Agreed, that burnout is awesome!!!

 

The picture of the Mustang drapped in the American Flag is Priceless!!!

Thanks for posting!!

 

[rant]
Is anybody else getting a little annoyed with every single rag having something to say about the live axle? It's always the same thing! "Hyuck, hyuck! The car looks like a classic, so Ford decided to put in the same axle as the originals." "Retro rear end for a retro pony," blah, blah, blah.

It's there, and it's not the worst thing in the world to have a live rear axle, so couldn't they come up with a little more originality in their writing? How about praising the car for its extremely low performance-to-dollar ratio? Or for being the cheapest V8 on the market? Come on, it's pretty much the base V8 car in the Mustang world. Compromises are made in every vehicle in production.

[/rant]

 

Every rag will say this...expect it. The proof will be in the numbers IMO.

 

Yeah you know what's funny? The live axle that Ford is using is actually very modern! There are no leaf springs involved, unlike the IRS in the Corvette, and the springs and antiroll bar are place to absorb all driving forces. Sure it isn't a 5 point IRS but you have your basic three points. Middle, right, left. That's all you need. An IRS is kind of like this....

Live axle

1 - 2 - 3

IRS

1 - 1.5 - 2 - 2.5 -3

 

Yeah, it just reminds me somewhat of the whole Bennifer thing. Every single rag had something to say about them, and it just got sickening after seeing them on the cover of 500 magazines. I'd buy a magazine just because it DIDN'T have anything about them in it. Well, that's a stretch, but you see my point.

That's a good point, Steve. I'm hoping this suspension surprises everyone.

 

"Stinks" compared to what? I think the auto guys are all going to be very happy with how the auto compares to the manual. By adding that 5th gear, Ford has been able to give the auto better out-of-the-hole performance that the manual (IMO ). Just look at the gear ratios. The 1st three are really packed together, tighter than the manual! And the 3rd to 4th (1:1) split is almost identical to the old 4-speed auto 2nd to 3rd (1:1) split. It only feels weaker because the 1st three pull so hard.

My prediction is that the manual will out-run the auto at the drag strip, coming from behind to do it, but the auto is going to be king at the stoplight Grand Prix!

The Boss Hog
(Time will tell . . . . . . . . )

 

I agree with The Boss Hog. I don't know what M/T is talking about:

5R55S - 1st 3.22 - 2nd 2.29 - 3rd 1.54 - 4th 1.00 - 5th 0.71
4R70 - - - - - - - - - 1 st 2.84 - 2nd 1.55 - 3rd 1.00 - 4th 0.70

So you can see that 2nd, 3rd & 4th in the 99-04 Mustang ATX are essentially identical to 3rd, 4th & 5th in the '05 ATX.

In addition, the ratio progression is:
1st - 2nd 71%
2nd - 3rd 67%
3rd - 4th 65 %
4th - 5th 71 %

That is a pretty darned good grear progression in my book.

If I could pick any ratios I wanted I would go with:
1st 3.5, 2nd 2.3, 3rd 1.4, 4th 1.0, 5th .7 But with planetary gear sets you cannot just randomly select gear ratio. In addition, 2nd gear in the 5R55S is 1st gear x OD, so 2nd gear is tied to the 0D & 1st gear ratios.

I have owned 2 cars with 5R55 trannies and the gear ratio spacing is just fine on them.

As a side note, Ford could program the 5R55S to have 6 gears. The 6th gear would be 3rd x OD giving it a ratio of 1.093:1. But Ford chose not to do this because the extra gear would be so close to 4th it would be of little use and parisitic losses would most likely be higher than in direct 1.00 ratio.

 

gotta love MT they hate ford so much. that the car rocks and they talk more about something trivial theydont like then the goods the car brought. they are just mad the automatic mustang kept with the 6 spd GTO. and will probably handle better too. cant wait for the 05 GT versus the 04 GTO test. thats gonna be sweet!

 

You think so? I think the GT will seriously own the 04 GTO. The 400hp 2005 GTO might beat the GT, but not by much. The GT certainly beats it in price and looks.

 

I never thought MT hated ford, did you read the article in the last issue, comparing the GT40, carrera GT, and the enzo. It was a compliment to ford to include the GT40 in what they call the four fastest cars, those three plus the SLR. MT is obviously quite pleased with the GT. And their review of the Freestyle in this issue is quite positive too.
I think it just totally depends on the writer of the article. But then they did just get a new editor, and i wouldn't be surprised if he's less into the mustang than Kevin Smith was. The new guy also seems thrilled about the 300, so i'm not too sure about the Stang's car of the year chances now.

 

I hate to spoil the party here but I have to give my .02 cents worth. As a mustang man myself, currently owning an '04 Mach 1, I find that everyones a little over optimistic about the 0-60 and quarter mile times. Now thats not to say the car is going to stink. I think it happens to be a beautiful car, however, 0-60 in 4.8 seconds and the quarter at 13.6 just doesn't seem plausible. You guys are telling me that a 300 hp 5 speed weighing 3425 pounds is going to out accelerate a 390 hp supercharged 6 speed 3600 pound car? I just don't see it happening. I think the new mustang is fast but I believe we must wait until the dust settles and we see what the real performance numbers are. Oh and please don't accuse me of being jealous of the new car because I'm not, I just want to get the facts straight. Because the information we have currently just doesn't sound right.

 

How about a car with 235 hp and 330lbs of torque (flywheel for both), weighing 3520lbs going 0-60 in 4.9 seconds and quarter mile in 13.9@ 98mph.

1986 Buick Grand National did it in CAR & Driver in 1986.

See http://panthers.pnc.edu/dmudri00/GN/intercooled.htm

Now not every GN tested in magazines in 1986 gave 0-60 this fast but at least one did.

That automatic 05 Mustang GT that did 0-60 in 5.1 seconds in MotorTrend may have been a really fast one (kinda like the GN above). Only more road tests will tell what the realistic performance is.

 

0-60 is all about hooking up off the line.

The 2005 Mustang has it all over the '03-04 Cobra.

1. 54/47% F/R weight balance instead of 57/43%, this IS a big deal.
2. 3 link solid rear axle. The Cobra IRS can be tricky to launch hard w/o wheel hop.
3. The 6 speed trannie in the Cobra means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You are only going to shift from 1st to second in a 0-60 run. In fact, the 6 speed in the Cobra is a disadvantage. The T6 as used in the Cobra has a 2.66 1st gear ratio and a 1.78 2nd gear ratio. The T3650 used in the '05 GT has a 3.38 1st gear ratio and a 2.00 2nd gear ratio. They both have 3.55 rear end gears.

So the Cobra max torque in 1st gear is 1,037 lb ft (2.66 x 390)
The '05 GT max torque in 1st gear is 1,024 lb ft (3.38 x 320 x .94) The .94 is to correct for the '05 GT's larger diameter tires.

So now you understand why an '05 GT is almost as fast as an '03-04 Cobra in a 0-60 run.

 

Good argument, V10!

Not to mention that the GT is more than likely underrated at 300 hp.

 

Thanks for the info guys. Only time will tell. Keep'em smoking!

 

0-60 is all about hooking up off the line.

The 2005 Mustang has it all over the '03-04 Cobra.

1. 54/47% F/R weight balance instead of 57/43%, this IS a big deal.
2. 3 link solid rear axle. The Cobra IRS can be tricky to launch hard w/o wheel hop.
3. The 6 speed trannie in the Cobra means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You are only going to shift from 1st to second in a 0-60 run. In fact, the 6 speed in the Cobra is a disadvantage. The T6 as used in the Cobra has a 2.66 1st gear ratio and a 1.78 2nd gear ratio. The T3650 used in the '05 GT has a 3.38 1st gear ratio and a 2.00 2nd gear ratio. They both have 3.55 rear end gears.

So the Cobra max torque in 1st gear is 1,037 lb ft (2.66 x 390)
The '05 GT max torque in 1st gear is 1,024 lb ft (3.38 x 320 x .94) The .94 is to correct for the '05 GT's larger diameter tires.

So now you understand why an '05 GT is almost as fast as an '03-04 Cobra in a 0-60 run. [/b][/quote]
V10 thanks for the calculations. Do you think with a little taller tire for the strip only it could carry the 1/4 in third without having to shift to 4th?

 

That just means that Ford did such a good job at keeping the g force acceleration under control via better suspension etc LOL

 

nothing a set of 4:10's couldnt fix haha

 

Well, suspension design IS a huge element of a car's overall performance portfolio, and thus, yes, the retention of a live axle rear design is worthy of comment/praise/scorn/whatever regarding its performance in various venues, be it track, strip, street, road or highway.

Of course, it is very impressive that the Mustang does give such a high bang-for-the-buck ratio, particularly in a straight line and yes, compromises were made to reach a low price point, particularly in regards to the rear suspension. But it would be irresponsible for reviewers to ignore that, even while praising the Stang's many good qualities.

That said, the '05's live axle should be orders of magnatude better than the SN95s design, even if it won't completely escape some of the elemental shortcomings of a live axle (mainly unsprung weight). I imagine the drag racers and more drag racing focused magazines will be a quite a bit more forgiving of the live axle design for it work quite well on the strip. Those drivers and magazines who take a more rounded overall view towards vehicle performance, i.e., one that gives much more balanced weighting to handling, braking, compliance and acceleration, may be a little less happy with the live axle compromise and its detrimental effect on chassis dynamics under more challenging driving situations than going straight for a quarter mile on a butter-smooth road.

My hope is that the Cobra's IRS will make it into a more affordable, sub-Cobra mid-range special edition model, perhaps a neo-Boss 302 style car that does emphasize overall chassis dynamics to a high degree.

As an aside, I've always wondered a bit about taking a different tack regarding the rear suspension design. Instead of attacking high unsprung weight by pitching a live axle in favor of a IRS, what about doing a up-level live axle but in very light weight materials such as aluminum, magnesium, CF and whatnot? The current live axle has a lot of very heavy steel and iron in its major components. What about casting the diff in aluminum or magnesium? What about a CF drive shaft and axles shafts? What about forged AL control arms and axle tubes? Maybe even go high tech with TI gears to shed a few more pounds yet. Cut the live axle's weight by a third to half and all of a sudden, its main drawback fades away quickly with each pound lost. And many of these engineering elements can already be found in mass production cars, so we're not too far outside the thinking box here.

This would be the rough equivalent to Chevy sticking with a seemingly archaic pushrod design for their small block V8 yet refining it to such a degree with state of the art materials and engineering that it actually works extremely well against more "modern" DOHC multivalve designs. While costs would obviously go up, would this approach cost less in the end than a complex IRS? Could the current live axle's robustness be maintained in different materials thus keeping the drag racers happy and worry free? Could the mass actually be reduced enough to compete with a good IRS on even less than perfect roads and curves?