Carroll Shelby explains why there won't be IRS
GT Member
Joined: February 2, 2004
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Originally posted by 05Mustangfan@March 23, 2005, 7:39 PM
to the M3 Arguments...
This isnt going to be the only SVT Mustang, as they said they will be involved in a lot of others
perhaps its not the shelby thats meant to butt rape BMW?
to the M3 Arguments...
This isnt going to be the only SVT Mustang, as they said they will be involved in a lot of others
perhaps its not the shelby thats meant to butt rape BMW?
Anyway, I'm sure they've got more products in the pipeline, probably a GT350 will be next if I had to guess. That'll probably be a lower cost version of the GT500 though, with less power.
Hopefully they come to market with less weight up front and weight reduction in general. I'd happily pay 50k for something like the FR500 reborn on the S197 platform, if the bean counters will let them build it.
Bullitt Member
Joined: February 6, 2004
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
I am amazed that no one is allowed to have an opinion here ... Those that want the IRS, let them have their say. Those that want their SA, you have it.
Why all the name calling and stick jabbing?
What really pisses me off, being one of the IRS guys, is that fact of all you newbs that have never put your car on a track come in here and act like you know what the heck you are talking about about how the SA is so much better.
If you have never raced an IRS on track, then STFU. Let the IRS people speak their mind. Last time I checked we were all Mustang owners for crying out loud.
More than half of you won't even be buying this car anyway.
Why all the name calling and stick jabbing?
What really pisses me off, being one of the IRS guys, is that fact of all you newbs that have never put your car on a track come in here and act like you know what the heck you are talking about about how the SA is so much better.
If you have never raced an IRS on track, then STFU. Let the IRS people speak their mind. Last time I checked we were all Mustang owners for crying out loud.
More than half of you won't even be buying this car anyway.
Cobra Member
Joined: January 27, 2005
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
I think Ford has made an excellent car here and you can never make everyone happy. HTT took the de-tuned GT engine, put it in the cobra knowing that with simple mods people are going to make this car even higher horsepower, then put it with a SRA to handle the extra power.
he made a car with an iron block and SRA that are able to handle lots of extra power and it will not be coming in to the shop all the time for warranty work
it's pretty much bulletproof for a good price unlike if they put an IRS that was not fully developed to save money. (And yes they could develop the IRS to the point where it is perfect but it would cost more money.)
I'm not saying that the SRA is better than an IRS but in this case it might have been a better choice.
and please do tell me if everything I said is completely wrong
he made a car with an iron block and SRA that are able to handle lots of extra power and it will not be coming in to the shop all the time for warranty work
it's pretty much bulletproof for a good price unlike if they put an IRS that was not fully developed to save money. (And yes they could develop the IRS to the point where it is perfect but it would cost more money.)
I'm not saying that the SRA is better than an IRS but in this case it might have been a better choice.
and please do tell me if everything I said is completely wrong
Bow Chica Bow Wow
TMS Staff
TMS Staff
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 7,446
Likes: 12
From: Proudly in NJ...bite it FL
Ok I'm throwing down a gerneral warning here..Keep it civil guys
Everyone has the right to express and opinion and have thier say.
Keep it clean or I'll lock it down
Everyone has the right to express and opinion and have thier say.
Keep it clean or I'll lock it down
GT Member
Joined: December 10, 2004
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
It doesnt bother me TOO much. Sure it would be nice to have the IRS, but the new Stang handles respectably, and I think the Cobra will do really well too. Like someone said- just look at the reuslts in Grand Am racing.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Originally posted by rhumb@March 23, 2005, 10:08 AM
Exactly. The Probe, as with most street cars, are very purposefully designed with a touch of understeer as that is a slightly more benign handling balance and less likely to get the average driver backing into the woods at 50mph. Addco has a nice, thicker rear anti roll bar that will reduce the understeer and give you a more ideal (for performance drivers) neutral balance. Might want to play with upping your front tire pressures a touch too. But that Probe IRS hangs in there like a Marine when the going gets tough.
