Solid rear axle or IRS thoughts...
8/3/04, 05:53 AM
#1
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: July 26, 2004
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Did Ford retain the solid rear axle to save money?
Sure. I think their approach is a cautious one. With the Camaro and Firebird gone to poor sales, Ford had to be weary in any huge design changes. Sales stayed fairly consistent through the 1990's and the first 3rd of the 2000's, so why change what sells. Ford has been around long enough to have learned to not change what works. I feel this is one reason the Fox chassis remained for practically 25 years.
2. Does a solid live axle make a otherwise good car, bad?
Not necessarily, it's just that the competition has chosen IRS setups, making side by side comparo's of the Mustang GT to the likes of a Nissan 350Z very hard. This is why Ford has a unique market, solid axle, cheaper to drag race, with reliable drivetrains.
3. Will Ford lose a noticeable amount of sales because of the solid axle?
Highly doubtful. I think a large portion of Mustang enthusiasts wished the IRS would come standard on the new '05 Mustang GT, but they couldn't pull it off for money reasons. If you honestly look at practically any car in the world, there are comprises in one place or another, the IRS was one of Ford's largest compromises. When was the last time people started complaining that their full-size pickup didn't come with IRS???
4. Did the SN95 run of SVT Mustang Cobra’s handle hugely better than the solid axle Mustang GT models?
Nope. Every review I can remember reading states that the SVT rides better by dealing with pavement roughness better, making a better riding passenger car, but the IRS did not provide quicker lap times on a track or dragstrip. I think it actually hindered good drive out of the corners, as the solid axle cars stay flatter in the rear putting more power to the rear tires.
5. Should a IRS be an option available on the GT, not just the SVT?
Yes...Wouldn’t it be nice to have that option. I would even pay an extra $2000.00 for an IRS Mustang equipped identically to a GT with a solid axle. If they mass produced the IRS as standard Mustang V6 equipment, and since V6 Mustang sales are usually just used for transportation/commuting, then offered the “Solid Axle” or “IRS” on the Mustang GT, then it may be cheap enough with the large quantity to not raise the Mustang price too much. Ford, I pray you are listening. :worship:
Sure. I think their approach is a cautious one. With the Camaro and Firebird gone to poor sales, Ford had to be weary in any huge design changes. Sales stayed fairly consistent through the 1990's and the first 3rd of the 2000's, so why change what sells. Ford has been around long enough to have learned to not change what works. I feel this is one reason the Fox chassis remained for practically 25 years.
2. Does a solid live axle make a otherwise good car, bad?
Not necessarily, it's just that the competition has chosen IRS setups, making side by side comparo's of the Mustang GT to the likes of a Nissan 350Z very hard. This is why Ford has a unique market, solid axle, cheaper to drag race, with reliable drivetrains.
3. Will Ford lose a noticeable amount of sales because of the solid axle?
Highly doubtful. I think a large portion of Mustang enthusiasts wished the IRS would come standard on the new '05 Mustang GT, but they couldn't pull it off for money reasons. If you honestly look at practically any car in the world, there are comprises in one place or another, the IRS was one of Ford's largest compromises. When was the last time people started complaining that their full-size pickup didn't come with IRS???
4. Did the SN95 run of SVT Mustang Cobra’s handle hugely better than the solid axle Mustang GT models?
Nope. Every review I can remember reading states that the SVT rides better by dealing with pavement roughness better, making a better riding passenger car, but the IRS did not provide quicker lap times on a track or dragstrip. I think it actually hindered good drive out of the corners, as the solid axle cars stay flatter in the rear putting more power to the rear tires.
5. Should a IRS be an option available on the GT, not just the SVT?
Yes...Wouldn’t it be nice to have that option. I would even pay an extra $2000.00 for an IRS Mustang equipped identically to a GT with a solid axle. If they mass produced the IRS as standard Mustang V6 equipment, and since V6 Mustang sales are usually just used for transportation/commuting, then offered the “Solid Axle” or “IRS” on the Mustang GT, then it may be cheap enough with the large quantity to not raise the Mustang price too much. Ford, I pray you are listening. :worship:
8/3/04, 06:11 AM
#2
Member
Join Date: May 25, 2004
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I would even pay an extra $2000.00 for an IRS Mustang equipped identically to a GT with a solid axle."
