There's an interesting quote in this month's issue of Hot Rod magazine devoted to the Shelby (good article, actually). In the piece, Hau Tai Tang is asked about the protestations from enthusiasts and automotive journalists over the lack of an IRS in any of the new Stangs. Tai Tang says: "We'll never appease the IRS snobs."

Not certain if that's a statement of resignation, or a statement of resolve, but I suppose it could be interpreted either way. What's interesting is that they [Ford] apparently view the rest of the world's automakers as "snobs," since pretty much nobody outside Ford use SRA on automobiles anymore.

Also in the piece, he's quoted as saying, "This [the Shelby] won't be a bait-and-switch." Hope he keeps THAT promise.

I also hope that they can strike a balance between decent handling and ride comfort in this car. On a long road trip, I want something that doesn't ride like a horse carriage with a Saturn V rocket strapped to it.

Is "We'll never appease the IRS fans" all he said or did he actually call them snobs?

He uses the term "snobs." It rocked.

He is not too far from the truth.

My typing mistake. He said, "We'll never appease the IRS snobs."

Uh-huh.

Actually it's a pretty accurate statement.

Oh my, HTT seems a bit defensive now.

I always wondered, what if the GT500 showed up with a carburator instead of a modern FI on the 5.4, would the corner carvers be excused for lambasting the drag queens as FI snobs for just wanting hi-tech for bragging rights, the old-tech carb is good enough, anyone who drives so fast on public roads that they need that extra 100hp FI would get them is nuts, FI would cost an extra $xxx that could be used for better shocks and brakes, and all the comparable dissing us IRS proponents have been getting heaped on us.

While the straight line flatlanders have, for the most part, been rather dismissive of the concerns of us corner carver GT types over the log axle, imagine the shoe being on the other foot and finding some old-tech carb on the GT500 instead of the state of the art FI system it does have and the howls of protest you'd be raising over that -- a situation, I think, that would be comparable to how the IRS fans now feel.

FlatLANDERS may soon become flatLINERS if Ford isn't careful.

If the SRA vs. IRS poll on this website is any indication, it's clear that Ford is siding with the drag racing crowd because that appears to be what THEY want, and Ford considers that group to be their core demographic to this day. So given that, and the obvious cost savings incurred by utilizing the buggy axle, I guess it was a pretty simple decision for the bean counters on Mahogany Row.

Trouble is, as a litmus test of corporate culture, it tells me that Ford's North American division is either unwilling or unable to compete with global products.

I was a little surprised when I read that article and his comments. I don't think he was being 100% malicious, but nontheless I was surprised. I love M3's, M5's, etc. . . .so am I a snob?!

I truly think he was referring to IRS snobs as a group WITHIN IRS fans......

Some IRS fans will be okay/deal with the live axle.... but there will be some who won't no matter what he says and I think that is who he is referring to.

It will be interesting to see the road test in Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords in, say, 2008, of the IRS equipped Cobra vs a (non ragged out) 2006 GT 500.

The simple truth is that the tree log is as antiquated as carburetors, push rods and wind-up windows - actually, it even predates those! And yet Ford is pretty much the only hold-out still using it in a passenger car.

There's just no good argument for SRA aside from cost savings.

I mean, as an example, no-one here is advocating giving up computers and going back to smoke signals, are they?

Or how 'bout giving up color TV and going back to B&W?

Or how 'bout giving up automated digital cameras and going back to manual film cameras with manual wind and handheld exposure meters?

No manufacturer could get away with doing this in any other sector or they would shortly go out of business...and yet that is exactly what Ford is doing here. Hmmmmm...and Ford is losing money. Is there a possible corollary here? Hello?! McFly?!!

Fact, no one has driven it, who are complaining.
And with the ammount of people that WILL buy this car, its a selling point for a MINUTE ammount of those people. And because of the car, those peoples spots will be filled if they decide to 'I'm the customer I want this, or i'll leave' attitude.

Do you honestly think that the 'x' number of people that will say 'it sucks, I want IRS' are going to make a dent? vs the ammount of people that will flock to this car if it comes out with 450+ (500HP) and the shelby name? If so, give your head a shake.

They will sell, it will outpeform the previous generation, and be one of the most bad hiney cars on the market for the given pricepoint.

Its like the same people who say 300hp isn't enough in the GT.
Funny, they are still selling.
Or people who say 210hp V6 isn't enough....
funny, they are still selling..
..insert another gripe here...
but they are still selling....

I agree with Hau.
Some peoples minds will NEVER change regardless how well it will handle or perform. And most will do this blindly without even getting a hands on experience with the product they are bashing....

So why did Ford bother to put IRS on the old Cobra if IRS is so useless?

Why did Ford bother to put IRS on SUV's like the Expedition?

Why does the 500, Montego, Fusion, Milan & Zephyr have IRS. Wouldn't a solid axle be just as good if not better?

