HTT Calls IRS Fans 'Snobs'
5/19/05, 06:55 AM
#221
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 10, 2004
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by dke@May 19, 2005, 5:39 AM
I think the point is that some people are looking at what they get; the technology/features/ammenities, etc. They don't artificially think like marketing people and differentiate between the minutiae of a muscle car, pony car and sports car -- they think what they want to balance handling, performance, prestige/look, features, milage, and so on. So ignore how car executives categorize cars, and think like a driver/buyer.
Almost all other cars have better suspension and more amenities (lighter weight, better milage, and so on). The Mustang offers big motor and a cheap price (with some nice retro cachet). The Mustang will appeal to people DESPITE its shortcomings -- but that's the point. Many of us don't think Ford should have made it an either/or decision. To offer the options that competitors had, might have raised the price point a few percent at most -- especially if they were only options. In fact, that would have probably increased their ability to upsell and make more. Some decisions were more fundamental like the suspension; but others could put in more advanced suspensions in cars a fraction that price/weight. So I have a tough time buying the argument that Ford is somehow that inferior in design to every other auto-maker. They just made a choice based on nostalgia, or planned obsolescence (so they can offer an improved version later). But they still made it a choice that customers have to / should think about. Some of us would have rathered that Ford blew away the competition on many dimensions instead of just one or two.
I think the point is that some people are looking at what they get; the technology/features/ammenities, etc. They don't artificially think like marketing people and differentiate between the minutiae of a muscle car, pony car and sports car -- they think what they want to balance handling, performance, prestige/look, features, milage, and so on. So ignore how car executives categorize cars, and think like a driver/buyer.
Almost all other cars have better suspension and more amenities (lighter weight, better milage, and so on). The Mustang offers big motor and a cheap price (with some nice retro cachet). The Mustang will appeal to people DESPITE its shortcomings -- but that's the point. Many of us don't think Ford should have made it an either/or decision. To offer the options that competitors had, might have raised the price point a few percent at most -- especially if they were only options. In fact, that would have probably increased their ability to upsell and make more. Some decisions were more fundamental like the suspension; but others could put in more advanced suspensions in cars a fraction that price/weight. So I have a tough time buying the argument that Ford is somehow that inferior in design to every other auto-maker. They just made a choice based on nostalgia, or planned obsolescence (so they can offer an improved version later). But they still made it a choice that customers have to / should think about. Some of us would have rathered that Ford blew away the competition on many dimensions instead of just one or two.
Well stated David. I don't buy Ford's either/or decision either. Ford could sell more GT500's and more Mustangs in general by offering additional options such as an IRS or any number of other options. Why should Ford only offer the GT500 in one flavor? Sure from a cost standpoint they couldn't offer 31 flavors but two or three well crafted options would broaden the car's appeal while also satisfying the desires of the enthusiasts. The GT500 is a great car that could be made into an exceptional one if Ford chose to offer a few additional upgrades beyond what was presented in the concept.
5/19/05, 07:06 AM
#222
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Originally posted by MustangFanatic@May 19, 2005, 6:58 AM
Well stated David. I don't buy Ford's either/or decision either. Ford could sell more GT500's and more Mustangs in general by offering additional options such as an IRS or any number of other options. Why should Ford only offer the GT500 in one flavor? Sure from a cost standpoint they couldn't offer 31 flavors but two or three well crafted options would broaden the car's appeal while also satisfying the desires of the enthusiasts. The GT500 is a great car that could be made into an exceptional one if Ford chose to offer a few additional upgrades beyond what was presented in the concept.
Well stated David. I don't buy Ford's either/or decision either. Ford could sell more GT500's and more Mustangs in general by offering additional options such as an IRS or any number of other options. Why should Ford only offer the GT500 in one flavor? Sure from a cost standpoint they couldn't offer 31 flavors but two or three well crafted options would broaden the car's appeal while also satisfying the desires of the enthusiasts. The GT500 is a great car that could be made into an exceptional one if Ford chose to offer a few additional upgrades beyond what was presented in the concept.
