Boomer

Thank you for proving my point.
Whats LINUX built on?

exactly

Boomer

Theres one of the snobs now
Just kiddin G

Joes66Pony

So an IRS equipped 05 would have wiped the floor with and SRA equipped 05. There have been rumor in the press that IRS equipped 05 test mules have been pulling over 1G. The best the 05 GT can gather is .81 (according to MT).

Boomer

Yes, trying to make a point about something being improved over time, and improving on a old technology
...
is apparently the same as a brick in the head

:scratch:

Boomer

Don't get me wrong,
I think everyone here is thinking I'm pro SRA, and saying an IRS sucks.

nowhere do I say that.
I do say that, the end has to justify the means.
And for the people that would notice...it wasn't worth it.

You can poll whoever you want on this site...it still will not give you ANY accurate info. The only thing you are proving is that the people on this site voted 'X'

We should be thankful we have a car TO argue about.

1 COBRA

Or they might be holding back the fact that Ford does not have the engineering ability to design and build an efficient and affordable IRS.

But you are right. They shouldn't be urinating ( ) on our backs and telling us it's raining.

KansasCityTim

Listen all I am saying is stop complaining and do the only thing you can. Speak with your money.

And to the response regarding Ford's junk bonds. Are you a shareholder? Do you hold Ford debt securities? Otherwise, if you don't like the vehicles they produce, don't buy them. What does their corporate status matter if you don't like what they produce?

Joes66Pony

Because apparently there are a lot of people who don't like what they produce. Besides, where if anywhere have I said I don't like what Ford's producing. My only gripe with Ford is that they really cheaped out with the Mustang's rear suspension.

And it should matter to those of us who like Mustangs, because if Ford doesn't get itself straightened, the Mustang will stagnate for another 10 to 15 years, or worse yet, there may not be a Mustang to argue about anyways.

O5GT

i wouldnt but a mustang with an IRS

Joes66Pony

You honestly mean to tell me that if Ford had brought out the 05 Mustang with IRS, but still had the same 300 hp and 25,000 dollar base price, you would not have bought it?

KansasCityTim

Exactly....and you won't not buy one b/c it has SRA. So this whole debate is pointless. Some people, like myself and others, like SRA. Some like IRS. I think that Ford's future is not hinging on the decision to not put IRS in the Mustang. I bet they may only lose a few hundred sales to it annually, just as they would lose some sales if they put IRS in it to SRA lovers. As I have said before, if you don't like it, don't buy it, but this cannot be made into a microcosm of the reason that Ford is in trouble financially. It's an opinion, and opinions differ. SRA vs. IRS is NOT the reason, or one of the reasons for it.

O5GT

i would not have bought it, i have been through the axle snapping before, i want something strong, not something dainty and fraile.

Robert

Saaay what? :scratch:

Robert

Believe what you will.

Fact: Ford is having serious financial issues.
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.

grabbergreen

Which is why putting all your eggs in one basket (large trucks and SUV's, in Ford's case) is a bad idea. Failure to recognize top-notch competition in a HUGE market segment (mid-size sedans) is also a bad idea. If the upcoming models are any indication, it looks like Ford is, in fact, learning these lessons.

Actually, you are a little incorrect when you say that it offers NO advantages-- last I checked, higher torsional rigidity is an advantage. And an SRA, which creates a strong lateral vector, weighs less than the added structural reinforcement needed to maintain stiffness with an IRS. Also, you did point out earlier that big SUV's have gotten IRS. You neglect to recognize that large SUV's amount to little more than grocery-getters. Full-size pickups, the last real work-horses in the mainstream auto industry, still use SRA for its added strength under heavy payloads and towing.

That doesn't mean superior engineering can't make it work well. Yeah, it may be a more difficult task for the engineers, but "inherent" flaws certainly didn't stop Porsche from making a RWD/Rear-engined car (which tend to be an oversteering nightmare) that set the standard for the entire industry.

Robert

I agree that the SRA may be engineerable so that it attains competent handling dynamics. But that would require an expenditure of money likely greater than the cost of implementing an IRS - and I doubt Ford has/would spend the money in either case.

I don't think it was me who pointed out SUVs getting IRS.

I think the most important thing to look at here is the fact that practically every other automobile manufacturer in the world has long since dropped the SRA since it offers the least number of advantages in the fewest real world applications.

Good for pickups? Sure. Good for passenger cars? Not anymore, though I will concede that the new Mustang's chassis is highly-touted enough that the engineers may yet pull a rabbit out of a hat with the Shelby's suspension dynamics. We'll have to wait and see.

But as an academic argument, I stand by my earlier statement that IRS is superior to SRA for all automobile applications. And I suspect the VAST majority of the world's automobile engineers would agree with me on that point and be able to make a much better case for IRS than anyone on this board can make for SRA.

holderca1

You have that backwards, you would need IRS on a track before you need it in the real world. And if you are cornering that hard on city streets, remind me to stay away from where you drive. Ride quality has very little to do with whether it has IRS or SRA. Ride quality is affected more by your shocks and springs. The stiffer they are, the more jolting the ride. For example, see the 350Z, the thing will rattle your teeth out, and it has IRS as well. So using that argument as to why the GT500 needs an IRS over a SRA is severely flawed.

AbusiveWombat

Great post.

When working with an unlimited budget then you can get everything you want. When working under a strict budget there are compromises that need to be made. If the IRS is marginally better at a substaintial cost then screw it, put the money elsewhere that would make a bigger difference.

rhumb

While any suspension can be oversprung and too stiffly shocked, an IRS design, generally, offers a much wider range and flexibility of capability in delivering superior levels of handling, over a wider variety of road surfaces at a greater level of ride compliance than a comparable live axle. The 350Z Track version is probably a good, but hardly only, example of this.

A live axle, any live axle regardless of how well located (SRA or otherwise) will, by dint of its great unsprung mass and resultant suspension inertia, will require significantly stiffer springs, shocks and bushings for a given level of movement control, with a commensurate deterioration in the compliance and ride quality for a given level of handling.

Very smooth roads tend to obviate this advantage, which can be seen often at race tracks and drag strips. But outside of these somewhat artificial confines, a good IRS offers significantly greater capabilities of handling, compliance AND ride and need not be so compromised for one quality to the negation of others. But on a creamy-smooth drag strip or most road course tracks, a live axle suspension, which is not asked to do much suspending at all, can do quite well and its shortcomings become fairly moot.

However, drive throught the track gates onto the rough and tumble of the real world and those innate weaknesses can and will become much more apparant. It really is the off track, non-competition environment that will more truly test the mettle of the SRA in extremis and be most revealing of any shortcomings, and be the realm in which an IRS will best reveal its own strengths and benefits.

Of course, the SRA most certainly IS a very good suspension, all hyperbole aside, and probably amongst the best of its kind. And it will, eventually, be out in the real world driving that more final pronouncements can be made, good, bad or indifferent.

But one must excuse the concerns about the lack of an IRS by those seeking a more balanced performance platform for the Mustang as akin to how those more narrowly focused on simple straight line speed might react to the GT500 being spec'd out with a carburator or 4 speed gear box. While such features may work well enough in specific measures and save significant money -- arguments made in favor of the SRA -- would they work up to world class (broad spectrum) expectations (as the GT500 has been touted) over a broad range or criteria?

Maybe, but were I a dyed in the wool drag racer, I'd certainly have great consternation and posts similar in tone to the pro-IRS ones.

holderca1

Mods, can we just merge all the IRS threads into one? It's the same discussion going on in each and everyone of them.