I would love for the GT500 to handle well with an SRA, but why sell ourselves short? An IRS suspension would handle marginally better, but it offers more refinement. I don't use this as a track only car, so I value refinement. I mean Ford could theoretically make a Mustang handle well on the track with no suspension at all. I drive shifter karts; they pull 2.5 g's without a suspension.

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.

Quoted post

[/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....

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?

He stated UNSPRUNG weight.....

Yes, an SRA can be made to handle better than a average IRS system. The GTO is by no means a sports car. Again, you can make a rigid axle handle well....ie shifter karts. You will also get a shifter kart ride, where you feel every inch of the pavement.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

Check my posts, I'm not arguing that SRA is better, I agree, IRS is better. Yes there are known differences, nobody is arguing that.

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.

I agree, and that's what I've been trying to get these guys to realize. IF the car comes out and handles poorly, than I will be right there with them ripping Ford for this decision. I'm done, we can re-visit this thread when the car comes out.

I must have missed that.

Yes I have. I've got Cart Blanche with my local Ford dealer. It's a 100% improvement, the best GT ever without a doubt, better than the Bullitt and Mach 1 as well but comes short when compared to the '03/'04 Cobras, performance * wise. The IRS might slightly be accountable for that fact.

* 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:

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?

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.

Yeah, that stuff is now out of date. Pick up the June issue of Road & Track - it has a little sidebar on the new Supra with a new digital rendering. It looks very much like some of the images we've seen on the web before (Aston Martin meets Shelby GR-1 meets 1967 Toyota GT2000) but they're now reporting RWD + V8 power. They're saying it's being designed to destroy the 350Z AND the G35 coupe in one fell swoop.

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.

Or, put another way...

...which would you rather drive...

...IRS...
http://rad-gogo.air-nifty.com/rad/F430pic.jpg


...or buggy axle...
http://www.hitzemanfuneral.com/image...e-carriage.jpg

One looks exciting and alive...the other, kinda dead, actually. :jester:

Yeah, but the bottom one is cheaper, simpler, more reliable, and rides and handles well enough for its, well, less than discerning passengers.

Yes your right, the buggy and a 2005 Mustang GT are COMPLETELY compariable in handling.

Actually they aren't comparable in handling; the buggy will be tuned to be softer and more comfortable (less unsprung weight, higher suspension travel, larger wheels, etc.).

Well, you got me there!!! I guess I'd rather have the buggy!!! As unrefined as I am, I'd never be able to conduct myself in that sports car!!! V10, thank you for pointing out the fact that the first rear-engined cars had yet another type of rear suspension, but I was making a poor attempt to follow y'alls conversation and when the modern, mid-engined cars (Indy, Champ, etc.) where mentioned, thats where I made the mistake of pointing out just how "modern" the IRS-type of suspension is. Oh well, guess I was wrong again, foiled by y'alls superior intellect and opinions!!! At least when I'm wrong, I can admit it, unlike others, guess they have to make up for other "short"-comings!!!

:lol:

I have to agree with this. Comparing my Mustang GT with our Lincoln LS, the LS is noticably smoother than the GT. Granted, the Lincoln is supposed to be more refined, I would have thought that the gap would have been smaller since the S197 was designed while taking cues from the DEW98. With the way the roads are around here (KY is famous for their perfectly smooth roads :rolleyes: ), a well designed IRS would make life a lot better. Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all disappointed in the Mustang, as a matter of fact I love it, but, when they do come out with a version that sports an IRS, I will consider very hard about trading up.

IRS is the hands down winner in this ongoing debate. I'm sure there are people who will endlessly argue the merits of carbureted engines, too, but the reality is that it's OLD technology.

