|
Originally posted by moc1976@May 20, 2005, 12:17 PM I think you are missing the point. Most are not disagreeing with you that as a general statement, IRS is better than SRA. As to why other mfg'ers have abandoned SRA, probably because the cars they are putting the IRS on share that platform with others in their lineup. As others have stated, if other cars start to use this platform, chances are that Ford will develop an IRS for it. You talk about people avoiding your question, but you have failed to acknowledge that if the GT500 handles great with a SRA, what's wrong with that? It saved money and still produced one heck of a car. |
Originally posted by max2000jp+May 20, 2005, 11:06 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(max2000jp @ May 20, 2005, 11:06 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Again, you still haven't answered my questions, instead you dodge them. I guess Ford knows something that everyone else doesn't. [/b] What questions am I dodging? <!--QuoteBegin-max2000jp@May 20, 2005, 11:06 AM I don't know why the GT beat the GTO, it could be a number of factors. Weight, distribution, tires, springs, shocks, etc etc. [/quote] Thank you, you finally agree with me. A SRA can be made to handle better than an IRS. That's the argument I have been trying to make. |
A properly setup, tested, and quality solid axle is better than a budget IRS.
End of argument. |
the argument will never be over for the "snobs"
I still don't understand what is wrong w/ a cost saving, well handling SRA, they can't answer that! |
Unsprung weight, technology, refinement, the way it handles, etc....
|
Originally posted by dke@May 20, 2005, 12:28 PM Unsprung weight, technology, refinement, the way it handles, etc.... Why does SRA = low technology? And how do you know that the car will be unrefined, or not handle well, have you driven one? |
Originally posted by moc1976@May 20, 2005, 1:33 PM Did you miss the part where HTT said that a IRS would add weight to the car? Why does SRA = low technology? And how do you know that the car will be unrefined, or not handle well, have you driven one? |
Originally posted by holderca1@May 20, 2005, 12:47 PM What questions am I dodging? Thank you, you finally agree with me. A SRA can be made to handle better than an IRS. That's the argument I have been trying to make. The question you are dodging is why does every other performance marque use an IRS suspension on their sporty cars? From Porsche to Chevy to Honda, they all use IRS suspensions. Using Ford logic, those cars should all have a SRA, thus reducing cost and allowing for more hp (or content). Since the benefits for an IRS suspension are "minimal", I wonder why all these race winning engineers aren't using it. |
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 20, 2005, 1:00 PM The question you are dodging is why does every other performance marque use an IRS suspension on their sporty cars? From Porsche to Chevy to Honda, they all use IRS suspensions. Using Ford logic, those cars should all have a SRA, thus reducing cost and allowing for more hp (or content). Since the benefits for an IRS suspension are "minimal", I wonder why all these race winning engineers aren't using it. |
Originally posted by moc1976@May 20, 2005, 2:20 PM the argument will never be over for the "snobs" Lets face it, there are known differences between the two suspensions which have been clearly established with all offered opinions. What bothers you and other GT parrots is that you see the IRS as a class difference and you echo what Ford feeds out to justify and give status to what you have. Ford didn't make a big deal about the additional weight when introduced the IRS to the Mustang and it didn't ever state the additional cost of the Cobra was solely due to the integration of IRS but a combo of upgrades. |
Originally posted by 01LightningGal@May 20, 2005, 10:58 AM Just as a FYI: 2005 Saleen S281: 69.9 mph (RWD, $43,100) This is just a demonstration of what a well set-up car can do. Rhumb, I hear what you are saying, but I do have to disagree on a couple of points. First, you are doing what the "have to have IRS" are doing. You are assuming that the car will handle poorly. You are also assuming that it will brake poorly. In other words, you are assuming that the only thing it will do well is go in a straight line. Even for that, the assumption is that it "may" be slightly faster than the C6. For the handling, I refuse to "assume" anything until the car comes out. As someone who had a very well handling SRA Mustang, I will not decry this car as a failure before it is out. For the brakes, I am trying to figure out where 14" front and 13" rear Brembos are going to stink. The 03/04 Cobra was as fast or faster as the current C6 (using best stock times against best stock times). Thus, I have a hard time believing that the much more powerful, but not alot heavier GT500 should be able to spank the C6 pretty good. You do realize that it is getting significantly larger rubber in production form, correct??? It is kinda funny though................. if the car did come with IRS, the straightline guys would be in here complaining just as loud as the IRS guys are now. However, then the IRS guys would be complaining also, because of the car weighing 180 more than it currently is going to................ and all the screaming of heavy pig would reverberate throughout the forums. In other words, no matter what Ford does, they will never make everyone happy. As for braking, I've never really commented on that, though with the big Brembos, reasonable big tires, and much improved suspension geometries in terms of brake