they tend to fade after a few hard stops. The stang will post excellent times until the brakes start heating up.

2005GTDELUXE

The new camaro looks kinda foreign to me not really like a 71 or whatever, and I also love my live real axle!

hi5.0

The kind of "excitement" provided by a live-axle suspension - I can definitely live without. Especially when the road surface makes it "lively".
There's a reason Ford ditched it on its SUV's - something about control...

Hollywood_North GT

Truck axles are for, well...trucks. Last time I checked, the Mustang was a car...and this was the 21st century.

bob

Probably more like comfortable ride and added interior space rather than control.

Anyways, its also interesting to note that at one point the lowly camaro with its live axle was able to best the corvette in track times, something GM was keen on keeping a lid on.

sodaman

I thought the challenger was supposed to come with a 425 hp engine, or is that the camaro? Either way I like them both. Just depends on what the cost is etc. at the time. But right now I can get deals through gm, I used to get the xplan but no more. We will see what happens down the road. But I like all cars, they all are a little different in some ways, some better some worse. I used to be a vw guy, supercharged corrado. Thing handled like no other, it was so small and quick it was rediculous. Turn on a dime. So theres a lot to be said for all different suspensions, import, domestic and the likes.

official_style

love the new camaro, i am getting a black black 500hp SS as soon as it comes out. i am going to most likely keep the mustang also. i LOVE the new camaro, you just have to see it in black.

rhumb

I certainly understand your concern about being too refined, i.e., polishing of the edges of the dynamic envelope so much that it become an uninvolved passenger in a exceedingly capable but ultimately boring drive. But again, I think that has much more to do with the tuning of whatever underlying suspension than a particular issue of an IRS. I don't think too many people would consider a Z06, Viper, Cayman, or Exige as anything less than exquisitely involving, perhaps to a fault.

But I don't think that involvement should be the result of the dynamic weaknesses of a vehicle but rather, the result of superior tuning. Indeed, a live axles propensity for loss of control over less than creamy surfaces would compel a manufacturer to dial down the aggressiveness of the suspension tuning to maintain a particular level of safety and control for a production car. An IRS, much better able to maintain control over a far wider range of road surfaces and conditions, would allow the manufacturer much more latitude in that regard. This is to say nothing of the ride/handling balance which, too, is much in an IRS's favor, i.e., you could tune the IRS to be much tighter, tauter and responsive without ending up with the ride of a coal cart.

Cost issues are another matter, but I think the preponderance of very affordable IRS's belie the argument that they are necessarily exceedingly expensive. Even Ford itself disproved that point with the '99-'04 Cobra with a rather difficult -- and undoubtedly more expensive than a clean sheet platform -- after-the-fact design that, while working better than the SN95's live axle, was necessarily compromised and hardly represents IRS state of the art nor full potential. Unforetunately, and also due to some weak elements of that design, many Stangers drew overly broad conclusions from that specific and esoteric experience and soured on any IRS design in principal.

But Aussie Ford's Control Blade IRS provides a striking counter-argument to many if not all these concerns, being compact, light, rugged, affordable and effective. Such a design in a Stang, IMHO, would greatly improve the ride, handling, responsiveness, driver involvement and overall dynamic envelope at minimal cost, weight or reliability penalties. Appropriate suspension tuning could result in an even more responsive, involving and capable Mustang that excels in an even wider spectrum of driving environments and conditions rather than being restricted to fairly smooth, ideal and undemanding roads as is the case now.

Sure, a live axle may be best for the greater price consciousness but lesser performance demands of base Mustang buyers and perhaps to for the highly focused, esoteric demands of drag racing, thus I would either axle in the appropriate Stang (live axle - base, GT, Mach I, GT500 (opt); IRS - GT (opt), Boss, GT350, Bullitt, GT500).

The advent of IRS Camaros and Challengers will make a nice little science experiment out of all this bench racing as all three cars will obviously be put head to head in about a microsecond of their releases. And that, really, is what makes the advent of these competitors so great and will drive the performance capabilities of all these cars ever more forward under the press of competition. This will give all of us pony car buffs much better cars for much better values in the end.

MusicMan66

This Motor Trend article sums it all up quite nicely: http://www.motortrend.com/features/a..._ford_mustangs
Plus a nice preview of the Boss (Hurricane V8 WOO HOO) and Bullitt SE's.