Seems like HTT and Ford are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Four things:

1. The rest of the automotive world is using IRS for a REASON. Not because it's cool, or trendy, or cute, or popular, or "snobbish," but because they all know it offers superior dynamics and the ideal blend of ride quality and handling prowess. Apparently Ford's arrogance is so unchecked they think they can rewrite the laws of physics. Good luck.

2. Ignore customers and the marketplace at one's own peril, I say.

3. Ford is losing money and losing sales to the imports and it's not just forces beyond their control. Based upon HTT's comments, I'm forced to conclude that it's also because of a Pleistocene attitude. It seems that Ford and Mr. Tai Tang do not suffer fools gladly.

4. Finally, short terms benefits (sales) do not necessarily equal long-term growth. History has demonstrated that in an active marketplace economic darwinism rules supreme.

So then....stop complaining and don't buy a Ford. Instead of b***hing on here, speak with your wallet and take the "future GT500" off your avatar. I mean, this whole IRS v. SRA thing is old. Just don't buy one. Go buy a BMW, Benz, or any other car with IRS. Complaining does nothing. Take action, and the only action to be taken is boycott Ford. Frankly, I am sure the rest of us that are tired of hearing from the IRA "snobs" won't miss you.

This is exactly the same attitude that's leading Ford to massively lose market share and seeing it's stock being reduced to "junk" bond status. The lessons from the 70's obviously haven't been learned.

I'll be sure to suggest that they etch the above on Ford's corporate tombstone. :rolleyes:

Here's a suggestion: If you don't like what I have to say...lump it.

I finding it very amusing that no one here is bothering to mention that the SRA equipped '05 Mustang in the Grand American Series is kicking the living heck out of every other IRS equipped car brand in that series. This includes BMW, Chevy, Chrysler and Porsche.

Yes, all the cars are modified, but not extremely so. The Mustang has won 4 out of the 5 races completed so far in the series. In fact, in the first race, they came in 1st AND 2nd!! In the last race, they came in 1st, 3rd, and 4th!! And the winning car had to race 7/8ths of the race with no ABS!!! A 25k car with a "prehistoric" suspension is ripping up 80k - 120k European cars left and right. I wonder why all those condemning a car they have never driven are failing to mention this fact?

Yes, the ride in an SRA will be more harsh... but hey, this is a HIGH-PERFORMANCE SPORTS CAR! If you want a luxury coupe, go buy an Infiniti. There are plenty of other choices out there for those who want a fast car with a cushy ride. If you can't handle the harsher ride then you obviously need a car that better suits your needs. This car is going to built to be RACED. It's not going to be built with ride comfort as a prime factor. Performance is 1#, as it should be with any car carrying the Shelby emblem.

You wouldn't buy a Mustang GT to go offroading, would you? No, you'd buy an SUV. So if you want something that's going to massage your buttocks while you drive on a 500 mile road trip, don't buy an '07 Shelby. Buy a Lexus.

Geez, have a little faith, guys. Be a little more positive. I hope this car will be able to corner great too - and I think it will. SRA may mean a harsher ride, but it doesn't mean the car's handling will stink.

Amen

That would involve actually doing something, rather than blowing hot air.

I'm pretty sure the old Cobra has it because it needed it (imagine it with SRA). this new cobra doesnt. Ford isnt stupid enough that they wont put it on a 40K car if it really needed it, and risk losing most of their sales the next year.

They may be losing money, but it has nothing to do with the Mustang using SRA.
If Ford stopped making mustangs, they still wouldnt feel a big hit, because the truck and suv market is their bread and butter.
They are losing money because the SUV/ Truck market is falling.
and like V10 said, Ford does have vehicles with IRS

Hau Tai Tang has publicly said all the right things up to now. He has been very careful and calculating in all the interviews that I am aware of. He could have won the Mr. Political Correctness of the Year award.

Now, why a person of his stature, intellect, and position, emphasize and highlight an insult directed at a segment of the SVT customer base, one which has been loyal even enduring some of Ford's embarrassing shortcomings, when he knows he is being quoted and any news related to SVT will spread like wild fire? There must be a motive.

His predecessor just about rolled the carpet for the SVT customers and he is trying his best to distance himself from the very customer which most likely buy his product. Interesting.

It seems our little SVT savior is becoming a bit of a snob himself.

Because the Grand-Am is an artificially equated racing series. You wanna bring up facts like that, why not bring up the fact the FR500C is allowed to run a non-production engine, while the Bimmers and Porsches are limited to production pieces. Place it in ALMS GT2 or even Speed World Challenge and we'll see how well it really stacks up against Porsches and Bimmers. Ford better milk all the publicity they because before long the NASCAR Mafia....errr GARRA will clamp down on the FR500C's obvious power advantage. Also, find me where I can buy and FR500C for 25K, cause the last time I checked the Ford Racing website, MSRP for the FR500C is 120K.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OBleedingMe@May 16, 2005, 7:38 PM
Yes, the ride in an SRA will be more harsh... but hey, this is a HIGH-PERFORMANCE SPORTS CAR! If you want a luxury coupe, go buy an Infiniti. There are plenty of other choices out there for those who want a fast car with a cushy ride. If you can't handle the harsher ride then you obviously need a car that better suits your needs. This car is going to built to be RACED. It's not going to be built with ride comfort as a prime factor. Performance is 1#, as it should be with any car carrying the Shelby emblem.

