Okay, I just found that picture of the new Supra...whaddya think?

http://www.mkiiisupra.net/pics/sigpic2.jpg

Hey, whaddya all laughing at?

I have serious reservations that Toyota can deliver a V8 powered Supra for under $30k. I would think it would be in the mid-to-high $30K range.

I expect it to be priced similarly to the Shelby, actually. It probably won't have as much raw hp, but knowing Toyota it will doubtless be more refined, offer more amenities, and provide greater handling prowess.

What I don't understand is why all the "IRS-parrotting snobs" keep saying that the IRS is modern technology, Shelby tested it for Ford back in '65 on the Shelby GT350's and even back then, it was not worth the extra benefits!!! And you know, Sebring still isn't a silky-smooth race track, 40 years later!!! If you gotta have an IRS, just go buy one, Mustang Parts Specialists have them in stock!!! On Ebay!!!!

If people have to buy and install 3rd party solutions that all other cars come with, they'll likely go just buy another car that comes that way.

... idiots live in the past? :rolleyes:
Neither do I.

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING:
Snorting Rust WILL Cause Brain Damage.

V6 Supra is supposed to be $30k range, with the V8 in the $40k range. Though, it is supposed to be pretty small. One of the reasons I like the Mustang is it's size and comfort -- the Japaneses will not make a comperable car in size (due to their culture and geography).

The 87-90 Supras were about the same size as the Mustang - and they had IRS even back then, which made for a much more compliant ride than the Mustang.

...monkeys pull their goalies in front of visitors to the zoo? :dunno:

:jester:

:jester: :lol: :jester: :lol: :jester: :lol:
Yeah Robert, silly us. We only THOUGHT Shelby's handle better than Toyotas
jeez...

Back in my high school days a group of us would frequently visit the zoo where there was a gorilla who felt antagonized and aggravated with our presence... :dunno:

0:-) 0:-) 0:-)

I can't explain why he would get so agitated as soon as he would see us.


:jester:

Then why did the Sheby Cobras (2 seat cars) and the Ford GT-40s from the 1960s have IRS? Couldn't they have saved a lot of $$ buy putting solid rear axles in those cars?

The real reason why the GT-350s didn't have IRS was that the SCCA told Shelby & Ford that if they put IRS in the GT-350 they would move them up to the "A Production" racing class instead of the "B Production" class that they raced in.

"A Production" was a faster class that the 427 Cobras and Corvettes raced in and Ford didn't want the GT-350 racing against those cars.

If IRS isn't any better why to Indy Cars, Champ Cars, F1 cars, LeMans prototypes all use IRS? Nobody says they have to use IRS, they could run solid axles if they wanted too.

Because you're an atheist liberal weenie snob. Everyone knows the tree stump axle is superior at the drag strip you Communist traitor!

Now, where did I put my Confederate flag? :jester:

Last things first, Have you ever tried to engineer a mid-engined car with a SRA? Not impossible, but a lot less effective than a nice transaxle which are readily available. I've never said that the IRS is or is not better, just not cost-effective for the Mustang, current or other-wise!! I'm just about fed-up with all the nonesense about whether or not the Shelby Mustang Cobra MUST have an IRS!! Get over it!!! Ford will do what they've always done and still wind up selling all of them, despite not having the "World-Saving" IRS!!! And a quick check of a Cobra web-site and forum (the 2-seat kind) showed that they also have the "IRS vs. SRA" debate, even with the real ones!! And lastly, the story that I know of, about the IRS-equipped 1st gen. Mustang, was about the very first mules sent to Shelby, the coupes, the ones that he played with before going into production. Iaccoca sent Shelby 2 coupes, one with the IRS, to work with designing the parts and look of his cars. Shelby tested the coupes with his hot-rodded suspension and engine package and came to the very same conclusion that the Ford engineers did, the IRS was NOT worth the extra weight and expense needed to turn that "secretaries car" into a World-class, Corvette-killing, racer!!!! BTW, Iaccoca wanted to beat the 'Vettes, Henry II wanted to beat the Ferraris!!

Oh and I tried to look this up to confirm it, I'll have to dig thru my library to find the reference again but I'm pretty sure that the GT-350's raced A-production and the few coupes that he built (i.e. the Teralingua coupes) raced B-production with the only difference bieng 2- or 4-seat, hence the fastbacks being the 2-seaters (rear seat delete). 'Course, I could be wrong, I am a redneck!!!!

John, I wouldn't waste your breath in here with the "snobs", as HTT calls them. They continue to say IRS is better, which I don't think many people have disagreed with them on, most are saying its not worth what comes along with the IRS over the SRA in this application.

I think they're so afraid that a SRA might actually perform well, that they just ignore the obvious - Wait till it comes out, Then see how it performs, Then you can critisize the SRA if it does not perform well, its a pretty basic idea to grasp. I just don't understand all this whinning b4 the car is even out and we see how it performs.

You could start by looking at the cover photo of the "Shelby American Guide" Published by the Shelby American Automobile Club.
There is a photo of a 1965 GT-350 on a racetrack complete with its "BP" sticker on it.

Inside the guide is chapter 9, devoted to the GT-350 competition version:
The Teralingua coupes raced in the SCCA Trans-Am series, not in the SCCA class races like AP, BP, CP, etc.

Not quite true, the first rear engined road race cars from the late 1950s and early 60s had SLA type rear suspensions. The infamous DeDion suspension was the high tech. SLA rear suspension of the late 50s and early 60s. for mid-engined road race cars. Once transaxles were developed in the mid 60s, IRS mid-engined cars quickly dominated road racing and SLA type mid-engined race cars faded away. Some tried to keep the old style sold rear end going through the late 60s, adapting transaxles to it, but none of them ever won a major race.

This argument always makes me laugh. The new car has to be powerful (which it is) and reliable (anyone with a '04, '05 cobra would laugh at that) Last years IRS was a joke, and even guys that dont drag race are ditching that peice of crap IRS. Wheel hop, breaking shafts, warranty nightmare.....the list goes on. My buddy busted his snagging second when it was totally unmodified. Bone stock cobra couldent hold up to its own power. What are we supposed to do, just granny it through third? Waste of a sportscar.

Remember, this car is no corvette, and I dont want it to be. It is pure muscle, and that is it's basic design. It is supposed to be rough around the edges. That is why I always loved mustangs, not because they ride like a cadillac, because they have a slight feel of their older brothers from the 60's. If mustangs felt like a mercedes, I would get bored with it quick. I say keep the SRA, and IF ford figures out how to make a decent IRS, offer it as an upgrade from ford racing for those that *think* they are good enough drivers to notice the difference in handling, because I can tell you, unless you are on a road track, you will never notice it. And as for the previous attempt at IRS in a mustang, I dont think it rides any better than the GT.

Those who have had the opportunity to experience IRS and SRA know there is a difference as opposed to those who haven't and still offer their opinions as facts.

You are most wise, Padawan.

:jester:


The above argument is just a clever rationalization to make excuses for Ford cheaping out, while every other manufacturer in the world has long since ditched the buggy axle along with its 19th century performance limitations.

So there.