Agreed.
But I doubt it matters - I expect thattghe IRS will only be available on the uplevel (Cobra - or whatever) version(s).
sigh.
- Ray
Not nearly as concerned about tenths in a drag race or around a road course as everyday 8 tenths street driving . . .
Agreed.
But I doubt it matters - I expect thattghe IRS will only be available on the uplevel (Cobra - or whatever) version(s).
sigh.
- Ray
Not nearly as concerned about tenths in a drag race or around a road course as everyday 8 tenths street driving . . .
8/3/04, 06:47 AM
#3
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: June 24, 2004
Posts: 985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IRS costs more whether you put it in the V6s or not. If you want IRS on a GT, I honestly think you are in the minority. Just out of curiousity, have you ever drag raced? Ever had to change gears in an axle?
From http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html
"We talked to a lot of Mustang owners when we were developing this program," said Hau Thai-Tang, chief nameplate engineer. "They are a very passionate group, and a lot of them told us – very strongly – that the all-new Mustang must have a solid rear axle."
I would have said the same thing if they asked me about it. If you want IRS, buy the Cobra. I don't want my GT price going up because of IRS.
From http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html
"We talked to a lot of Mustang owners when we were developing this program," said Hau Thai-Tang, chief nameplate engineer. "They are a very passionate group, and a lot of them told us – very strongly – that the all-new Mustang must have a solid rear axle."
I would have said the same thing if they asked me about it. If you want IRS, buy the Cobra. I don't want my GT price going up because of IRS.
8/3/04, 07:25 AM
#5
GT Member
Join Date: July 29, 2004
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Galaxie, love your little pic. I had two 66 Galaxies.One had a 352 and the other had the 289. I was fixing up the 352 car with parts from the 289. The frame was rusted out though. I ended up selling the one with the 352 to a guy who wanted the engine for his race car. Still have the other one though.
8/3/04, 08:27 AM
#6
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 2, 2004
Location: Fairfield CT
Posts: 643
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ford had the parts to do it right now. The Jag S-Type R makes 400 lb ft of torque and uses the Lincoln LS setup, and has a back seat, etc. So that logic is bogus. I would say 50% cost 40% maintainability and 10% "nostalgia". With the number of retards that will buy this car and beat the crap out of it, IRS is simply not reliable enough. Sure its competitors have IRS, but they also cost up to 10k more. With the number of these Ford intends to sell, that would be taking a big risk. Better to save it and price it out of the majority's range. Ford can't afford to not offer a mustang that your avg 19 yr old working at quick check can't afford. That's what SE's are for. I think a fairer comparrison to the 350Z, RX-8, 3-Series? would be an SE.
8/3/04, 10:13 AM
#7
V6 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was a teenager, my parents bought a '85 Mazda RX-7 GSL-SE, which was the performance version for that year. It had the 13B rotary, 135 hp and ran just under eight seconds to 60 mph -- reasonably quick for its day. It also had a live rear axle - a multilink Watt's linkage design that was about as sophisticated as you can get with a live rear.
They traded that car on a 1990 RX-7 GXL -- a second generation car with a similar power-to-weight ratio and a more sophisticated mulit-link IRS.
I drove both cars extensively and ended up buying the 1990. The IRS setup was faster - its limits were very high and it felt completely "stuck" all the time. The 1985, on the other hand, was far more "chuckable" -- it wanted to oversteer (first gen cars were a bit biased toward oversteer, which worked well with the low-torque rotary). But, it was very, very easy to control. With some subtle steering and throttle work, I could point the car exactly where I wanted it.
Since I wasn't racing anybody -- just enjoying driving a sports car quickly on public roads -- I actually found the '85 to be more fun to drive. The 1990 would undoubtedly go faster, but it was far more fun to chuck the '85 into a corner, squeeze off some throttle and balance the car at its lower limits. Yes, bumps pushed the car off-line, but not by much and it was very easy to correct.
In the hands of a better driver at a track, I'm sure the 1990 would have been quicker and perhaps more rewarding to drive. But for street use -- in my more average hands -- I have always wished I had bought the GSL-SE instead of the GXL.
If Ford tuned the GT like that old RX-7, it might end up being more fun to drive and more about the experience of sporty driving than cold, hard performance numbers. The SE/Cobra will take car of those who live and die by the performance numbers. Hopefully the GT (and I hope that base car) will be a nice, responsive, sporty-driving car for the rest of us.