---

If Ford wanted to build a RACE car, they should build a race car. This is supposed to be a serious performance machine, but it's obvious it's aimed at only aspect of performance, the straight line aspect. For one, it's designed for the street, meaning it has to deal with real world situations. So unless you plan on trailering the car to the drag every time, or just leave it in the garage, I would bet that harsh ride would get old real quick. I think many of us remembering the harsh ride that the old 87-93 5.0's gave.

<!--QuoteBegin-OBleedingMe@May 16, 2005, 7:38 PM
You wouldn't buy a Mustang GT to go offroading, would you? No, you'd buy an SUV. So if you want something that's going to massage your buttocks while you drive on a 500 mile road trip, don't buy an '07 Shelby. Buy a Lexus.

Geez, have a little faith, guys. Be a little more positive. I hope this car will be able to corner great too - and I think it will. SRA may mean a harsher ride, but it doesn't mean the car's handling will stink.
[/quote]

The point of IRS is that offers a better compromise of ride and handling over SRA. Why should I have to sacrifice ride comfort in order to get handling. Why should I have to put up with mid corner stability and vague rear end? It's easy for you to say, go look someplace else. Fine, but there are some of us who truly love the Mustang and expected more than what we were given. Plus, when it all boils down to it, those of us who want IRS are frankly sick of being lied to by HTT and Ford.

Amen, brother.

Do you have to get bashed in the head with a brick to know you won't enjoy it? Some things are self-evident, like the limitations of SRA, for example.

I put it to you: If SRA is so wonderful, why has every other manufacturer in the world abandoned it on their passenger cars?

HTT's comments about "snobs" tells me that he's simply feeling defensive about big brother's cost-cutting measures.

this is hilarious.

Why is it on those cars?
Why is it this...why is it that.

You don't go dear hunting with a bazooka. It'll do the job, but its not the right tool for the job. Mind you, you can use various types of firearms/weapons that will accomplish similar things and still be effective. Its comparing apples oranges.

-Other cars are on other platforms
-Other cars aren't the same wheel drive
-other cars don't have a 5.4L Supercharged beast engine
-other cars are handbuilt and cost more money than the mod team combined
-other cars are built for other purposes
-other cars

I really don't want to turn this into a SRA/IRS debate. Cause its been done before over and over again.

Fact: 05 GT with its so neanderthal SRA outperforms the 03 Cobra's IRS.
Why is that? Theres TONNES of reasons... newer platform, better weight distro, etc etc. Its in the same vein of why the GT500 with its SRA will outperform other cars that DO have an IRS.
And was money a contributing factor?
You betcha...no one is arguing that.

But now bring in the.... would you spend say... 3000 extra for a car that had 20 extra HP? The cost hast to justfiy the means.
In this case, its been stated FOR that extra cost, and for how many people WOULD actually notice... its not worth it. (and they are probably setting it up for a future upgrade, but it still has to be worth the cost)
(lets get real now, ford is out for money too...it has to make money)

And for the ammount of SVT vehicles that are sold, you're smoking something if you think that it'll 'alienate' their market. SVT vehicles are a drop in the bucket compared to regular mustang owners...who are a drop in the bucket for ford vehicles.

What it comes down to if you REALLY wanted to complain...the regular v6/v8s should have had the IRS.
And we KNOW that a SRA V8 won't sell...right?
oh wait....

Because most of us don't spend ALL our time at the track, or ALL our time on the highway, or ALL our time darting around in city traffic. Those of us who live in the real world need a car that can successfully manage a variety of driving conditions without beating us up. Most of us can't afford the luxury of two expensive cars to pull double or triple duty.

The point is that with today's technological advances, it's quite possible to have one car that can strike a successful balance between the two. Muscle and refinement. Speed and comfort. But Ford chose to take the cheap way out yet again, because it's apparently only creating these cars with its core customer base in mind. And HTT's remarks about "snobs" drives this point home.

You must understand that SRA provides better unsprung weight control, particularly on bad road surfaces where upsetting one wheel with an SRA will automatically upset the other. It also provides a better balance between handling prowess and ride comfort.

The physics of IRS are superior. That's it. End of story.

Ok getting hit in the head is different than a rear suspension.
Your logic is flawed.

Right, SRA suck..they must. Because everyone else uses IRS.
I guess pushrod engines are dead too, because its accient technology.
GM seems to have gotten that right...why?
Ohhhh because its refined....not unlike any old technology that is brought into the common era.

Just because its old, doesn't mean it sucks.
Now if it was the exact SAME, with nothing updated...then something is wrong.

Its like saying UNIX sucks because its from the 70s...