5/19/05, 07:26 AM
#223
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 6:55 AM
Honestly, go drive a 350Z and you will immediately be able to tell that C&D's opinion is false. The Z is a much better handling machine. Skidpad numbers tell very little about how a car handles. The slalom number is what counts and further more track times.
Honestly, go drive a 350Z and you will immediately be able to tell that C&D's opinion is false. The Z is a much better handling machine. Skidpad numbers tell very little about how a car handles. The slalom number is what counts and further more track times.
5/19/05, 07:45 AM
#224
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe no interest in a 350Z to buy, but it does make a credible benchmark for what a decent, if perhaps overly stiffly tuned, IRS can do. I might suggest a spin in an RX-8 for an even better reference for the state of affordable (starting at $25K) suspension art. I imagine the upcoming Solstice/Sky should be interesting with its Vette'ish chassis and suspension design, all for less than $20K.
I'd love to see DC take a shortened version of the Chrysler 300/Dodge Magnum chassis and bring back the Cuda/Challenger, certainly something a bit nicer on the eyes than that neo-Checker cab called the Charger.
And if GM ever manages to pull their heads out of their nether regions, how about reviving the F-Car on a modern chassis. Ford has shown that the Pony car can sell quite well if well done and they certainly have a vast parts shelf.
I think any of the above would prove that a Pony car can have an excellent, affordable IRS and get the bean counters, who have driven Ford into its current pitiable state, to stand back and let the engineers develop excellent product and VALUE (as opposed to just being cheap) like they initially intended to do (apparently even as far as having an excellent IRS (that even launched well for the drag queens and that one miniscule performance measure) before being cheaped out by the short-sighted suits in finance.) At least, if the engineering has essentially been done, if, in the future, competition does hold Ford's feet to the fire a bit, as opposed to their current open competitive field, then they could quickly roll out the IRS as some mid term upgrade.
I'd love to see DC take a shortened version of the Chrysler 300/Dodge Magnum chassis and bring back the Cuda/Challenger, certainly something a bit nicer on the eyes than that neo-Checker cab called the Charger.
And if GM ever manages to pull their heads out of their nether regions, how about reviving the F-Car on a modern chassis. Ford has shown that the Pony car can sell quite well if well done and they certainly have a vast parts shelf.
I think any of the above would prove that a Pony car can have an excellent, affordable IRS and get the bean counters, who have driven Ford into its current pitiable state, to stand back and let the engineers develop excellent product and VALUE (as opposed to just being cheap) like they initially intended to do (apparently even as far as having an excellent IRS (that even launched well for the drag queens and that one miniscule performance measure) before being cheaped out by the short-sighted suits in finance.) At least, if the engineering has essentially been done, if, in the future, competition does hold Ford's feet to the fire a bit, as opposed to their current open competitive field, then they could quickly roll out the IRS as some mid term upgrade.
5/19/05, 07:52 AM
#225
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Originally posted by rhumb@May 19, 2005, 7:48 AM
Maybe no interest in a 350Z to buy, but it does make a credible benchmark for what a decent, if perhaps overly stiffly tuned, IRS can do. I might suggest a spin in an RX-8 for an even better reference for the state of affordable (starting at $25K) suspension art. I imagine the upcoming Solstice/Sky should be interesting with its Vette'ish chassis and suspension design, all for less than $20K.
Maybe no interest in a 350Z to buy, but it does make a credible benchmark for what a decent, if perhaps overly stiffly tuned, IRS can do. I might suggest a spin in an RX-8 for an even better reference for the state of affordable (starting at $25K) suspension art. I imagine the upcoming Solstice/Sky should be interesting with its Vette'ish chassis and suspension design, all for less than $20K.
5/19/05, 07:56 AM
#226
Legacy TMS Member
Originally posted by holderca1@May 19, 2005, 7:55 AM
I did, see my post earlier about the RX-8, it was so tight that I couldn't drive it, I would bang my knee on the dash with every shift. My fiance ended up driving it and I sat like a sardine in the passenger side. You have to be 5'6" to be comfortable in that car.
I did, see my post earlier about the RX-8, it was so tight that I couldn't drive it, I would bang my knee on the dash with every shift. My fiance ended up driving it and I sat like a sardine in the passenger side. You have to be 5'6" to be comfortable in that car.
5/19/05, 08:02 AM
#227
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Originally posted by TomServo92@May 19, 2005, 7:59 AM
I agree with you. I'm 5'10" and it did seem tight to me as well. That's one reason I decided to go with the 6 instead. On the other hand, the handling and balance is fantastic. But the IRS isn't the sole contributing factor. The rotary sits in the chassis and helps provide a lower center of gravity to make the handling much better.
I agree with you. I'm 5'10" and it did seem tight to me as well. That's one reason I decided to go with the 6 instead. On the other hand, the handling and balance is fantastic. But the IRS isn't the sole contributing factor. The rotary sits in the chassis and helps provide a lower center of gravity to make the handling much better.
5/19/05, 08:07 AM
#228
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by holderca1@May 19, 2005, 8:55 AM
I did, see my post earlier about the RX-8, it was so tight that I couldn't drive it, I would bang my knee on the dash with every shift. My fiance ended up driving it and I sat like a sardine in the passenger side. You have to be 5'6" to be comfortable in that car.
I did, see my post earlier about the RX-8, it was so tight that I couldn't drive it, I would bang my knee on the dash with every shift. My fiance ended up driving it and I sat like a sardine in the passenger side. You have to be 5'6" to be comfortable in that car.
5/19/05, 08:11 AM
#229
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 8:10 AM
I am 6'2" and have no problem getting into a 350Z. I never considered looking at a RX-8 because frankly it's slow. I just suggested you drive a Z to feel how it handles, so that you could compare it against the Mustang. My only problem with the Z's suspension is that the engineers didn't choose the right spring rates, which causes the car to bounce.
I am 6'2" and have no problem getting into a 350Z. I never considered looking at a RX-8 because frankly it's slow. I just suggested you drive a Z to feel how it handles, so that you could compare it against the Mustang. My only problem with the Z's suspension is that the engineers didn't choose the right spring rates, which causes the car to bounce.
5/19/05, 08:14 AM
#230
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by holderca1@May 19, 2005, 9:14 AM
I never said I had a problem getting into a 350Z. I am not interested in the Z because it doesn't have a backseat.
I never said I had a problem getting into a 350Z. I am not interested in the Z because it doesn't have a backseat.
5/19/05, 08:18 AM
#231
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
G35 is a great car, it's a little more than I am wanting to spend right now though. The car I am really looking forward to is the nex gen M3/4, whichever it may happen to be. Just hoping that when it comes out, pricing stays close to where it is now for an M3.
5/19/05, 08:21 AM
#232
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by holderca1@May 19, 2005, 9:21 AM
G35 is a great car, it's a little more than I am wanting to spend right now though. The car I am really looking forward to is the nex gen M3/4, whichever it may happen to be. Just hoping that when it comes out, pricing stays close to where it is now for an M3.
G35 is a great car, it's a little more than I am wanting to spend right now though. The car I am really looking forward to is the nex gen M3/4, whichever it may happen to be. Just hoping that when it comes out, pricing stays close to where it is now for an M3.
5/19/05, 09:23 AM
#234
V6 Member
Join Date: March 25, 2005
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole debate sounds so similar to the "Corvette has ancient leaf spring suspension". Quit knit-picking this car and look at the results. The '05 GT with SRA OUTHANDLES the '03-'04 Cobra with IRS. It's gotten rave reviews for an SRA. C&D stated that it pulled a better skidpad than the 350z enthusiast edition. While skidpad figures don't tell the whole story they do tell something. In a constant corner the MGT can hold it's own with a great IRS competitor.
Would an IRS be better? Yes but Ford has stated it's marginally better and would add $5k to the price and 180 # to an already tank of a car. Would you spend $5k (12%) more for and increase of 0.02g (2%) and 2 mph in the slalom? There is a point at which you're no longer getting bang for the buck. Building a car like this is about making inteligent compromises. The IRS was sacraficed to reduce the price, or invest it elsewhere where the money would make a difference.