And to the pundits that go on and on and on and on about the Grand Am win...big deal! Stiffen any car's suspension enough, and it will corner...as long as your kidneys hold out, that is. Of course, on a smooth track, that's ok, but on public roads...well, that's another story.

i think the irs is great if it works great not like the cobra 99-04 and is cost effecient(sp) id rather get a well engineered SRA than a cost cutter IRS. i was reading the motor trend with the 05 M3 CSL. and then the 5.0 mustang had a motor trend testing of the saleen and the S/C. the handling numbers for the 42k base saleen walked all over the 53k M3 CSL

heres the numbers

05 Saleen 05 M3 CSL
Cost 42,000 53,000

0-60 5.6 5.5
1/4 mile 13.5 13.3
lateral G .97 .94
Slalom 69.9 64.4
i think thats pretty good for a sorry SRA with some tuning. they didnt have the complete munbers for the S/C but it ran 12.8 while spinning through the first two gears. and i would guess the rest of the numbers are better than the base model. and the price on the S/C was 53k

Nick, how dare you try to come on here and say that a SRA can outperform the hands down winner - IRS :-D

Nick, your point is well taken, and that's the part that keeps getting overlooked by the "snobs". They keep trying to turn this into a "which is better" debate, and people, including myselft, have stated several times, that all things equal, usually IRS is better. But, do you really want a "quickie job" IRS, thrown in on the Cobra to get it to market. Or, do you want to build on the SRA from the GT and V6, improve it, and end up with a very good handling SRA that saves money and weight? Seems like an obvious business decision to me. But, MAYBE, we should wait and see how the Shelby performs before lambasting Ford's decision to put a SRA in it? I don't know :dunno: maybe???????

And comparing the SRA to an old buggy, that's a good one, that really drives your IRS point home! Afterall, I'm sure the SRA in the Mustang is closely related to that design :notnice:

Actually, it is. It uses the same basic principles of physics, hence its limitations. And, as I said above, in case it was missed:

Stiffen any car's [SRA] suspension enough, and it will corner...as long as your kidneys hold out, that is. Of course, on a smooth track, that's ok, but on public roads...well, that's another story.

Just to clarify something - not all race tracks are smooth. In fact, almost none of them are smooth, especially road courses. They have many notorious bumps. Even ovals and irregular shaped tracks like Daytona (Turn 4), Darlington (the whole darn track, lol) and Pocono (Tunnel Turn) have some very harsh bumps.

This is the most pointless debate I have ever taken part in... we're arguing over something that's not even built yet. Are we going to act like five year olds and bicker about this right up to the day the car is finally produced?

I have ridden in both. The difference is, chunks of metal left on the road vs. a car speeding away. Which would you prefer? All of the broken IRS on '03-'04 cobras is hardly opinion. I dont care what anyone says, the average driver will not see a handling difference, and a 04 cobra still rides like a sportscar. If you want it to ride like a cadillac, go buy a cadillac.

:worship:

That's wonderful Columbus! Ford should follow your advice and do test rides from now on. The improvement on knowledge will be amazing, not to mention how much dough they'll save. Make sure you put a patent on that thought :nice:

Look, I have owned 3 mustangs, and have been wrenching on them for years before that. So I never bought an 03-04 cobra, so what? Doesent mean I dont know. I have 3 close friends with them, and two of them have had IRS problems. (one of the reasons I never bought one) To be honest, I was excited to hear about Ford putting IRS in the cobra, until I saw how much trouble they were, and figured out that you cant run a straight track with one. I will try to find the vid of my buddies 04 breaking right off the line. How embarrasing is that? He got beat by a 14 second honda. My whole point is, if they cant make one that doesent break, leak, and have excessive wheel hop, then they shouldent put it out. That is probably why thay didnt do it. Face the facts, there are alot more mustangs at the drag strip than on a road track.

The thing is he was beaten by a 14 second honda WITH IRS. Everyone else can make IRS. So all that you're saying is that Ford made a lame implementation in the last Cobra. That says nothing about whether the next/current Cobra should have a GOOD IRS. No one is advocating putting a piece of kaka in there, spot welded to the frame. But every other manufacturer can manage to put an IRS in that doesn't fall off on the track. So your point is moot.