That and they needed the extra 5 grand (or whatver the latest figure is) so they could slap Shelby's name all over the thing.

Actually, I don't go dear hunting.

But that's another conversation. :jester:

You're missing the entire point here. NO OTHER AUTOMAKER CONTINUES TO USE SRA IN ITS PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES! Didja ever wonder why? And then, didja wonder why Ford is still using the tree log?

What is this, 1890?

Now who's logic is flawed?

Someone made the point, I think it was Joes66Pony, that they felt this generation of Mustang will never get IRS. I agree with that statement. If Ford were planning a RWD sedan based on the Mustang Chassis (and not the LS, T-bird, S-type Chassis) they'd have made an IRS setup for the Mustang. It seems Ford has no plans in the near future for a new RWD platform, and no the USA is not getting a Global Falcon chassis. (At least that is my understanding.)

I'll withhold judgement until a production Shelby is ready for testing. I'm sure that the car will perform exceptionally well, maybe even better than some expect, but from a Global perspective the lack of IRS makes one wonder . . .at least to me, "why not".

The thing that gets me is that Ford can create a IRS for the old Fox chassis, which was a stand alone chassis for the last number of years, but they can't for a new designed chassis . . .it just doesn't make sense.

And while the GT500 won't add much to the bottom line, it will bring people into the showroom, and there in lies another chapter in the story of selling. Will the traffic lead to additional 'looks' at the Fusion, Five Hundred, Focus (wish we had the Euro version, but that is another story), and the aging (but profitable) CV.

That's my point, exactly. It DOESN'T make sense. And for a company like Ford - who are losing money - to make nonsensical decisions is very troubling to me. It makes me wonder just what is wrong at the top, and frankly, if they can survive the rising tide of import onslaught.

Compared to LINUX, yeah UNIX does stink. I mean heck..I learned programing using FORTRAN. It was more than capable of doing what I needed, does that mean I should forego LINUX and go back to FORTRAN simply because it's "good enough".

Because people are sheep....they want 'the best' regardless of what it'll do for them, or whether they will use it. Plain and simple.

You can have an SRA that will outperform a shoe horned IRS, yet people will still go for the IRS because its what people have said is 'what the best is' regardless of the SRA car handling better and costing less.

These are the same people who will blindly go and buy an Intel 3.0GHZ processor instead of an AMD because its got a 'faster clockspeed', even though a 2.0ghz Athlon will wipe the floor with it.
Or buy a car based on horsepower ratings...regardless of torque or weight.....

It all comes down to engineering and building a better mousetrap.
Some people believe the hype... and some people do not.

:rolleyes:

Would you be interested in a title for title match?

Apparently you haven't noticed that for the past 4 years every time Ford brings out a new Mustang model it carries "the best ever label", stamped by Ford. Looks like in a few your outperforming '05 GT will be manure fertilizing along side the rest of us.

Thank you for proving my point.
Whats LINUX built on?

exactly

Theres one of the snobs now ;) ;) :jester:
Just kiddin G

So an IRS equipped 05 would have wiped the floor with and SRA equipped 05. There have been rumor in the press that IRS equipped 05 test mules have been pulling over 1G. The best the 05 GT can gather is .81 (according to MT).

Yes, trying to make a point about something being improved over time, and improving on a old technology
...
is apparently the same as a brick in the head

:scratch:

Don't get me wrong,
I think everyone here is thinking I'm pro SRA, and saying an IRS sucks.

nowhere do I say that.
I do say that, the end has to justify the means.
And for the people that would notice...it wasn't worth it.

You can poll whoever you want on this site...it still will not give you ANY accurate info. The only thing you are proving is that the people on this site voted 'X'

We should be thankful we have a car TO argue about.

Or they might be holding back the fact that Ford does not have the engineering ability to design and build an efficient and affordable IRS.

But you are right. They shouldn't be urinating ( :rolleyes: ) on our backs and telling us it's raining.

Listen all I am saying is stop complaining and do the only thing you can. Speak with your money.

And to the response regarding Ford's junk bonds. Are you a shareholder? Do you hold Ford debt securities? Otherwise, if you don't like the vehicles they produce, don't buy them. What does their corporate status matter if you don't like what they produce?

Because apparently there are a lot of people who don't like what they produce. Besides, where if anywhere have I said I don't like what Ford's producing. My only gripe with Ford is that they really cheaped out with the Mustang's rear suspension.

And it should matter to those of us who like Mustangs, because if Ford doesn't get itself straightened, the Mustang will stagnate for another 10 to 15 years, or worse yet, there may not be a Mustang to argue about anyways.

i wouldnt but a mustang with an IRS

You honestly mean to tell me that if Ford had brought out the 05 Mustang with IRS, but still had the same 300 hp and 25,000 dollar base price, you would not have bought it?