dive/lift characteristics, it ought to do quite well. But that's pretty much aside from the suspension beyond the aforementioned dive/lift characteristics. I'm a bit surprised that the GT hasn't posted better test numbers, but I'll attribute that to the somewhat lackluster OEM tires. I have also made sure to couch my discussions with the caveat that the final say will come with seat time, test numbers and head to head comparisons over a variety of roads to see how well the GT500 does perform, not only on the track and strip, but far more importantly for the vast majority of owners, in the rough and tumble of the real world. Perhaps SVT will be able to pull some rabbit out of the hat, defy the laws of mass and inertia, and come up with a live axle that handles well in all situations. I'll be the first to grab for my crow-eat'n bib :-D You are right about the straight liners being likely to shriek like little girls at the sight of an IRS, even though that configuration CAN be made to launch well and some inside dirt from an IRS development engineer indicated that the S197s launched very well before the beancounters pulled the plug. Look at the wail they raised when the '99 Cobra was down a couple of ponies. However, look at how Ford, belatedly and begrudgingly, heeded their customer's demands and responded appropriately. Perhaps Ford and HTT, instead of getting all snitty and defensive, ought to read a few pages about customer satisfaction and give them what they want rather than what Ford wants them to have. And as for weight, well, that's the mortal enemy of any performance car, whatever suspension is propping it up. But if weight is THAT much of an issue for the anti-IRS'ers, why aren't they screaming bloody murder over that pig-iron block in the GT500? How many precious 10ths is that ferrus lump costing them, never mind what it does for handling (not that that matters in a 1/4 mile spurt). But yeah, nobody will ever be happy, unless they made the two suspension optional, and then everybody would be singing SVTs praises for their Solomon-like wisdom for satisfying everybody instead of sniping at each other and SVT. But alas, I thinks the beancounters won out here to the detriment of the engineers and enthusiasts. |
Originally posted by rhumb@May 20, 2005, 1:32 PM Actually, I have stated several times that the GT does handle well, pretty darned well, and the GT500 will likely do likewise. But there is a difference between merely handling well, or even very well, and having chassis dynamics at the top of the class, as SVT had been asserting. And remember, chassis dynamics goes well beyond smooth track numbers and also include balance, feedback, compliance and composure over less than ideal surfaces, a much more complex and nuanced criteria than simpy saying it pulls F-16 G-numbers around the skidpad. As for braking, I've never really commented on that, though with the big Brembos, reasonable big tires, and much improved suspension geometries in terms of brake dive/lift characteristics, it ought to do quite well. But that's pretty much aside from the suspension beyond the aforementioned dive/lift characteristics. I'm a bit surprised that the GT hasn't posted better test numbers, but I'll attribute that to the somewhat lackluster OEM tires. I have also made sure to couch my discussions with the caveat that the final say will come with seat time, test numbers and head to head comparisons over a variety of roads to see how well the GT500 does perform, not only on the track and strip, but far more importantly for the vast majority of owners, in the rough and tumble of the real world. Perhaps SVT will be able to pull some rabbit out of the hat, repeal the laws of mass and inertia, and come up with a live axle that handles well in all situations. I'll be the first to grab for my crow-eat'n bib :-D You are right about the straight liners likely to shriek like little girls at the sight of an IRS, even though that configuration CAN be made to launch well and some inside dirt from an IRS development engineer indicated that the S197s launched very well before the beancounters pulled the plug. And as for weight, well, that's the mortal enemy of any performance car, whatever suspension is propping it up. But if weight is THAT much of an issue for the anti-IRS'ers, why aren't they screaming bloody murder over that pig-iron block in the GT500? How many precious 10ths is that ferrus lump costing them, never mind what it does for handling (not that that matters in a 1/4 mile spurt). But yeah, nobody will ever be happy, unless they made the two suspension optional, and then everybody would be singing SVTs praises for their Solomon-like wisdom for satisfying everybody instead of sniping at each other and SVT. But alas, I thinks the beancounters won out here to the detriment of the engineers and enthusiasts. |