I completely agree. I'm also sick of the "either/or" argument from these people. Either you want it to ride like a Mustang - or you want it to ride like a Cadillac. Over and over again they employ the "Cadillac" argument, as if the only cars in the world are North American. And ALL North American brands are behind the eight ball. As you assert, he leaves out BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Mercedes, Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, Honda, Toyota, etc, etc, etc, etc...

And guess what, they have ALL managed to successfully use IRS. I guess Ford is too lazy, dumb or cheap.

And I'll say it a THIRD time, in case you missed it: Stiffen any car's [SRA] suspension enough, and it will corner...as long as your kidneys hold out, that is. Of course, on a smooth track, that's ok, but on public roads...well, that's another story.

The thing is, Ford is quite capable of doing a first class sports car with IRS: it's called the GT. Unfortunately, they seem to think that most Mustang buyers are knuckle-dragging, tobacco-spitting, red neck troglodytes that just want to go fast in a straight line as cheaply as possible.

Not all of us are, Ford.

Honda's IRS isent on the drive axle, and we are talking about a 450+ hp car here. He was beat because he only made it 20' down the track, and had to be towed off. I dont see a problem with an optional IRS as long as the "log" is still available as a cheaper option. I dont want to pay the IRS price, and have to change it out. Sorry if I offended anyone, I am a drag racer. SRA is the best choice for the strip, hands down. Besides, do you guys honestly think Ford is not going to make it? I only hope it is an option.

id say if they can offer an IRS for those who want it. or vise versa. heck make the irs standard and the SRA an option to help make up for the costs or something. dang it i have my cake and i want to eat it too! :bang: and how many hondas w/ stock drive shafts can make it down the strip w/ 450+ hp????

I was talking about the stang, I could have worded that better......

I love this thread. It reminds me of the time we spent last year wondering if the 2005 Mustang would have IRS or not.

Would I like IRS? Sure. It would solve the problem of the back end hopping when I hit a bump when rounding a corner. It's far superior to SRA on almost every road I've ever driven. . Throw out the skid pad and slalom results. Most of us don't drive like that in the real world.

Would I like heated seats? Yes. It's nice to have toasty buns 6 months out of the year here. It wasn't an issue in Southern California.

Would I like a 5 speed tiptronic tranny? You bet.

Does my Mustang have any of the above? Nope. Did I know that before I got the car? Yep. Did it stop me from buying it? Obviously not.

Ford has been building an affordable built to a price point car for over 40 years. Will we see my hoped for options on a Mustang in the future? Perhaps, but if not, so be it. What I really would like to see is a DHG Mustang.

I really don't think Ford would lose any sales by offering these options, and it certainly wouldn't affect their bottom line very much given the relatively small numbers of Mustangs they build.

Will the Mustang ever be a world class car? It already is, with over 7,000,000 sold and owners clubs all over the world. Is it as good as it could be? I don't think so but time will tell.

Vote with your checkbook.

I might be a redneck, knuckle-draggin' troglodyte, but I don't do tabacco, so you'd better take it back!! :jester: Okay, all kidding aside, how about this? Since y'all possess such vastly superior intellect, why don't y'all design an IRS for the '05 'stang? Oh, and by the way, you gotta also design the equipment to put it together at the plant, transport it to the loading area, lift it onto the carrier, and also the details of the carrier that hold it up to be installed under the car. :nice: Can y'all do that? Or...since AAI already builds a car with an IRS, why don't they just use it with some modifications (just for fitment) and then they could just use the whole IFS and engine (the V6) and viola!!! total independent suspersion for a Mustang!! No, wait, that would be called a PROBE!!!!!! Mustangs are NOT meant to be refined, well-mannered, docile vehicles!!! The American Mustang (the horse, not the car) isn't even considered refined, because it doesn't need to be shoe'd, unlike it more well-heeled cousins. Gimmee a break!! I'll bet y'all even eat y'alls sandwiches with Grey Poupon!!! Git'er done!!! Y'all waffle more the IHOP!!! Even more than Bill Clinton!!! And Robert, you're sooo right, stiffen ANY car, and it'll handle, as long as your kidney's hold out, just ask Bob Bondurant or any other Cobra driver (the real ones), or 350Z Track edition, or any other performance vehicle for that matter, IRS, SRA, or whatever you can stick under there!!! BTW, its such a good arguement y'all use, the one about how every car manufacturer except Ford, and only on its pride and joy, the Mustang, use the IRS, not the primitive log stuck on with a couple of bungees, like the Mustang does. Thats such a good arguement!!! I compliment you on that one!!! And when Ford does wake up and make the Mustang into a "truly world-class" car, well, I'll just have to stop lusting for the newer ones and stick to my classics!!! :crying:

