KansasCityTim

I find it interesting that to all the IRS advocates, it is a black or white issue. IRS=good; SRA=bad. They won't even entertain that possibility that there can be good SRAs that can approach the handling of any IRS.

hiznherponies

Btw, MPS(mustang parts specialists)has a '03-'04 IRS for sale rt now for all of you "gotta have an IRS" whiners. Daytonas infield isn't the smoothest track out there, and if anyone watched, all of the IRS-equipped sports cars at Sebrings 12 hr enduro this past weekend sure hopped around on its "oh-so-smooth" course. Thats sarcasm if you can't tell b/c Sebring is almost as bad as the roads up here in MI or even the frost-heaved roads of the NE!!! The Porshes were catching air at most of the corners!!! Try driving your "go-carts" on that!! If you know how to drive, then a SRA isn't too bad, neither is an IRS, but I'd rather have a great SRA over A cheap IRS, any day!!!!

Twilightblu92

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I agree 1000000%

It also seems it would have made the car $5000 more expensive. Also, it's not like you guys are gonna go racing anyway. You'll probably only drag race at a stop light and not even use the IRS to it's full capabilities. My Probe has IRS, all it seems to do is make the ride smoother for me. Don't get me wrong it handles good, but between it and my Mustang I don't see too great of a difference between the two.

TomServo92

I'm with you on this. Ford gives us a 450HP+ monster with an excellent SRA but it's a "disappointment" to the IRS guys. I think a well designed IRS would have been great as well but there's no way I'm going to call the GT500 a disappointment. It's an extraordinary vehicle given the price/performance ratio, regardless of the rear suspension.

rhumb

Of course, some lumpy back road twisties like we got here back east. And then we can compare the rides too, i.e., who's paying more of a backside price for a given level of handling.

But I'm sure the car mags are five-deep at the key board itching to comparison test the GT500, M3, Vette, 911, what have you, so we'll see in the end. My guess, the Stang will take 'em in the straights but will loose ground in the twisties, especially if they are a less than glossy surface.

Which'll be faster overall? Probably depends on your curves/straights ratio of the track/road.

As for a daily driver (vs dedicated track car), I suspect the Stang will deliver a flintier, more turbulent ride for its level of handling, though none of these would be a limo.

Is there any indication in the specs that Ford has done anything to lighten the considerable unsprung mass of the lively axle, i.e., AL or carbon drive shaft, aluminum diff housing, etc.?

SVTJayC

"Where is it written that great touring cars have to have an IRS setup?"



I think the difference here is in the semantics. The mustang is NOT a "Touring Car". It is a muscle car. And in that right, a very good one. And for a muscle car, an SLA is just fine. Gets the job done, is cheap, is tough. But IRS was designed because it is better at handling changing road conditions. Can you make an SLA handle just as well, probably. But will it ride as nicely, no. The IRS excels in both. There was absolutely no excuse not to have an IRS in this car if they wanted to build an "M3 Fighter". If they wanted to build a "future F-Body fighter", then they have done an excellent job.

And BTW, yes in fact I do have an engineering degree. Same school as your boy Iaccoca.

dallasmustang

There you go rhumb? Twilightblu92 has the same car as you and he can't tell a difference.

Twilightblu92

Don't forget the added weight, 180'lbs worth. This Mustang is already a bit over weight and needs a diet, why would you want more?

crazyhorse

If they had put the IRS in, guys would be griping about the 45K pricetag. And the bottom line, sales would have suffered from that. We are getting the best Mustang ever. I'm just glad all these guys are unhappy, that leaves the line shorter for me.

SVTJayC

I don't think anyone would complain about the price. I think a lot of you are dilluding yourselves when you say "what a bargain, i can't wait to go buy one". This is a real Shelby, and it will be treated as such. Namely bought up quick by collectors and rich enthusiasts. 45K will seem like a steal when these things are going for 50-60k. You can't even get a GT without waiting 6 months, you don't think these thigns will be tough to come by?

dallasmustang

A car is a car. People just call them touring cars, muscle cars, etc. Doesn't mean they don't all work basically the same way. As far as it riding nicely, I'm sure that's a pretty subjective standard. I'm sure a poorly (and cheaply) implemented IRS would ride worse than a live-axle. And i guarantee you Ford engineers sole objective wasn't to beat an M3 - it was to design a great car. Mission accomplished. But to be fair, let me know when you've driven both the Mustang and M3 to the hilt and let me know which one is better.

Automotive engineering degree? And how many years of experience designing race cars?

danazar

Your assumption seems to be that those are the only things that affect the price of a car, and they're not, by far. By your argument, I should be going "The Mustang has 300HP, why couldn't Mazda get the RX-8 to put out 300HP for only $25k?" Which is stupid because it doesn't reflect the fact that these are different cars. Heck, with the RX-8, the manual tranny costs $1k more than the auto, which is opposite what it is in the Ford

Look at how different the cars are. The Mustang is 500lb. heavier (especially with that massive 5.4 in it!) with more rear mass for the suspension to bear and, especially in the case of the new GT500, has a lot more torque trying to be applied through those rear wheels than the RX-8 does. And the IRS in the RX-8 is likely designed more for light weight because of the car's "road racer" appeal, meaning it's going to be designed only to withstand the basic needs of the car's power--in this case, less than 200ft-lb. of torque coming from that Renesis rotary on its "low-torque" diet. There's no way you could even imagine them taking the lightweight IRS design of the RX-8 and applying it to the GT500 and just somehow having it magically work just as well.

