why wasnt IRS used?
8/8/06, 07:33 PM
#21
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 3, 2005
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by clintoris
The original GT40s had IRS to begin with. let's get back to campairing apples to apples here.
My quip about Ford using an IRS in the Ford GT was that clearly Ford, too, believes an IRS is superior to a SRA...otherwise they wouldn't have put an IRS in their premium, flagship sports car.
The IRS vs SRA debate has been done to death. Face it, time and time again it's been shown there is no engineering argument that favours a SRA over an IRS.
The only reason the Mustang was hobbled, again, with a SRA is accounting and poorly misplaced nostalgia.
8/8/06, 08:45 PM
#22
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 1, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=Jack Frost]SRA was chosen over an IRS because Ford is run by accountants and MBA graduates instead of engineers and 'car guys'.
[quote]
Slow down there sparky ... you say MBA like it's a bad thing ...remember that without those beancounters and MBAs, there's no company and no cars for you to beeyotch aboot
Or to enjoy...
However, that's not to say they are making the right decisions, but that may or may nothave anything to do with the level of edumacacion!
[quote]
Slow down there sparky ... you say MBA like it's a bad thing ...remember that without those beancounters and MBAs, there's no company and no cars for you to beeyotch aboot
Or to enjoy...
However, that's not to say they are making the right decisions, but that may or may nothave anything to do with the level of edumacacion!
8/9/06, 08:21 AM
#24
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 14, 2006
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion. I live in central AR in the foothills of the Ozarks which means winding twisting roads, many of which are banked the wrong way. IMO, this car does an awesome job without IRS. The stang has a very capable setup.
8/9/06, 10:03 AM
#26
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mustangfreak
Because it sucks and Mustangs shouldn't have crappy IRS.
Want a smooth ride? Buy a Lincoln.
Want a smooth ride? Buy a Lincoln.
And who said anything about a smooth ride? (IRS Misconception/Red Herring #1: It's only about a smooth ride). What us proponents desire is excellent handling on any and every road. A resilient and supple-yet-firm suspension - certainly - one that won't get bucked into the weeds at the first whiff of a cobbled turn.
As for the Beancounters vs Engineers, I think the what's critical is the proper balance and roles. Ultimately, car companies make cars, not money (only the U.S. mint does that). These cars, which, only if excellent and desirable to the buyers, will then earn the companies money.
Thus, the primary concern with car companies should be designing, engineering and manufacturing excellent cars. The beancounters should only have a secondary role in support of this primary mission and the company decision-making structure ought to reflect this.
It's when the MBAs and beancounters assume the primary role that the company's thinking tends to be that more of a financial institution (reflecting the training and culture of MBAs and beancounters) rather than product development and manufacturing institutions, that things get out of whack. This, unforetunately, is what has gone wrong with domestic manufacturers. The cart is now before the horse in that they are trying to, primarily, make lots of money and, only incidently and quite secondarily, make excellent cars. A subtle distinction, perhaps, but very insidious.
The ultimate result has been a steady erosion in overall vehicle excellence in domestic vehicles relative to other, more engineering focused makers. The manufacturer's MBA-style response to diminished customer desire for their products -- spends gobs of money trying to bamboozle and bribe buyers through fancy ads and ruinous rebate programs. Rather, a more engineering/product focused corporate culture would roll those hundreds of millions of dollars into design and build cars people actually want to buy in the first place. Then, only as a consequence of basic product excellence, the profits would flow in.
I think that is some of what us IRS proponents see emblemized by the decision not to include an excellent and affordable IRS in the Stang's quiver, as has been done in the past, the corrosive rule of the beancounters over the engineers, in accepting something that is "good enough" rather than striving for world-class, in-class excellence.
FoMoCo and GM, and to a lesser degree, DC, are now reaping the bitter rewards of this reign of the slick suites, admen and brown eye shades -- undesirable product (aside from a few exceptions like the Stang) that ulitmately no amount of rebate bribery or fancy-ad flim-flammery will solve.
But that's just my opinion...
