holderca1

I don't drag race and I prefer the SRA.

jsaylor

I think that when people look at the IRS versus live axle argument they look at it backwords, at least when they try to look at it from Ford's point of view. The IRS may not cost much more to put in the car, but what Ford is going to look at is will this added cost sell any more cars, or allow us to demand a higher price versus a IRS car. Some one within Ford obviously said no, and from current Mustang demand I would have to say they were right.

For this to make sense to those of you who continue thinking IRS would have simply added 500 dollars to the price of the car.....Stop thinking of it as "Ford could raise the price if IRS were there" and think of it more as a "Ford did not lower the price because IRS is not there". The live axle is a cost cutting issue, NOT a price cutting issue. The price would likely have been the same as it is now or within a few dollars if IRS was there truth be told. Ford simply went the route of higher profit.

Jack Frost

Well said.

What I am contending is that Ford's decision was short sighted.

If an IRS would have added $500 to the price...they would have still sold as many cars, plus they would have attracted a whole new audience. For example, those with a RX8 would have been taking a hard look at trading in.

Go to any RX8 forum, and, flamers aside, there is a positive sentiment towards our car...but most owners aren't considering trading in their RX8 for a 2005 Mustang because they just can't get past the new Mustang's suspension.

I really believe Ford would have taken BACK a big chunk of market share from the Japanese...something they need to be doing NOW.

Note: when I was picking up my car from the dealership...parked next to my car was an Audi Quattro TT that had been traded in for a 2005 GT, so maybe Ford has reclaimed some market share from foreign makes.

BTW, this just in from Reuters:

"Automakers garnered attention on Wall Street as they began to announce their December sales figures. Ford Motor Co. fell 7 cents to $14.64 after it said last month's sales fell 3.6 percent and 2004 sales were down 4.9 percent. "

Galaxie

Jack Frost,

you do make an excellent point. I am sure they have lost a few sales from Japanese/european car owners who view the lack of IRS as abominable.

Again, because most of those cars are much more expensive than a GT, I think that a it would be a good idea for Ford to come out with a special edition with IRS priced between the Cobra and GT. That would put it right at the same price point as the RX8, GTO, 350Z, etc.

I do agree with jsaylor, I would have rather had a good 6-speed transmission as opposed to an IRS if I had a choice between the two.

max2000jp

I would have gladly paid a couple hundred bucks for a "IRS" package had Ford offered it. Whats an extra $500 bucks to finance, hardly anything. I would have also paid gladly for another gear in the transmission. No matter how you try to justify the 3 link in the new GT, it is inferior to a well setup IRS. You can make a fairly reliable IRS setup for those hardcore dragracers too. Look at what guys have done with the Supra and C5 Vettes. As said before, the decision was made on purely profits, not what the consumer had in mind. The reason Ford is in business is to make as great of a profit it can.

Jack Frost

And to do that, Ford first has to give the market what it demands...and in 2005 the market demands an IRS on ANY sports car.

The sales figures that I quoted above bear that out.

Yeah, they're selling the 2005 by the boat load...but I wonder how much is going to the existing fan base? If they're not reaching or converting new customers with the '05, the sales figures have to be considered bittersweet.

The Cobra or SE as mentioned by Galaxie better come...SOON. Until it does, the supposed IRS in those offerings is mere vapourware.

And, BTW, good point about the C5 & Supra showing that an IRS based car can be used for serious drag racing.

jsaylor

I am not certain that I get your point here. You point out that Ford's sales are down, but then acknowledge that Mustang sales are pretty much insatiable right now (they are) If Mustang sales are fantastic, and they are, I miss the point. Ford simply cannot build enough ponies as it is.....adding IRS would change nothing because it could not, production is maxed.

If you believe that the lack of IRS hinders the Mustang's image, and it would seem that you do, I can understand the logic. However, Mustang sales, especially for the GT, are exceeding expectations by a good margin and far outstripping supply. As it is right now it would appear that the Mustang GT will not be capable of meeting demand for several years.

If there is a concern within Ford about converting import owners I would think it would be with the V-6 car, and a more sophisticated base motor would probably help that car far more than IRS would. I think a DOHC V-6 (250+hp), optional 17" wheels and tires, a few other tweaks would all help more than IRS would.

As I alluded to before if I were in charge there are several issues that I would tweak on the basic car itself (GT or V-6) before the IRS issue. A 6-speed gearbox for the GT, improved steering feel, better instrument cluster layout (looks great, works okay), and a slight hp/tq boost for the GT would all be ahead of IRS for me. Just my .02.

I might look at IRS, but it would be pretty far down on my list.

max2000jp

I would say that the production being maxed out is caused by a lack of realistic planning on Fords part. An IRS GT Mustang would attract import customers who are cross shopping RX8's, 350Zs, etc. These cars are in the price range of the GT and all offer superior suspension designs. Ford should have given GT owners a more extensive options list. I would have gladly paid for a IRS sport suspension(with real tires), a T56, heated seats, HIDs, etc.

Jack Frost

As I recall, the purpose of the 2005 Mustang were two fold: 1) create the first 300 bhp car for $US 25K, and 2) make an 'entry' level car that youth will buy and hopefully, retain that market segment as they age and make their more upscale purchases.