As for the Stang, exactly, it does loose rear traction, but that's a consequence of a lack of suspension compliance and control over the rough stuff than anything purposefully designed in. And oversteer, especially as a result of a lack of contact with the road (rear axle coming off the ground over bumps) is a very dangerous and hard to control handling "quality" and certainly not one anyone would want. A bit of power-on, well controlled oversteer to balance the car coming out of a turn, fantastic, fishtailing around with the lively axle doing a Riverdance step, not.
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.
As for the Stang, exactly, it does loose rear traction, but that's a consequence of a lack of suspension compliance and control over the rough stuff than anything purposefully designed in. And oversteer, especially as a result of a lack of contact with the road (rear axle coming off the ground over bumps) is a very dangerous and hard to control handling "quality" and certainly not one anyone would want. A bit of power-on, well controlled oversteer to balance the car coming out of a turn, fantastic, fishtailing around with the lively axle doing a Riverdance step, not.
V6 Member
Joined: March 21, 2004
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
If they can make an SLA handle as well, and RIDE as well, ill be impressed.
[/quote]
Then why don't you find out if it outperforms the M3, instead of just being a 'paper racer'?
[/quote]
Then why don't you find out if it outperforms the M3, instead of just being a 'paper racer'?
GT Member
Joined: April 6, 2004
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Counterpoints:
According to Ford and Hau Thai Tang, who was in charge of Mustang development, the new gen Mustang was designed right from the offset to readily accept IRS, and that IRS was developed in parallel with the SRA. According to some stories I've read, the Mustang was designed right from the outset for IRS and was well along in development until the beancounters intervened.
As far as spreading the cost, it goes back to my original argument (made wayyyy back in the Fall) of making the IRS at least optional, if not standard, in the GT.
So how is it that Ford can build a truck (let's call the Adrenalin for what it is) with IRS that can handle 390 hp? I mean by all logic, that's a tremendous load you're asking the IRS to put up with. But ask Ford to put it in a Mustang (which should hopefully be a lot lighter), and all of a sudden their panties get into a bunch over strength and cost.
It's not a question of using exotic materials or big huge beefy parts. It's a question of actually putting the commitment to quality engineering and thought into a design, rather than throwing big hp. Take a look at the F-Series trucks. The engineering and thought that goes into those things is amazing. If Ford put that much thought into their cars, then "Year of the Car" would be more than just a catchy slogan.
So it comes down to this. How is it that everybody else (especially cross town rivals GM/Dodge), can build IRS systems that can withstand big hp/torque, but Ford can't.
<!--QuoteBegin-Josh69@March 23, 2005, 12:22 PM
PS, I would also suspect that Ford has already learned a lot from the IRS they installed on the previous Cobra, which has not been entirely reliable, so my guess is they know firsthand more than any of us could postulate, what it would take to make a suitable IRS for the new Cobra, that won't shatter, and won't weigh a ton, etc. They've already tried it...my guess is they know better than any of us could pretend to what they are doing.
[/quote]
The problem with this last piece is that the IRS in the 99-04 Cobra was a severely compromised set-up, shoehorned into a car that was never designed to accept it in the first place. Supposedly , the new gen Mustang was designed for the IRS from the outset, so of the problems with the IRS Cobra would have been eliminated. So to say they tried it and they know better simply doesn't apply, becaused they tried it on a car that was never meant for it. My fear is that Thai-Tang was feeding us a bunch a bull about the car accepting IRS from the outset, and any IRS that may be fitted in the future will again be a compromised set-up.
Originally posted by Josh69+March 23, 2005, 12:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Josh69 @ March 23, 2005, 12:22 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I think the two most obvious reasons were already stated, but apparently completely missed by those who are still whining.
1) $5K extra to build an IRS for THIS car, not any other car...for this car...which is perfectly logical in economics as well as engineering. For one, they don't make an IRS for any other Mustang to distribute the R&D costs over time, so for economy to scale, it'd be prohibitively expensive to build IRS for a limited production car. The BMW 3-series all share the same chassis, albeit with slight differences, but they make 450,000 of them a year worldwide...which allows them to R&D and share the load. Simple economics.[/b]
1) $5K extra to build an IRS for THIS car, not any other car...for this car...which is perfectly logical in economics as well as engineering. For one, they don't make an IRS for any other Mustang to distribute the R&D costs over time, so for economy to scale, it'd be prohibitively expensive to build IRS for a limited production car. The BMW 3-series all share the same chassis, albeit with slight differences, but they make 450,000 of them a year worldwide...which allows them to R&D and share the load. Simple economics.[/b]
According to Ford and Hau Thai Tang, who was in charge of Mustang development, the new gen Mustang was designed right from the offset to readily accept IRS, and that IRS was developed in parallel with the SRA. According to some stories I've read, the Mustang was designed right from the outset for IRS and was well along in development until the beancounters intervened.
As far as spreading the cost, it goes back to my original argument (made wayyyy back in the Fall) of making the IRS at least optional, if not standard, in the GT.
Originally posted by Josh69@March 23, 2005, 12:22 PM
2) Power, building any IRS that is capable of withstanding the kind of power output this car has would take a lot of R&D, some pretty seriously heavy parts, big hardened gear sets, beefy links, beefy axles and bearings, beefy CV and/or universal joints, etc. All of that stuff would need to be very heavy duty, and that costs lots of money, weighs a lot, and takes a lot of R&D, and if you want it to weigh less, you need increasingly more exotic materials and even more R&D...which all leads us back to point #1, see above.
Obviously Ford has made a very competitive rear end with what they are using, and the fact that it competes well against IRS cars is enough to satisfy even the raggedy old automotive journalists, why not some of you?
End of story, so everyone who is b1tchin up a storm, get a grip, be happy with what you're (if you are even planning on buying one) getting for the money, that's a LOT of horsepower for the dough. And after all, this is a Pony/Muscle Car right? Or did I miss something....
2) Power, building any IRS that is capable of withstanding the kind of power output this car has would take a lot of R&D, some pretty seriously heavy parts, big hardened gear sets, beefy links, beefy axles and bearings, beefy CV and/or universal joints, etc. All of that stuff would need to be very heavy duty, and that costs lots of money, weighs a lot, and takes a lot of R&D, and if you want it to weigh less, you need increasingly more exotic materials and even more R&D...which all leads us back to point #1, see above.
Obviously Ford has made a very competitive rear end with what they are using, and the fact that it competes well against IRS cars is enough to satisfy even the raggedy old automotive journalists, why not some of you?
End of story, so everyone who is b1tchin up a storm, get a grip, be happy with what you're (if you are even planning on buying one) getting for the money, that's a LOT of horsepower for the dough. And after all, this is a Pony/Muscle Car right? Or did I miss something....
It's not a question of using exotic materials or big huge beefy parts. It's a question of actually putting the commitment to quality engineering and thought into a design, rather than throwing big hp. Take a look at the F-Series trucks. The engineering and thought that goes into those things is amazing. If Ford put that much thought into their cars, then "Year of the Car" would be more than just a catchy slogan.
So it comes down to this. How is it that everybody else (especially cross town rivals GM/Dodge), can build IRS systems that can withstand big hp/torque, but Ford can't.
<!--QuoteBegin-Josh69@March 23, 2005, 12:22 PM
PS, I would also suspect that Ford has already learned a lot from the IRS they installed on the previous Cobra, which has not been entirely reliable, so my guess is they know firsthand more than any of us could postulate, what it would take to make a suitable IRS for the new Cobra, that won't shatter, and won't weigh a ton, etc. They've already tried it...my guess is they know better than any of us could pretend to what they are doing.
[/quote]
The problem with this last piece is that the IRS in the 99-04 Cobra was a severely compromised set-up, shoehorned into a car that was never designed to accept it in the first place. Supposedly , the new gen Mustang was designed for the IRS from the outset, so of the problems with the IRS Cobra would have been eliminated. So to say they tried it and they know better simply doesn't apply, becaused they tried it on a car that was never meant for it. My fear is that Thai-Tang was feeding us a bunch a bull about the car accepting IRS from the outset, and any IRS that may be fitted in the future will again be a compromised set-up.
I Have Admin Envy
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 6,740
Likes: 1
Personally if I was forking out that kind of money for a sports car, I would expect an IRS.
With this chassis pegged for other future products, perhaps an IRS will be added somewhere down the road.
I think the car will handle well with the SRA, but I think an IRS would have put it over the top. For people spending that kind of money, I doubt a few $$ would have been an issue, this is in fact a limited production halo car.
With this chassis pegged for other future products, perhaps an IRS will be added somewhere down the road.
I think the car will handle well with the SRA, but I think an IRS would have put it over the top. For people spending that kind of money, I doubt a few $$ would have been an issue, this is in fact a limited production halo car.
Team Mustang Source
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 2,478
Likes: 1
From: Indiana
Maybe they are saving IRS for the future to keep the car refreshed. If they give us all they have now, what will make us want to buy another one in 3-5 years? they aren't going to be able to keep going up in HP. IRS, less weight, sidescoops and new colors are all we'll get to upgrade the future models.
GT Member
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
The reason the Adrenalin has the IRS is because the new Sport Trac, will be sporting the frame that everyone thought it was on the Explorer. The previous Gen Sport Trac, was on a Ranger frame, and this new SVT version will be at home in the new Explorer frame, hence the R&D for the IRS has already been done since the Explorer has it.
Dethroned Nascar Guru
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,059
Likes: 2
Personally if I was forking out that kind of money for a sports car, I would expect an IRS.
We aren't forking out that kind of money down here :
I'd be P.O too if I was paying $60K without IRS, but I will only be paying $38K
But seriously, I hope that the Shelby is the biggest flop in automotive history, up there with the new GTO, so that I can pick one up for "$6500 under MSRP"
Mach 1 Member
Joined: August 17, 2004
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Originally posted by AFBLUE@March 23, 2005, 10:13 PM
We aren't forking out that kind of money down here :
I'd be P.O too if I was paying $60K without IRS, but I will only be paying $38K
But seriously, I hope that the Shelby is the biggest flop in automotive history, up there with the new GTO, so that I can pick one up for "$6500 under MSRP"
Personally if I was forking out that kind of money for a sports car, I would expect an IRS.
We aren't forking out that kind of money down here :
I'd be P.O too if I was paying $60K without IRS, but I will only be paying $38K
But seriously, I hope that the Shelby is the biggest flop in automotive history, up there with the new GTO, so that I can pick one up for "$6500 under MSRP"
Mach 1 Member
Joined: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Galaxie@March 23, 2005, 9:19 PM
Personally if I was forking out that kind of money for a sports car, I would expect an IRS.
With this chassis pegged for other future products, perhaps an IRS will be added somewhere down the road.
I think the car will handle well with the SRA, but I think an IRS would have put it over the top. For people spending that kind of money, I doubt a few $$ would have been an issue, this is in fact a limited production halo car.
Personally if I was forking out that kind of money for a sports car, I would expect an IRS.
With this chassis pegged for other future products, perhaps an IRS will be added somewhere down the road.
I think the car will handle well with the SRA, but I think an IRS would have put it over the top. For people spending that kind of money, I doubt a few $$ would have been an issue, this is in fact a limited production halo car.
Cobra Member
Joined: January 31, 2004
Posts: 1,261
Likes: 0
Originally posted by snkbtn99@March 23, 2005, 9:53 PM
I am amazed that no one is allowed to have an opinion here ... Those that want the IRS, let them have their say. Those that want their SA, you have it.
Why all the name calling and stick jabbing?
What really pisses me off, being one of the IRS guys, is that fact of all you newbs that have never put your car on a track come in here and act like you know what the heck you are talking about about how the SA is so much better.
If you have never raced an IRS on track, then STFU. Let the IRS people speak their mind. Last time I checked we were all Mustang owners for crying out loud.
More than half of you won't even be buying this car anyway.
I am amazed that no one is allowed to have an opinion here ... Those that want the IRS, let them have their say. Those that want their SA, you have it.
Why all the name calling and stick jabbing?
What really pisses me off, being one of the IRS guys, is that fact of all you newbs that have never put your car on a track come in here and act like you know what the heck you are talking about about how the SA is so much better.
If you have never raced an IRS on track, then STFU. Let the IRS people speak their mind. Last time I checked we were all Mustang owners for crying out loud.
More than half of you won't even be buying this car anyway.
If you do live in an area where all the roads are bumpy, go test drive an '05 GT on those roads. If you haven't done this, your arguments seem less valid to many here.
I disagree, however, that Ford can't deliver IRS that can support so much power. SVTJay pointed out that the last-gen T-Birds offered IRS, and its cousin, the Lincoln Mark VIII had IRS standard (I used to own one). A guy I know has a Mark VIII that produces 575 RWHP and about the same amount of torque. All on stock IRS. On the other hand, the Mark VIII today would cost upwards of $50,000, and sat on a much different chassis than the new Stang.
It all boils down to cost, IMO. And if this isn't the last SVT model Mustang we'll see for several years, Ford made a wise choice in my eyes. IRS will come. While you wait, thousands will be enjoying their high-powered, great-handling GT500s.
GT Member
Joined: December 10, 2004
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
I think they decided against the IRS because so many current Cobra owners complain about wheel hop. It -is- all about money -- and Ford needs to make a car that people will buy. So they're listening to their customers, which is probably a good thing.
Ford has track experience, and they created the FR500C ... with a live axle ... which bested several German and Japanese competitors on the track just a few weeks ago. I think that if you want to make a convincing argument about the IRS, it is that it has comfy road manners. Within the confines of a racetrack, a live axle performs very well.
Dave
Originally posted by snkbtn99
What really pisses me off, being one of the IRS guys, is that fact of all you newbs that have never put your car on a track come in here and act like you know what the heck you are talking about about how the SA is so much better.
What really pisses me off, being one of the IRS guys, is that fact of all you newbs that have never put your car on a track come in here and act like you know what the heck you are talking about about how the SA is so much better.
Dave
Cobra Member
Joined: August 19, 2004
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
[/quote]
I think you're forgetting something here. The Probe is a front wheel drive vehicle, which provides limitations even greater than a solid rear axle. I've driven front wheel drive vehicles at nine-tenths into an apex, and four wheel independent suspension or no, they bunny-hop all over the road. I'd rather have a rear wheel drive vehicle with a SRA than a front driver with IRS.
[/quote]
Hey Robert... you have to keep in mind that a front wheel drive vehicle, no matter what type of suspension is out back, is going to push out of a corner anyway. IRS, or any suspension for that matter, is very different for each type of drive line... midmount RWD handle sooooo much diferently than a front mount rear drive, and rear mount and rear drive is still a whole new animal from the mid mount.... I don't think compairing a FWD w/ IRS to a RWD with IRS is even a fair comparison. I'm not a fan of FWD.... I can't stand the way it torque steers, I can't stand the way the handle in general.... even in the snow.. give me a RWD... I can drive it better.
I've been pretty rough as far as my comments in this thread, and I'll appologize. I'm not as big a jerk as I was acting like yesterday. I'll say to these IRS guys that yes, you are correct.... IRS is the way to be. HOWEVER.... for the money, I think the 3 link SRA will do just fine. I like to line race as well as cut up the twisties.. I can appreciate both aspects.... but I'm not going to complain for a minute that this car is under equipped for the price. Even if you were to take a Windsor block and build it up to push 500 + hp, and have a 6 speed tranny and a drive line to handle the power... then find a good car to put it under, you're going to wind up spending more money than you will on this GT500.... so I just don't feel there is a leg to stand on as far as complaining.
I think you're forgetting something here. The Probe is a front wheel drive vehicle, which provides limitations even greater than a solid rear axle. I've driven front wheel drive vehicles at nine-tenths into an apex, and four wheel independent suspension or no, they bunny-hop all over the road. I'd rather have a rear wheel drive vehicle with a SRA than a front driver with IRS.
[/quote]
Hey Robert... you have to keep in mind that a front wheel drive vehicle, no matter what type of suspension is out back, is going to push out of a corner anyway. IRS, or any suspension for that matter, is very different for each type of drive line... midmount RWD handle sooooo much diferently than a front mount rear drive, and rear mount and rear drive is still a whole new animal from the mid mount.... I don't think compairing a FWD w/ IRS to a RWD with IRS is even a fair comparison. I'm not a fan of FWD.... I can't stand the way it torque steers, I can't stand the way the handle in general.... even in the snow.. give me a RWD... I can drive it better.
I've been pretty rough as far as my comments in this thread, and I'll appologize. I'm not as big a jerk as I was acting like yesterday. I'll say to these IRS guys that yes, you are correct.... IRS is the way to be. HOWEVER.... for the money, I think the 3 link SRA will do just fine. I like to line race as well as cut up the twisties.. I can appreciate both aspects.... but I'm not going to complain for a minute that this car is under equipped for the price. Even if you were to take a Windsor block and build it up to push 500 + hp, and have a 6 speed tranny and a drive line to handle the power... then find a good car to put it under, you're going to wind up spending more money than you will on this GT500.... so I just don't feel there is a leg to stand on as far as complaining.
Member
Joined: March 10, 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
I didn't read EVERY single response on all the pages here but this is what I think.
I am a big fan of SRAs and I am glad that Ford put one in the new Shelby. Ford seems to be gunning for the C6 corevette with this new GT500. It will be cheaper and with 50 more horses (most likely it will be more) it should be faster. But will it handle better? I think it will be absolutely awesome if the Shelby is faster, but if it also out handles the C6, I will be extatic. Chevy will look like they really F'd up the corevette if our new musclecar can out perform AND out handle it. The only question is, would an IRS have been better for an all around package? Yes it would have been more expensive, but still most likely less than a fully decked out C6 with the suspension package. I really truly hope Ford wasn't lying when they said the IRS was only slightly better. I really want to see Chevy gets their ***** handed to them in a doggie bag because our Shelby can out handle it as well as hit the 1/4 faster! ! So, lets hope the SRA is the best we have ever seen.
Chevy
I am a big fan of SRAs and I am glad that Ford put one in the new Shelby. Ford seems to be gunning for the C6 corevette with this new GT500. It will be cheaper and with 50 more horses (most likely it will be more) it should be faster. But will it handle better? I think it will be absolutely awesome if the Shelby is faster, but if it also out handles the C6, I will be extatic. Chevy will look like they really F'd up the corevette if our new musclecar can out perform AND out handle it. The only question is, would an IRS have been better for an all around package? Yes it would have been more expensive, but still most likely less than a fully decked out C6 with the suspension package. I really truly hope Ford wasn't lying when they said the IRS was only slightly better. I really want to see Chevy gets their ***** handed to them in a doggie bag because our Shelby can out handle it as well as hit the 1/4 faster! ! So, lets hope the SRA is the best we have ever seen.
Chevy