8/9/06, 11:18 AM
#28
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 3, 2005
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rhumb
It's when the MBAs and beancounters assume the primary role that the company's thinking tends to be that more of a financial institution (reflecting the training and culture of MBAs and beancounters) rather than product development and manufacturing institutions, that things get out of whack. This, unforetunately, is what has gone wrong with domestic manufacturers.
Ford and GM have been all about MAKING MONEY.
While the Koreans, Japanese and Europeans have been all about trying to sell cars people will love. They know if they execute on this, the money will take care of itself.
People who know business will understand the difference here. Sadly, this notion escapes Ford, and is why Ford (and GM) are in the mess they are today.
Ford's in deep. Nothing short of a revolution in the company is going to save it. Turfing the bean counters that hobbled the latest gen Mustang with a SRA would be a good start.
Toyota is now selling more cars *in the US* than Ford.
God help this company when the Chinese jump in.
8/9/06, 12:31 PM
#29
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 17, 2006
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rhumb
Given the IRS was never released, we don't know whether it sucks or not. And of course, the Mustangs shouldn't have crappy IRS, or anything else for that matter.
And who said anything about a smooth ride? (IRS Misconception/Red Herring #1: It's only about a smooth ride). What us proponents desire is excellent handling on any and every road. A resilient and supple-yet-firm suspension - certainly - one that won't get bucked into the weeds at the first whiff of a cobbled turn.
As for the Beancounters vs Engineers, I think the what's critical is the proper balance and roles. Ultimately, car companies make cars, not money (only the U.S. mint does that). These cars, which, only if excellent and desirable to the buyers, will then earn the companies money.
Thus, the primary concern with car companies should be designing, engineering and manufacturing excellent cars. The beancounters should only have a secondary role in support of this primary mission and the company decision-making structure ought to reflect this.
It's when the MBAs and beancounters assume the primary role that the company's thinking tends to be that more of a financial institution (reflecting the training and culture of MBAs and beancounters) rather than product development and manufacturing institutions, that things get out of whack. This, unforetunately, is what has gone wrong with domestic manufacturers. The cart is now before the horse in that they are trying to, primarily, make lots of money and, only incidently and quite secondarily, make excellent cars. A subtle distinction, perhaps, but very insidious.
The ultimate result has been a steady erosion in overall vehicle excellence in domestic vehicles relative to other, more engineering focused makers. The manufacturer's MBA-style response to diminished customer desire for their products -- spends gobs of money trying to bamboozle and bribe buyers through fancy ads and ruinous rebate programs. Rather, a more engineering/product focused corporate culture would roll those hundreds of millions of dollars into design and build cars people actually want to buy in the first place. Then, only as a consequence of basic product excellence, the profits would flow in.
I think that is some of what us IRS proponents see emblemized by the decision not to include an excellent and affordable IRS in the Stang's quiver, as has been done in the past, the corrosive rule of the beancounters over the engineers, in accepting something that is "good enough" rather than striving for world-class, in-class excellence.
FoMoCo and GM, and to a lesser degree, DC, are now reaping the bitter rewards of this reign of the slick suites, admen and brown eye shades -- undesirable product (aside from a few exceptions like the Stang) that ulitmately no amount of rebate bribery or fancy-ad flim-flammery will solve.
But that's just my opinion...
And who said anything about a smooth ride? (IRS Misconception/Red Herring #1: It's only about a smooth ride). What us proponents desire is excellent handling on any and every road. A resilient and supple-yet-firm suspension - certainly - one that won't get bucked into the weeds at the first whiff of a cobbled turn.
As for the Beancounters vs Engineers, I think the what's critical is the proper balance and roles. Ultimately, car companies make cars, not money (only the U.S. mint does that). These cars, which, only if excellent and desirable to the buyers, will then earn the companies money.
Thus, the primary concern with car companies should be designing, engineering and manufacturing excellent cars. The beancounters should only have a secondary role in support of this primary mission and the company decision-making structure ought to reflect this.
It's when the MBAs and beancounters assume the primary role that the company's thinking tends to be that more of a financial institution (reflecting the training and culture of MBAs and beancounters) rather than product development and manufacturing institutions, that things get out of whack. This, unforetunately, is what has gone wrong with domestic manufacturers. The cart is now before the horse in that they are trying to, primarily, make lots of money and, only incidently and quite secondarily, make excellent cars. A subtle distinction, perhaps, but very insidious.
The ultimate result has been a steady erosion in overall vehicle excellence in domestic vehicles relative to other, more engineering focused makers. The manufacturer's MBA-style response to diminished customer desire for their products -- spends gobs of money trying to bamboozle and bribe buyers through fancy ads and ruinous rebate programs. Rather, a more engineering/product focused corporate culture would roll those hundreds of millions of dollars into design and build cars people actually want to buy in the first place. Then, only as a consequence of basic product excellence, the profits would flow in.
I think that is some of what us IRS proponents see emblemized by the decision not to include an excellent and affordable IRS in the Stang's quiver, as has been done in the past, the corrosive rule of the beancounters over the engineers, in accepting something that is "good enough" rather than striving for world-class, in-class excellence.
FoMoCo and GM, and to a lesser degree, DC, are now reaping the bitter rewards of this reign of the slick suites, admen and brown eye shades -- undesirable product (aside from a few exceptions like the Stang) that ulitmately no amount of rebate bribery or fancy-ad flim-flammery will solve.
But that's just my opinion...
8/9/06, 03:24 PM
#30
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course companies want, need, to make money, they ain't charities and I certainly understand that. It's how they go about trying to make their money that makes all the difference and is my point here. And quite obviously, by plunging sales, profits and stock values, the "man" in corporate America is doing a terrible job for all concerned -- buyer, retailer, employee, and stockholder. And that's my rant, and given the grim facts of the domestic auto industry, maybe not so far off the mark.
But back to topic, somewhat, the S197 wasn't based of the the LS platform as often speculated, it was a basically a clean sheet design that apparently had IRS capacity built in, probably with the idea of using this platform more broadly for more upscale models and cars. But Ford's tortured development processess and dire R&D situation forced the Stang to cutback on content. The IRS, still undergoing development, got the hatchet.
Ford, to put the best face forward on this gutting of suspension capability, trotted out some gripes the vocal hard-core drag racers had over the IRS on the previous Cobra -- an bold effort for a chassis never engineered for one and compromised as a result, those compromises showing up primarily at the drag strip. The under the table word was, "don't worry, we had to cut costs to get the GT under $25K, but we'll certainly have it on the SVT versions. It'll be a lot better than the previous version and be M3-level great on road, track or strip." Well, Ford's fortunes plummet further, the beancounters and suites tighten the belt more and guess what, IRS gets sacked once agian.
Drag racers are happy, heck, they don't need much of any suspension anyways, but the dream of a truly well-rounded world class GT500 gets pared down to a porky, muscle-bound drag car (actually, pretty much like the '67-'68 original was).
Anyways, the lack of an IRS speaks more of Ford's *****rdly desparate moves rather than any aspirational Bold Moves. Stang's are selling well enough anyway -- in its market segment of one car line, the Mustang -- so the suites figure it handles well enough and that's just gonna have to be good enough. Bold, world class aspirations? Yeah, right, good ad copy but I see little real evidence of any real engineering boldness.
But back to topic, somewhat, the S197 wasn't based of the the LS platform as often speculated, it was a basically a clean sheet design that apparently had IRS capacity built in, probably with the idea of using this platform more broadly for more upscale models and cars. But Ford's tortured development processess and dire R&D situation forced the Stang to cutback on content. The IRS, still undergoing development, got the hatchet.
Ford, to put the best face forward on this gutting of suspension capability, trotted out some gripes the vocal hard-core drag racers had over the IRS on the previous Cobra -- an bold effort for a chassis never engineered for one and compromised as a result, those compromises showing up primarily at the drag strip. The under the table word was, "don't worry, we had to cut costs to get the GT under $25K, but we'll certainly have it on the SVT versions. It'll be a lot better than the previous version and be M3-level great on road, track or strip." Well, Ford's fortunes plummet further, the beancounters and suites tighten the belt more and guess what, IRS gets sacked once agian.