Later, John

That's in your opinion... And by the way, the Mustang was relatively refined in the '60s when it was introduced, when compared to other cars from other countries. Trouble is, the rest of the world moved ahead in the mid-'70s and the Mustang didn't. Instead, it morphed into the POS Charlie's Angles' car.

If you don't believe me, just look at the SN-95 chassis - it was 25 years old before Ford finally ditched it!!! Their whole corporate philosophy is just out of date, and it's why they're losing more and more market share to the imports with each passing year.

<!--QuoteBegin-hiznherponies@May 28, 2005, 10:38 PM
BTW, its such a good arguement y'all use, the one about how every car manufacturer except Ford, and only on its pride and joy, the Mustang, use the IRS, not the primitive log stuck on with a couple of bungees, like the Mustang does. Thats such a good arguement!!! I compliment you on that one!!!

Quoted post

[/quote]
I know it's a good argument, thank you. Too bad neither you or anyone else on this board can explain that one, isn't it?

How many people would consider the move if Chevy/Pontiac returned the F-Car (Camero/Firebird) with a slightly retro style, put 400-500 ponies in it, made it weigh <3200 lbs, and it had IRS at a similar price-point as the Stang? (If Porsche, Audi, Corvette, etc., can do it technologically, I'm pretty sure others can and drop the price)?

^ Not necessarially. Part of the way they do it is expensive materials and technology. Also, from a marketing perspective, Chevy would not being out a near-vette capable car for $15k less -- the vette suddenly would look overpriced and weak.

To bring the price down, you have to cut corners somewhere.

Actually, Robert, I and several others have explained it,( even HTT!!), its just NOT cost-effective, i.e. the benefits DO NOT outweigh the costs, but your nose seems to be in the way of seeing that explanation!!!

Oh, and this is not meant as a personal attack-fest, just a good, somewhat warm, debate!!! All in good fun!!!!

See man, now you're calling anybody who enjoys the benefits of an SRA a neanderthal. Really mature, guy.

You don't have the right to knock someone just because you can't grasp the concept that there are people out there that enjoy other types of suspensions/racing. You don't see anyone who prefers drag racing to road racing "euro fags" or "kittens", do you?

You can't understand that there are other forms of racing that people find pleasurable. Sounds like the trait of very unintelligent person if you ask me. You think the world revolves around you and what you like... it doesn't, buddy.

There's going to be an SRA in the new Shelby. For better or for worse, that's what you're going to get. Don't like it? Mad because your import buddies are going to ride you for not having an IRS suspension? THEN DON'T BUY ONE. Buy a GTO or one of the myraid of sports cars out there that have IRS.

See that's where you're wrong. The "world" - as you so accurately put it - DOES revolve around IRS. That's why everybody EXCEPT Ford is using it in their performance/touring cars.

As to the redneck comment, one should only be offended if they fall into that category. Do YOU? If so, I'm sorry to hear that. If not, then you ought not to have anything to be bent out of shape about.

I'm not afraid to call it like it is. Just like HTT isn't afraid to call the pro-IRS community "snobs."

