HTT Calls IRS Fans 'Snobs'
#241
Originally posted by holderca1@May 19, 2005, 7:09 AM
You are assuming that Ford has the capability to build more Mustangs and GT500s.
You are assuming that Ford has the capability to build more Mustangs and GT500s.
#242
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 11:21 AM
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.
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.
The reality is that even with IRS, the mustang still wouldn't hold a candle to the C6, Viper, or Elise.
#243
Originally posted by AbusiveWombat@May 19, 2005, 11:40 AM
[b]No where did I state that an IRS would not perform better. Ford has gone on record and stated that the IRS performed marginally]/b] better than the SRA. I pointed out the law of diminishing returns. If the IRS adds 12% to the price and we only see a 2% increase in ability then, IMO, that's a poor investment.
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.
[b]No where did I state that an IRS would not perform better. Ford has gone on record and stated that the IRS performed marginally]/b] better than the SRA. I pointed out the law of diminishing returns. If the IRS adds 12% to the price and we only see a 2% increase in ability then, IMO, that's a poor investment.
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.
I am aware that Ford stated the 5K and 180# numbers. For 5K Ford better be giving us a race suspension. I don't buy those figures one bit.
#244
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 10:50 AM
Why is everyone so enamered in the 450 hp stat, again you guys are getting to hung up on it? Power to weight ratio is what counts. I am guessing that the GT500 will weigh 3750+ lbs. I am trying to keep in mind that the figures you state are all hypothetical. What about the unmeasurables, such as ride comfort and the improved feel you will get with an IRS? What about a car thats easier to drive near the limits or when just driving spirited?
I am aware that Ford stated the 5K and 180# numbers. For 5K Ford better be giving us a race suspension. I don't buy those figures one bit.
Why is everyone so enamered in the 450 hp stat, again you guys are getting to hung up on it? Power to weight ratio is what counts. I am guessing that the GT500 will weigh 3750+ lbs. I am trying to keep in mind that the figures you state are all hypothetical. What about the unmeasurables, such as ride comfort and the improved feel you will get with an IRS? What about a car thats easier to drive near the limits or when just driving spirited?
I am aware that Ford stated the 5K and 180# numbers. For 5K Ford better be giving us a race suspension. I don't buy those figures one bit.
#245
Originally posted by AbusiveWombat@May 19, 2005, 11:48 AM
They also don't weigh 3700+#. They also have better weight distribution. They also have lower centers of gravity. The list goes on....
The reality is that even with IRS, the mustang still wouldn't hold a candle to the C6, Viper, or Elise.
They also don't weigh 3700+#. They also have better weight distribution. They also have lower centers of gravity. The list goes on....
The reality is that even with IRS, the mustang still wouldn't hold a candle to the C6, Viper, or Elise.
#246
Originally posted by max2000jp+May 19, 2005, 11:50 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(max2000jp @ May 19, 2005, 11:50 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Why is everyone so enamered in the 450 hp stat, again you guys are getting to hung up on it? Power to weight ratio is what counts. I am guessing that the GT500 will weigh 3750+ lbs. I am trying to keep in mind that the figures you state are all hypothetical. What about the unmeasurables, such as ride comfort and the improved feel you will get with an IRS? What about a car thats easier to drive near the limits or when just driving spirited?
I am aware that Ford stated the 5K and 180# numbers. For 5K Ford better be giving us a race suspension. I don't buy those figures one bit.
[/b]
I am aware that Ford stated the 5K and 180# numbers. For 5K Ford better be giving us a race suspension. I don't buy those figures one bit.
[/b]
'04 Cobra:
3665 #
hp: 390
#/hp: 9.4 (less is better)
GT500:
est. 3700 #
hp: 450
#/hp: 8.22
You're right power to weight ratio is what counts and the GT500 bests the Cobra.
