Jack Frost

The point is...'why do I have too?' This is 2005, not 1975.

To me, the solid rear axle was not an engineering decision, it was an accounting decision...unless somebody here can convince me otherwise.

Ya know, the 2005 GT with a GTO suspension *could* have been the 'perfect' car.

holderca1

The point is...'why do I have too?' This is 2005, not 1975.

To me, the solid rear axle was not an engineering decision, it was an accounting decision...unless somebody here can convince me otherwise.

Ya know, the 2005 GT with a GTO suspension *could* have been the 'perfect' car. [/b][/quote]
Actually I would rather have the solid rear axle anyways.

bsu legato

I stopped reading after the remark about how Toronto gets "bitterly cold."

Jack Frost

Too bad for us you also didn't know better than to stop posting as well...

Dan

Hey......now THAT's low. :nono:

holderca1

Ah, bitter cold is relative, what is bitter cold to one person is not bitter cold to another. Bitter cold to me is about 40 degrees.

swingle007

Watch out.....the Canadians are turning on each other now....LOL

Dan

Jack, I live in T.O. as well and commute. Yes, the live axle can get somewhat unsettled going over potholes, catchbasens etc. I drive in the city everyday and don't find it that bad myself.

Yes, it was obviously a cost issue. But I really think we have a great setup nonetheless. We have the strength of the live axle (don't have to worry about snapping some cost-saving IRS setup) and we have one that has produced the fastest slalom time (as tested by Motortrend) since the race-intended 2000 Cobra R. Yes, even quicker than the IRS equipped 03/04 Cobra as shoehorned in as it may be.

I have alwayed liked IRS and would have initially chose it over the live axle. However, looking at the pros and cons of the current setup and an IRS setup, I'd be hard-pressed to pic one over the other.

Durability is a nice thing to have. Plus, some of our great 60' times are definately a result of the 3-link. I doubt you could do as good with an IRS setup.

You and a member named "rhumb" should talk though. He feels as strongly as you about this. LOL.

Dan

Rampant

It is tough to argue durability in modern rear IRS systems when so many "lower priced/high hp" vehicles have them these days (GTO w/ 400 hp/tq, SRT-8, 425hp, etc.).

Now, what type of IRS would be an interesting discussion. Multi-link IRS like the Cryslers v. semi-trailing arms like the GTO?

Personally, I really hope Ford comes out with an SE with IRS that isn't that much more expensive than the standard GT. That way, people could have their chioce.

Don't think it is going to happen though. I have a feeling only the top of the line Cobra (whatever they call it) will get the IRS. Who know though?

BillP

The point is...'why do I have too?' This is 2005, not 1975.

To me, the solid rear axle was not an engineering decision, it was an accounting decision...unless somebody here can convince me otherwise.

Ya know, the 2005 GT with a GTO suspension *could* have been the 'perfect' car. [/b][/quote]
All I know is that my neighbor's father (a racer by profession) was asking me about my car. When I told him how they transitioned to a 3-link rear suspension with a Panhard rod, he said "That's what everyone is running on the track these days". He was very impressed.

A good IRS would be nicer. Heavier, but nicer.

We'd probably have a car that weighs a bit more, handled nicer on the street, and would be a bit slower 0-1320.

bsu legato

Too bad for us you also didn't know better than to stop posting as well... [/b][/quote]
Now now....no need to lash out. My problem with your initial post is that, based on your portrayal of Toronto as both bitterly cold and as having poor roads, I have trouble putting much stock in your comments on the '05's handling. Considering that TO is (according to The Weather Network) a balmy +3 Celcius compared to the Peg's -35 (including windchill) and the fact that I found your roads nowhere near as bad as my own the last time I was there, your comments of the rear end hop, the non-composed nature of the ride and its tiring nature also begin to lose weight. But hey....one man's "crock of s**t" might not even be noticed by somebody else.

But as you initially pointed out, this has been discussed ad nauseum.

bob

Dont forget rock solid reliable due to its K.I.S.S engineering. as well as cheap to mod and maintain.

No wimpy halfshafts or CV's to blow all over the track.

Mellow Yellow

Look, its pretty simple. Ford wanted the Mustang to come in around the 25k range for the GT, and to do this they had to make sacrifices. One of those sacrifices is the exclusion of IRS.

This topic has been beaten to death 1000 times over on this site, can we please let it die.

Also, nice way to introduce yourself, first thread you have started and you kick in with the personal attacks. Congrats.

Montrose

Well, there's no hockey these days! :bang: :bang:

Except, of course, the junior championship in North Dakota.