So put that in your pipe and smoke it! :shame:

Proud to be a "REDNECK"!!!!! I'm also proud to be a blue-collar working stiff who served in the 1st Gulf War, but thats another story. But that "the world revolves around IRS" comment, thats just stupid!!! Maybe if you meant the Internal Revenue Service, then I might agree with you!!! The only reason why most car manufacturers use it is because its just as easy to put an IRS in a FWD car as it is to put a solid rear beam axle (older Chysler vehicles), so why don't we just make it a FWD and just be done with this debate!!!!

We should NOT have to have this argument.

Plain and simple, if Ford realy listened to their customers and wanted to sell even more Mustangs, there would be an IRS option.

True!!! On both accounts!!! And, you know, I'd like to have a 6-speed manual in the Lightning, but Ford's bean-counters just aren't the listening kind!!!

Guys, this is the first yr on the new platform. Give Ford some time and I'm sure they'll come up with an IRS that will be on future Cobras. heck, they might even have one on the next Cobra. When the car is on the showroom floor, then judge the car. EVERYTHING we hear is mere rumors. Nothing is 100% certain. Remember, this GT500 is a concept car. I heard they'll introduce both Cobra Coupe and Vert Production model at the Detroit NAIAS in Jan '06. Until then, I guess we'll continue to have these wonderful threads.

I'm pretty sure they will introduce both at NAIAS B)













But I could be wrong, too!!

Interesting logic. But your FWD argument does nothing to explain the GTO, the Corvette, ALL BMWs, ALL Lexus', the new upcoming Toyota Supra, the Nissan 350Z, the Mazda Miata, Ford's OWN GT supercar, the Infiniti G35 (sedan and coupe) , etc, etc, etc...

<!--QuoteBegin-hiznherponies@May 29, 2005, 7:06 PM
...but Ford's bean-counters just aren't the listening kind!!!

Quoted post

[/quote]
FINALLY, a shred of truth in your posts!

yea, unlike yours!!

C&D '05 Mustang GT review
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?se...8&page_number=2
C&D's skidpad of the '05 Mustang was a 0.87g

Edmunds Review:
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/...96/page007.html
1st place = '05 Mustang GT
3rd place = 350z track

Edmunds slalom figures:
MGT: 62.5
350z: 63.9

Motortrend Slalom figures:
2005 Mustang GT: 66.1 mph (SRA, $25,000)
2005 Saleen S281: 69.9 mph (RWD, $43,100)

2005 M3 Competition Package: 66.6 mph (IRS, $54,000)
2004 G35 Sport: 65.2mph (IRS, $31,500)
2005 Lancer Evolution RS: 69.3 mph (IRS, AWD, $29,000)
2004 350Z Track: 68.0 mph (IRS, $34,900)
2005 GTO: 63.6 mph (IRS, $34,300)
2005 WRX STI: 69.7 mph (IRS, AWD, $33,700)

Robert -
I completely agree but this rule applies to both IRS and SRA. The Edmunds review blasts the 350z for it's stiff ride and the results are only 1mph better than the MGT in the slalom.

The Motortrend slalom figures show how the MGT and Saleen stack up to some very good IRS competition (EVO, STi, 350z track). The SRA certainly does just as good a job which begs the question. Have you read the reviews? you seem to turn a blind eye to all the results and focus on the method by which Ford is acheiving them. It's like people that critisize the corvette for using leaf springs. Wheather the corvette uses leaf springs or not, it still can handle with the best of them.

If you think IRS is going to match or surpass an EVO, STi, or 350z without the stiff ride then you're soarly mistaken. It would take a massive redesign to get the mustang to handle like an EVO, STi, or 350z without sacrificing ride quality.

It's time you woke up and realized that while IRS would be better, it wouldn't be that much better, and certainly not enough to justify a 12% bump in price IMO (Ford was quoted as saying the IRS adds $5k to the price).

If IRS is a must then spend an extra $5k and get the base corvette ($43k). It's a vastly superior track car to the mustang. Or get a 350z track, EVO MR, STi, GTO....there are plenty of cars out there that offer IRS. If it has to be a Mustang then wait...