As for ride comfort. See my post near the top of the page. It has a link to the C&D review of the '05 Mustang.:
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index.php?sh...ic=24245&st=100
<!--QuoteBegin-max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 11:50 AM
So does the CTS-V....Take a quick look at its lap times at the Nurburgring. You can have your cake and eat it too. I am all for a lightweight Mustang, but it seems that manufacturers are using HP as a bandaid to combat the increasing weight of cars. Ford can adjust CG by using lowering springs, so that point isn't a big issue.
[/quote]
The CTS-V is not in the same league as a C6, Viper, or Elise. It puts up a 0.90g from C&D which is not very much better than C&D's 0.87g from a '05 GT.
#247
Originally posted by AbusiveWombat@May 19, 2005, 12:10 PM
'04 Cobra:
3665 #
hp: 390
#/hp: 9.4 (less is better)
GT500:
est. 3700 #
hp: 450
#/hp: 8.22
You're right power to weight ratio is what counts and the GT500 bests the Cobra.
As for ride comfort. See my post near the top of the page. It has a link to the C&D review of the '05 Mustang.:
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index.php?sh...ic=24245&st=100
The CTS-V is not in the same league as a C6, Viper, or Elise. It puts up a 0.90g from C&D which is not very much better than C&D's 0.87g from a '05 GT.
'04 Cobra:
3665 #
hp: 390
#/hp: 9.4 (less is better)
GT500:
est. 3700 #
hp: 450
#/hp: 8.22
You're right power to weight ratio is what counts and the GT500 bests the Cobra.
As for ride comfort. See my post near the top of the page. It has a link to the C&D review of the '05 Mustang.:
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/index.php?sh...ic=24245&st=100
The CTS-V is not in the same league as a C6, Viper, or Elise. It puts up a 0.90g from C&D which is not very much better than C&D's 0.87g from a '05 GT.
Also, the estimated wieght I feel will be around 3800 lbs. The Mustang GT gained 100 lbs in in redesign. The 19" wheels, Brembos, and larger engine will add weight as well.
#248
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 12:38 PM
Did you look at the Nurburgring times?
Did you look at the Nurburgring times?
#249
The Nordschleife at the Nurburgring - as we've discussed here before - is a 13 mile track containing 70 curves. The following was provided:
7:52 - Gemballa Porsche 993
7:55 - GSX-R 750 -98
7:55 - Kawasaki ZX-9R
7:56 - C6 Coupe (not Z06)
7:56 - Porsche 996 GT3 (in 2000)
7:56 - Porsche 996 Turbo (in 2000)
7:56 - NSX Type R
8:09 - Lamborghini Diablo SV
8:05 - 2002 Ferrari 575 Maranello
8:09 - Porsche 993 GT2
8:07 - Ferrari 550 Maranello
8:13 - Ferrari F355
8:19 - CTS - V
Pretty impressive for a car that's under-tired on runflats.
#250
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 12:49 PM
The Nordschleife at the Nurburgring - as we've discussed here before - is a 13 mile track containing 70 curves. The following was provided:
7:52 - Gemballa Porsche 993
7:55 - GSX-R 750 -98
7:55 - Kawasaki ZX-9R
7:56 - C6 Coupe (not Z06)
7:56 - Porsche 996 GT3 (in 2000)
7:56 - Porsche 996 Turbo (in 2000)
7:56 - NSX Type R
8:09 - Lamborghini Diablo SV
8:05 - 2002 Ferrari 575 Maranello
8:09 - Porsche 993 GT2
8:07 - Ferrari 550 Maranello
8:13 - Ferrari F355
8:19 - CTS - V
Pretty impressive for a car that's under-tired on runflats.