They traded that car on a 1990 RX-7 GXL -- a second generation car with a similar power-to-weight ratio and a more sophisticated mulit-link IRS.
I drove both cars extensively and ended up buying the 1990. The IRS setup was faster - its limits were very high and it felt completely "stuck" all the time. The 1985, on the other hand, was far more "chuckable" -- it wanted to oversteer (first gen cars were a bit biased toward oversteer, which worked well with the low-torque rotary). But, it was very, very easy to control. With some subtle steering and throttle work, I could point the car exactly where I wanted it.
Since I wasn't racing anybody -- just enjoying driving a sports car quickly on public roads -- I actually found the '85 to be more fun to drive. The 1990 would undoubtedly go faster, but it was far more fun to chuck the '85 into a corner, squeeze off some throttle and balance the car at its lower limits. Yes, bumps pushed the car off-line, but not by much and it was very easy to correct.
In the hands of a better driver at a track, I'm sure the 1990 would have been quicker and perhaps more rewarding to drive. But for street use -- in my more average hands -- I have always wished I had bought the GSL-SE instead of the GXL.
If Ford tuned the GT like that old RX-7, it might end up being more fun to drive and more about the experience of sporty driving than cold, hard performance numbers. The SE/Cobra will take car of those who live and die by the performance numbers. Hopefully the GT (and I hope that base car) will be a nice, responsive, sporty-driving car for the rest of us.
8/3/04, 10:40 AM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by rayainsw@August 3, 2004, 6:14 AM
"I would even pay an extra $2000.00 for an IRS Mustang equipped identically to a GT with a solid axle."
Agreed.
But I doubt it matters - I expect thattghe IRS will only be available on the uplevel (Cobra - or whatever) version(s).
sigh.
- Ray
Not nearly as concerned about tenths in a drag race or around a road course as everyday 8 tenths street driving . . .
"I would even pay an extra $2000.00 for an IRS Mustang equipped identically to a GT with a solid axle."
Agreed.
But I doubt it matters - I expect thattghe IRS will only be available on the uplevel (Cobra - or whatever) version(s).
sigh.
- Ray
Not nearly as concerned about tenths in a drag race or around a road course as everyday 8 tenths street driving . . .
8/3/04, 10:44 AM
#9
Do You Remember Me?
Join Date: January 29, 2004
Posts: 5,999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Galaxie@August 3, 2004, 8:55 AM
Paging Dan
another IRS thread for you
Paging Dan
another IRS thread for you
Seriously, before you guys get too far this is the 10th IRS thread.
I spoke to Hau Thai-Tang with Steve as you guys know. He assured us that this live-axle setup is amazing and will exceed your expectations. He also basically said that SVT was determined to us an IRS (implying to me that it wasn't even necessary). Now that might be a stretch but his main message is: WAIT TILL YOU DRIVE IT to say you'll fork over $2000 for IRS that doesn't performed that much better and is a weaker setup.
I like IRS personally but I also like the strength of a live axle. To me, the 3-link setup sounds like the greatest compromise.
8/3/04, 10:47 AM
#10
Once again 
There is only so much bang for the buck you can get for $25k
300Hp or IRS...
Pass judgement on the suspension when you testdrive the car. Keep in mind the rear suspension design on FOX mustang is terrible, with piddly stamped control arms and and 4 shocks to control the axle. It was hardly designed with performance in mind.
There is only so much bang for the buck you can get for $25k
300Hp or IRS...
Pass judgement on the suspension when you testdrive the car. Keep in mind the rear suspension design on FOX mustang is terrible, with piddly stamped control arms and and 4 shocks to control the axle. It was hardly designed with performance in mind.
8/3/04, 10:48 AM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by Shea@August 3, 2004, 6:50 AM
IRS costs more whether you put it in the V6s or not. If you want IRS on a GT, I honestly think you are in the minority. Just out of curiousity, have you ever drag raced? Ever had to change gears in an axle?
From http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html
"We talked to a lot of Mustang owners when we were developing this program," said Hau Thai-Tang, chief nameplate engineer. "They are a very passionate group, and a lot of them told us – very strongly – that the all-new Mustang must have a solid rear axle."