Dale, great post! But I'm sure we'll hear about how every other car maker is using IRS, so why doesn't Ford.

The point is not what a car can do in track slalom, unless that's the only way you want to drive it. Put bumps on the slalom, and lets see how each compares. (Physics says IRS has the potential to do a lot better). The other issue is how does a car drive on real roads (the whole kidney thing).

And Ford is full of poo of they're saying IRS costs $5,000 more. You can't convince the sane that G35 would be $26,000 if it wasn't for that pesky IRS. Or that less than $1,000 in parts is somehow costing them $5,000. If it is, that shows why Ford is having problems.

Lastly, specs aren't facts. Sorry, get out and drive an M3. Specs say, Mustang GT and M3 drive like they are the same car. Get in them both, drive them, and tell me what you think. I did (with the last generation) and it wasn't that close. A pro driver is not the every day driver -- and the balance and feel was completely different, even if the slalom specs or 1/4 mile don't reflect that. I'm hoping that Ford totally changes things. I want them to create a world beater. It looks like they will, in the quarter mile, and on the track -- but not on the road. But I'll wait and see.

There is a huge difference between one of us throwing something together and bolting it in one car, vs. ford engineering, testing, tooling, assembling, and installing the unit in thousands of cars. I would say that honestly that is the whole reason it is not coming out yet is that it is still under development. They dont just want to throw just anything out there (like the IRS in 03-04) and have it break, and not perform up to spec. Just wait a year or two, and it will probably show. We all know that this platform is IRS friendly. Lets give them a chance to make one. Ford always like it to be a suprise.

Amazing! The ride in my 91 was never what I would have called harsh, nor is the ride in my 02 GT, lets see to date the 02 has carried me as far south as South Caolina, as far north as New Hampshire and as far west as Kansas (with 21 hours straight from Kansas to Virginia), ride comfort was a non issue. Unless of course we are actually living in the matrix and real world experiences such as this dont apply.

They have had test mules with the IRS right along side with the SRA, so I would disagree with you on the "it's just under development" argument. Especially since they did rush a hack job IRS in the '03s as you pointed out.

I think they are just holding the IRS until later in the future when interest dies down, so they can bring it back are generate more momentum when they need it. They should have no trouble selling every one of these, so they might as well make every penny they can (they certainly need it).

Rampant, I agree with what you're saying. And lots of companies do the same thing. It's what happens when marketing people get too many martini's at lunch, and start creating business strategy. "If we just cripple <hick>, the fiirrrsssttt version. Weeellll, then we can make even more money on the neexxxttthhh version". Under the false assumption that they are brilliant, consumers are stupid, and that their choices will have no short term sales impacts, or long term reputation impacts, etc...

You don't see BMW/Acura/Toyota saying, "Hey, let's put a spruce log in the first version of the X, so we can fix it later". Customers see through it, except for zealots/purists who don't care. So it matters if you're targeting your product for the old markets, or trying to break into new ones. Ford said new, then targeted old.

If Ford made the IRS standard equipment in all Mustangs, I am sure the cost would drop way down to less than $2k most likely. But when there are only ~7,000 to be made, that will drive up the cost. An IRS capable of handling the power of the GT500 will be more expensive than an IRS capable of handling the power of a G35. I am not going to pretend that I know how much more it would cost to have IRS over an SRA. Maybe someone would like to research and see the cost of the C6 Z06's IRS, or the Viper's, or the GT's even, this would be much more comparable as far as the cost of an IRS capable of handling the horsepower and torque needed for the GT500.

I agree that IRS would hold up better on a poorly paved road but...do you really test the handling limits on poorly paved roads? heck, I rarely explore the handling limits regardless of road condition.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dke@June 1, 2005, 12:31 PM
And Ford is full of poo of they're saying IRS costs $5,000 more. You can't convince the sane that G35 would be $26,000 if it wasn't for that pesky IRS. Or that less than $1,000 in parts is somehow costing them $5,000. If it is, that shows why Ford is having problems.

