I'm in total agreement, long live the live axle. It just seems funny that people gloss over the fact that supposedly the potentential new powerplant will be a step backwards in terms of sophstication and refinment but wig out over the possibility of no IRS. especially in light of the 1-2-3 win with live axle cars.

Personally other than bench racing, I dont see the justification or added expense in an IRS. Unless of course running a road course paved with fieldstones is your hobby.

 

I'm in total agreement, long live the live axle. It just seems funny that people gloss over the fact that supposedly the potentential new powerplant will be a step backwards in terms of sophstication and refinment but wig out over the possibility of no IRS. especially in light of the 1-2-3 win with live axle cars.

Personally other than bench racing, I dont see the justification or added expense in an IRS. Unless of course running a road course paved with fieldstones is your hobby.
[/b][/quote]


I agree, it just seems as though people use the word IRS as if it were a status symbol. The fact is that it didn't work that well and was prone to breaking.

 

thats because it was a poor design, a properly set up IRS wouldnt have the problems that the current one does

 

exactly...the sn95 platform wasnt made to have and irs it was just and after thougth that got shoe-horned into the platform and thus wasnt a perfect application of irs...the s197 on the other hand is airs based platform...it is based on the lincoln ls platform that already uses an irs.....so hopefully if the new cobra has an irs it will be far superior to the previous cobras irs!!!

 

On smooth road race courses the advantage of IRS is minimized. However out in the real world of the imperfect roads we drive on, IRS is very valuable.

Also, EVERY racing series that allows IRS, IRS cars dominate. In case of the Grand-Am cup, the different car's performanced is equaized. So I'm sure the Mustang got some breaks to make up for it's live axle.

 

Just wondering, if what you said is true in your first statement, how does your second statement prove its validity?

So if the Mustang gets some breaks in the Grand-Am Race for having a live axle, and keeps winning races, would that make you as a driver want to switch from an IRS to a live axle?

 

that's a bit of a letdown, but thats pretty interesting. how do they go about doing that? would they say, okay, your car has a live axle, so we'll let you put in a more powerful engine or bigger brakes...
something like that?

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but in a racing class like the Grand Am Cup you can run your car as long as it meets the desired performance envelope (that is how fast will it turn a lap compared to the competition. There are many ways to control speed engine, brakes, suspension parts, aerodynamics and most importantly weight.

In the case of the 2005 Mustang Ford (or more correctly Multimatic) created a race car version of the Mustang and Ford submitted it to the France organization for approval. If what you submit for approval is too fast they will make you do changes before it is approved. If it is too slow you can often get them to let you make improvements.

At least the Grand Am Cup Mustang has some things in common with the street Mustang, like the unibody, unlike NASCAR race cars which have NOTHING in common with a street car.

 

If the Mustang starts to dominate the Grand Am Cup races changes will be made. Either the Mustang will be penalized (usually weight is added) or the competitors will be given some breaks.

The race series will not let the entire race become nothing but Mustangs just like they will not let any other car like a BMW become so dominant that all entrants are forced to switch to that brand to become competitive.

This is show biz, it's not any proof of who has the best car.

 

You still didn't answer my question, would you as a driver switch from an IRS to a live axle? Not to a Mustang. I Know you said that the Mustang was probabally given some breaks for being a live axle but I'm sure everyone is given some breaks in some shape, form, or fashion.

I just think that a lot of people have a switch in their head that flips to "inferior" just as soon as they hear "live axle" or "no IRS". Do you think that a live axle can't be made to compete w/ an IRS?

 

No.

As I said before in EVERY road racing series where IRS is allowed, IRS cars dominate the races. The IRS has dominated race cars since the early 1960s.

Many attempts have been made since the 1960s to make successful solid axle race cars, but the only place where solid axles succeed are series like NASCAR where IRS is not allowed and other series that try to equalize the performance of the cars.

I can't think of any advantage a solid axle has over IRS for a road race car other than it might be easier to set up for the race track. But if you can't figure our how to set up the suspension you won't be going far as a race mechanic anyway.

By the way, if you read the interview with the wining Mustang driver at Daytona, he said that the Mustang was not the fastest car. He said he won the race on pit strategy by saving pit time by not changing tires and putting in just enough gas to cross the finish line.

 

exactly...the sn95 platform wasnt made to have and irs it was just and after thougth that got shoe-horned into the platform and thus wasnt a perfect application of irs...the s197 on the other hand is airs based platform...it is based on the lincoln ls platform that already uses an irs.....so hopefully if the new cobra has an irs it will be far superior to the previous cobras irs!!!
[/b][/quote]
the S197 platformed mustang is not an IRS based platform. The lincolns DEW98 is.
The D2C (also known as S197) is Ford's newest global rear wheel drive automobile platform. It was designed by Ford with Mazda's C1 platform technology and will début in the new 2005 Ford Mustang. The platform basics are a MacPherson strut suspension in front and 3-link solid axle in the rear with a Panhard rod.
Contrary to many news reports, this platform is not based on the Ford DEW platform. The Mustang was to have used a "Lite" version of the DEW98, but that plan was scrapped as too expensive.

 

I read the article and I never said the Mustang was the fastest. I was just asking your opinion on IRS vs. live axle. There are many variables to factor in when racing to make sure you end up in the winners circle.

BTW, thank you for responding. Not trying to nit-pick, just inquisitive.

 

Check this out www.newagegto.com for info on the SVT Cobra

 

A lot of info is old news, but thanks for the insight. I did manage to read a couple of posts over there and I must commend you for giving me some good laughs to see those GTOers scrambling about for a solution to the Cobra. Thanks.

 

S197 is NOT a platform.
S197 is the program # for the the 2005 Mustang.

D2C is the designation for the platform that the 05 Mustang (project S197) is based on.

 

blah blah blah

ford won, who cares how it got there, it won...

 

Live axle vs. IRS.

A friend of mine has an '04 cobra. If he has a passing thought of taking off hard in the thing the IRS breaks. I wont even bring up the "wheel hop" issues. It is the only weak part in the entire car. Who wants a sportscar they cant run hard? Not to mention, the vast majority of mustang owners (I venture to say above 85% at least) will never push their cars to the kind of handling limits that would make the difference evident. I say keep the tried and true live axle, if they cant build anything better than the '03-'04 IRS system.

 

More info on SVT's next offering, courtesy of Autoweek.

Flame away if you will, but to me this is a huge dissappointment. I thought it was bad enough that Ford decided not to offer the IRS as an option on the GT, but to not even include it in the Cobra is just plain ridiculous, especially for a 40,000 vehicle.

And all the arguments about the IRS' perceived weakness and frailty are bunk. Dodge and Chevy must be doing something that Ford can't if they can build 500 plus hp beasts without any problems. Man, those big block Vette owners must have gone thru countless rear ends.....

The 05 Mustang platform was designed from the outset to accept the IRS, not a compromise solution like the 99-03 Cobras. Seems to me Ford is just cheapening out.

 

Anybody know the source of information that the designator "D2C" is indeed the platform name? One of the Mustang engineers I talked to back in Nashville was unaware of that being used.

Curious minds want to know...