There's no need to rehash all the IRS is better because........ I ALREADY KNOW. I agree that IRS is better but look to the MGT and read some of it's reviews. This isn't the same SRA from 2 decades ago.
Now, everyone keeps bring up the other competitors: EVO, STi, RX8, 350z, GTO. All of which have IRS. Well I'll go on record and predict that this GT500 will destroy all of these on the drag strip and track. How? Just like the '05 mustangs in Grand Am. Fast in the straights and good enough in the corners. This car will be MUCH faster than all the others and will likely do good enough in the corners (0.90g).
C&D did a comparison of the '03 Cobra, G35, and RX8. On the track the Cobra was 2 seconds faster per lap even though it was the worst handling car of the bunch. Now we're getting an even faster GT500 that has better handling. How do you think they'll fare now?
Would an IRS be better? Yes but Ford has stated it's marginally better and would add $5k to the price and 180 # to an already tank of a car. Would you spend $5k (12%) more for and increase of 0.02g (2%) and 2 mph in the slalom? There is a point at which you're no longer getting bang for the buck. Building a car like this is about making inteligent compromises. The IRS was sacraficed to reduce the price, or invest it elsewhere where the money would make a difference.
There's no need to rehash all the IRS is better because........ I ALREADY KNOW. I agree that IRS is better but look to the MGT and read some of it's reviews. This isn't the same SRA from 2 decades ago.
Now, everyone keeps bring up the other competitors: EVO, STi, RX8, 350z, GTO. All of which have IRS. Well I'll go on record and predict that this GT500 will destroy all of these on the drag strip and track. How? Just like the '05 mustangs in Grand Am. Fast in the straights and good enough in the corners. This car will be MUCH faster than all the others and will likely do good enough in the corners (0.90g).
C&D did a comparison of the '03 Cobra, G35, and RX8. On the track the Cobra was 2 seconds faster per lap even though it was the worst handling car of the bunch. Now we're getting an even faster GT500 that has better handling. How do you think they'll fare now?
5/19/05, 09:53 AM
#235
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 9:10 AM
I am 6'2" and have no problem getting into a 350Z. I never considered looking at a RX-8 because frankly it's slow. I just suggested you drive a Z to feel how it handles, so that you could compare it against the Mustang. My only problem with the Z's suspension is that the engineers didn't choose the right spring rates, which causes the car to bounce.
I am 6'2" and have no problem getting into a 350Z. I never considered looking at a RX-8 because frankly it's slow. I just suggested you drive a Z to feel how it handles, so that you could compare it against the Mustang. My only problem with the Z's suspension is that the engineers didn't choose the right spring rates, which causes the car to bounce.
At the limit the car is not what you would call predictable and I do not mean this in a fun or rewarding way. My first drive in a 350Z began with high hopes and ended with a simple "huh?". Every drive since then has only served to disappoint me further. There is nothing exactly wrong with the car but there is nothing glaringly right about it either....not for the money anyway.
I pointed all this out before and the "IRS only" clubs was basically "IRS in general isn't at fault" which was and is both blatantly obvious and nothing that I had said or even hinted at in my post. My point was you will find people drooling all over their keyboards on this forum because the 350Z has an IRS regardless of what that IRS really accomplishes or how good it actually is. Most of the threads regarding IRS demonstrate this IMO.
If the far-left IRS crowd wants to point their fingers toward a gleaming example of how wonderfully IRS packages handling and ride in an relatively inexpensive car I suggest they look elsewhere because the Z car isn't that car. The "lounge lizard" G35 Coupe that rides on the same chassis would be a far better example IMO and still does not make the case they want it to.
5/19/05, 10:05 AM
#236
Originally posted by Robert@May 17, 2005, 12:07 AM
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.
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.
And yes, money and what level of development Ford/SVT could deliver for said money was obvioualy the main factor in how an SRA found a home under the rear of the GT500. If that SRA delivers as it should at an attractive price level then I'll take it.