Quoted post

---

As stated above, there's more to that figure than just the parts. Ford must account for how much IRS would slow down the production line, warrenty claims, engineering, testing...etc. And cars like the G35, RX8,..etc can offer IRS because the entire line was designed for IRS. These cars also don't offer anywhere near 450 hp/450 tq, which means their drivelines don't need to be as robust. I'm sure that if IRS was on all the mustangs then the bump in price would be less than $5k.

<!--QuoteBegin-dke@June 1, 2005, 12:31 PM
Lastly, specs aren't facts. Sorry, get out and drive an M3. Specs say, Mustang GT and M3 drive like they are the same car. Get in them both, drive them, and tell me what you think. I did (with the last generation) and it wasn't that close. A pro driver is not the every day driver -- and the balance and feel was completely different, even if the slalom specs or 1/4 mile don't reflect that. I'm hoping that Ford totally changes things. I want them to create a world beater. It looks like they will, in the quarter mile, and on the track -- but not on the road. But I'll wait and see.

Quoted post

[/quote]
I agree. I haven't driven the lastest M3 or MGT but I would go out on a limb and say that the M3 drives better. There's definitely more to a car then it's specs. but here's a question for you. Is IRS a requirement for a car to be fun to drive? I submit that it is not.

Wombat (Dale), I don't think IRS is a requirement for a car to be fun to drive -- occasionally. It wouldn't matter much in California or sunny climes. On Ohio roads, it stands a SIGNIFICANT change to make the difference between being fun to drive occasionally, and fun to drive regularly.

And I agree with your point that if Ford had designed the car for IRS, then you're amortizing R&D costs across the whole product line, thus it doesn't cost much. (actually, that was the point I was trying to make). When some moronic bean-counter is trying to amortize the costs of IRS across one small part of the product line, they can artificially make the costs appear to go way up. But that's why most sane manufacturers don't do that. Even if they designed the IRS for the Cobra to handle the power, they'd use it in the future on other products (slightly downgraded, or just over engineered for things like SVT trucks, and so on), or if they had just used a variant they already had (like from the GT, and so on) it wouldn't have been near that much. So the point was they weren't being honest -- and I'm not gullible enough to buy their hype, and as consumers we should be offended when HTT and others try to pass off double-speak or obfuscation as fact.

If Ford/HTT said, "this car is a pony car -- designed to be a monster in the 1/4, and not too bad on a track", that's fine. When they say, "BMW killer and IRS is coming", then say, "We changed our minds because it doesn't need IRS to kill BMW, and IRS would cost $5,000, and it handles as good without it" and other smelly stuff, we should keep them honest.

That's actually an excellent point. I hadn't thought of that.

No more so than, say, a 500hp motor... :dunno:

I agree with you. But I don't think HTT lied for the reasons stated above. I think he may have been disingenuous for reasons that hit closer to home. I think the reason they weren't willing to amortize the expense of designing an IRS to handle the power of the Shelby, is that Ford is in serious financial difficulty and couldn't afford to spend the money on it. Clearly, they don't want to tell the public: "Hey, we're hemorrhaging money over here and we don't have the R&D funds to develop a high power handling IRS for the Mustang application."

So that, plus the fact that their existing base (which does seem to be buying up this car in record numbers) clearly WANT SRA, make for an easy decision.

Personally, I think it's a myopic strategy too, but perhaps one based upon short term necessity and demographic research.

I agree.

It could be that Ford is trying to build cars that are more reliable and change public opinion. A tested SRA makes more sense then an untested, more complex, and more expensive IRS. Not to mention that this car will be the second most powerful in its line-up and will be sold to customers that will push it's limits on a daily basis. So if the IRS needs 2 more years of testing to work out the bugs then so be it. I don't think anyone wants a half hiney IRS that won't stand up to hard launches and boat loads of power.

No, no one wants a half hiney IRS. :jester: