HTT Calls IRS Fans 'Snobs'
6/1/05, 12:20 PM
#381
GT Member
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by dke@June 1, 2005, 12:31 PM
And Ford is full of poo of they're saying IRS costs $5,000 more. You can't convince the sane that G35 would be $26,000 if it wasn't for that pesky IRS. Or that less than $1,000 in parts is somehow costing them $5,000. If it is, that shows why Ford is having problems.
And Ford is full of poo of they're saying IRS costs $5,000 more. You can't convince the sane that G35 would be $26,000 if it wasn't for that pesky IRS. Or that less than $1,000 in parts is somehow costing them $5,000. If it is, that shows why Ford is having problems.
6/1/05, 09:19 PM
#382
Legacy TMS Member
Originally posted by Joes66Pony@May 16, 2005, 8:55 PM
If Ford wanted to build a RACE car, they should build a race car. This is supposed to be a serious performance machine, but it's obvious it's aimed at only aspect of performance, the straight line aspect. For one, it's designed for the street, meaning it has to deal with real world situations. So unless you plan on trailering the car to the drag every time, or just leave it in the garage, I would bet that harsh ride would get old real quick. I think many of us remembering the harsh ride that the old 87-93 5.0's gave.
If Ford wanted to build a RACE car, they should build a race car. This is supposed to be a serious performance machine, but it's obvious it's aimed at only aspect of performance, the straight line aspect. For one, it's designed for the street, meaning it has to deal with real world situations. So unless you plan on trailering the car to the drag every time, or just leave it in the garage, I would bet that harsh ride would get old real quick. I think many of us remembering the harsh ride that the old 87-93 5.0's gave.
Amazing! The ride in my 91 was never what I would have called harsh, nor is the ride in my 02 GT, lets see to date the 02 has carried me as far south as South Caolina, as far north as New Hampshire and as far west as Kansas (with 21 hours straight from Kansas to Virginia), ride comfort was a non issue. Unless of course we are actually living in the matrix and real world experiences such as this dont apply.
6/2/05, 08:08 AM
#383
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 25, 2004
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by twincamfxd@June 1, 2005, 12:23 PM
..I would say that honestly that is the whole reason it is not coming out yet is that it is still under development. They dont just want to throw just anything out there (like the IRS in 03-04) and have it break, and not perform up to spec...
..I would say that honestly that is the whole reason it is not coming out yet is that it is still under development. They dont just want to throw just anything out there (like the IRS in 03-04) and have it break, and not perform up to spec...
I think they are just holding the IRS until later in the future when interest dies down, so they can bring it back are generate more momentum when they need it. They should have no trouble selling every one of these, so they might as well make every penny they can (they certainly need it).
6/2/05, 08:20 AM
#384
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rampant, I agree with what you're saying. And lots of companies do the same thing. It's what happens when marketing people get too many martini's at lunch, and start creating business strategy. "If we just cripple <hick>, the fiirrrsssttt version. Weeellll, then we can make even more money on the neexxxttthhh version". Under the false assumption that they are brilliant, consumers are stupid, and that their choices will have no short term sales impacts, or long term reputation impacts, etc...
You don't see BMW/Acura/Toyota saying, "Hey, let's put a spruce log in the first version of the X, so we can fix it later". Customers see through it, except for zealots/purists who don't care. So it matters if you're targeting your product for the old markets, or trying to break into new ones. Ford said new, then targeted old.
You don't see BMW/Acura/Toyota saying, "Hey, let's put a spruce log in the first version of the X, so we can fix it later". Customers see through it, except for zealots/purists who don't care. So it matters if you're targeting your product for the old markets, or trying to break into new ones. Ford said new, then targeted old.
6/2/05, 08:43 AM
#385
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Originally posted by dke@June 1, 2005, 11:31 AM
And Ford is full of poo of they're saying IRS costs $5,000 more. You can't convince the sane that G35 would be $26,000 if it wasn't for that pesky IRS. Or that less than $1,000 in parts is somehow costing them $5,000. If it is, that shows why Ford is having problems.
And Ford is full of poo of they're saying IRS costs $5,000 more. You can't convince the sane that G35 would be $26,000 if it wasn't for that pesky IRS. Or that less than $1,000 in parts is somehow costing them $5,000. If it is, that shows why Ford is having problems.
6/2/05, 08:55 AM
#386
V6 Member
Join Date: March 25, 2005
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by dke+June 1, 2005, 12:31 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dke @ June 1, 2005, 12:31 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>The point is not what a car can do in track slalom, unless that's the only way you want to drive it. Put bumps on the slalom, and lets see how each compares. (Physics says IRS has the potential to do a lot better). The other issue is how does a car drive on real roads (the whole kidney thing).
[/b]
[/b]
I agree that IRS would hold up better on a poorly paved road but...do you really test the handling limits on poorly paved roads? heck, I rarely explore the handling limits regardless of road condition.
Originally posted by dke@June 1, 2005, 12:31 PM
And Ford is full of poo of they're saying IRS costs $5,000 more. You can't convince the sane that G35 would be $26,000 if it wasn't for that pesky IRS. Or that less than $1,000 in parts is somehow costing them $5,000. If it is, that shows why Ford is having problems.
And Ford is full of poo of they're saying IRS costs $5,000 more. You can't convince the sane that G35 would be $26,000 if it wasn't for that pesky IRS. Or that less than $1,000 in parts is somehow costing them $5,000. If it is, that shows why Ford is having problems.
<!--QuoteBegin-dke@June 1, 2005, 12:31 PM
Lastly, specs aren't facts. Sorry, get out and drive an M3. Specs say, Mustang GT and M3 drive like they are the same car. Get in them both, drive them, and tell me what you think. I did (with the last generation) and it wasn't that close. A pro driver is not the every day driver -- and the balance and feel was completely different, even if the slalom specs or 1/4 mile don't reflect that. I'm hoping that Ford totally changes things. I want them to create a world beater. It looks like they will, in the quarter mile, and on the track -- but not on the road. But I'll wait and see.
[/quote]
I agree. I haven't driven the lastest M3 or MGT but I would go out on a limb and say that the M3 drives better. There's definitely more to a car then it's specs. but here's a question for you. Is IRS a requirement for a car to be fun to drive? I submit that it is not.
6/2/05, 09:27 AM
#387
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wombat (Dale), I don't think IRS is a requirement for a car to be fun to drive -- occasionally. It wouldn't matter much in California or sunny climes. On Ohio roads, it stands a SIGNIFICANT change to make the difference between being fun to drive occasionally, and fun to drive regularly.
And I agree with your point that if Ford had designed the car for IRS, then you're amortizing R&D costs across the whole product line, thus it doesn't cost much. (actually, that was the point I was trying to make). When some moronic bean-counter is trying to amortize the costs of IRS across one small part of the product line, they can artificially make the costs appear to go way up. But that's why most sane manufacturers don't do that. Even if they designed the IRS for the Cobra to handle the power, they'd use it in the future on other products (slightly downgraded, or just over engineered for things like SVT trucks, and so on), or if they had just used a variant they already had (like from the GT, and so on) it wouldn't have been near that much. So the point was they weren't being honest -- and I'm not gullible enough to buy their hype, and as consumers we should be offended when HTT and others try to pass off double-speak or obfuscation as fact.
If Ford/HTT said, "this car is a pony car -- designed to be a monster in the 1/4, and not too bad on a track", that's fine. When they say, "BMW killer and IRS is coming", then say, "We changed our minds because it doesn't need IRS to kill BMW, and IRS would cost $5,000, and it handles as good without it" and other smelly stuff, we should keep them honest.
And I agree with your point that if Ford had designed the car for IRS, then you're amortizing R&D costs across the whole product line, thus it doesn't cost much. (actually, that was the point I was trying to make). When some moronic bean-counter is trying to amortize the costs of IRS across one small part of the product line, they can artificially make the costs appear to go way up. But that's why most sane manufacturers don't do that. Even if they designed the IRS for the Cobra to handle the power, they'd use it in the future on other products (slightly downgraded, or just over engineered for things like SVT trucks, and so on), or if they had just used a variant they already had (like from the GT, and so on) it wouldn't have been near that much. So the point was they weren't being honest -- and I'm not gullible enough to buy their hype, and as consumers we should be offended when HTT and others try to pass off double-speak or obfuscation as fact.
If Ford/HTT said, "this car is a pony car -- designed to be a monster in the 1/4, and not too bad on a track", that's fine. When they say, "BMW killer and IRS is coming", then say, "We changed our minds because it doesn't need IRS to kill BMW, and IRS would cost $5,000, and it handles as good without it" and other smelly stuff, we should keep them honest.
6/2/05, 03:07 PM
#388
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by holderca1@June 2, 2005, 8:46 AM
An IRS capable of handling the power of the GT500 will be more expensive than an IRS capable of handling the power of a G35. I am not going to pretend that I know how much more it would cost to have IRS over an SRA. Maybe someone would like to research and see the cost of the C6 Z06's IRS, or the Viper's, or the GT's even, this would be much more comparable as far as the cost of an IRS capable of handling the horsepower and torque needed for the GT500.
An IRS capable of handling the power of the GT500 will be more expensive than an IRS capable of handling the power of a G35. I am not going to pretend that I know how much more it would cost to have IRS over an SRA. Maybe someone would like to research and see the cost of the C6 Z06's IRS, or the Viper's, or the GT's even, this would be much more comparable as far as the cost of an IRS capable of handling the horsepower and torque needed for the GT500.
6/2/05, 03:12 PM
#389
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is IRS a requirement for a car to be fun to drive? I submit that it is not.
6/2/05, 03:13 PM
#390
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by dke@June 2, 2005, 9:30 AM
And I agree with your point that if Ford had designed the car for IRS, then you're amortizing R&D costs across the whole product line, thus it doesn't cost much. (actually, that was the point I was trying to make). When some moronic bean-counter is trying to amortize the costs of IRS across one small part of the product line, they can artificially make the costs appear to go way up. But that's why most sane manufacturers don't do that. Even if they designed the IRS for the Cobra to handle the power, they'd use it in the future on other products (slightly downgraded, or just over engineered for things like SVT trucks, and so on), or if they had just used a variant they already had (like from the GT, and so on) it wouldn't have been near that much. So the point was they weren't being honest -- and I'm not gullible enough to buy their hype, and as consumers we should be offended when HTT and others try to pass off double-speak or obfuscation as fact.
If Ford/HTT said, "this car is a pony car -- designed to be a monster in the 1/4, and not too bad on a track", that's fine. When they say, "BMW killer and IRS is coming", then say, "We changed our minds because it doesn't need IRS to kill BMW, and IRS would cost $5,000, and it handles as good without it" and other smelly stuff, we should keep them honest.
And I agree with your point that if Ford had designed the car for IRS, then you're amortizing R&D costs across the whole product line, thus it doesn't cost much. (actually, that was the point I was trying to make). When some moronic bean-counter is trying to amortize the costs of IRS across one small part of the product line, they can artificially make the costs appear to go way up. But that's why most sane manufacturers don't do that. Even if they designed the IRS for the Cobra to handle the power, they'd use it in the future on other products (slightly downgraded, or just over engineered for things like SVT trucks, and so on), or if they had just used a variant they already had (like from the GT, and so on) it wouldn't have been near that much. So the point was they weren't being honest -- and I'm not gullible enough to buy their hype, and as consumers we should be offended when HTT and others try to pass off double-speak or obfuscation as fact.
If Ford/HTT said, "this car is a pony car -- designed to be a monster in the 1/4, and not too bad on a track", that's fine. When they say, "BMW killer and IRS is coming", then say, "We changed our minds because it doesn't need IRS to kill BMW, and IRS would cost $5,000, and it handles as good without it" and other smelly stuff, we should keep them honest.
So that, plus the fact that their existing base (which does seem to be buying up this car in record numbers) clearly WANT SRA, make for an easy decision.
Personally, I think it's a myopic strategy too, but perhaps one based upon short term necessity and demographic research.
6/3/05, 08:26 AM
#392
V6 Member
Join Date: March 25, 2005
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could be that Ford is trying to build cars that are more reliable and change public opinion. A tested SRA makes more sense then an untested, more complex, and more expensive IRS. Not to mention that this car will be the second most powerful in its line-up and will be sold to customers that will push it's limits on a daily basis. So if the IRS needs 2 more years of testing to work out the bugs then so be it. I don't think anyone wants a half hiney IRS that won't stand up to hard launches and boat loads of power.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