5/19/05, 10:09 AM
#237
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by AbusiveWombat@May 19, 2005, 10:26 AM
This whole debate sounds so similar to the "Corvette has ancient leaf spring suspension". Quit knit-picking this car and look at the results. The '05 GT with SRA OUTHANDLES the '03-'04 Cobra with IRS. It's gotten rave reviews for an SRA. C&D stated that it pulled a better skidpad than the 350z enthusiast edition. While skidpad figures don't tell the whole story they do tell something. In a constant corner the MGT can hold it's own with a great IRS competitor.
Would an IRS be better? Yes but Ford has stated it's marginally better and would add $5k to the price and 180 # to an already tank of a car. Would you spend $5k (12%) more for and increase of 0.02g (2%) and 2 mph in the slalom? There is a point at which you're no longer getting bang for the buck. Building a car like this is about making inteligent compromises. The IRS was sacraficed to reduce the price, or invest it elsewhere where the money would make a difference.
There's no need to rehash all the IRS is better because........ I ALREADY KNOW. I agree that IRS is better but look to the MGT and read some of it's reviews. This isn't the same SRA from 2 decades ago.
Now, everyone keeps bring up the other competitors: EVO, STi, RX8, 350z, GTO. All of which have IRS. Well I'll go on record and predict that this GT500 will destroy all of these on the drag strip and track. How? Just like the '05 mustangs in Grand Am. Fast in the straights and good enough in the corners. This car will be MUCH faster than all the others and will likely do good enough in the corners (0.90g).
C&D did a comparison of the '03 Cobra, G35, and RX8. On the track the Cobra was 2 seconds faster per lap even though it was the worst handling car of the bunch. Now we're getting an even faster GT500 that has better handling. How do you think they'll fare now?
This whole debate sounds so similar to the "Corvette has ancient leaf spring suspension". Quit knit-picking this car and look at the results. The '05 GT with SRA OUTHANDLES the '03-'04 Cobra with IRS. It's gotten rave reviews for an SRA. C&D stated that it pulled a better skidpad than the 350z enthusiast edition. While skidpad figures don't tell the whole story they do tell something. In a constant corner the MGT can hold it's own with a great IRS competitor.
Would an IRS be better? Yes but Ford has stated it's marginally better and would add $5k to the price and 180 # to an already tank of a car. Would you spend $5k (12%) more for and increase of 0.02g (2%) and 2 mph in the slalom? There is a point at which you're no longer getting bang for the buck. Building a car like this is about making inteligent compromises. The IRS was sacraficed to reduce the price, or invest it elsewhere where the money would make a difference.
There's no need to rehash all the IRS is better because........ I ALREADY KNOW. I agree that IRS is better but look to the MGT and read some of it's reviews. This isn't the same SRA from 2 decades ago.
Now, everyone keeps bring up the other competitors: EVO, STi, RX8, 350z, GTO. All of which have IRS. Well I'll go on record and predict that this GT500 will destroy all of these on the drag strip and track. How? Just like the '05 mustangs in Grand Am. Fast in the straights and good enough in the corners. This car will be MUCH faster than all the others and will likely do good enough in the corners (0.90g).
C&D did a comparison of the '03 Cobra, G35, and RX8. On the track the Cobra was 2 seconds faster per lap even though it was the worst handling car of the bunch. Now we're getting an even faster GT500 that has better handling. How do you think they'll fare now?
Also, in regards to the Grand Am series, take a look at the rules. The Mustang is allowed(Section 8-2) a lot of options. I am sure that next year, the Mustang will be penalized, kind of like the CTSV was in SCCA racing.
5/19/05, 10:18 AM
#238
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jsaylor@May 19, 2005, 10:56 AM
The car has more problems than a simple tendency to bounce. The ride is harsh in every trim level, horrible in a Track Model. (amazingly the car rides a bit better now than it did at launch due to revisions) Yes, this is due to those same overly harsh spring rates as well but it is what it is.
At the limit the car is not what you would call predictable and I do not mean this in a fun or rewarding way. My first drive in a 350Z began with high hopes and ended with a simple "huh?". Every drive since then has only served to disappoint me further. There is nothing exactly wrong with the car but there is nothing glaringly right about it either....not for the money anyway.