The Nordschleife at the Nurburgring - as we've discussed here before - is a 13 mile track containing 70 curves. The following was provided:
7:52 - Gemballa Porsche 993
7:55 - GSX-R 750 -98
7:55 - Kawasaki ZX-9R
7:56 - C6 Coupe (not Z06)
7:56 - Porsche 996 GT3 (in 2000)
7:56 - Porsche 996 Turbo (in 2000)
7:56 - NSX Type R
8:09 - Lamborghini Diablo SV
8:05 - 2002 Ferrari 575 Maranello
8:09 - Porsche 993 GT2
8:07 - Ferrari 550 Maranello
8:13 - Ferrari F355
8:19 - CTS - V
Pretty impressive for a car that's under-tired on runflats.
#251
Originally posted by holderca1@May 19, 2005, 1:55 PM
I am familiar with the track. Where did you get the numbers though?
I am familiar with the track. Where did you get the numbers though?
#252
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 12:49 PM
The Nordschleife at the Nurburgring - as we've discussed here before - is a 13 mile track containing 70 curves. The following was provided:
7:52 - Gemballa Porsche 993
7:55 - GSX-R 750 -98
7:55 - Kawasaki ZX-9R
7:56 - C6 Coupe (not Z06)
7:56 - Porsche 996 GT3 (in 2000)
7:56 - Porsche 996 Turbo (in 2000)
7:56 - NSX Type R
8:09 - Lamborghini Diablo SV
8:05 - 2002 Ferrari 575 Maranello
8:09 - Porsche 993 GT2
8:07 - Ferrari 550 Maranello
8:13 - Ferrari F355
8:19 - CTS - V
Pretty impressive for a car that's under-tired on runflats.
The Nordschleife at the Nurburgring - as we've discussed here before - is a 13 mile track containing 70 curves. The following was provided:
7:52 - Gemballa Porsche 993
7:55 - GSX-R 750 -98
7:55 - Kawasaki ZX-9R
7:56 - C6 Coupe (not Z06)
7:56 - Porsche 996 GT3 (in 2000)
7:56 - Porsche 996 Turbo (in 2000)
7:56 - NSX Type R
8:09 - Lamborghini Diablo SV
8:05 - 2002 Ferrari 575 Maranello
8:09 - Porsche 993 GT2
8:07 - Ferrari 550 Maranello
8:13 - Ferrari F355
8:19 - CTS - V
Pretty impressive for a car that's under-tired on runflats.
#253
Originally posted by TomServo92@May 19, 2005, 2:07 PM
The big question (and one which will hopefully be answered some day) is what times would a GT500 run?
The big question (and one which will hopefully be answered some day) is what times would a GT500 run?
#254
#255
Originally posted by holderca1@May 19, 2005, 2:27 PM
You wouldn't happen to have anything from a more trustworthy source? Not saying they are bad numbers, but I wouldn't really trust a forum as a good source of information.
You wouldn't happen to have anything from a more trustworthy source? Not saying they are bad numbers, but I wouldn't really trust a forum as a good source of information.
Here are some more:
http://nurburgring.de/?rubrik=rekorde&lang=eng
The green times are the ones you want to look at.
#256
I pulled a few more times
http://www.supercarfreak.net/forum/showthr...19&page=1&pp=20
7:50 --- BMW E46 M3 CSL (08/2003)
7:56 --- Chevrolet Corvette C5 Z06
8:06 --- Mercedes Benz SL55 AMG
8:06 --- Subaru Impreza Sti spec C - Motoharu Kurosawa, Best MOTORing
8:11 --- Mitsubishi Lancer EVO IX
8:13 --- Dodge Viper SRT-10, 506 PS (10/2004)
8:13 --- BMW M5 (E60) (12/2004)
While ring times are nice, it's certainly not the be all or end all of tests. There's a lot of variables that aren't taken into account: weather, traffic, and most of all, driver. These might explain why an EVO ran a better time than the Viper, and why the Viper is nearly 20 seconds behind the Z06. I can guarantee that you take the same Viper, Z06, and EVO to Streets of Willow, allow the same driver to test all three, the order would be totally different.
