Thanks! I'll have a look at it later.

 

I've maintained all along that not including an IRS wouldn't keep me from buying a new Shelby....however, I do believe Ford is leaving something on the table by not at least offering it as an option. If Ford should offer an IRS as an option, there will be buyers who will opt to pay the premium. Offering an IRS option will broaden the GT500's appeal to those who might be considering an M3 or equivalent plus satisfy the need of a segment of the Mustang faithful.

I don't think this issue would have been debated so vigorously were an IRS not included on the '99 and '03 - '04 Cobras. It set the stage that future generations of SVT Mustangs would be equipped with an IRS.

 

If IRS was included then the new debate would be over the near 4000# weight.

 

I agree that people would debate the ponderous weight as the stang is unusually heavy for its class. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have done IRS, just that they should address the weight issues. How come all the competitors can offer IRS and 500# less? Some competitors are cheaper. Most/all are lighter. All have IRS. All have more features/options. Ford is offering value -- but not necessarily technology. Some of us wish Ford had been a class leader, instead of just being able to argue, "Least advanced features/technology, but big motor and cheap".

 

I'm trying to figure out where all of these direct competitors are??? You know, all of these other Ponycars that are lighter, cheaper, have V8's, are RWD, and have IRS???

This goes with the question that I posed earlier, that noone seems to want to answer............... You know, the one where I asked about all those other new, under $40K, 450+hp, IRS sporty cars. I am surmising that I will get an answer to neither.

While I am sure that there are some cars out there that are cross shopped with the Mustang, this does not make them direct competitors. On one side you have glorified econoboxes with turbo 4 cylinders (or superchargers, in the case of the Cobalt). Funny thing is, most of those are more expensive than the Mustang, have much less power than the GT, or are driven by the wrong wheels. On the other side you have cars like the GTO, which is bigger, heavier, and more expensive. Are you trying to compare a Mustang GT to cars like the Camry Solara??? Maybe the Honda Accord Coupe???

I guess I don't get it.

It seems as though some are determined to dislike this car. While that is certainly your perogative, don't skew the facts to fit your preconceived notion. In doing so, you sound much like the media.

 

Well the direct competitor to the 07 GT500 will be the C6 or C6 Z06. Both cars will probably blow the doors off the Shelby in terms of handling. The GT500 will be a bit quicker than the base C6. The base C6 has 400 hp, the same tranny, IRS, is a lot lighter, and has a ton of standard features not available in the Shelby.

 

Which one has four seats?

 

I view the Mustang as a 2 seater, unless you have real small kids. I don't know of many full sized adults that could sit in the back. I am 6'2" and my front seat almost is against the rear.

 

OK. Doesn't really answer this question, though:

 

Nobody knows that the GT500 will be under 40K yet. Pricing is a fair ways from being officially released. I can tell you the price of a C6 though and would bet that the car will be cross-shopped.

 

We're not saying that there is any other car that competes directly in the Mustang's class (there isn't...yet), what we ARE saying is that every other class of car - whatever it may be - is able to offer greater levels of luxury, refinement...AND IRS. So why not the Mustang, too? As dke says:"Least advanced features/technology, but big motor and cheap."

Oh, and welcome to the boards, by the way. Nothing personal, your comments are articulate and insightful. I think some of us feel that this is a debate that Ford would do well to read.

 

Hey if Hyundai or Nissan can do it, so can Ford. It's just that a culture change needs to happen within Ford. I have read a lot of articles on Bill Ford Jr and he seems like he is trying. Will he suceed though, that's the question. Time will tell...

 

Well, it really isn't a direct competitor, now is it. That is, unless anything that can move quickly is a direct competitor.

One is a 4 seat, supercharged Ponycar, with a solid axle, 450-500hp, and a price under $40K. The other is a $45K 2-seater sports car, that has 400hp.

Sorry, I guess it's just me, but about the only resemblence is 4 tires, a V8, a steering wheel, and hp numbers that include a 4.

I would like someone to show me where Ford has ever called the Mustang a sportscar.

