Aftermarket 2005+ Mustangs Discuss the Offerings from Roush, Saleen, Steeda, Shinoda, and Others

HTT Calls IRS Fans 'Snobs'

Old May 19, 2005 | 02:09 PM
  #261  
AbusiveWombat's Avatar
V6 Member
 
Joined: March 25, 2005
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Originally posted by holderca1@May 19, 2005, 3:01 PM
What are the slalom numbers for the two anyways?
I don't know. I couldn't find figures for the enthusiast 350z and '05 GT. I'd bet that the 350z would edge the mustang by a few mph.
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 02:14 PM
  #262  
holderca1's Avatar
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
 
Joined: May 18, 2004
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 2
From: San Antonio, TX
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 2:10 PM
the skidpad measures the tires overall grip
It's more than just that or the car with the wider tires would always have the higher numbers. The '05 Mustang GT has much narrower tires than an '04 Cobra, yet the GT has better numbers.
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 02:21 PM
  #263  
max2000jp's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: September 2, 2004
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Back on topic: I was thinking how much did the IRS add to the 99 Cobra over the GT's SRA. I found this article below:

http://waw.wardsauto.com/magazinearticle.a...2888&mode=print

Only 70 lbs more to add an IRS. I feel that Ford is just feeding us BS on the cost and weight issues.
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 02:22 PM
  #264  
max2000jp's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: September 2, 2004
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally posted by holderca1@May 19, 2005, 3:17 PM
It's more than just that or the car with the wider tires would always have the higher numbers. The '05 Mustang GT has much narrower tires than an '04 Cobra, yet the GT has better numbers.
Well it actually depends a lot on the actual compound of the tire, plus the contact patch.
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 02:44 PM
  #265  
holderca1's Avatar
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
 
Joined: May 18, 2004
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 2
From: San Antonio, TX
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 2:25 PM
Well it actually depends a lot on the actual compound of the tire, plus the contact patch.
You are still missing the point, it's more than just tires. For example, the lotus elise pulls something like a 1.0 g, may be better than that actually. Anyways, you can't contribute that to just the tires (F: 175/55 R16, R: 225/45 R17).
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 02:46 PM
  #266  
AbusiveWombat's Avatar
V6 Member
 
Joined: March 25, 2005
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Found an Edmunds article that measures slalom of the 350z, RX8, and MGT:

MGT: 62.5
RX8: 63.9
350z: 63.9

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/...96/page007.html

Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 3:24 PM
Back on topic: I was thinking how much did the IRS add to the 99 Cobra over the GT's SRA. I found this article below:

http://waw.wardsauto.com/magazinearticle.a...2888&mode=print

Only 70 lbs more to add an IRS. I feel that Ford is just feeding us BS on the cost and weight issues.
99 Cobra had 320 hp and similar torque. It would need to be a little more heavy duty to put up with 450+/450 and would likely need to be over engineered to deal with the power that the 5.4L is capable of.

Anyways, I hope you can understand my point in that the benifits of IRS may not be substantial enough to justify the cost. We will never know if HTT is telling the truth on the added cost of $5k and weight of 180#. I don't run an automobile plant so I don't know what adding IRS to 4% of the line would cost. Or the cost of possible warrenty repairs on an untested IRS. Or how much engineering time it took to develope the new IRS. All I can go by is his statement that the IRS is marginally better and in the end the cost outweighed the benifits.
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 03:38 PM
  #267  
TomServo92's Avatar
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: June 18, 2004
Posts: 3,990
Likes: 34
From: Conroe, TX
It must be intermission. There hasn't been a post in this thread in nearly an hour. Is everyone catching their second wind??
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 03:48 PM
  #268  
max2000jp's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: September 2, 2004
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally posted by AbusiveWombat@May 19, 2005, 3:49 PM

99 Cobra had 320 hp and similar torque. It would need to be a little more heavy duty to put up with 450+/450 and would likely need to be over engineered to deal with the power that the 5.4L is capable of.