Anyways, we're getting WAY off topic.
http://www.supercarfreak.net/forum/showthr...19&page=1&pp=20
7:50 --- BMW E46 M3 CSL (08/2003)
7:56 --- Chevrolet Corvette C5 Z06
8:06 --- Mercedes Benz SL55 AMG
8:06 --- Subaru Impreza Sti spec C - Motoharu Kurosawa, Best MOTORing
8:11 --- Mitsubishi Lancer EVO IX
8:13 --- Dodge Viper SRT-10, 506 PS (10/2004)
8:13 --- BMW M5 (E60) (12/2004)
While ring times are nice, it's certainly not the be all or end all of tests. There's a lot of variables that aren't taken into account: weather, traffic, and most of all, driver. These might explain why an EVO ran a better time than the Viper, and why the Viper is nearly 20 seconds behind the Z06. I can guarantee that you take the same Viper, Z06, and EVO to Streets of Willow, allow the same driver to test all three, the order would be totally different.
Anyways, we're getting WAY off topic.
#257
Originally posted by AbusiveWombat@May 19, 2005, 2:42 PM
While ring times are nice, it's certainly not the be all or end all of tests. There's a lot of variables that aren't taken into account: weather, traffic, and most of all, driver. These might explain why an EVO ran a better time than the Viper, and why the Viper is nearly 20 seconds behind the Z06. I can guarantee that you take the same Viper, Z06, and EVO to Streets of Willow, allow the same driver to test all three, the order would be totally different.
While ring times are nice, it's certainly not the be all or end all of tests. There's a lot of variables that aren't taken into account: weather, traffic, and most of all, driver. These might explain why an EVO ran a better time than the Viper, and why the Viper is nearly 20 seconds behind the Z06. I can guarantee that you take the same Viper, Z06, and EVO to Streets of Willow, allow the same driver to test all three, the order would be totally different.
Vipers are hard cars to drive. It takes a real good driver to post great lap times in one. The EVO and Z06 are easier cars to drive.
#258
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 1:38 PM
Again, quit looking at the skidpad numbers, it's not a good indicator. Did you look at the Nurburgring times? Pretty impressive for a big car.
Also, the estimated wieght I feel will be around 3800 lbs. The Mustang GT gained 100 lbs in in redesign. The 19" wheels, Brembos, and larger engine will add weight as well.
Again, quit looking at the skidpad numbers, it's not a good indicator. Did you look at the Nurburgring times? Pretty impressive for a big car.
Also, the estimated wieght I feel will be around 3800 lbs. The Mustang GT gained 100 lbs in in redesign. The 19" wheels, Brembos, and larger engine will add weight as well.
#259
Originally posted by AbusiveWombat@May 19, 2005, 1:58 PM
Skidpad and slalom numbers are very good indicators. Much better than a single Nurburgring time which is highly dependant on driver, weather, traffic, puddles...etc. Obviously there are other handling attributes that can't be measured through skidpad and slalom but overall they're pretty good indicators of handling ability. And certainly more repeatable/comparable.
Skidpad and slalom numbers are very good indicators. Much better than a single Nurburgring time which is highly dependant on driver, weather, traffic, puddles...etc. Obviously there are other handling attributes that can't be measured through skidpad and slalom but overall they're pretty good indicators of handling ability. And certainly more repeatable/comparable.
#260
Originally posted by AbusiveWombat@May 19, 2005, 2:58 PM
Skidpad and slalom numbers are very good indicators. Much better than a single Nurburgring time which is highly dependant on driver, weather, traffic, puddles...etc. Obviously there are other handling attributes that can't be measured through skidpad and slalom but overall they're pretty good indicators of handling ability. And certainly more repeatable/comparable.
Skidpad and slalom numbers are very good indicators. Much better than a single Nurburgring time which is highly dependant on driver, weather, traffic, puddles...etc. Obviously there are other handling attributes that can't be measured through skidpad and slalom but overall they're pretty good indicators of handling ability. And certainly more repeatable/comparable.