Ponycars were cheap and sometimes a bit crude............ yet they offered alot of bang for the buck, along with great style. That all............. nothing more, and nothing less. Its like some would like the Mustang to miraculously morph into something that it was never meant to be. If you want your 2-seater sportscar, buy your Vette. If you want a sporty 4-seater with nice road manners, and a good powered V6, buy a G35. If you want real cheap, real crude, but quick......... buy an SRT4. However, if you want a 4-seater coupe, with great style, tons of attitude, tons of history, good to excellent straightline speed, and pretty darn good handling........... on top of an aftermarket that will allow you to make it anything you want it to be, buy a Mustang.

If Ford puts an IRS in the Mustang sometime in the future (preferrably as an option), then that will be great. If they don't, that will be fine too. The Mustang will never be all things to all people, nor do I expect it to be.

 

I really hope they do succeed. But as long as the Japanese keep up the quality assault...as long as people keep buying their products in increasing numbers...as long as there is no debate about the "status quo" philosophy re American automakers (you see how resistant people are to it on this board)...as long as the North American model of automobile manufacturing remains static...and as long as Ford and GM must deal with UAW issues, it's going to be an uphill battle. They may simply have lost too much ground - and may be moving too slowly - to EVER catch up.

Look how many other manufacturing sectors (electronics being one) we've already given away to the Japanese over the years (makes you wonder who REALLY won the war, doesn't it?). Now IBM plans on manufacturing its notebook computers in China, and giving the Chinese access to our technology in that sector? It's beyond belief.

You reap what you sow.

 

First off I would like to thank everyone for keeping this discussion civil and professional, this is a first for an IRS thread.

I really think it is a disappointment that Ford didn't put an IRS in the Shelby Mustang, especially since it was considered to be benchmarked to the M3. I don't know if the intention was to get conquest sales from the M3 crowd, but I doubt that is the case given the current rear suspension.

I also agree that the cost increase alone would cover the cost of an IRS, other than some of the money in that increase is being earmarked for royalties to Mr. Shelby.

I do however, feel (hope) that an IRS suspension will be on the Mustangs in the next few years, maybe around the next refresh in 2009-10 or so. The reason for this, is given that this Mustang chassis is rumoured to be used on about 3-4 other Ford products, and given that, there should be enough budget money to develop a proper IRS and put it across the board on these products.

Although I would be happier that the Mustang I will be picking up very shortly had an IRS for a refined ride, I realize that something like this comes at a price. Maybe if someone were to build a direct competitor with an IRS Ford would start to consider building one.

 

Wade through all the crap and here's your answer:
That's right. There is no magical, $40K, 450 whp car equipped with IRS.

 

The magazine's and automotive writers do refer to the 05 GT as a sports car. I would say that the pony car "label" is dead. The GT is a modern sports coupe/car IMO.

 

Why is everyone so excited about the whp the "car" might put down? Any racer knows that what matters is the power to weight ratio. I would rather have a 3300lb 400hp vehicle than a 450hp that weighs 3700. A lighter car generally will handle and brake better as well.

 

Thank you for the welcome.

Personally, the day that the word luxury, and Mustang are mentioned in the same sentence, is the day that the Mustang is dead.

I guess I'm just weird. I "get" the Mustang. As a person who prefers handling to straightline speed (on my '91 GT, I had Tokiko Illumina shocks and struts, Steeda springs, Steeda piggyback rear swaybar, strut tower brace, g-load brace, welded in subframe connectors, and adjustable caster/camber plates), I like the Mustang just as it is. I even drive my '03 Mazda Tribute ES AWD (my mommy mobile) like its a sportscar (it really does handle well............. even on its 235 M&S's, which my husband likes to refer to as mud and sports. ). I would never be happy with it, if it came with a bunch of gadgets, mountains of nannies, or oodles of luxury and refinement. The history of the car means alot to me.......... and staying true to that history is a big part of its success.

The Mustang is not supposed to have all the luxury, convenience, or refinement of most cars. It is supposed to be a basic beast, that you tweak, alter, and modify.......... to make it your own, and what you want it to be.

The day that changes, will be a sad day indeed.

 

Yeah, everybody knows that. Thanks for stating the obvious. MY point was that every other classification of automobile uses IRS - from the cheapest Kia to the most expensive Ferrari, and everyone in-between. By your logic, having 450+ horsepower at $40K automatically eliminates the possibility of having an IRS. Where is THAT written in stone?

AND, nobody yet has been able to answer my question as to why EVERY OTHER AUTOMAKER has long since abandoned SRA. Ford is the only holdout.