Anyways, I hope you can understand my point in that the benifits of IRS may not be substantial enough to justify the cost. We will never know if HTT is telling the truth on the added cost of $5k and weight of 180#. I don't run an automobile plant so I don't know what adding IRS to 4% of the line would cost. Or the cost of possible warrenty repairs on an untested IRS. Or how much engineering time it took to develope the new IRS. All I can go by is his statement that the IRS is marginally better and in the end the cost outweighed the benifits.
SVT at the time could produce a IRS suspension in a chassis that wasn't intended to house one. I hope that Ford/SVT could come up with a reliable IRS that didn't weighs 2+ times as much as the SN95 Cobras using a chassis that was designed for an IRS. Look at aftermarket suspension parts for the SN95. You can get a full race suspension for 5K from aftermarket companies. You guys are really falling for the propaganda from Ford. I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I can sell you guys.

I can't think of any performance car that uses a SRA, except our beloved Mustang. Everyone else seems to see the benefits, I guess Ford lives in their own little world.
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 03:59 PM
  #269  
68notch's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: October 12, 2004
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 4:51 PM
You guys are really falling for the propaganda from Ford.
Who are you, Michael Moore?
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 04:00 PM
  #270  
1 COBRA's Avatar
AKA 1 BULLITT------------ Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 7,738
Likes: 361
From: U S A
Originally posted by TomServo92@May 19, 2005, 5:41 PM
It must be intermission.


I have nothing else to offer other than I sure hope that one day Mr. Hai has the opportunity to call me a "SNOB" ...
face to face.



eace:
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 04:07 PM
  #271  
Boomer's Avatar
I Have No Life
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 12
From: Canada
Its still going?!?!

My god....

Oh and I love the fact that some guys are now hitting up the GT500 with vapourspecs...
It'll weigh this, have this...this'll weigh this..the HP will be this...

You're comparing cars that exist to numbers that are not revlealed as of yet.

If you think it'll have 450 only....you're probably wrong.
You say it'll have 19" wheels, but its been stated that'll probably be changed to 18s with some wider meat.

Colletti before his departure probably set in motion his comments about weight being an issue and how eventually we'll hit the cealing on HP numbers....so take that as you will.

Argue all you want about it....until you see concrete facts on this car...
you have NOTHING....
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 04:10 PM
  #272  
max2000jp's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: September 2, 2004
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally posted by Boomer@May 19, 2005, 5:10 PM
Its still going?!?!

My god....

Oh and I love the fact that some guys are now hitting up the GT500 with vapourspecs...
It'll weigh this, have this...this'll weigh this..the HP will be this...

You're comparing cars that exist to numbers that are not revlealed as of yet.

If you think it'll have 450 only....you're probably wrong.
You say it'll have 19" wheels, but its been stated that'll probably be changed to 18s with some wider meat.

Colletti before his departure probably set in motion his comments about weight being an issue and how eventually we'll hit the cealing on HP numbers....so take that as you will.

Argue all you want about it....until you see concrete facts on this car...
you have NOTHING....
Exactly what I have been trying to say for a while now. I am almost 99.999999% sure that there will be a SRA though. That we know....
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 04:12 PM
  #273  
Boomer's Avatar
I Have No Life
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 12
From: Canada
Yeah, and it'll have an engine...
Doesn't mean you know how it will perform or how much it'll weigh
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 04:22 PM
  #274  
max2000jp's Avatar
Shelby GT500 Member
 
Joined: September 2, 2004
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
Originally posted by Boomer@May 19, 2005, 5:15 PM
Yeah, and it'll have an engine...
Doesn't mean you know how it will perform or how much it'll weigh
You can make a fairly educated guess on the weight. Take the weight increase from the 04 GT to the 05 GT and add that to the 03 Cobras. Will be somewhat accurate, but not exact. Unless Ford uses Carbon Fiber or Magnesium, it will be heaver.
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 05:12 PM
  #275  
wakerider017's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: January 2, 2005
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 05:50 PM
  #276  
Boomer's Avatar
I Have No Life
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 10,446
Likes: 12
From: Canada
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 19, 2005, 6:25 PM
You can make a fairly educated guess on the weight. Take the weight increase from the 04 GT to the 05 GT and add that to the 03 Cobras. Will be somewhat accurate, but not exact. Unless Ford uses Carbon Fiber or Magnesium, it will be heaver.
You can guestimate all you want. We still won't know until official numbers come out. SVT did not put their touch on the Mustang GT, but they will on the GT500.
And with Colletti's vision of lighter vehicles, like I said, until we see it, we won't know. So its useless to speculate. Don't assume.... we all know what happens when we assume....

Which comes down again, to people slamming whats on a car with no performance numbers that we know of...just because you think it uses old crappy technology.

This whole thread has turned useless.

Even when the car comes out, it'll probably perform like a champ, yet people will still find something to complain about....you can't please everyone.
Everyone wants peformance + 1
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 06:00 PM
  #277  
wakerider017's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: January 2, 2005
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Couldn't say it better my self^^^^^^^^^^^




__________________________________________________ __________________________




Went to my local ford dealership today and they said there will be no more GT's made til '06....???... So they are suping all the 6's to look like GT's. THEY CAN'T FOOL ME!!!!



Is this accurate or just a bunch of garbage?
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 08:33 PM
  #278  
foxhtn's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: August 17, 2004
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Mr. Tang has created quite the stir, has'nt he?
Reply
Old May 19, 2005 | 09:05 PM
  #279  
Robert's Avatar
Thread Starter
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Originally posted by 68notch@May 19, 2005, 4:02 PM
Who are you, Michael Moore?
No, FOX News.
Reply
Old May 20, 2005 | 12:08 AM
  #280  
01LightningGal's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: May 18, 2005
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Numbers.............. someone asked for numbers.............. have I got some numbers for you !!!!

Straight out of my MotorTrend. Thus, they should all be tested at the same location........... of course, conditions can be different.

I am going to use slalom numbers only, as I feel it is a better indicator of overall handling.

2005 Mustang GT: 66.1 mph (SRA, $25,000)

2004 Audi S4: 68 mph (IRS, AWD, $50,000)
2005 M3 Competition Package: 66.6 mph (IRS, $54,000)
2005 CTS-V: 66.8 mph (IRS, $51,300)
2004 CTS: 63.7 mph (IRS, $43,800)
2004 XLR: 64.0 mph (IRS, $76,200)
2005 Cobalt SS: 67.2 mph (FWD, $23,000)
2005 Corvette Z51: 68.9 mph (IRS, $52,400)
2005 300C: 61.1 mph (IRS, $36,700)
2005 300C SRT8: 67.3 mph (IRS, $43,300)
2005 SRT4: 65.9 mph (FWD, $21,200)
2005 Focus ZX4 ST: 65.7 mph (FWD, $19,500)
2004 S2000: 68.6 mph (IRS, $33,800)
2004 G35 Sport: 65.2mph (IRS, $31,500)
2002 Murcielago: 66.2 mph (IRS, $284,800)
2005 Elise Sport: 71.1 mph (IRS, $43,000)
2004 RX8: 68.1 mph (IRS, $27,200)
2005 SLK55 AMG: 65.9 mph (IRS, $67,400)
2005 Mini Cooper S: 66.5 mph (IRS, $20,400)
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)
2004 R32: 66.5 mph (FWD, AWD, $30,600)

There, for your viewing pleasure. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see many that are cheaper............. and that handle better............ well, unless you are talking about FWD econocars and the Mini Cooper S (heck, you could take a Cooper S along........... just throw it in the trunk of the Mustang)

If you want me to add more specs to this list, I will do so tomorrow.
Reply

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:03 PM.