I would have said the same thing if they asked me about it. If you want IRS, buy the Cobra. I don't want my GT price going up because of IRS.
IRS costs more whether you put it in the V6s or not. If you want IRS on a GT, I honestly think you are in the minority. Just out of curiousity, have you ever drag raced? Ever had to change gears in an axle?
From http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html
"We talked to a lot of Mustang owners when we were developing this program," said Hau Thai-Tang, chief nameplate engineer. "They are a very passionate group, and a lot of them told us – very strongly – that the all-new Mustang must have a solid rear axle."
I would have said the same thing if they asked me about it. If you want IRS, buy the Cobra. I don't want my GT price going up because of IRS.
8/3/04, 10:48 AM
#12
I Have No Life
Ford is a business plain and simple..
They are out to make money.
Most people who buy the V6, either don't care nor know the difference..
Most people who buy the GT either race, don't care, or do care...if theres an IRS (so now split the number of GT owners by say...3 to be fair...and theres how many people care)
I admit, I'd like the thought of an IRS and would pay 'extra for it' (depending on the cost)
HOWEVER
I'm going to keep my mouth shut on how the car handles, till I get my hands on it and see first hand.
"Don't knock it till you try it"
Want an IRS...get a car with one...if thats your sole deciding factor.
What?!? you can't with the HP and cost of the Mustang GT?
Hrm.
Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too....
Chill everyone....simmer...calm...breath....it will be alright....
And who's Mr. Tau?????
When quoting please quote correctly
Mr. Thai-Tang
They are out to make money.
Most people who buy the V6, either don't care nor know the difference..
Most people who buy the GT either race, don't care, or do care...if theres an IRS (so now split the number of GT owners by say...3 to be fair...and theres how many people care)
I admit, I'd like the thought of an IRS and would pay 'extra for it' (depending on the cost)
HOWEVER
I'm going to keep my mouth shut on how the car handles, till I get my hands on it and see first hand.
"Don't knock it till you try it"
Want an IRS...get a car with one...if thats your sole deciding factor.
What?!? you can't with the HP and cost of the Mustang GT?
Hrm.
Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too....
Chill everyone....simmer...calm...breath....it will be alright....
And who's Mr. Tau?????
When quoting please quote correctly
Mr. Thai-Tang
8/3/04, 10:54 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by SVTJayC@August 3, 2004, 8:30 AM
Ford had the parts to do it right now. The Jag S-Type R makes 400 lb ft of torque and uses the Lincoln LS setup, and has a back seat, etc. So that logic is bogus. I would say 50% cost 40% maintainability and 10% "nostalgia". With the number of retards that will buy this car and beat the crap out of it, IRS is simply not reliable enough. Sure its competitors have IRS, but they also cost up to 10k more. With the number of these Ford intends to sell, that would be taking a big risk. Better to save it and price it out of the majority's range. Ford can't afford to not offer a mustang that your avg 19 yr old working at quick check can't afford. That's what SE's are for. I think a fairer comparrison to the 350Z, RX-8, 3-Series? would be an SE.
Ford had the parts to do it right now. The Jag S-Type R makes 400 lb ft of torque and uses the Lincoln LS setup, and has a back seat, etc. So that logic is bogus. I would say 50% cost 40% maintainability and 10% "nostalgia". With the number of retards that will buy this car and beat the crap out of it, IRS is simply not reliable enough. Sure its competitors have IRS, but they also cost up to 10k more. With the number of these Ford intends to sell, that would be taking a big risk. Better to save it and price it out of the majority's range. Ford can't afford to not offer a mustang that your avg 19 yr old working at quick check can't afford. That's what SE's are for. I think a fairer comparrison to the 350Z, RX-8, 3-Series? would be an SE.
8/3/04, 11:07 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good point.............the first real comparison test drive will reveal who is correct. Sorry, didn't seem to be argumenative, but as an engineer and a long time Mustang enthusiast I want to buy a 05, yet see the solid axle as THE impediment, when it could have been avoided for reasons sited. So lets see what emerges in the next several months.................haven't given up hope yet but not to encouraged from what I saw at the car shows after the gorgeous concept disappeared and the production model appeared.
8/3/04, 11:11 AM
#16
I Have No Life
Wow, this hasn't been beaten like a dead horse.
