TomServo92

This is a very important quote from the article V10 posted:

It wasn't so much a matter of money but a matter of timing. Engineering a new IRS would have delayed the Mustang another year if I remember correctly. The question you have to ask yourself is would you be willing to wait another year for the redesigned Mustang in order to get the IRS? It's the same question I asked in regards to those stating the '05 should have 18" wheels from day one instead of it being an '06 option. I have a feeling most people would rather have the car sooner without the IRS than later with it.

Boomer

However if the platform was designed for an IRS from the start, then time wouldn't really be a factor, more like money.

Which I'm sure was the biggest factor in not having the IRS.

Meanwhile back at the batcave.....

Birdman3

Show me a live axle that doesn't lose contact patch area (traction) when a wheel drops into a pothole or hits a bump.

Show me a live axle that can hit a bump in a turn without a good chance of the back end losing stability.

Show me a perfectly smooth road in the Midwest, on which, as is frequently pointed out, live axles perform well.

Then I won't want to pay more for IRS.

<gets off of soap box with resolute look on face, and wedgie>

Greywolf

ME WANT LIVE AXLE

Treadhead

ME WANTS MUSTANG!!!!! AS long as it works, I don't care how the tires are kept in contact with the Earth.

kevinb120

Thats a little presumptuous. 95% of sales I have lost on Mustangs to other vehicles was front seat comfort, and had nothing to do with ride or performance.

kevinb120

Show me a live axle that doesn't lose contact patch area (traction) when a wheel drops into a pothole or hits a bump.

Show me a live axle that can hit a bump in a turn without a good chance of the back end losing stability.

Show me a perfectly smooth road in the Midwest, on which, as is frequently pointed out, live axles perform well.

Then I won't want to pay more for IRS.

<gets off of soap box with resolute look on face, and wedgie> [/b][/quote]
That is only half true, hp IRS cars can bounce, bottom out, and skate on uneven roads too. On a public road with bumps and potholes, pushing the car at speed is reckless with either suspension. Not to mention getting knocked out of allignment, and the expense and complexity of simple mods like lowering, or adding power on stock halfshafts and CV joints. You also have to take into account the longer wheelbase and change in f/r bias. Using the curent car is pointless as a benchmark-other then the name of the car, nothing is the same as far as chassis dynamics go. This $300 IRS nonsense is also annoying, there is no way that's possible, decent hardened half-shafts alone cost much more then that. Using the one random quote from an old article is like using something Kerry said 2 years ago as being accurate today.

Robert

Yeah, I've wondered about this myself. Ford seems to be skimping on a lot of the creature comforts that we take for granted in so-called "entry level" import cars. I'd like to see body-colored mirrors, HIDs, a sunroof...and maybe even NAV.

That said, I think several of the items you list could quite easily show up in the special editions and, of course, the Cobra. The thing of it is, Ford aren't stupid. They know they need to spend their money where it counts: top notch chassis, engine, fit & finish...and of course, design. They also know their market demographic. And, judging from MOST of the posts here, nobody cares if the Mustang doesn't have the features listed above...they don't even care for it to have IRS!

Whether the Mustang can "step out" of its requisite demographic and lure M3 and other performance import buyers is the big unknown. I hope they can, and if there's any interest from those buyers whatsoever in the new Stang, then, yes, you're right, Ford will have to offer more upscale variants of the new Mustang. B)

TomServo92

Good grief man...................the darn platform is older than most of the viewers on this site, and FMC didn't have enough time to develop something state of the art for it's given price point??????................how totally unbelievable. If true, they either don't give a darn about the only car that is selling well for the corporation in NA, don't do any R and D or very little, pathetic business planning skills.............probably all of the above. EVERY progressive car co changes it's chassis/platform eveyry 4-10 years, and FMC??????????????? inexcusable, and a reflection of it's ineptness. Given the time since it's last redo the 05 Mustang should have been far more impressive, more advanced/IRS for $300 more (unbelivable cost cutting, and if amoritized/spread over it's lifetime truly insignificant to all but the accountants). I just hope it doesn't go the way of the TBird.............another poor execution when it could have world class, or at least competitive............yet I heard EXACTLY the same lame excuses for it when being debudded............lets see, but for me I am very dubious of FMC entire car programs. Lastly, I think the Chrysler 300 will absolutely KILL the 500/Montego or whatever that ugly/silly looking Mercury derivative is. [/b][/quote]
Wow, this is very personal to you isn't it? At any rate, I never said Ford wasn't at fault in any way but the truth of the matter is that they had reached a critical point the development cycle and had to make a hard decision. Some of us care, some of us don't (and apparantely some of us are on a mental precipice because of it - i.e. "you") but it doesn't change the fact that it has a live axle in the '05 model. What the future holds we don't know. Hopefully IRS will be available in less expensive models down the road. One point I'd like to make however: you mention the creature comforts available in $14K cars that aren't in the Mustang. How many of those $14K cars have a SOHC, multivalve V8 with VCT making 300HP?

svtdriver

I have serious doubts that the mustang will make very many inroads into the Sport Compact market. Hearing them talk about their cars. It's the challenge of building the 4 cylinder engines to have the HP of a V8 that interests them. The "Holy Grail" of cars to them are have 6 cylinders. And they are just as biased as we are. Prefering cars that are cheaper and in a lot of cases made by an "import" company (Toyota, Nissan, Honda...). While maybe you have no doubt that the reviews will not like the solid rear. It is still a case of wait and see. Maybe they won't like the fact that it doesn't have IRS. But will still like the improved handling the new chassis and rear suspension have.

Avalanche

and the engine on that base model only has 200HP

about 18K vs 23K diff about 5K

to get the HEMI, base price 2005 CHRYSLER 300C $33,495.00

about 25K vs 33K diff about 8K

both base models are a lot higher than the V6 and GT models.

wanna pay 5 to 8K higher for IRS? Buy a 300 or 300C

Galaxie

Branch, while I do agree with you that there are little things that can be improved on the '05 Mustang, I certainly don't think it is a failure and won't last past 3 years.

In terms of "penny pinching" you make it sound as if just because a cavalier has rearview mirrors that spring back it becomes something that must be available on a Mustang, in my mind it is not a big deal. The remote fuel door release like in my rusted '89 Areostar made the van so much more upscale and valuable . Personally I think those little details are very minor and if I did want them, I would go G35 shopping. This sentiment seems to be shared with most on these boards.

Yes the car market is very global and competitive, but the last time I checked, the Mustang is a low-volume car, it has been for at least the last 10-12 years. It is not designed to built for the global market, in mind. It is as much an image car for Ford as the GT supercar, but it is not a cash cow like the F150. Because of the relatively low-volume they do have to cut corners here or there.

The Mustang has been the best-selling sporty car for more than 10 years (I don't remember the exact figure, but please take my word on it). This has been with an outdated chassis, horrid ergonomics and average fit and finish. I really disagree with your statement that Ford will "blow the franchise" in 3 years, especially with all the improvements made.

I think Ford should build an "upscale" cougar which has no whip antenna, manual fuel flap an IRS and fold-away rear-view mirror. But surprise , the car will be much more expensive and they won't sell as many.

I am not attacking you, but just giving my opinion, we can agree to disagree, no worries.

97RedSnake

Do they ever lock threads on here? If so, i think we have a candidate.

After browsing through this thread, i have come to the decision that speculating and arguing over a car that hasn't even hit the roads yet is amazingly stupid. I have done it myself over the past month or two, but now i realize it is utterly ridiculous.

Everyone has an opinion already about this car, and in general most people's opinions are like the public at large: Not very intelligent, but sure they are always right. So, i am done talking about the new Stang. I wait with hope to see how things go for it. But, i have better things to do than "yell" at others on a online bulletin board.

Also, for those that find themselves defending their ideas and opinions on an online forum, keep one thing in mind: There is a very real chance that the person you are arguing with is a 14 yr old kid who likes to post online to make himself feel like a real grown-up. Imagine meeting this child in real life and hearing him spout off his opinion. Would you give him more than 2 seconds of your time debating with him? No. So, why tolerate the ranting of this same child (or child-like adult) online?

Anyway, sorry this post was so long, but i had to get a few things off my chest. I will be leaving now. I will return when some real information is available about the finished car. Until then, good luck to you all.

Later.

Avalanche

Henry Ford said it best, "You can have any color you want,...as long as it's black."
Ford sold over 15 million BLACK Model T's. Big savings only doing 1 color, yet they still sold. Anti-lock brakes were 1st put on a 68 Olds, in 04 anti-lock brakes were an option on the Mustangs(depending on the model you wanted). The Mustang still sold and sells well. I personally don't want IRS.

Indystang

Too bad Bill Ford wasn't in on the 05 design from the start. Sounds like it would have had a pretty good chance for IRS. The 05 will do me just fine till it's paid off then.....maybe a Shelby

André

...and you know the rest of the story, Henry stubbornly refused to replace the model T with a newer and more modern car until it was too late...

Ford never regained it's no 1 position and in later years the model T was considered a joke (like the yugos of a few years back). Once credibility is lost it's very hard to get it back. Most serious car enthousiats will consider a solid axle in a "sports car" in the same context.

TomServo92

I guess that depends what you mean by "serious enthusiasts". Drag racers are serious enthusiasts and most are very happy the live axle is still around. On the other hand, auto-crossers and road racers problably aren't too thrilled. The question is which of those two demographics are a higher percentage of Mustang customers?

André

I guess that depends what you mean by "serious enthusiasts". Drag racers are serious enthusiasts and most are very happy the live axle is still around. On the other hand, auto-crossers and road racers problably aren't too thrilled. The question is which of those two demographics are a higher percentage of Mustang customers? [/b][/quote]
Neither, most mustangs are V6 models sold to young women who might not know or care about suspension components, but can appreciate the more confortable ride IRS can offer. An independant rear suspension offers the best compromise betwen ride and handling and can be more easely tuned for different applications.
(I agree for drag racing the cheapest and the best way to go is with the solid axle.)