holderca1

Are you also taking into account that the '04 Cobra and '07 have entirely different engines?

holderca1

Hmmm, took the average of the slaloms for the RWD cars only and for IRS it came out to 66.35 mph. The Mustang GT put up a 66.1, and we can only assume that the Cobra will do better than that, or at least we hope it would. So I am not seeing a huge advantage here.

Edit: Did an additional calculation, the average for the RWD, IRS equipped, and front engine cars is 65.98. Reason I took out the mid-engine cars is due to their better weight distribution or more specifically, more weight over the powered wheels, which would obviously give them a handling advantage over front engine cars. So lets review here. The Mustang GT has a slalom time of 66.1 and the average of the RWD, front engine, IRS cars is 65.98. I am dying to hear the explanation on this one. Well I have the explanation, there is a lot more to handling than the rear suspension.

Here are the vehicles used in the last calculation, 7 out of the 13 scored better than the Mustang GT, seems likes it's right there in the mix, also consider that the base MSRP is less than all of these that are listed.

moc1976

Why can't the IRS "snobs" (not my words) just wait till the car comes out. I will be the 1st person to go along with their whinning if its justified, and the Cobra handles poorly. But I'd bet my GT, that even with the SRA, this thing will outhandle the 03-04 IRS Cobra, and be on the higher end of the list for the slalom.

Put this baby to bed! We all know that IRS is better, but what they are failing to take into account is whether or not its needed. Jeeze, if it handles great with SRA, why not save money and use it.

max2000jp

I did...the 5.4 is a bit heavier. I just didn't want to post what I thought the GT500 would weigh because I probably get flamed.

max2000jp

You can argue and do all the calculations you want. Notice that the Z pretty readily mops up the GT? Even the G35 sedan is close. Now while slalom numbers are great, I prefer track testing. Hopefully, a magazine will test the Stang against a bunch of cars with a pro driver. R&T did a great comparison of sports cars at Willow springs a month or so back. I have never stated that the GT is a poor handling car. Rather I think it handles well, but the suspension still need some work for my tastes. I plan on doing sways, springs, struts, etc plus sticky tires myself.

In closing, how do you explain how every other performance manufacturer from Ferrari to Chevy have adopted an IRS on their cars? SRA is inferior, that's a fact. Will an IRS suspension in the GT500 make it a race car, probably not. I would give up the 450+ hp and IRS if Ford could make a 3300# Cobra with 400ish.

rhumb

...or whether the SC 5.4 is "needed"...if it goes great with the 3V 4.6, why not save money there and use it (for what?)?

Neither the IRS, nor SC 5.4, nor a Mustang itself when it comes down to it, is "needed." Some may question the fervor of the IRS adherents, but is this any less myopic or fanatical than the straight-line focus of so many others who wouldn't pay $100 more than absolutely necessary for a level of handling beyond adequate, but would willingly open up the yawning maw of their wallets for an extra 10nth off the quarter mile.

I guess what rankles some is that with the GT500, and what the ditching of the IRS symbolizes, is that SVT seems to be moving away a bit from the more fully and well balanced performance car ideal of the previous versions, where chassis dynamics, braking and straight line speed were given fairly equal weighting to the GT500, where the emphasis (money, development resources, etc.) seem rather to be going more narrowly into the engine bay to the detriment of the other performance aspects and overall balance of the car. While the acceleration of the GT500 will, of course, take a big step up, the other aspects seem to have been left at a stasis at best, if not even regressing in a few areas.

Great for narrow, single purpose drag racing, but I think all others loose something. But instead of being a well balanced, fully world class performance car that can excel equally well on ALL performance criteria, it seems to be reverting to a more straight line orientated approach that suffices to do well enough in chassis dynamics, braking, ergonomics, etc., but the basic focus is a more narrow minded sprint down the strip.

This all runs counter to the design ethic of SVT, and even SVO before that, up to now and also is also counter to what the GT500 was being touted to be -- fully world class, presumably in all areas, and the necessary hardware, IRS, promised to achieve that goal.

As a drag-strip oriented Mach I, I think the GT500 would be fantastic, an 11 on the scale as they say. But as the putative banner carrier for the SVT Cobra...it seems lacking in a few areas even compared with previous SVT Cobra efforts. Of course the SRA is and will be good, quite good, maybe even "good enough" to use that rather flaccid standard -- but “excellent� and� world class� as promised??? Seat time and testing will, of course, give the final answer, but please excuse my doubts in the meantime.