I pointed all this out before and the "IRS only" clubs was basically "IRS in general isn't at fault" which was and is both blatantly obvious and nothing that I had said or even hinted at in my post. My point was you will find people drooling all over their keyboards on this forum because the 350Z has an IRS regardless of what that IRS really accomplishes or how good it actually is. Most of the threads regarding IRS demonstrate this IMO.
If the far-left IRS crowd wants to point their fingers toward a gleaming example of how wonderfully IRS packages handling and ride in an relatively inexpensive car I suggest they look elsewhere because the Z car isn't that car. The "lounge lizard" G35 Coupe that rides on the same chassis would be a far better example IMO and still does not make the case they want it to.
The car has more problems than a simple tendency to bounce. The ride is harsh in every trim level, horrible in a Track Model. (amazingly the car rides a bit better now than it did at launch due to revisions) Yes, this is due to those same overly harsh spring rates as well but it is what it is.
At the limit the car is not what you would call predictable and I do not mean this in a fun or rewarding way. My first drive in a 350Z began with high hopes and ended with a simple "huh?". Every drive since then has only served to disappoint me further. There is nothing exactly wrong with the car but there is nothing glaringly right about it either....not for the money anyway.
I pointed all this out before and the "IRS only" clubs was basically "IRS in general isn't at fault" which was and is both blatantly obvious and nothing that I had said or even hinted at in my post. My point was you will find people drooling all over their keyboards on this forum because the 350Z has an IRS regardless of what that IRS really accomplishes or how good it actually is. Most of the threads regarding IRS demonstrate this IMO.
If the far-left IRS crowd wants to point their fingers toward a gleaming example of how wonderfully IRS packages handling and ride in an relatively inexpensive car I suggest they look elsewhere because the Z car isn't that car. The "lounge lizard" G35 Coupe that rides on the same chassis would be a far better example IMO and still does not make the case they want it to.
Fact of the matter is all the serious handling cars I can think of use an IRS. Doesn't matter if it's a C5, C6, Z06, Viper, M3, Elise etc etc. They all use an IRS suspension.
5/19/05, 10:31 AM
#239
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 10:12 AM
Also, I don't believe for one second that an IRS suspension would add that much to the cost. How can other brands do it?
Also, I don't believe for one second that an IRS suspension would add that much to the cost. How can other brands do it?
5/19/05, 10:37 AM
#240
V6 Member
Join Date: March 25, 2005
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 11:12 AM
You bring up some facts, but leave out the obvious. The previous gen Cobra was built on an archiac platform with poor torsional rigidity. The IRS that Ford designed wasn't the best. Fact is, that a well designed IRS using the S197 chassis will outperform all of the mentioned Mustangs. Also, I don't believe for one second that an IRS suspension would add that much to the cost. How can other brands do it?
Also, in regards to the Grand Am series, take a look at the rules. The Mustang is allowed(Section 8-2) a lot of options. I am sure that next year, the Mustang will be penalized, kind of like the CTSV was in SCCA racing.
You bring up some facts, but leave out the obvious. The previous gen Cobra was built on an archiac platform with poor torsional rigidity. The IRS that Ford designed wasn't the best. Fact is, that a well designed IRS using the S197 chassis will outperform all of the mentioned Mustangs. Also, I don't believe for one second that an IRS suspension would add that much to the cost. How can other brands do it?
Also, in regards to the Grand Am series, take a look at the rules. The Mustang is allowed(Section 8-2) a lot of options. I am sure that next year, the Mustang will be penalized, kind of like the CTSV was in SCCA racing.
Also, as to where I came up with the $5k for the IRS. Ford stated that IRS would add $5k to the price and 180 #.
How can other brands offer IRS? Well other brands aren't offering 450hp. Other brands also offer IRS in all models, not just the top low production version. Adding a new, untested IRS to 4% (7500/190k) of the models is expensive. Sure it's been done before but would you sacrifice the 5.4L twinscrew engine for the old 4.6L roots SC engine from the '03-'04 just for IRS? if so, would you make that same sacrifice knowing that the IRS is only 2% better in all handling categories?
The 2% is just a guestimate of what "marginally better" is quantitatively.