Well if indeed the Challenger is +/-250 lbs heavier, 10 inches longer on a +/-8.5" lonfer wheelbase, and 5 inches wider it's gonna need more than IRS to keep up with a Mustang (GT500). Especially if it's riding on the 20" rims . . . all add up to not very conducive performance numbers. (Let's be fair, if perceived numbers can be based upon known stats for the GT500 the same can be done with the Challenger and those Challenger stats don't sound very sporting.) And at least there is a Mustang racing program to further enhance the vehicle.

But I digress . . .

 

One thing that SRT has... is their 'halo engines'
Which makes it easy to dump into a lot of their cache of cars, and makes R/D $$ spread across the board.
If its an 8, you know its getting the 6.1 Hemi.
If its a 10, you know its the Viper Engine
etc etc.

Technically...SVT could (Should really) do the same.
The old Cobra engine could be the 'R/T' versions for the Ford Lineup
The new Cobra engine could be the 'SRT' versions for the SVT lineup
Supercharge the new 3.5L Cyclone engine for the SVT V6 applications... and spread it accross the board.

 

haha, ok then... but only because you continue to duck the GTO example. Anyway, the last thing we need is another IRS thread, so consider it dropped.

 

Ford/SVT should actually be ashamed of itself -- especially in light of SRT. And I am not even talking about starting with base cars that have outdated technology in the first place.

The fact it has taken so long for Ford to do little more than an engine, brakes, and recalibrate some of the suspension settings is a joke. Look how quickly DCX brings out the SRT version of their cars -- and they do just as much alterations (if not more) as Ford did with the GT500.

And, when SRT does bring out the performance versions, they don't stop with the big stuff (engine, brakes, aero) -- they follow it through with the details. Forged 20" wheels (no heavier than the regular 18s), real seats, etc.

Plus, there are performance versions of almost every car they sell, and yet Ford can only upgrade the Mustang after 2 years? Why isn't there an SVT Fusion based off the MazdaSpeed 6 coming out soon? Where is the SVT Focus? Or the Adrenalin?

The problems are many for Ford -- but it starts with their unfocused product lineup and "cheap at all cost" mentality. Just look what Diamler did for Chrylser -- upscale their cars, create a clearly defined image, increase the price by a little, stop rebates, and, holy cow, they are making money.

It just goes to show that if you make desierable products, people will pay the money for it.

 

I agree. You really can't compare two cars that haven't even hit the market yet (or for the instance of the Challenger given the green light for that matter)

In my opinion I think SVT puts a bit more into their cars then SRT does. Right now they are on hiatus while building and designing a new lineup for us, which is the way I would prefer. I rather wait and have it done right than just drop a S/C 5.4 into a S197 and call it a Cobra and thats it.

All in all the competition is good though. Better cars are created

I guess you should go and tell HTT how to do his job then right?

I think the gentleman has his reasons and may be just slightly more qualified to help design the car. I'll leave it at that.

 

As for the Challenger, its size and mass may prove to be a bit of an Achille's heel, performance-wise. On the other hand, their excellent Hemi motors and finely-tuned Mercedes E-class based suspension really does an effective job of shedding the negative effects of excess mass, if not completely so.

SRT does seem to sweat the details a bit better than SVT, at least as far as the GT500, where Ford seems to be trying to foist the least content for the most money they think they can get away with (and being rather dismissive of those who try to call them on that.) The GT500 seats, for example, are little more than warmed over and tarted up Mustang GT seats whereas the seats in, say, the Magnum or 300 SRTs are fabulous upgrades.

If rumors of a $40K+ GT500 are true, then it seems that the SRTs represent better (overall performance, not simply straightline) bang for the buck, more along the lines of Colletti's SVTs.

And again, SRT keeps spitting out new models with clockwork regularity whereas with SVT, it seems like they've been trying to poop out a bowling ball with the GT500 for two years.

 

There was an SVT Focus. The SVT Fusion will be getting the 3.5 engine, rather than the Turbo from the Mazda6. The 3.5 is not out yet. Were is the Adrenalin? Do you think the SVT version of a vehicle could hit the showroom before the non-SVT version is even available?

 

Why isn't there still a Focus SVT, appropriately updated to maintain competitiveness?

Where is the Lighting to compete with SRTs V10 truck?

Will it take 2-3 agonizing years of excrutiating development before a Fusion SVT sees the light of day (with suitabel diminution of content and bloat of price vs. its Mazdaspeed cousin)? And that 3.5 should have been out 5 years ago. That it's only now becoming a reality and will only slowly be dribbled throughout the product line is pathetic.

What about a 500 SVT as that's been out for a while? As it's basically a Volvo S80 platform, why not just use its excellent twin-turbo L6, ought to be a drop in.

What about all the other vehicles in the Ford stable? Sure, Ford's excuse might be that they don't have the money, but that might be confusing cause and effect. The reason they don't have any money is that they have not invested and developed wisely in the first place.

Skimping now in some piecemeal effort, as they have been doing, will only solidify their woeful situation, not rescue them from it.

 

 

Qualifications aren't the issue here. Corporate philosophy is. And Ford's corporate philosophy with the Mustang is to cut corners whereever possible to save money. Now granted, their financial difficulties are part of the reason, but even that doesn't explain using IRS in the new SportTrac.

And you still can't explain why NO OTHER automaker in the world uses SRA in their performance cars anymore. Why is that, I wonder?

As I said, there IS NO debate about this for the rest of the world...only on Mustang boards it seems.

 

Well, I'm sorry to break your heart but I'm gonna have to trust that HTT knows what he's doing.