Exactly....and you won't not buy one b/c it has SRA. So this whole debate is pointless. Some people, like myself and others, like SRA. Some like IRS. I think that Ford's future is not hinging on the decision to not put IRS in the Mustang. I bet they may only lose a few hundred sales to it annually, just as they would lose some sales if they put IRS in it to SRA lovers. As I have said before, if you don't like it, don't buy it, but this cannot be made into a microcosm of the reason that Ford is in trouble financially. It's an opinion, and opinions differ. SRA vs. IRS is NOT the reason, or one of the reasons for it.

i would not have bought it, i have been through the axle snapping before, i want something strong, not something dainty and fraile.

Saaay what? :scratch:

Believe what you will.

Fact: Ford is having serious financial issues.
Fact: IRS is superior to SRA. SRA offers NO intrinsic geometry benefits...ZERO...and suffers from a major sprung weight disadvantage along with transfer of kinetic energy through the rear drive assembly when hitting bad pavement. If you don't get this, perhaps you should talk to ALL THE REST of the world's automakers who NO LONGER USE IT. Then go talk to the Ford GT development team and ask them why they didn't put a spruce log in their $150K supercar. Believe me, they get it, they only dropped IRS for one reason alone, and that brings me to the last fact...
Fact: SRA was used in the new Mustang to save M-O-N-E-Y, not because of its superior engineering.

Which is why putting all your eggs in one basket (large trucks and SUV's, in Ford's case) is a bad idea. Failure to recognize top-notch competition in a HUGE market segment (mid-size sedans) is also a bad idea. If the upcoming models are any indication, it looks like Ford is, in fact, learning these lessons.

Actually, you are a little incorrect when you say that it offers NO advantages-- last I checked, higher torsional rigidity is an advantage. And an SRA, which creates a strong lateral vector, weighs less than the added structural reinforcement needed to maintain stiffness with an IRS. Also, you did point out earlier that big SUV's have gotten IRS. You neglect to recognize that large SUV's amount to little more than grocery-getters. Full-size pickups, the last real work-horses in the mainstream auto industry, still use SRA for its added strength under heavy payloads and towing.

That doesn't mean superior engineering can't make it work well. Yeah, it may be a more difficult task for the engineers, but "inherent" flaws certainly didn't stop Porsche from making a RWD/Rear-engined car (which tend to be an oversteering nightmare) that set the standard for the entire industry.

I agree that the SRA may be engineerable so that it attains competent handling dynamics. But that would require an expenditure of money likely greater than the cost of implementing an IRS - and I doubt Ford has/would spend the money in either case.

I don't think it was me who pointed out SUVs getting IRS.

I think the most important thing to look at here is the fact that practically every other automobile manufacturer in the world has long since dropped the SRA since it offers the least number of advantages in the fewest real world applications.

Good for pickups? Sure. Good for passenger cars? Not anymore, though I will concede that the new Mustang's chassis is highly-touted enough that the engineers may yet pull a rabbit out of a hat with the Shelby's suspension dynamics. We'll have to wait and see.

But as an academic argument, I stand by my earlier statement that IRS is superior to SRA for all automobile applications. And I suspect the VAST majority of the world's automobile engineers would agree with me on that point and be able to make a much better case for IRS than anyone on this board can make for SRA.

You have that backwards, you would need IRS on a track before you need it in the real world. And if you are cornering that hard on city streets, remind me to stay away from where you drive. Ride quality has very little to do with whether it has IRS or SRA. Ride quality is affected more by your shocks and springs. The stiffer they are, the more jolting the ride. For example, see the 350Z, the thing will rattle your teeth out, and it has IRS as well. So using that argument as to why the GT500 needs an IRS over a SRA is severely flawed.

Great post.

When working with an unlimited budget then you can get everything you want. When working under a strict budget there are compromises that need to be made. If the IRS is marginally better at a substaintial cost then screw it, put the money elsewhere that would make a bigger difference.

While any suspension can be oversprung and too stiffly shocked, an IRS design, generally, offers a much wider range and flexibility of capability in delivering superior levels of handling, over a wider variety of road surfaces at a greater level of ride compliance than a comparable live axle. The 350Z Track version is probably a good, but hardly only, example of this.

A live axle, any live axle regardless of how well located (SRA or otherwise) will, by dint of its great unsprung mass and resultant suspension inertia, will require significantly stiffer springs, shocks and bushings for a given level of movement control, with a commensurate deterioration in the compliance and ride quality for a given level of handling.

Very smooth roads tend to obviate this advantage, which can be seen often at race tracks and drag strips. But outside of these somewhat artificial confines, a good IRS offers significantly greater capabilities of handling, compliance AND ride and need not be so compromised for one quality to the negation of others. But on a creamy-smooth drag strip or most road course tracks, a live axle suspension, which is not asked to do much suspending at all, can do quite well and its shortcomings become fairly moot.

However, drive throught the track gates onto the rough and tumble of the real world and those innate weaknesses can and will become much more apparant. It really is the off track, non-competition environment that will more truly test the mettle of the SRA in extremis and be most revealing of any shortcomings, and be the realm in which an IRS will best reveal its own strengths and benefits.