Originally posted by 1 BULLITT@May 20, 2005, 1:05 PM Snobs... you too? Lets face it, there are known differences between the two suspensions which have been clearly established with all offered opinions. What bothers you and other GT parrots is that you see the IRS as a class difference and you echo what Ford feeds out to justify and give status to what you have. Ford didn't make a big deal about the additional weight when introduced the IRS to the Mustang and it didn't ever state the additional cost of the Cobra was solely due to the integration of IRS but a combo of upgrades. What bothers me is whinners like you that are bit#$ing about a car that isn't even out yet. GT parrots, you guys are the parrots, continuing to whine when all I'm saying is to WAIT and see how the GT500 handles. I've already said I will be right there with you if it stinks handling and rip Ford right along with you. Me a GT parrot, what a joke, you are really reaching here, this is my first Ford, thus my first GT. Class difference bothing me? Are you kidding, my previous car was an Acura CL S, so don't come with that BS. Have you even driven a 05 GT? I have and it handles great, SRA and all. Can't you guys wait till the car comes out before continuing to harp on Ford about this decision? Can't you wait and see how the car ACTUALLY performs before crabbing about the SRA? My guess is no, and you will continue to cry about this and guess what, you can't do anything about it. :crying: And you are the one that got personal with this thread, starting with the name calling. I'm simply using the "snobs" in reference to you since that is the title of this thread. Those are HTT's words. |
Originally posted by holderca1@May 20, 2005, 1:43 PM Well said. I think on that note, lets all let this debate rest until the magazines actually get ahold of one and get to test it. This will go on for days. Personnally I don't care what the rear suspension is as long as it performs up to my standards. I think we all agree that IRS is a better system than a SRA, but we have to remember that Ford wanted the V6 to sticker under $20k and the GT under $25k. So obviously you can't have everything with that strict of a budget. Until we see test numbers on the GT500, I can't really say for sure if the the SRA is a mistake or not. Heck the Saleen ran a 69 through the slalom and pulled a 0.97 on the skidpad. I would hope that the GT500 will hit 70 and 1.0. Anyways, I need a break from this discussion. I may reengage once a production version has been tested. |
Originally posted by holderca1@May 20, 2005, 2:03 PM I have answered it several times already. I guess you are just going to keep asking it until I give an answer you want to hear. |
* Meaning, it includes HANDLING. |
The big issue here is quality - and perception of quality. Buyers stay away even if they PERCEIVE something to be of inferior design/technology - because they see that as a quality issue. That's one of SRA's chief problems. Mustang sales are strong now, but how strong will they be once the competition begins more directly targeting the Mustang's market segment? For example, a new Toyota Supra is on the way for '07 or '08 - RWD and V8 power. I guarantee it won't use a spruce log suspension, and it will probably destroy the Mustang in handling.
This is worth reading: Ford Boss Not Happy With Quality The Daily Auto Insider Friday, May 20, 2005 Ford President Jim Padilla has told employees that the automaker must improve vehicle quality because it's losing ground to the competition, the Detroit News reported. The company needs to "turn this around now," Padilla wrote in a live online question-and-answer session with employees, according to a transcript obtained by the News. "This applies to virtually all brands in all geographic regions. Our competitors are moving faster than Ford to improve their quality....[And] "Globally, our quality performance and improvement has not been satisfactory." Padilla has led an "intense drive" to improve Ford's vehicle quality in recent years as the company has spent tens of millions of dollars on state-of-the-art technology and advanced training to boost quality, the story said. "The cost of poor quality is the single largest waste in our business," Padilla wrote. "Quality reputation is also the largest determinant of brand reputation and loyalty so we need to make major strides in reducing our warranty repairs per thousand, cost per repair and things gone wrong." The comments from Padilla were in answer to a question from an employee who asserted that Ford's quality is on the decline and asked what could be done to reverse the slide. |
Originally posted by Robert@May 21, 2005, 1:03 AM The big issue here is quality - and perception of quality. Buyers stay away even if they PERCEIVE something to be of inferior design/technology - because they see that as a quality issue. That's one of SRA's chief problems. Mustang sales are strong now, but how strong will they be once the competition begins more directly targeting the Mustang's market segment? For example, a new Toyota Supra is on the way for '07 or '08 - RWD and V8 power. I guarantee it won't use a spruce log suspension, and it will probably destroy the Mustang in handling. This is worth reading: http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosconsumer/.../f03-323632.htm http://www.edmunds.com/future/2007/toyota/...34/preview.html Do you have something you can post to the contrary? |
One final thing on this subject from me.............
I would really like to see someone test a GT with a set of real tires, instead of the 55 series all seasons that come on it. In this debate about handling, it has seemed like noone wants to talk about the fact that all the cars that are being compared with it actually have real performance rubber on them. Yet, the GT has all seasons............. and narrow and tall ones at that. I think good tires would raise the g's a bunch........... and the slalom some also. Anyway, I'm done here also. |
Originally posted by TomServo92@May 21, 2005, 9:16 AM Everything I've read about the a new Supra says V6 power. Such as these stories: http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosconsumer/.../f03-323632.htm http://www.edmunds.com/future/2007/toyota/...34/preview.html Do you have something you can post to the contrary? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:48 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands