It goes back to the old saying, speed costs money. A 50K dollar luxury car will not be very well optioned out and/or you will be getting a 6 cylinder model. I wasn't saying that the Mustang should become a luxury car, rather SVT should follow the concept that AMG and BMW M uses. The problem that I see with the Cobra is identifying its competitors. Is it the C6, GTO, M3, etc.? If that's the case, all of these cars have an IRS suspension. The price of the car will make it appeal to many people. Price it too high without features such as an IRS suspension you have priced it out of the market. I think a optional IRS rear suspension is the best way to go.

As for comparing the new Mustang to the SN95 Cobra, yes it handles better. You may point out that the last gen Cobra's had an IRS suspension, but failed to mention the wet nooble chassis, afterthough IRS rear suspension, and inferior weight distribution. There is no doubt in my mind that a properly engineered IRS in the S197 would be wonderful.

 

It's funny 05' GT with under sized and less than ideal rubber out handles the GTO in every way. Another thing that I find funny is that no one has mentioned that every 05' Saleen has a SRA, even the soon to be available S281E, at a price of $60,000+ with no IRS as an option. Saleen states that S281Es handling is on par with the C6, M3 and so on. So why should SVT/Ford feel the need to use an IRS in the next Cobra at a price tag ( that my guy at SVT tells me ) of no more than $39,000. Which is the price of an entry level Saleen that it will out perform.

 

has your source confirmed SRA or IRS yet?

 

Owning a 93', 94' and a 03' cobra I can tell you I'm not going to miss the IRS. My 94' has some well chosen suspension mods, one being a MM panhard rod and the car handles as well if not a little better than my 03' with H&R springs. Stopping the lateral movement of the SRA is key. We all know that Ford has done this and more with the 05' with the addition of its panhard rod.

 

Hey another interresting observation

typically there is no or minimal camber gain from a strut front end. I dunno about the current set-up but it looks like a fixed set-up to me.

IMO I'm happy with the strut/SRA set-up myself. I does what I think it needs to do, but with all this talk about the merits of an IRS I think its kinda funny nobody is bothered the front suspension.

 

While the front McPherson type design might not be quite the ne plus ultra of front suspension design, it is quite a good design for its type and far less compromised in its capabilities than a live axle design, which can't readily escape its more significant unsprung weight shortcoming. Of course, if Ford were to use a lot of high-tech, low weight materials in the live axle such as aluminum, titanium, CF and whatnot to get that mass down ... but then, at least in terms of costs, you'd probably be up there with an IRS anyways.

 

As I have said here before, I am not as interested in how a car does what it does as I am in how well it does it. The BMW M3, largely regarded as one of the best handling cars in the world, uses a MacPherson front suspension very much like the one in the new Mustang. And like very other design MacPherson struts have their own set of advanatages among them light weight, compact design, and a knack for allowing good steering feedback

As an fyi a Ford engineer invented the MacPherson strut back in the 1950's if I recall. Of course that mans name was MacPherson.