Any argument made, has been said before.
Bottom line...it doesn't matter...you can't change anyones mind, especially when they are set in their ways of 'I'm right'
which is why I hate politics.
What no one can see, or know is....
The decision...
You bet it was price, and Ford did the best they could do with what they had.
I've said it before...I'll say it again.
Everyone wants a 500hp IRS with 1000 watt stereo, SMG transmission 6 speed, 18 inch wheels with 275 inch tires...for 20k
Can't have it all boys.
Whether you want it/like it or not.
We don't work for Ford, no do we know what the boys/gals had to do to even GET the new mustang for us...
I for one am thankful.
Its 500x better on paper (and I'm sure in real life)...and I haven't even had the privelage to drive it yet.
Any argument made, has been said before.
Bottom line...it doesn't matter...you can't change anyones mind, especially when they are set in their ways of 'I'm right'
which is why I hate politics.
What no one can see, or know is....
The decision...
You bet it was price, and Ford did the best they could do with what they had.
I've said it before...I'll say it again.
Everyone wants a 500hp IRS with 1000 watt stereo, SMG transmission 6 speed, 18 inch wheels with 275 inch tires...for 20k
Can't have it all boys.
Whether you want it/like it or not.
We don't work for Ford, no do we know what the boys/gals had to do to even GET the new mustang for us...
I for one am thankful.
Its 500x better on paper (and I'm sure in real life)...and I haven't even had the privelage to drive it yet.
8/3/04, 11:30 AM
#17
Legacy TMS Member
/angermanagementpostahoy
Well, all right! We're bashing a brand- and all-new car that not very many people have had the opportunity to thrash about yet. And some that have, have very good comments about the axle, or so I've read. Others are just pinin' because they are IRS snobs.
Perhaps, just perhaps, it is possible that the 3 link they have decided to go with is NOT terrible? That while it's no IRS, it's a pretty dang good deal? No, of course, not how silly of me...
*I* am very much ready to have a solid axle. My Mark VIII's tires wear on the BACK, not the front. Why? IRS. Piece of crap.
And I'm not talking about even wear, but toe-out type wear. Corner of the tread type thing. That never happened on my Mark VII, which had a solid axle, and I thrashed that thing about as much as I do my VIII. So yeah, I've driven both.
I think IRS is a nice riding suspension, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's all that. Guess I'm not as in tune as the rest of yas. Solid axle is cheaper, easier to maintain, doesn't toe out of alignment, and won't eat your tires. Unless you do that yourself with burnouts, of course.
It also may not stick as well, and rides harsher. Oh my. A sports car that you can feel every bump on. Never in a million years would I suspect that could happen.
If you're in a situation where the handling of the IRS is THAT freakin' important, you're either racing or you're going too fast on the streets, in which case, sounds like you don't need a Mustang anyway. Get a POS IRS Honda you can trash when it lets go and hits a tree. Or another car.
I for one welcome my new "solid-axle-it's-cheaper-and- doesn't-eat-my-tires-unless-I-burnout-and-
doesn't-cost-as-much-to-align-my-car" masters.
Thank you and goodnight.
/Flameon
Well, all right! We're bashing a brand- and all-new car that not very many people have had the opportunity to thrash about yet. And some that have, have very good comments about the axle, or so I've read. Others are just pinin' because they are IRS snobs.
Perhaps, just perhaps, it is possible that the 3 link they have decided to go with is NOT terrible? That while it's no IRS, it's a pretty dang good deal? No, of course, not how silly of me...
*I* am very much ready to have a solid axle. My Mark VIII's tires wear on the BACK, not the front. Why? IRS. Piece of crap.
And I'm not talking about even wear, but toe-out type wear. Corner of the tread type thing. That never happened on my Mark VII, which had a solid axle, and I thrashed that thing about as much as I do my VIII. So yeah, I've driven both.I think IRS is a nice riding suspension, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's all that. Guess I'm not as in tune as the rest of yas. Solid axle is cheaper, easier to maintain, doesn't toe out of alignment, and won't eat your tires. Unless you do that yourself with burnouts, of course.
It also may not stick as well, and rides harsher. Oh my. A sports car that you can feel every bump on. Never in a million years would I suspect that could happen.