Again, I might compare the ardor for more horsepower to the ardor for better handling and suspension compliance (as very distinct from merely a cushy ride) before denigrating the pro-IRS camp as the former seem to be easily as avid in their interests as the latter. A large proportion of this forum really take a decidedly narrow engine-centric view on what constitutes vehicle performance, with chassis dynamics, braking and the rest taking a clear second-tier status behind the altar of big HP. And these folks pursue that last 100th of a second on the strip with a fervor that would embarrass the most avid IRS proponent.

How readily would they "just get over it" were the GT500 to have fallen back to a 375hp naturally aspirated 4.6 and 5 speed gearbox instead of reverting back to a live axle? They'd be marching on HTT's house with torches in hand demanding his head on a platter. But hey, 350hp and 5 cogs would certainly be good enough, right, even if SVT still charged significantly more, relatively, for the GT500 than the previous Cobra, despite the decontenting? What would all that whining be about? The plaints of us IRS'ers would be but a soft mewling of discontent compared to the full-throated roar of righteous indignation that would rise up from the apoplectic hoards of drag racers.

holderca1

So first you tell me, don't look at skidpad numbers, slalom gives you a better indication. Then I look at slalom numbers. So if the Mustang puts up better track numbers than other IRS cars, what are you going to say then? This is getting very tiresome. Yes the 350Z Track hands it to the Mustang GT in the curves but for $10,000 more. I also never stated that the SRA wasn't inferior to the IRS. But it seems that the way you guys see it, it's the end all be all for handling, when it's not. I think the overall weight of the car, weight distribution, chassis design, and how everything hooks up with each other are a lot more important than whether there is as SRA or IRS in the rear.

max2000jp

I would be impressed if the GT pulled better track numbers than the others. I personally don't feel it will happen though. The slalom numbers show that Mustang handles pretty well, but again it's not the end all. I stated this before, you overlooked that.

As for the 350Z, the price is not 10K more but that's not a big deal.

Again, you failed to answer my question as to why all the other performance manufacturers aren't using SRA? Z06 owners should be outraged, since an SRA Vette would be marginally worse in the handling department and GM could have put a bigger motor in

holderca1

350Z Track $35,180
Mustang GT $25,640

Difference $9,540

Sorry I rounded.

<!--QuoteBegin-max2000jp@May 20, 2005, 9:32 AM
Z06 owners should be outraged, since an SRA Vette would be marginally worse in the handling department and GM could have put a bigger motor in

Quoted post

[/quote]
Please stop comparing a ~$70k car to a $25k car or a ~$40k car.

MustangFanatic

Once again rhumb, you have identified and articulated the issue. Although many will not agree, I for one fully support your dissertation and state once again that the issue is greater than just the elimination of the IRS but the overall direction Ford has taken with the GT500 which runs counter to SVT's philosophy. The GT500 sacrifices balance for the sake of all mighty horsepower which is tantamount to selling out on core values SVT was built upon.

max2000jp

My point was that the Enthusiast handles just as well as the track. The track has the same compound tires but 10mm wider in the rear. The suspension is the same, but you get Brembos and Rays rims.

Alright you want to play games with price.....Same scenario base C6. Why aren't C6 owners outraged that they could have bought a cheaper Vette that marginally handled worse with an SRA. In exchange, they could have a 450+ engine. Again, show me a performance car besides the Stang that uses an SRA. I guess Porsche, Ferrari, and BMW all have it wrong. And BTW, before you cry price again, I will remind you that HTT benchmarked the M3 and Colletti stated that he wanted SVT to be more like AMG and BMW M///. Kind of contradictory statements, don't you think?

max2000jp

Exactly and I commend Rhumb for a well articulated post.

holderca1

I don't see the difference in comparing the Mustang to either the C6 or C6 Z06. Both are significantly more expensive.

Let me turn this around on you then. Explain why the Mustang GT blew away the GTO on the slalom? I am tired of these stupid games you guys play. Yeah I can pick a number out of a hat to justify my argument as well.

01LightningGal

Just as a FYI:

2005 Saleen S281: 69.9 mph (RWD, $43,100)

This is just a demonstration of what a well set-up car can do.

Rhumb, I hear what you are saying, but I do have to disagree on a couple of points. First, you are doing what the "have to have IRS" are doing. You are assuming that the car will handle poorly. You are also assuming that it will brake poorly. In other words, you are assuming that the only thing it will do well is go in a straight line. Even for that, the assumption is that it "may" be slightly faster than the C6.

For the handling, I refuse to "assume" anything until the car comes out. As someone who had a very well handling SRA Mustang, I will not decry this car as a failure before it is out. For the brakes, I am trying to figure out where 14" front and 13" rear Brembos are going to stink. The 03/04 Cobra was as fast or faster as the current C6 (using best stock times against best stock times). Thus, I have a hard time believing that the much more powerful, but not alot heavier GT500 should be able to spank the C6 pretty good. You do realize that it is getting significantly larger rubber in production form, correct???