I don't think "cutting corners" is the reason at all. Both SRA and IRS have their advantages and their disadvantages no matter how you slice it. I am positive that if he would have decided IRS was better for the application he would have pushed for it. The man has been infatuated with Mustangs ever since he saw his first one in Saigon during the Vietnam war. He isn't going to allow something detrimental to be done to a car that he is just as excited about as the rest of us Mustang fans.

In all seriousness, Brad is going to have dinner with Hau and Carroll. Why don't you ask him to have him give you a reason to your question. You may be surprised.

 

Contrasting Ford and DCX, it would seem as if its PVO/SRT team(s) get involved with the development of their vehicles at an earlier stage. Ford seems to treat SVT versions of its vehicles more like an afterthought. (Poor overall product planning?) Just an opinion, but seeing how quickly each respective company releases the higher performance versions in their model lineup, I wouldn't be surprised if this was indeed true.

 

Just some points to mark if we want to really get into this debate . .

1) Ford had A LOT of money back in the late '80's & '90's . .A LOT. But unfortunately Mr. Nasser wanted to buy up every thing insight and neglected Ford Motor Company . . .and sorry to say the company is STILL paying for it.

2) Ford is on their first restructuring plan and about to go into their second. Now, one can make an argument that IF Ford had some more appealing products that this second restructuring program wouldn't be needed. And I agree . . .BUT where is the money supposed to come from??

3) I don't pretend to know what's going on within FMC, but I do like the direction the company is headed. Their car sales are up 2% this year . . big deal . . well it is a pretty big deal. Now FMC has some offereings to those who are getting out of the truck/SUV market. Enough offerings? Topnotch Offerings? Getting there . . .

4) I don't think Ford should offer a SVT model for every model.

5) Tell me the name of the Pony car that's been around for over 40 years?! Did the Camaro last that long? Challenger? Firebird? Charger? Ford and those who have purchased a Mustang over the last 40 years must know a little something or it would have died . .which we all know almost happened.

6) I do agree that Ford has many short comings, and they have a long way to go, but wait a while.

So . . . it's 'OK' to wait til 2008 for a "NEW" Challenger/Camaro, but heaven forbid SVT go through a little restructuring?!

I'm tired . . . .

 

Wow Jason!!! Good points!!

I don't think I'm the only one to point this out, but don't discredit yourself. You know more than you think. More than me and I work for Ford!

 

ok i understand this whole argument goin on here. Ill be straight, i love SRT, i think there cars are great, especailly since they include it across all there brands. The thing about SVT is, im just goin to asume......isnt it possible that SVT hasnt produced anything lately because SVT's staff is MUCH smaller than SRT's? thats just an assumption but it does make sense. especially since ford is in the process of getting there hineys back into gear for their mainstream products. And if SVT's staff is a lot smaller, who cares that there not producing anything just yet.....whats there to produce yet anyways?

the NEW 2005 mustang......take some time and get done what needs to be done to get it RIGHT

the NEW 2005 or 6 fusion, forgot what year they labled it as, same as the mustang.

the NEW explorer,

the not even out yet NEW explorer sport/trac

heck even the NEW 500, if they even bothered to consider that

i mean come on these cars pretty much all just came out, give them time and decide what they want to do, and what they CAN do to each.

 

You're not breaking my heart in the least. I suppose there were people who "trusted" the lead design engineer of the Pinto, too - and we all know how that ended up.

Quote:

Originally posted by 1999 Black 35th GT@January 4, 2006, 5:07 PM
I am positive that if he would have decided IRS was better for the application he would have pushed for it. The man has been infatuated with Mustangs ever since he saw his first one in Saigon during the Vietnam war. He isn't going to allow something detrimental to be done to a car that he is just as excited about as the rest of us Mustang fans.

Quoted post

It's called "money"...or rather a lack thereof. Sadly, that trumps all other considerations...including those of HTT's.

<!--QuoteBegin-1999 Black 35th GT@January 4, 2006, 5:07 PM
In all seriousness, Brad is going to have dinner with Hau and Carroll. Why don't you ask him to have him give you a reason to your question. You may be surprised.

Quoted post

[/quote]
I did, but Brad seemed to feel that Carroll Shelby had already made clear the reasons for going with SRA. I just found it a highly simplified, "Official Ford PR" answer.

I'm just going to shut the heck up now and wait to see what Ford unveils next Sunday.

Fingers crossed...

 

Gents, lets not let the topic stray onto a SRA/IRS debate, but it ties in with money.

The reason SVT is suffering is because of the financial situation at the company. When you are struggling to stay afloat your last concern is investing money in low-volume, low margin niche lines. Just like any compotent engineer would want an independant suspension and every gearhead want a turbo'd focus to compete with his neighbour's focus, the power's that be are (hopefully) concentrating on fixing the fundamental flaws in the structure of the company and getting the core products on track.

If I were running the show, I think a little excitement does a lot to change a car company's perception in the media and would have an SVT everything.... but those guys at the top are much smarter than I am

 

I actually have to go with Jason that there should not be an SVT version for every car. My thought is that it will cut into the spending (money and time) on each vehicle if they were to actually make an SVT version of the entire lineup. Just make it a few models and work on them.

There really is no need for the Lightning anymore since Saleen has bestowed on us his version of the F-150, which is much better than the Roush version if you ask me.

Also I like how SVT has headed into designing these topnotch cars and is making the vehicles available to all dealers (so far as I have heard) and not just SVT certified dealers.

In that case I really have to trust his reasoning.

You don't have to like his answer at all. That's completely up to you and is absolutely fine.

We'll see what comes in 3 days now. It's all speculation until the car is unwrapped.

 

Is the challenger even going into production? I havent seen a final body design if it has. So this is more of a production car vs concept...and what would be the point of that?

 

Its not even introduced yet as a concept.

Concept - 2006 Detroit Auto Show
Production model - 2008 or 2009