If you're in a situation where the handling of the IRS is THAT freakin' important, you're either racing or you're going too fast on the streets, in which case, sounds like you don't need a Mustang anyway. Get a POS IRS Honda you can trash when it lets go and hits a tree. Or another car.
I for one welcome my new "solid-axle-it's-cheaper-and- doesn't-eat-my-tires-unless-I-burnout-and-
doesn't-cost-as-much-to-align-my-car" masters.
Thank you and goodnight.
/Flameon
8/3/04, 11:40 AM
#18
GT Member
Join Date: February 3, 2004
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by conv_stang@August 3, 2004, 11:00 AM
hey, i havent started an IRS thread.....can i start one....can I...huh huh can I???? PUULEASE DADDY???
hey, i havent started an IRS thread.....can i start one....can I...huh huh can I???? PUULEASE DADDY???
8/3/04, 11:52 AM
#19
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 2, 2004
Location: Fairfield CT
Posts: 643
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) I'm not for live axle, i think it's pathetic that they couldn't get IRS in this car. The GTO has it and only a couple thou more. (if a loaded GT truly tops out at 29k) Same goes for Rx8 and Z/G35.
2) The methodology of "go buy another car if you dont like xyz" is flawed. I have heard plenty of people say "if you wanted a reliable car, go buy a toyota" or "If you want IRS go buy a car with IRS". Well, I will. And so will and so have others. Which is why a great American company (Ford) is going down in flames, and noone cares. Is IRS alone a HUGE deal, no, absolutely not. But it's cutbacks like it, and the engine cover and the 18s, and the lack of navigation, or stability control, etc, that make the competition more desireable. They don't need to make those sacrafices, becasue they sell a car to you because they think it's the best. Not because they know people will buy a mustang no matter how it manifests itself. Ford sits there and relys on the fact that even if the 2010 mustang was an electric minivan, it would still sell units. Well, that is just not the case. The avg young car buyer looking for a performance car is looking to japan for their next car. Where most of you thought mustang or firebird, they think 350Z and EVO. And those guys will become 30 yr olds that buy Bimmers, Infinits and Lexus. Not Lincolns or Caddys. The fact is that American companys can not compete in any market but the low end the profit margin just isnt there, with the exception being in trucks, and marquee nameplates. When these fade away, so does the company, see oldsmobile. Is the mustang at least a step in the right direction, sure. But it still carrys with it the ideologies that will hold it back.
But...
There is in fact 1 other RWD car in N/A over 16k that has live axle...The Panther (crown vic, grand marquis, town car, marauder).
2) The methodology of "go buy another car if you dont like xyz" is flawed. I have heard plenty of people say "if you wanted a reliable car, go buy a toyota" or "If you want IRS go buy a car with IRS". Well, I will. And so will and so have others. Which is why a great American company (Ford) is going down in flames, and noone cares. Is IRS alone a HUGE deal, no, absolutely not. But it's cutbacks like it, and the engine cover and the 18s, and the lack of navigation, or stability control, etc, that make the competition more desireable. They don't need to make those sacrafices, becasue they sell a car to you because they think it's the best. Not because they know people will buy a mustang no matter how it manifests itself. Ford sits there and relys on the fact that even if the 2010 mustang was an electric minivan, it would still sell units. Well, that is just not the case. The avg young car buyer looking for a performance car is looking to japan for their next car. Where most of you thought mustang or firebird, they think 350Z and EVO. And those guys will become 30 yr olds that buy Bimmers, Infinits and Lexus. Not Lincolns or Caddys. The fact is that American companys can not compete in any market but the low end the profit margin just isnt there, with the exception being in trucks, and marquee nameplates. When these fade away, so does the company, see oldsmobile. Is the mustang at least a step in the right direction, sure. But it still carrys with it the ideologies that will hold it back.
But...
There is in fact 1 other RWD car in N/A over 16k that has live axle...The Panther (crown vic, grand marquis, town car, marauder).
8/3/04, 11:52 AM
#20
GT Member
Join Date: July 29, 2004
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a solid rear axle is "SO" inferior to IRS how come NEXTEL cup cars still use a solid rear axle...?
3400 lb car
700-800HP
because it's more durable, than IRS.
http://www.stockcarproducts.com/rear1.htm
3400 lb car
700-800HP
because it's more durable, than IRS.
http://www.stockcarproducts.com/rear1.htm