Of course, the SRA most certainly IS a very good suspension, all hyperbole aside, and probably amongst the best of its kind. And it will, eventually, be out in the real world driving that more final pronouncements can be made, good, bad or indifferent.

But one must excuse the concerns about the lack of an IRS by those seeking a more balanced performance platform for the Mustang as akin to how those more narrowly focused on simple straight line speed might react to the GT500 being spec'd out with a carburator or 4 speed gear box. While such features may work well enough in specific measures and save significant money -- arguments made in favor of the SRA -- would they work up to world class (broad spectrum) expectations (as the GT500 has been touted) over a broad range or criteria?

Maybe, but were I a dyed in the wool drag racer, I'd certainly have great consternation and posts similar in tone to the pro-IRS ones.

Mods, can we just merge all the IRS threads into one? It's the same discussion going on in each and everyone of them.

You know how long that would take?! :jester:

lol, very true.

I'm not arguing that IRS is inferior. I understand the benifits but the truth of the matter is the '05 GT has received very good reviews on it's handling. Case in point from Car and Drivers review:

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?se...8&page_number=2
C&D recorded a 0.87g with the '05 GT. I'm assuming that the GT500 will follow all other Cobras and be a better handler than the GT. Would it handle better with IRS? Yes. Do the benifits justify the cost? Ford deemed that it didn't and that there are better places to invest that money.

Which ones, there's only been about 30 of them. :D

I love my 05, but the suspension needs a lot of work. I feel that HTT is just trying to justify the decision he made, but ultimately it came down to cost. I don't think anyone will disagree that an SRA is inferior technology. An IRS suspension is modern technology and should be used to showcase SVT's engineering resources. I guess if you want an all around american performance car, you have to buy a Vette.

Another thing that people forget is that IRS is superior where it counts.....Everday driving. A IRS suspension will ride better and be more controllable at the limits. I notice that my GT's rear end feels unsettled close to the limits.

Jeeze, another piss on SRA thread!

To: all the IRS "snobs"
cc: sane people
Subject: easy to follow instructions

Here is a step by step procedure for all to follow that are still bringing this up AGAIN.
1. Drive a '05 Mustang GT to get a feel for how it handles
2. Read reviews on next SVT product when it comes out, try to test drive one to get a feel for yourself (good luck)
3. Make a decision if the car is right for you and either buy it or buy something else.

that's it, stop whinning about something that you haven't even experienced. If there is a SRA in the next SVT Mustang, you can't change that, unless you buy out ownership of Ford quickly and change the production plans. Or maybe, just maybe, you can install your own IRS.

Now, I'm not saying that SRA is the better of the two. I do know that my 05 GT handles great, and as good if not better than my $31,000 IRS 2001 Acura CL S. Now, I know there are several factors there other than the suspension, but can't all of you wait to see what the product is before whinning about it????????

I guess I am one of the snobs whom wants a modern product. Ford and GM can keep using this very same mentality, while their market share ultimately slides. Building a product that works isn't enough for todays sophisticated consumers.

Somehow I don't see GT500's sitting on showroom floors that aren't getting sold.

I don't doubt that, but that's not the whole picture. Ford can sell 10,000 GT500's, but that doesn't matter if the rest of the line isn't selling well. The GT500 is a halo car, which I doubt Ford makes much of a profit on.

Somebody please explain the correlation between the Mustang GT and Shelby having a SRA and Ford's losing market share???????????????????????????In case you haven't noticed, the Mustang is selling like CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Its already been stated in this very thread that the other cars that Ford is producing have IRS. If IRS is so darn important, why aren't they selling like the SRA Mustang? The lost market share is due to trucks and SUVs, jeeze, not the Mustang and the Shelby.

Explain that?

Well, aren't all Mustangs selling well?

Everyone wants to equate no IRS in the GT500 with Ford's market share woes. The truth is that the two have nothing to do with each other. The average buyer that walks into a Ford dealership could care less if the GT500 has IRS or not (I would be tempted wager as to whether the average buyer even knows that the GT500 even exists). The market share issue is a matter of perception of overall quality and has nothing to do with what kind of rear suspension is in a limited production Mustang. Many of Ford's mainstream offerings have IRS and that hasn't stopped market share decline. Having IRS in the GT500 isn't going to change it either. If you want to argue which suspension is technically better than the other, go for it. But stop trying to pin market share decline on this one issue.

Thank You! There is no correlation btw. these two. Can't these whinners understand that? Yeah, all things being equal, IRS is better than SRA, but all tings aren't equal, and if you don't like the SRA Shelby, DON'T BUY IT. There will be 10 people behind you with their money in hand ready to buy it!

Also consider that neither Honda nor Toyota have a halo car, and there sales are doing pretty well.

S2000 = Honda halo car? Just a thought, not really wanting to start another argument in this thread, we already have plenty : )

An S2000 is hardly a halo car, at just over $30k, and I don't think you will have any problem getting one. Halo cars are Dodge Viper, Ford GT, Corvette Z06.

Edit: If you count the Acura division, then yes Honda has a halo car in the NSX, but usually Honda and Acura dealerships are not colocated.

Geez you guys are picky. The IRS issue relates back to the big picture, making "good enough" cars. This happens to be a prime example I don't think many people here understand the automotive business and how poorly GM and Ford are doing. HTT has stated that the GT500 is a platform to showcase SVT's and Ford Racing engineering technology. Using a outdated technology to showcase your engineering, do you guys not see a problem with this?

Again, Ford and GM can continue to build cars that don't match the consumers needs and not match the competive standards. You can argue with me until you are blue, but take a look at Ford's overall sales. It proves my point.....

Toyota's Halo division is Lexus. Honda's was the NSX. A halo car is a general term for a vehicle or brand that creates a buzz.

So Ford's halo is Jaguar, Aston Martin, or Land Rover.

Edit: That should be Honda's is the NSX, they still make them, at least under the Acura badge here in the states.

http://www.acura.com/images/nsx/nsx_gal_wal_5_wall.jpg

And the Mustang is the left overs.


:jester:

Jaguar ain't doing so hot. Don't know about Aston nor Land Rover, but I wouldn't consider any of those brands a "Ford".

Honda's/Acura's do share a lot of components.

power windows are for lincolns, and color TV is WAY overrated!

I think you guys just like to argue, and when you are wrong, start making up excuses.

Other than the Mustang (and trucks of course), what other Ford's have SRA? None that I know of. Again, how many average buyers know the difference between IRS and SRA? Not many I'd say. Ford's "bread and butter" offerings have many of the same features (IRS, AWD, etc) as their competitors yet they suffer market decline. The Mustang's rear suspension is not the cause no matter how much you want to connect the two issues.

I think the Mustang's SRA caused the last solar eclipse.

Give it time. Eventually, Mr. Hai will be calling you guys the SRA SNOBS.


:jester:

Actually I don't care what the rear suspension is as long as it performs well.

I'm with you. SRA or IRS? Meh, just make it perform well and I'm happy.

Since the sky is falling and Ford is loosing some much business on the Mustang due to lack of IRS does that mean I'll get my order for an 05 filled?

Please say yes. I would rather spend less money on car with a lot of HP without IRS than keep driving my civic around.

Just finished reading all the replies.....

BTW, some of you guys shoudl start your own Auto company. You seem to know so much about how to make good cars and run successful Auto manufacturers.....

BTW, NO ONE on these boards has mentioned the primary reason that some American auto makers are having trouble making money. It actually has little to do with automobiles. The fact is their costs are way to high. Those primary costs being benifits to factory workers. To give an example GM has spent in their benifit HANDLING group than any other group in their company. That's not the cost of the benefits...that's the cost of MANAGING the benefits.

See, in Japan most of the factory workers gain their benifits from their government. So, the auto industries there don't have that cost directly to them. (Of course the japaneese pay much more in Taxes than we do, the money has to come from somewhere).

Finally, Japan has much more automation (i.e. robots) making their automobiles than American auto makers. Certain groups representing the factory workers have successfully convinced the Auto makers not to use robotic manufacturing techniques.

But I wouldn't worry....since American Airlines (I believe it was them) defaulted on their pension plan when they realized the U.S. government would cover the costs the dominos are about to fall. Many old U.S. industries are going to follow suit when they realize they can get out of the cost of paying pension plans by making the U.S. tax payer cover the bill.

And you wonder why SRA was used? With all these problems trying to find a way to affordably get IRS into their automobiles is the LEAST of the American Auto maker's problems.

Ahhh! Another expert first time prospective GT owner with an expert IRS opinion, a thin wallet, and Civic trained, no less. Now I understand why the GT guys like drifting so much. :nice:


:jester:

Man..I never claimed to be an IRS expert...I honestly don't care. Which is the point....most people like me don't. And I imagine all those people buying up the GT don't either.

You are using the actual IRS vs SRA suspension debate in the wrong context. Lets look at Ford's other recent sedans. The 500 is bland, way underpowered, and handles poorly. The Fusion has a lot of potential, but it's also underpowered. The SRA is a prime example of what Ford is doing wrong. It's not innovating, rather following way behind the competition. Ford and GM is out of touch with consumers, this is very apparent.

Someone brought up legacy costs, which the last time I saw a figure costs the consumer 1200 a car. Good point! Another factor that kills the US Auto Manufacturers are unions. Things would change for the better if the UAW wasn't around.

OMG, you hit Ford's problems right on, but for some reason you brought the SRA vs IRS thing back up. Reread the portion I made bold, that's what Ford needs to fix, the actual cars they are trying to move.

No it's just a prime example of the wrong attitude at Ford. An underpowered engine works fine, just like an SRA.

What he's saying is that the use of SRA is the SYMPTOM of the problem, not the origin. There are other symptoms as well, such as the aforementioned bland styling on the 500...cheap, hard, brittle plastic interiors on the new Mustang...the underpowered 6-cylinder engine in the 500...quality and reliability issues on a number of Ford products, etc, etc, etc.

SRA vs IRS is a particularly good symptom of Ford's problems, however, because it cuts to the heart of Ford's corporate attitude. The Mustang is considered to be cheap, crude, 'go-fast' power for lowest common denominator buyers. That's how Ford sees the Mustang, and with an attitude like that, it will never gain more mainstream market share of a kind that the imports enjoy. It's selling well now because it's trading largely on nostalgia, but how well will it sell two years from now?

I reiterate for the final time: NO OTHER MANUFACTURER OF NOTE USES SRA IN PASSENGER CARS ANYMORE!!!! Care to speculate as to why? Because it is INFERIOR TECHNOLOGY, best suited to trucks.

The bottom line is that Ford's cars cannot and do not compete with their import equivalents, and as a consequence, their sales are down while import sales are up. And UAW aside, part of the reason they don't compete is precisely because of technological and quality shortcomings, the kind of which are demonstrated aptly by the SRA issue.

I’m going “OFF-TOPIC” for a moment. I wish I could disagree with Robert, but I can’t, and as a Ford lover it hurts a little to see the company in the shape it is in currently. Now I will say that my Fiancee’s Five Hundred Limited is a fine car, I like it much more than the Taurus, and she and received numerous positive comments from people at the gas station, and out on the street. She is a previous owner of three Toyota’s and she crossed shopped Mazda 6, Camry, Volvo S40, Escape, and Mariner. I wanted her to get a Mazda 6 5-speed wagon, but I’m not paying for the car. Is it bland, yeah kinda, but it does have some pep for a 203hp car. The Camry and Accord don’t really define style any more than the Five Hundred., and I think the Fusion will be a hit . . .as long as the darn backseat is bigger than the old Contour.

HOWEVER . . . I can only imagine a Ford lineup that included the 427 concept, Fusion, and Euro Focus as their car lineup.

As long as the Ford has problems in their vehicle launches, and recalls, the public will stay away with whatever lineup they’re offering. And yes, I know other manufacturers have recalls, and the media isn’t as fast to make note of them, that should just make Ford that much more responsible in their vehicle launches.

OK . . BACK TO TOPIC . . .but good discussion nontheless.

Ahhh...but are they not currently designing bigger and more powerful V6 engines for these very cars? They've also decided to start doing mid-cycle model refreshes in much the same way that Toyota does them. How is that an example of the "wrong attitude"?

BTW, pick up the current issue of Car & Driver. There's an article about Ford's research into HCCI (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition). It's technology that will yield gas mileage that's 10% higher than a diesel yet retain all the power characteristics of a gasoline engine. It's still in the development stage but the article says we could see it in Ford cars in the next few years. I guess that's another example of "wrong attitude" as well.

Again, the SRA vs. IRS issue has nothing to do with the market share issue. If it did, the Mustang wouldn't be Ford's hottest selling model right now.

Did you not comprehend what I wrote? The SRA vs. IRS issue is symptomatic of the sorts of problems that are dwindling Ford's market share. I never said that Ford is losing market share strictly BECAUSE of the buggy axle.

HCCI sounds interesting. There are a few new technologies out there that show promise for improving the efficiency of gas powered engines. Unfortunately, they do little to mitigate the problem of greenhouse emissions. For that, we'll need a whole new type of fuel. BMW's new hydrogen powered ICE shows promise, but the problem there is that MAKING hydrogen fuel may prove to be as resource depleting and damaging as the current gasoline ICE.

Nobody wants to see Ford succeed more than I do. I got goosebumps of pride when the British auto magazines started heaping praise on the GT supercar. "Yeah," I thought, "we CAN still build world-beating cars!"

And I don't think people by Japanese cars because they WANT to buy from Japan...they do it because those vehicles are generally superior, offer better value for their money, and don't depreciate as quickly.

But domestic automakers have lost too much ground to succeed by playing a game of catch-up. They need to play to win now, or they will eventually lose, and then we'll all be driving around in imports. :(

I happen to think the 500 is a nice car. The only part that seems especially bland to me is the front end, which could have used more inspired styling. But the quality is a big step up for Ford...and a step in the right direction. But again, as good as it is, it's not quite there yet. Ford needs vehicles other than the GT and Mustang to get people excited. It's just as easy to style an attractive car as a boring one. And traditionally, we have been MUCH better in this part of the world at styling cars than the Japanese. Plus we have the heritage and nostalgia we can trade on - something they (mostly) lack, although they're starting to do that now, too, if you look at Toyota's new FJ Cruiser due next year.

There's no reason why we can't do this, but the will and the commitment need to be there. The kinds of business decisions that led to the approval of the Lincoln Mark LT pickup truck are NOT the way to do it. Nobody needs a luxury pickup truck when truck sales are down during the gas crunch. :rolleyes: