Lalo

Very Well Put Justin

71mach1_429

I must say i was disapointed that they were using a SLA in the gt 500, but after i read that they improved it and that they use it in the race car i was convinced but now for all you winers let me give u some facts i got from car and driver concerning the roadholding figures

m3= 0.87g
Mustang GT = 0.89g

And the shelby i supposed to be better so STOP WHINING !!!!!

Fordracing200

yes, the sra is much more durable and much cheaper and isnt so bouncy with wheel hop like the IRS

Joes66Pony

The actual truth is, if it wasn't for Ford Credit, Ford would have gone belly up. For the last few Ford Motor Credit was the only division of FoMoCo making a profit. But Andre is right to a point, for the last 2 decades, all of Ford's investments have gone into trucks or acquisitions, not into product.

Anyways, my complaints about the Shelby and making comparisons to it's competitors has nothing to do with my (or my fellow IRS supporters) love for the Mustang. Since I was 17, all I have ever owned has been Mustangs. That's 14 years of Mustang ownership, from the 66 Fastback I got in high school (and still own today), to my 96 Cobra (which was my first ever major purchase), to the 86 5.0L GT that I had when I was laid off, to my current 2000 Mustang GT. Whatever issues I have with Shelby not having the IRS won't affect my love of the brand. It will affect whether or not I buy the Shelby GT500 or any future SE.

My issue (and I believe it is with my compatriots) is that we feel Ford can do better with the car. Not having IRS in a 25,000 GT is acceptable. Not having it in a 40,000 SE is not. But does it mean I'm going into the driver's seat of an M3, maybe. Being a Mustang lover doesn't mean I can't appreciate or own other cars. But not buying an SVT Shelby isn't going to stop me from buying vintage Mustangs. I still dream of owning a Boss 302. I'm still going to look for a 66 convertible for my girlfriend. I'm still going to drool at the sight of my aunt's 428SCJ Mach 1.

The Shelby is still going to be successful. It meets the needs of most people here. For 40K, it doesn't meet my needs or desires. If I want a 40,000 vehicle powered by a 5.4L with a stick axle, I might as well get an F350 XLT Sport (SuperCab with the Short Bed and 18" Wheels).

conv_stang

um, the rx8 weighs 2800lbs and has 135 ft/lbs of torque. um GT500 weights 3500+ and probably 500 FT/lbs and the new GT are handling almost as well as the 03/04 cobras. and look at the numbers steeda and saleen are puttin up w/ their modified suspensions. .94/.95G with a live axle is pretty good.

V10

The GT-500 weighs over 3600 lb seats only 2 adults, has a small trunk and is pretty sparce on creature comforts.

But the 300C is almost 200" long has 4 doors, comfortably seats 4 - 5 adult passengers, has a huge trunk and has all sorts of luxury amenities such as DVD NAV system, dual zone climate control, heated seats etc.

I haven't heard many complaints about the GTO being able to but down its 400 HP through its IRS.

Let's face it, Ford cheaped out and now they are makng excuses. Quit believing all their BS.

bt4

I don't understand the argument over IRS vs SRA. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. Either system is merely one component that contributes to a vehicle's handling characteristics. Neither is the sole element that guarantees performance.

I see posts that claim IRS is far superior to SRA, or that a BMW M3 would, due to its superior handling, perform better than a Mustang, since it has an SRA. One even suggests buying an M3 since it has IRS.

In February, 2005, the Daytona Cup 200 (Trans-Am) race was held. There were Porsche, and BMW entries (with IRS) and several Mustang GTR (essentially out-of-the-box race cars) with a 3-link SRA.

The best any of the IRS entries could manage was third place (BMW M3). The first and second place cars were Mustangs, equipped with SRA.

Ask the Blackforest Motorsports team if they'd rather have IRS, or the first place finish.

If a car delivers performance, reasonable ride and affordability, why does it matter whether it uses IRS, or SRA?

André

Most mustang enthousiasts don't want a "reasonable ride" but a great one and at $40k we should have it... it's not only handling on the racetrack that concerns us but handling and ride confort in everyday situations where the roads are less than perfect, under those circumstances only an IRS setup can deliver a great ride and there is no reasons why it can't be made affordable, if I wanted reasonable, I would be driving a toyota.

Joes66Pony

No, neither is the sole element, but it makes a huge contribution to overall handling performance of the vehicle. Suspension set-up for a road car (even a high performance car like the Cobra) is a set of compromises between handling and ride. Both a stick axle and IRS have advantages over each other.

Live axle advantages
1. Low Cost
2. Ease of maintenance
3. Lower weight (not unsprung weight mind you)

Live axle disadvantages
1. Two wheels are connected to each other, what one wheels does, the other reacts to it.
2. Higher unsprung weight
3. Locating the assembly requires extraneous hardware ,such as panhard rods, track bars etc (we all remember the Quad-Shocks).

IRS advantages
1. Each wheel acts independently of each other
2. Lower unsprung weight (only the wheels and arm assemblies are unsprung, as opposed to and an entire assembly of carrier, axles etc.).
3. Tires are in constant contact with road.

IRS disadvantages
1. Complexity
2. Weight
3. Toe-in and Camber loss in cornering

Ok with that in mind. If the road was perfectly billboard smooth, with all things being equal a live axle vehicle will perform just as well as an IRS car. However, those of us who don't have our own Road Americas to bomb around on, a live axle vehicle will suffer. In real world driving, with potholes, ruts, expansion joints, an IRS is a class above. In order for an axle to get to a comparable level of an IRS equiped car, you reall have to stiffen it up.

Quote:

Originally posted by bt4@March 26, 2005, 10:08 PM
I see posts that claim IRS is far superior to SRA, or that a BMW M3 would, due to its superior handling, perform better than a Mustang, since it has an SRA. One even suggests buying an M3 since it has IRS.

If the M3 has all the features and the performance I'm looking for, why would I spend 40 grand plus on a car that doesn't have the stuff I'm looking for. It's not going to stop me from being a Mustang or Ford lover. I'm still going to have my 66 Fastback. I'm still going to dream of owning a Boss 302. Owning an M3 doesn't mean I hate Mustangs, it just means BMW was willing to offer me soemthing that Ford doesn't. The only thing keeping me from buying a Bimmer is the fact tha I'm very loyal to Ford, and that I sell them for a living. I'll probably just spend my money on a Super Duty.

Quote:

Originally posted by bt4@March 26, 2005, 10:08 PM
In February, 2005, the Daytona Cup 200 (Trans-Am) race was held. There were Porsche, and BMW entries (with IRS) and several Mustang GTR (essentially out-of-the-box race cars) with a 3-link SRA.

The best any of the IRS entries could manage was third place (BMW M3). The first and second place cars were Mustangs, equipped with SRA.

Ask the Blackforest Motorsports team if they'd rather have IRS, or the first place finish.

First of all, the Daytona Cup 200 is not a Trans-Am race, it's a Grand Am Cup race. Trans-Am is wholly seperate series with nothing to do with the France cabal in Daytona. Secondly, Daytona puts a premium on horsepower, so you would think the Mustang's power advantage would be a benefit on the big banking and long straights. However you'll notice that at the second race at Santo Domingo, a track that places a prmium on handling, a BMW won. Hmmm, curious.

People are holding up the Daytona win as vindication of the superiority of the Mustang stick axle. It's only one win folks.

If Blackforest had a choice, they probably would prefer an IRS equipped Mustang. Frankly, it would have been the perfect proving for Ford.

<!--QuoteBegin-bt4@March 26, 2005, 10:08 PM
If a car delivers performance, reasonable ride and affordability, why does it matter whether it uses IRS, or SRA?

Quoted post

[/quote]

Well, the question is affordability. Forty thousand dollars is not affordability, especially if the car doesn't have the features I'm looking for. Hey 450 hp is great, but it's not my priority. Now 450 hp with IRS, that would be a dream come true, and would have no problem spending 40K. As for ride, I'm willing to make sacrifices in terms of ride, but I expect a certain level of performance for that scarifice in ride, and frankly, I don't believe the live axle delivers it.

Joes66Pony

I suggest you watch "Bullitt" and take a look at the scene of Steve Mc.Queen backing up the Stang. That rear wheel was hopping around pretty badly.

Live axle cars will hop their wheels just as much as an IRS cars. It's fairly easy to cure, even in IRS cars. Heck, take a look at any Boss 302 or Drag Pak Mustang and you'll notice staggered rear shocks to prevent axle wind-up. Heck, even Super Duties are now using staggered shocks.

All the horror stories about IRS in the Mustang are an outgrowth of a design that was severely compromised so it could fit into a chassis never designed for it. People seem to forget, and condem IRS because of the 99-03. However, ask most owners about the ride and handling of a 99-03 Cobra, and they'll say it way better than a live axle of GT from the same period. Now imagine how great an IRS would be in a chassis designed for it (like Ford assured us the 05 Mustang is).

Dr Iven

Quite simply, there are those who are disappointed with the lack of IRS and those who are salivating over the 450+ HP engine. For its market, the Shelby can't please everyone, but for those who want the most bang for their buck, they'll be buying and driving while the others complain.

And, V10, you created a great argument... for me. The 300C is a large family sedan. Why are we comparing?

You CAN teach an old dog new tricks, and a solid rear axle is not always the "spruce log" some eloquently name it. Ford's not looking to turn a huge profit with this car. Much like the Ford GT, the Shelby will be a great way to market other Ford products, or in other words, the "pace car for an entire company." If they say they couldn't do IRS, I believe them. Of course IRS would be optimal, but if they can't or even just plain won't do it, more power to 'em. I seriously doubt it had much to do with cost-cutting. They could price it at $45k with IRS and it'd still sell out. It's this theory alone that brings me to believe there are other issues at hand.

Andre, do you honestly believe that a car with 450+ HP and incredible looks won't be a great ride?

Like I said... You can't please everyone.

Joes66Pony

Ford's not looking for profit in ANY of their cars. Ford is looking for volume. The big profit vehicles are trucks, and to a lesser extent SUV's.

You may believe they didn't cheapen, but when a company has had a history of doing exactly that, it's a hard reputation to shake. Especially after hearing for over the last year that Mustang was built to readily accept IRS, and that the new Cobra would definitely have IRS. I think Ford cheapened out. If not, then they have serious problems with their domestic engineering departments.

André

I believe a base GT with a few mods could handle and ride better than the new cobra, all that extra weight up front can't help, I expect a harsher ride and unstable handling under certain conditions...we will see.

We were promised IRS on the new SVT Mustang a zillion times by Ford, their automatic reaction to the mustang not having it on the GT or base car was, just wait for the new Cobra...

Personally I was hoping the IRS would find it's way eventually on the GT as an option or SE model, 300hp is more than enough for me, I don't see the point in paying an extra $15K for a car that does 0-60 in 4.6 seconds instead of 4.9

I guess I'll just have to settle for SRA GT, not much compitition for the mustang out there, and ford knows it, so why go the extra mile...

kevinb120

You do realize the M3s are just as heavilly prepped.

kevinb120

There are IRS mules at Ford right now so this is all moot untill final production specs are announced.

Order#2

You hit the nail on the head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kev, your the best

conv_stang

and last time i checked the GTO has the same wheel hop problem all the 99 and up cobras have. and also the GTO bulled les G's than the 05 GT and only beat it by .2 sec through the quarter.

max2000jp

G's mean pretty much nothing. It basically tells you how sticky the tires are. The number you want to look at is the slalom mph. This will tell you how the chassis and suspension work in transition. To take it one step further, lap times are an even better indicator.

The lack of an IRS suspension is pretty much a joke IMO. I used this example once before, but a C6 costs roughly 5K more than the estimated price of the Shelby GT500. You take away all the standard features not available on the Shelby such as HIDS, Auto Climate, etc etc and you will be very close to 40K with IRS. Ford/Shelby's excuse for not having IRS is a cop out.

matic

Can I end this argument please? Bottom line: For $40k,

You can have a > 450hp car with a 5.4L 32v supercharged V8 and a live axle ... OR

You can have a < 400hp car with a 4.6L 24v supercharged V8 and an IRS setup.

It doesn't matter if Ford is telling the truth about the costs or not, that is the financial bottom line for what you get. The live axle on the S197 is so well set up, the IRS won't hold much gain for the car in any situation. But if you had to have it, you could have the 5.4L V8 with IRS for over $45,000.00 ... IF they decide to make it an option.

So if you want the car for less than $40k, you either get the 5.4 or the IRS. Now, quit arguing.

Greywolf

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH .
Mines bigger and faster than yours and my daddy can beat up yours.