Shea

Depends on why you buy it. If you want an easily moddable car to drag race, then live axle is the best thing going.

Now, if you are buying a canyon carver and love the twisties, perhaps you'd feel more at home in an STI.

It's all about what people want. For you to say that live axle is second best is only reflective of how YOU feel the car should be designed.

As I said before, being able to easily swap gears out is a huge plus for live axle, and a huge plus for drag racers.

V10

From the Bloomberg article that Evil Capri gave us a link to:

André

Don't tell me we are going to have to wait another 25 years...

They should have given all mustangs IRS raised the sticker price $600 and they would have made an extra $1.5 billion profit over the projected 25-year lifespan ...

svtdriver

And how many people would have whined and complained about them "Raising the prices more than I can afford". You know it would have happened.

kevinb120

The article mentions IRS pickups

I still think the new car is more capeable then most of its owners will be. I just got home after pushing some dude in a brand new 7 series around on a back road until he almost lost it and slowed to a crawl and let me pass. I dont think he was expecting the HID's on his hiney to belong to a Focus. Owned him and my tires are set for best-wear pressure, not handling.

bob

Says you my man, says you.

Ford will screw me when they make an IRS standard equipment.

I'm sure there are many compelling reasons to make a mustang like every other car out there, but then again maybe thats the point of its success, it tries not to be like every other car out there. It is what it is, A mustang, a front engine, rear drive car fitted with a strut suspension up front, and a live axle out back accomodating two drivers comfortably and with little trunk room to spare. In short, it is a mustang.

Besides, all the IRS guys clamoring for a better car should realign their focus. Ford has a car that fits the vision, its called simply a GT, it is fitted with all the cool things the IRS camp wants, including more than enough HP to test the limits of its independant suspension at all four corners and isn't stymied by cost costing measures either. A win/win situation if you ask me.

Dan

Not a problem Andre. At the moment I have no reason to shut it down. Its like you said "spirited debate".

I also agree, why not make it an option. But like I said, I think it was an engineering/timing decision as well.

This car was WELL behind schedule and overbudget and a new IRS would need to be designed.

I believe that they couldn't adapt the current IRS because of strength/design and that it would leave no rear seat room. In the end, they decided to save money and time by going with the live axle.

And I agree, it will always be second best, that's the way its been served to us. I know you don't think we should be giving ford any praise for using the 3-link, but I'm sure many on team mustang fought very hard to design and implement the best darn live axle setup they could. For that I can feel somewhat compenstated.

P.S. Regarding the "lets wait and see" comment, I don't want this topic to disappear, I'm just saying no major criticisms of a live-axle setup we haven't seen tested yet. Its only fair. It would be like saying, "that IRS is gonna snap or have a lot of wheel hop" if we were given an IRS setup. Jumping the gun a bit IMO.

Dan

svtdriver

Can anyone reasonably explain to me that for one of the most/few popular 'cars' in Fords line up, that after 25 years they 'didn't have time to properly develop a rear suspension'...........this is the most ridiculous argument I can think of. It may in deed be reflextive of how little time and money Ford invests in cars, their lack of planning, remaining competitve, etc. Is it any surprise that their car sales are loosing more market share than any other company in the US for the past 5 years with this mentality............it seems a just 'reward'. It didn't and shouldn't have been this way, especailly with a Ford now in control, and the future of a great car, the Mustang being the victim. [/b][/quote]
Because they wanted to hear you complain? Well not just you. But you were probably a factor.

Soccer2789

Im now wondering when this will show up on the news as the new "in" debate topic for the upcoming presidential election...

Kidding aside, we got what we got, and to me, it looks good. But in the end no matter how much enthymeme style argueing or backyard bar-b-que debating is gonna prove whether or not this car "drives" well. Were simply gonna have to wait and drive it....And if it does drive as well the chassis engineer claims, well, that will be the day (was gonna curse, but decided against it B) )

Ripstang

Later on some of the high end versions...we will see that IRS ...If you take a look at some of the street rods and T-buckets out there most of them use a jag IRS rear end and it can take quite a bit and they have them linked up to some pretty hairy motors and drive trains .As well I expect to see that tremco 6 speed trans in the next few years

Dan

Can anyone reasonably explain to me that for one of the most/few popular 'cars' in Fords line up, that after 25 years they 'didn't have time to properly develop a rear suspension'...........this is the most ridiculous argument I can think of. It may in deed be reflextive of how little time and money Ford invests in cars, their lack of planning, remaining competitve, etc. Is it any surprise that their car sales are loosing more market share than any other company in the US for the past 5 years with this mentality............it seems a just 'reward'. It didn't and shouldn't have been this way, especailly with a Ford now in control, and the future of a great car, the Mustang being the victim. [/b][/quote]
I'm definately not trying to make excuses, especially for a car that's been in the planning/design stage for so long....remember, it was supposed to be an 03 way back when. But for whatever reason, Ford decided against it for the GT. Bad planning......could be. I think there may have been a few things that lead to IRS not being offered on the GT.

The primary reason IMO is cost. Second, when engineers realized that they couldn't use the LS platform as is and they had to modify it, I'm sure there were delays, and then to design a new IRS setup would take more time.......and Ford was also behind schedule as it was. Also, they would only design one setup for the GT and Cobra, so it had to be good.

Also, just think of 70,000 05 GT owners complaining of excessive wheel hop with a standard IRS setup.

I think the decision was obvious.....cheaper and quicker. Also, add the fact that they believed they could design a great 3-link setup that would satisfy most owners. I mean, they are a business after all.

Diehards whose purchase depended on the availability of IRS would be willing to wait/pay for a Cobra /SE which would come in short order.

I hope everyone understands that I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Like I've said, I talked to Thai-Tang but I really don't know all the reasons why Ford went to a live-axle and am speculating, so please understand that. I wouldn't mind an IRS setup myself. But this is a good discussion that needs some ping-ponging. Ball served.

Tone

I mentioned this in another IRS thread, but I think it is worth repeating. Growing up, my family had a couple of Mazda RX-7s. For those of you that know RXes, the first generation was a small, light car with a multi-link (Watt's linkage) live axle. The second generation car set its sights on the Porche 944, grew a little in size, power and sophistication and sported a mulit-link IRS.

My folks owned a 1985 GSL-SE (the top of the line performance model) and a 1990 GXL (the mid-line model, roughly equal in term of power-to-weight to the '85 GSL-SE). I drove both extensively and actually owned the '90 for a couple of years.

The IRS car did stick like glue. Bumps did not kick the car off-line; the limits were fairly high and basically the car had a kind of "slot car" feel to it.

The live axle car, on the other hand, was a bit more "lively." Mid corner bumps would kick it off-line momentarily, but it would pretty much catch itself. First gen RX-7s were biased a bit towards oversteer; it could be easily steered with either the steering wheel and the throttle. It was tremendously easy to catch the rear with some corrective steering and throttle modulation and the car's light weight and responsive feel made it incredibly fun to drive.

The 1990, which was undoubtedly faster, lost some of that chuckable, responsive feel. I was an effective tool for going fast; the '85 was a great partner in having fun.

I retell all of this to raise a couple of key points about the IRS debate. First, weight matters. The '85 was about 2500 lbs. The 1990 with more power and sophistication, was crowding 2800 lbs. And, in terms of feel, the difference felt far more than 300 lbs.

IRSes have far less unsprung weight -- which is good -- but the total weight of the unit is often greater than a live axle. Unless weight is taken out from somewhere else in the car, the trade-off is a heavier (though more sophisticated) car. Which doesn't always create more grins!

Second, the '85 was tuned to be fun and responsive (as is today's Miata). The 1990, which was more expensive, also felt more isolated. Was it faster? Probably. But was it more fun? No. Something was lost in the translation.

Last -- many people mention ride. Both were sports cars on (for the day) low-profile tires. Both were stiff and a bit tiresome on a long trip. The 1990 was more composed in bumpy corners, but it was just as stiff and "vertically active" in day-to-day driving as the '85.

For those looking for the fastest Mustang, the SEs with an IRS will probably be just the ticket. But, for those of us looking for a responsive, fun-to-drive car for quick drives on public roads, my experience with the '85 RX-7 indicates that it is a least possible that the live axle Mustang could be a very satisfying car.

Dan

I enjoyed reading that Tone, thanks for posting.

f1-cobra

I had one also, Tone. That car was very fun to drive.

FamilyFun

Great discussion! My .02:

Ford is a $208 Billion enterprise, and it got that way by pushing cars and trucks out in volume. And to me, IRS was a volume based decision. To sell in volume, you must not give an inch on price. What Ford learned with the T-Bird and what Chrysler is happily learning with the 300 C is – price matters, even $300.

Speaking not as a die hard Ford fan, but as a conquest buyer who’s “actively interested” in buying a Mustang, I’d say to be successful, Ford would need to sell 150-170,000 2005 Mustangs. To hit a home run, any number over 200,000 units would be needed.

To sell that many 2 door coupes in today’s market, Ford needs to widen the appeal to turn mildly interested parties into actual buyers. I’m one of those interested parties. Count me as buyer number 190,000. For me to buy a Mustang, a number of factors come into play, and none of them have anything to do with IRS:

- Price – The first price I see is the one I usually associate with a car. When I saw a New Pacifica for $38K, it instantly became a non-starter. Ditto with the T-Bird at $35K. For Mustangs, I don’t want to see the base cost of a V6 over $20K, a GT over $26K, or a GT Vert over $30K. Otherwise, what might otherwise get me started on the purchase will instead turn me into a dreamer.

- Size – Need 4 seats, period. EOD.

- Power – RWD V8 is the hot setup these days, so Mustang’s timing couldn’t be better. And at 200-210 HP in the V6, it is a valid alternative.

- Interior quality. This is where I want to see the money spent. It is also a make-or-break factor. A nasty interior in anything other than an econobox is an instant turn off. :bang:

- Other factors – Styling is important, although subjective. I personally like the heritage-based styling of the Mustang Vs. the more modern Solara or Sebring. Quality is also a serious consideration, and for me Ford’s main issue.


As for IRS, it’s an enthusiasts feature that belongs on an SE. As I said, just .02…

BLAKE

Agreed. Good post.

damian721

Boy, if I could get the 2 cents that everyone has been willing to donate to this thread, I'd pay cash for my '05! That said, I personally find these types of threads the most interesting. I do love all the other talk, speculation, appetite-whetting of the other threads, but you really see true blue devotion when people start trying to shake your faith! I'm sure that the people at Ford that scour this and other chat sites look for the dissent in the ranks in order to gauge where they stand in the "undecided" market. I'm sure Ford will post a profit in the '05 retooling based solely on the preorders placed by the members of this site! (wish I could be one of those....I'm willing to start a collection!)

It boils down to this: Ford wants to make money. If they were to blow their proverbial wad on the '05 with a jaw-dropping IRS and unholy track times...they'd sell a whole bunch of cars....for one year....

I personally want a stellar street machine that will be a durable daily-driver and can still manage to put a goofy grin on my face due to the G-force pulling my skin back. And I'm unwaveringly confident that this is exactly what Ford is offering in the new Mustang. (note: you guys that are getting the first ones off the line...lemme know if the wheels fall off!)

Does it have IRS? No. Will it? Yes. Will there be Shelbys/Saleens/Roushs/etc/ that will be leaving matching rubber lines all over my town? Sure. But I'm not willing to: a)wait that long or b)use it in the sub-zero arctic of the Minnesota winters.

If you are willing to wait, you won't be disappointed; of that I'm sure.

Damian.

Remember: so many things didn't come standard on the 1st Mustangs that I'm surprised they all came with doors!

kevinb120

With all this IRS Live axle debate, no one ever says WHY they want it

André

FamilyFun
...and the chrysler 300 does have IRS as standard equipment at a $23k base price.

It's true ford could have lost a few sales if sticker price went up a few hundred dollars on the mustang but it would have more than made up for it by opening a whole new market for this car...such as the sport compacts. I have no doubt that when this car is finally reviewed most will point out to the solid axle as its least interesting component, I don't see how this will help sales in any way. While a lot of potential mustang buyers might not know the difference betwen IRS and the live axle, all can feel the difference, and if sales and repeat customers matters to any degree that is where the futur of the mustang lies...not in the very few who drag race their cars, but I suppose a se edition with a live axle or a no cost option could be offered.