On point 2, clearly, the Mustang was designed to address Ford's declining market share...and I don't think it will. While the Mustang sales are stellar, I think those numbers are being fuelled by existing Mustang fans, past and present. This, however, will not address Fords market share problem in the long run.

My point is...With the Mustang, they should also be reaching out to NEW buyers...those that drive something like a RX8, celica, supra, Golf, Mazda6, etc., etc., and I think they missed that opportunity by saddling the 2005 Mustang with an archaic suspension.

Go to any OTHER car forum, and there's one consistent focus when they discuss our car: the Mustang's lack of IRS.

Time will tell, and I hope it proves me wrong.

A six speed would have been nice, better brake feel would also be on my list. But other than the lack of IRS, I think the 2005 Mustang is a solid package.

BillP

Pun intended?

;-)

hiznherponies

You know, this topic will never be settled until Ford brings out the IRS(if they do). Funny thing is, I always thought that the Mustang was not supposd to be so"refined", look at the original coupes!! If you think the current suspension is "archaic", try driving a '66 coupe around like you do your '05. And you know, everyone just loved the camaro's rear suspension with its torque-arm, where's it now. And if the GTO has such a good suspension and HP, why is it not selling? I mean, the BMW's are just as ugly, and they're not having any trouble selling them!! Make the IRS an option, and let peeps chose what they want!! Me, I'll take the current setup!! B)

jsaylor

I suppose the reason I just cannot bring myself to criticize the new pony for it's lack of IRS is because it is just such a good back-to-basics Mustang. For all the criticism people may want to throw at it, the car is amazingly successful because it is far and away the best Mustang in a very long time. The car has reclaimed it's identity in a huge way, and that is something cars like the RX8 and 350Z seem to lack.

The reverse of this IMO would be the Porsche 928. It has been said over and over again that the failure of the 928 is due to the fact that while is was a far better car than the 911 it was supposed to replace, it was a horrible Porsche. People want identity and character in their car, and the Mustang delivers in spades. For that matter do do the new F-150 and 500.

I am also impressed that Ford seems willing to rest on the laurels of none of these vehicles addressing areas they feel could be improved within two years of each vehicles launch according to rumours. In the face of a car line that had become somewhat dissappointing, I would much rather see Mustang's, F-150's, and sedans that are really great Fords first and great cars second than vehicles that are flawless out of the box but with little or no real character.

If Ford stays on the track they have laid I have no doubt they will be flourishing like no time in their history in a few years. If, they apply the wisdom they have shown with Ford product to the Lincoln and Mercury lines that is.

Dan

You don't have to drag to get the benifits of the live-axle's strength. I've launched hard off a stop and the rear hooks up incredibly well. Whereas with IRS, I may have experienced some wheel hop on similar launches.

I'm not saying IRS isn't better than live axle, I'm just saying that our setup in the 05 is pretty amazing for a live axle. I think its really isn't that big a deal as it may have been if the 3-link didn't perform as well as it does.

I personally didn't buy this car to have cushy suspension. I would have bought a buick if I didn't want to feel the road. I have a feeling that Ford accountants wanted a regular ox-cart axle back there and some of the engineers such as Hau Thai-Tang fought to make it a world-class live-axle. The cup is half-full for me and that is because I'm very happy with the car.

Dan

I don't think they have. People in the market for a mustang will buy it with or without IRS. Maybe that's part of what denied Jack his IRS. Mustang buyers don't DEMAND IRS, so Ford can get away without putting it in the GT.

danazar

This sentiment is exactly why Ford put a solid axle in the Mustang... here, read from this article on the subject:

max2000jp

I don't think they have. People in the market for a mustang will buy it with or without IRS. Maybe that's part of what denied Jack his IRS. Mustang buyers don't DEMAND IRS, so Ford can get away without putting it in the GT. [/b][/quote]
I am one of the few owners who does demand an IRS, but I liked the car so much I comprimised. After this car, hopefully I can afford an IRS car such as the new Cobra or C6 Z06. I am one of the few Mustang owners who will take my Stang to open track sessions, instead of the drag strip.

ManEHawke

I think it was a tossup on choosing from VCT or IRS, right? They chose VCT.

adrenalin

I love the fact that FORD thought that the "youth" would buy this car. Aparently FORD and some of the "youth's" didn't contact thier car insurance companies for rates.

I agree that this was a cost cutting move by FORD, no different than removing the intake cover, which, I would have gladly paid more for the car to have both but then again, I have no issues with what I have

Shea

Solid axle is cheaper, lighter, more durable, and you can switch the gears out fairly easily, as swingle007 has already done.

Nuff said.

If you want IRS, buy an SE. Leave the rest of us alone.

max2000jp

I just get a kick out of how Ford said Mustang owners demanded the 3 link. I for one didnt demand an inferior suspension. Modern sports cars have IRS suspensions, thus a modernized Mustang should have one too. A solid axle ISNT lighter where it really counts, unsprung weight. So you are also losing some handling prowless when Ford cheaped out and went with the solid axle.