Jack Frost

Now now....no need to lash out. My problem with your initial post is that, based on your portrayal of Toronto as both bitterly cold and as having poor roads, I have trouble putting much stock in your comments on the '05's handling. Considering that TO is (according to The Weather Network) a balmy +3 Celcius compared to the Peg's -35 (including windchill) and the fact that I found your roads nowhere near as bad as my own the last time I was there, your comments of the rear end hop, the non-composed nature of the ride and its tiring nature also begin to lose weight. But hey....one man's "crock of s**t" might not even be noticed by somebody else.

But as you initially pointed out, this has been discussed ad nauseum. [/b][/quote]
That's cool. All is good

When was the last time you were in Toronto? I've been living here all my life and really, over the last 5 years, the road quality has taken a real sharp dive. Yeah, we've had a warm spell last few days which has cleared the roads...only to reveal pot holes so big there are homeless peeps living in them.

My point about the bitter cold in Toronto is that our typical effective temperature range is -35 deg C to +35 deg C, with intense humidity in the summer...all of this takes it's toll on roads that experience, shall we say, SIGNIFICANTLY more traffic than anything up your way (the 401 through Toronto is the busiest highway in North America).

Some of you have indicated that you actually prefer the solid rear axle. I'd like to know why.

Anyway, I really do LOVE the car...which is why I'm so passionate about this issue.

ZRX4ME

jack, beside the strength issue(I occasionally drag race),the IRS is expensive to maintain.My wife had a '03 mountaineer with IRS and it cost a fortune for a alignment-over $100.The '05 stang handles just fine for me without the IRS and if the new cobra comes out with over 450hp,I just may have to live with a IRS.

nynvolt

Is there really that big a differance? I've driven cars with both and quite honestly I wouldn't know my Mustang didn't have one by driving it. It feels fairly soft to me over rough roads and we have quite a few of them here. I have yet to make this car feel uncomfortably unstable on any surface or corner. I don't push it to 9/10ths or anything close to that but it handles better than my last car, which was much lighter, smaller and had independant suspension.

I really don't understand the complaint. World class car on a blue collar income? Not going to happen. If it had IRS, then it would be something else magazine writers, reviewers and the finiky public to complain about.

Like you, I don't buy into the "our customers demad a solid rear axle" explaination, but I don't really care how they market it. I love the car, I love the solid rear axle and I even love the useless change holder in the inaccessable center console. I have yet to find a legit reason to complain about this car, except I can't afford two.

Galaxie

First off everyone, thanks for keeping this discussion civil, these ones usually get out of hand.

JackFrost, I as well am from Toronto, and see your point (especially with the Toronto roads)

Since I don't drag race, I too would have preferred an IRS just for that extra bit of refinement. I am sure the solid axle was a cost-cutting issue, because I don't think they could have sold the car at the same price otherwise. I probably wouldn't be able to afford a Mustang GT if the price went any higher (IMO, spending over $40K CDN is a lot)

If there was a simlarly equipped competitor to the Mustang with an IRS and 300HP RWD V8, then I would be the first one complaining. What is the closest 2+2 competitor to the Mustang? the G35? it is about $10,000CDN more than Mustang GT. (note: no GTO's available in Canada)

I think Ford has a winner either way, but I hope that the IRS setup that they are hopefully working on for the SVT model trickles down for an S/E or maybe even an option on the GT.

jsaylor

The thing I don't understand about the IRS debate is that the live axle rear actually does handle very well. There are some rough-road issued involved as with any live-axle car. But, I have driven several live-axle and IRS cars plenty fast on smooth and not-so-smooth roads, and can say that IMO if you are a good driver the differences are more in the semantics than in genuine capability. IRS is nice, but it has it's unsettling characteristics too.

If Ford were to have changed anything in the 05 Mustang, there are several things I would have picked well before IRS. A six-speed (mostly to place 3rd and 4th gear cloer together) and a bit better steering (heavier, more feel) would have both made me happier than IRS would have. However, for the money and I am blown away that it is as good as it is.

Jack Frost

Not so sure.

I think they could have thrown in an IRS and kept the price the same. It was the accountants and marketing dept., as I've been saying all along, who KNEW the car would sell itself based on it's looks and heritage alone.

So, they cheated us out of a IRS to increase their margins.

If the 2005 Mustang was an all new vehicle/nameplate...there is no doubt it would be packaged with an IRS.

And those of you that say you prefer a solid rear axle for it's alleged strength because you drag race...c'mon, no way Ford took this into consideration when designing the car...you guys probably represent, what?, 1% or 2% of the Mustang buying public.