It is kinda funny though................. if the car did come with IRS, the straightline guys would be in here complaining just as loud as the IRS guys are now. However, then the IRS guys would be complaining also, because of the car weighing 180 more than it currently is going to................ and all the screaming of heavy pig would reverberate throughout the forums.

In other words, no matter what Ford does, they will never make everyone happy.

Lalo

that goes for every Automaker and every vehicle

01LightningGal

I just think that it gets heavily exaggerated in a performance vehicle. Especially one with such a loyal fan base as the Mustang.

When the C6 came out, I heard the complaining also, from the Vette guys. However, it wasn't this constant............. bordering on fanatical............ complaining that we see here. I would venture to guess that part of the reason for this, is that due to the price point, that younger buyers buy Mustangs vs Vettes. In all of my years on the computer, I have pretty much concluded that younger enthusiasts have very little tollerance for opinions that are not theirs........... in other words, they think they know everything.

Do understand that this observation does not include all younger enthusiasts, just some.

AbusiveWombat

rhumb -

I must be missing your point. You say you want a balanced car but you don't seem to recognize that the slalom figures for the MGT are up there with all the other IRS "balanced" cars. Look at the difference between the M3 and MGT (0.5 mph). I'm sure you consider the M3 balanced. Do you consider the MGT balanced? If the GT500 matched the MGT's handling, would it be unbalanced because it can accelerate with $80k cars but handles as good as $30k cars?

LightningGal showed what the SRA is capable of when tuned more for performance than a cushy ride (Saleen's 69 mph slalom).

Now I understand that IRS is better. But how much better? would gaining 1mph in the slalom be worth the added cost? what about 2 mph? If you had to pick, which would you choose:
5.4L twinscrew SC, SRA, 66 mph slalom
or
4.6L roots SC, IRS, 68 mph slalom

One other thing I'd like to point out. The 350z certainly beats the MGT but remember, that comes at a cost of a stiff ride. Many of the reviews I've read have dinged the 350z for it overly stiff ride. The Rx8 is probably the top of the game for handling and ride comfort but the Rx8 was designed from the ground up with handling in mind(C of G, polar momentum, weight). I'm all for a great handling car, but for me this is a street car first and foremost. I've got an EVO right now and at times it's downright uncomfortable. While it handles like it's on rails it does come at an expense. This Mustang does not have the design elements to allow for great handling and comfortable ride. It's engine is much to big and tall, placed too far out front, it weighs far to much, and the car in general is too tall. A C6 can have a comfy ride and handling because it has the same elements designed into it as the Rx8. To get handling like the Rx8 or C6, ride comfort will have to be sacraficed.

I'd like to leave off with one final thought. C&D did a comparison with a '03 Cobra and Rx8 at Streets of Willow two years ago. Even with inferior handling, the '03 Cobra crushed the Rx8 by nearly 2 seconds a lap. The new car is faster and handles better...

max2000jp

No I am comparing a estimated 40K GT500 against a 45K C6. Anyone that's looking at either car can afford both.

Again, you still haven't answered my questions, instead you dodge them. I guess Ford knows something that everyone else doesn't.

I don't know why the GT beat the GTO, it could be a number of factors. Weight, distribution, tires, springs, shocks, etc etc. Again, I never stated the GT was a poor handling car. You seem to leave out the other aspect that the review mentioned.....refinement, especially near the limits.

Again, you are trying to contracict something that's generally accepted amongst pretty much every car company. IRS is superior. SVT wants to be more like AMG and M///, therefore to reach that level an IRS is necessary. If you have time go drive some IRS performance cars.

max2000jp

I think this arguement boils down to whether you actually believe Ford's 5K and 180# "justification". I personally smell BS. I posted a link that showed that the 99 Cobra's IRS added only 70 lbs on a chassis that it was never inteneded to be used in. Secondly if you check out how much aftermarket suspension companies such as Griggs charge for open track/race suspensions, that 5K figure looks awefully inflated. Ford, with all its resources and engineering might, should be able to design an IRS for a lot cheaper.

moc1976

I think you are missing the point. Most are not disagreeing with you that as a general statement, IRS is better than SRA. As to why other mfg'ers have abandoned SRA, probably because the cars they are putting the IRS on share that platform with others in their lineup. As others have stated, if other cars start to use this platform, chances are that Ford will develop an IRS for it.

You talk about people avoiding your question, but you have failed to acknowledge that if the GT500 handles great with a SRA, what's wrong with that? It saved money and still produced one heck of a car.