Drag racers are happy, heck, they don't need much of any suspension anyways, but the dream of a truly well-rounded world class GT500 gets pared down to a porky, muscle-bound drag car (actually, pretty much like the '67-'68 original was).
Anyways, the lack of an IRS speaks more of Ford's *****rdly desparate moves rather than any aspirational Bold Moves. Stang's are selling well enough anyway -- in its market segment of one car line, the Mustang -- so the suites figure it handles well enough and that's just gonna have to be good enough. Bold, world class aspirations? Yeah, right, good ad copy but I see little real evidence of any real engineering boldness.
8/9/06, 06:22 PM
#31
FR500 Member
Join Date: August 15, 2005
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 3,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has to be cost-cutting for sure, because if Ford really listened to the opinions of its customers, cars like the GT500 would've had things like an AL block, one-piece AL or CF driveshaft, and made of lighter materials. The Mustang GT would've had a standard 6-spd. transmission, a bigger, more powerful V8 engine and most importantly for the "traditional" and "drag racing" crowd - a PUSHROD engine for all V8 powered versions, which, looks like will come to pass. And yes, the FR500C does well with the SRA (credit goes to good engineering around its limitations), if the Mustang was released with an IRS, would it still be replaced w/SRA? Doubtful. Perhaps Ford should have stuck with a SFA as well - simple, cheap, robust and all that.
8/9/06, 08:41 PM
#32
Legacy TMS Member
Originally Posted by rhumb
Well, Ford's fortunes plummet further, the beancounters and suites tighten the belt more and guess what, IRS gets sacked once agian.
Anyways, the lack of an IRS speaks more of Ford's *****rdly desparate moves rather than any aspirational Bold Moves.
Anyways, the lack of an IRS speaks more of Ford's *****rdly desparate moves rather than any aspirational Bold Moves.
Originally Posted by rhumb
Stang's are selling well enough anyway -- in its market segment of one car line, the Mustang -- so the suites figure it handles well enough and that's just gonna have to be good enough. Bold, world class aspirations? Yeah, right, good ad copy but I see little real evidence of any real engineering boldness.
Have you actually driven an S197 Mustang? If not, I would encourage you to try it. In the limited time I've had mine, I have cornered on bumpy roads and the rear end doesn't step out as much as one might think. It is much more controlled than the SN-95 cars. This is a very smooth driving vehicle.
8/10/06, 01:42 AM
#33
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 17, 2006
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hi5.0
It has to be cost-cutting for sure, because if Ford really listened to the opinions of its customers, cars like the GT500 would've had things like an AL block, one-piece AL or CF driveshaft, and made of lighter materials. The Mustang GT would've had a standard 6-spd. transmission, a bigger, more powerful V8 engine and most importantly for the "traditional" and "drag racing" crowd - a PUSHROD engine for all V8 powered versions, which, looks like will come to pass.
1. Iron blocks are stronger, why do you think all the new BMW motors are iron blocked?
2. YAY for aluminum/cf driveshafts that snap like twigs at the track!!!!
3. Yes because drag racers TOTALLY prefer the 6 speed to the 5 speed.
4. Ford hasn't built a pushrod since the fox body era. Don't hold your breath for that.
8/10/06, 10:13 AM
#34
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: April 30, 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jack Frost
Toyota is now selling more cars *in the US* than Ford.
8/10/06, 10:18 AM
#35
oh, I forgot all about that whole IRS thing, I was too busy driving. 
I also used to own the finest Japanese sports car ever built, the 93 RX7 TT R1. Thank god this car doesn't ride nearly as rough as that one, it would knock out your fillings.
I also used to own the finest Japanese sports car ever built, the 93 RX7 TT R1. Thank god this car doesn't ride nearly as rough as that one, it would knock out your fillings.
8/10/06, 10:32 AM
#36
These threads turn ugly very quickly, lets please try to respect everyone's opinions. I've locked quite a few of these threads in my time.
I am positive the solid axle was used instead of an independant unit for cost reasons. Not to say they didn't do a good job engineering the suspension.
The rear suspension on the Mustang is about the best you can do with a solid rear axle, with a watts linkage being ideal. Nevertheless, there have been sections of rough pavement where I wish it was an IRS.
I've stated many times before, I wish that the IRS was or becomes an option. This would be the best of both worlds and keep everyone happy. I would have gladly paid more for it had it been an option in '05.
I've also read that the recently announced production version Camaro will show up in '09 with an IRS, ditto for the Challenger.
I am positive the solid axle was used instead of an independant unit for cost reasons. Not to say they didn't do a good job engineering the suspension.
The rear suspension on the Mustang is about the best you can do with a solid rear axle, with a watts linkage being ideal. Nevertheless, there have been sections of rough pavement where I wish it was an IRS.
I've stated many times before, I wish that the IRS was or becomes an option. This would be the best of both worlds and keep everyone happy. I would have gladly paid more for it had it been an option in '05.
I've also read that the recently announced production version Camaro will show up in '09 with an IRS, ditto for the Challenger.
8/10/06, 10:39 AM
#37
Plus, look at any old BMW and how sagged out the rear suspension is. Even the GTO we had here did not feel 'right' to drive. I think the live axle makes the Mustang package feel like a mustang. I've driven over 10,000 cars and the modern Mustang has a unique feel no other car has.
8/10/06, 10:55 AM
#38
Cobra Member
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jack Frost
Oh, and I suppose when TexaStang was comparing a FR500C to a road going Mustang earlier in this thread you consider that comparing 'apples to apples'????
My quip about Ford using an IRS in the Ford GT was that clearly Ford, too, believes an IRS is superior to a SRA...otherwise they wouldn't have put an IRS in their premium, flagship sports car.
The IRS vs SRA debate has been done to death. Face it, time and time again it's been shown there is no engineering argument that favours a SRA or an IRS.
The only reason the Mustang has hobbled, again, with a SRA is accounting and poorly misplaced nostalgia.
My quip about Ford using an IRS in the Ford GT was that clearly Ford, too, believes an IRS is superior to a SRA...otherwise they wouldn't have put an IRS in their premium, flagship sports car.
The IRS vs SRA debate has been done to death. Face it, time and time again it's been shown there is no engineering argument that favours a SRA or an IRS.
The only reason the Mustang has hobbled, again, with a SRA is accounting and poorly misplaced nostalgia.
If you want an IRS in a Mustang GT, then put one in it. Since you know so much, it shouldn't be hard for you to fabricate the mounting brackets to install one.
8/10/06, 11:05 AM
#40
Bow Chica Bow Wow
TMS Staff
TMS Staff
I for one was disappointed about the IRS situation... HTT stated the live axle was there because they listened to the customers. This was a complete white wash. The simple fact is Ford couldn't afford, for whatever reason to make the IRS happen and keep the price point they had. I've driven IRS cobras and I'll tell you given the choice I'll take that half baked IRS over any solid rear axle. Considering they cluged it together to fit a chassis never designed for it and actually got it to work better than the solid axle for which the car was designed is awesome. The car handled smoother it road better. It got up and went like all get out and was over all a very well rounded car. (considering the age of the chasis)
For everyday driving IRS is and always will be better.
If a solid axle was a better option for every day use you can sure as heck bet the germans would be using it considering it's cheaper to make..Heck it's a money making venture....if it was better.
For what the new stang is the solid axle is about as good as it could be. The car would be a mustang with or without a solid axle.
in the end the decision was all about money. Right move for the company..only time will tell.
For everyday driving IRS is and always will be better.
If a solid axle was a better option for every day use you can sure as heck bet the germans would be using it considering it's cheaper to make..Heck it's a money making venture....if it was better.
For what the new stang is the solid axle is about as good as it could be. The car would be a mustang with or without a solid axle.
in the end the decision was all about money. Right move for the company..only time will tell.