In fact, the closest comparable car in terms of HP and torque that has an IRS that I can think of is the Ford GT... and I'd like to see you argue that it'd be budget-conscious to borrow any part of it!

Shelby says that for an IRS that'd give better performance than an upgraded solid rear, it'd cost an extra $5k. For a 450hp, 3500+lb. car, I see no reason not to believe him.

turbochad

It's so funny that the 03-04 cars got an IRS and everyone is trying to get rid of them for a solid axle! O well you cant make everyone happy. I am thrilled there is no darn IRS!!

rhumb

There you go rhumb? Twilightblu92 has the same car as you and he can't tell a difference.
[/b][/quote]
Well, that's one man's opinion. I certainly can, especially in the handling and more so when the road actually gets a bit more challenging than a drag strip, i.e., some lumps and bumps thrown in the turns. And I'm not so interested in a plush ride as I am a resilient ride, one that can absorb mid-turn bumps without getting all flustered and juddering into a fishtail.

As for semantics, I see the Mustang as a Pony Car, not a muscle car nor a sports car. Indeed, the Mustang was originally conceived as being quite distinct from the "muscle cars" of the day, even if that term wasn't used back then. Many have since adopted the Mustang as some sort of modern day muscle car, i.e., primarily a straight line bomber, but that is quite in opposition to its original Pony car ideal and one that I more subscribe to.

The original Mustand, then as now, was orginally conceived to eventually offer an IRS, a quite clever design at that. But then as now, the bean counters intervened and killed that idea. So perhaps keeping the ol' buggy axle is somehow appropriate. Now all we need to do is plug in the drum brakes and leaf springs and we'll have the perfect retro Stang.

SVTJayC

There is no such thing at my school as an "automotive engineering degree". It's a specialization of "mechanical engineering". No experience designing race cars, unless you count SAE. I have not driven an M3 "to the hilt" but I have been a passenger in one driven by a pro, on a racetrack, as well as a 911 turbo. Don't have the same experience with a Mustang, though I feel it is fair to say if BMW or Porsche thought that dropping a live axle into their 50k and 120k respectively cars was a good idea, they would do it.

How about the GTO? More HP, More Tq, According to R&T, handles better.

dallasmustang

GT stands for "Grand Touring". One might call it a touring car.


<!--QuoteBegin-rhumb@March 23, 2005, 9:43 AM
The original Mustand, then as now, was orginally conceived to eventually offer an IRS, a quite clever design at that. But then as now, the bean counters intervened and killed that idea. So perhaps keeping the ol' buggy axle is somehow appropriate. Now all we need to do is plug in the drum brakes and leaf springs and we'll have the perfect retro Stang.
[/quote]

Yes, the Ford engineers are idiots. They are obviously incapable of making a decent car.

holderca1

I think he was refering to just Ford's line of cars. Somehow I don't think GM will let Ford use their IRS in the Mustang.

mkoesel

Indeed. No small feat. Those are some sweet cars - both the Mustangs and the M3s..

Some things to keep in mind though. For one, those are not much like the "GT"s that you can buy - they have a 435hp Cammer under the hood. Also, keep in mind the Shelby is going to have a giant iron 5.4L under the hood, giving it the weight distribution of a pregnant Sea Lion.

Now if you look at the M3 on the track and compare to the one you can drive off the lot, your going to see the same powerplant under the hood (with some race mods, of course) and you are also going to see the same 50/50 (or near) weight distribution.

In other words the M3 is closer to stock than the Mustang.

Moving forward, the Shelby arrives as an 07MY, and the E92 M3 is slated for 08MY (there will be no MY07). So that's the car they need to have in their sites, not the E46. Expect it to be kicked up a notch. A 400+hp V8 is coming and expect some goodies from the E60 M5 chassis as well. (Of course, a 10k price increas is probably coming too )

In short, I think the new Shelby will have its hands pretty full. But its going to be fun to watch.

SVTJayC

I think they have made an excellent car with the mustang. But these pipe dreams of running with M3's??? Then for them to come out and say "we want to make an M3 fighter" and releasing a car with a SLA...

Something that has not been directly mentioned, aside from being a sick handling car, the M3 also rides REALLY nice. If they can make an SLA handle as well, and RIDE as well, ill be impressed.

Twilightblu92

Well, that's one man's opinion. I certainly can, especially in the handling and more so when the road actually gets a bit more challenging than a drag strip, i.e., some lumps and bumps thrown in the turns. And I'm not so interested in a plush ride as I am a resilient ride, one that can absorb mid-turn bumps without getting all flustered and juddering into a fishtail.

As for semantics, I see the Mustang as a Pony Car, not a muscle car nor a sports car. Indeed, the Mustang was originally conceived as being quite distinct from the "muscle cars" of the day, even if that term wasn't used back then. Many have since adopted the Mustang as some sort of modern day muscle car, i.e., primarily a straight line bomber, but that is quite in opposition to its original Pony car ideal and one that I more subscribe to.

The original Mustand, then as now, was orginally conceived to eventually offer an IRS, a quite clever design at that. But then as now, the bean counters intervened and killed that idea. So perhaps keeping the ol' buggy axle is somehow appropriate. Now all we need to do is plug in the drum brakes and leaf springs and we'll have the perfect retro Stang.
[/b][/quote]


I've driven my Probe over some rough roads while turning and the thing and loses front end traction, which creates the feeling of front-end push, while my Mustang doesn't, but loses a bit of rear traction. I have the GT model of the Probe.