one down, 10,000 to go. We'll get closer to getting good deals on these cars one disappointed customer at a time.

 

Actually - you can tack on an IRS as an afterthought. Just ask SVT about 03-04 Cobras. :shock:
I've read this thread with great interest - I'm a suspension type guy and I believe that if you are paying $35K for a car whose purpose is obviously driving pleasure an independent rear suspension is a MUST. I drive a 97 Thunderbird and brand new in 1997 it cost $22K. Funny how I have an IRS. Funny how even lowly Focuses have an IRS. There's no excuse other than profitability for the omission of it. Would the GT supercar ever have a solid axle? It makes 550 HP - plenty enough to break those halfshafts and yet I guarantee Ford's engineers never considered making it with a solid axle. They took the LS and S-Type chassis and dumbed it down to struts in the front and a live axle in the back to keep the accountants happy. By the way - how much of a premium will the Shelby command over a loaded Mustang GT? Maybe $10K??? And for what - 150 hp and some interior and exterior changes? :notnice:

Another thing unrelated to this thread that has bothered me about Ford lately is it's unwillingness to do away with rear drum brakes on it's products. Just recently it has started putting discs on the rear of most cars and some trucks, but come on Ford! This is the new millenium!
[/b][/quote]
Very well said. But everyone is getting so hung up on this IRS vs. SRA debate, that they're overlooking the many other elements to making a car handle well. I mean, look at all the import cars that use IRS, BUT have front wheel drive! If I had to choose between either rear wheel drive or IRS strictly on the merits of handling, I'd take the rear wheel drive first, hands down. I've driven "well suspended," double wishbone fore and aft sports sedans with front wheel drive, and when you push those things into the apex of a turn, they bunny-hop all over the road. Guess what, a rear wheel drive SRA car wouldn't.

Chassis dynamics, wheels and tires, and driver ability also plays a big role in the handling prowess of a car. Most drivers have limited experience to extract the kind of performance that this new Shelby Cobra is capable of, and are fools if they try to drive it at ten-tenths on public roads anyway, which is the only place you're likely to notice handling improvements between IRS and SRA.

The one real world IRS advantage that I will concede to is ride comfort. A properly suspended IRS will soak up the bumps in any sort of spirited driving better than SRA, hands down, no contest. But pure handling ability? That's a much more complex equation. My '86 Toyota Celica GTS had both SRA AND front wheel drive, and guess what? It handled the twisties very well and was highly regarded by the automotive press of the time for it's handling prowess. So, again, there's more to this than just IRS vs. SRA.

Let the debate rage on...

 

whats so bad about SRA? everyone is throwing a fit over it. its fine by me!

 

Robert u are so right, its the ride comfort that is the real difference, like they said in top gear about tied shoes. The thing is i drive a front wheel drive fully independant suspention car and its great on bumps and when i drove the new v6 mustang when i went on a bump i didn't feel as confortable but the suspention of the v6 isn't known to be that, the v8 is so i really would have to try out the car to know for sure.

I don't believe that IRS will an option, there u are changing the chasis and that is normally one solid piece

 

The thing is that the S197 chassis was designed straight from the get go to readily accept the IRS (at least that's what HTT has said).

But you're right, I don't think IRS will be an option in the GT500 or in this generation Mustang anytime soon, simply because the SRA is "good enough". It's that kind of thinking that got Detroit in trouble in the 70's.

 

No, I will not 'shut up', thank you very much.

What good is 450+ hp, a 6 speed and scoops if it's only good in a straight line

I had reservations about buying the GT not knowing the details of the forthcoming SVT.

Now I don't.


Ford has served us up yet another car designed not by the engineering deptartment...but by the accounting department


[/b][/quote]



dont be a whiney french tittie baby

 

dont be a whiney french tittie baby
[/b][/quote]

 

Like bm said, the S197 was going to have the IRS. I want the shelby, an I hope to get one for $39.000. If I cant than Ill get a Mach1 an be
happy.

 

Such a thought provoking post worthy of debate!

 

Hmmm... I didn't know it was possible to b!tch about a 450++ hp twin screw blown 5.4 DOHC mustang with a 6spd.

God, you people are lame these days.

 

It's possible when the car is probably going to cost 40k (not including dealer markup, taxes, and financing), and I don't get all the features I want, and the features it does have are unnecessary bordering on overkill.

 

It's possible when the car is probably going to cost 40k (not including dealer markup, taxes, and financing), and I don't get all the features I want, and the features it does have are unnecessary bordering on overkill.
[/b][/quote]
What features are overkill?

 

the Shelby name is a good place to start

 

Not if you are giving people what they want and there are people who want an SRA in the Mustang and I'm not just talking the bean counters either.

I'm part of that camp as past post show and I couldn't give a squat about the advantages of an IRS, ride quality and reduced unsprung weight included and I'm not interested in a Mustang trying its best to be a watered down wanna-be M3 or vette (it will never be comparable to these cars at no point in its life cycle, because its designed and is accepted as an everyman's sporty car).

Besides, what about the front suspension? Nobody complains about a strut front end which is a clear costing cutting measure! And in this day and age of uncompromising demand for technical sophistication, strut front ends have no business on any car that is hyped as a performance car, they are as inferior to a properly designed SLA (short/long arm) front supsension as the 3 link SRA in the current chassis is to a properly designed IRS, and to borrow somebody's observation, Do you really think Ford had a strut front end in mind when the designed the Ford GT.

Take it for what its worth, but the current mustang does deliver on the less is more concept pretty well while appealing to as broad a market as possible.

 

I have to disagree. Is it necessary to make the car what it is? no. Will it sell a lot of cars? yes.

 

God, it's so lame when everyone thinks it is only about horsepower ....

 

God, it's so lame when everyone thinks it is only about horsepower ....
[/b][/quote]

Bravo.

As the saying goes: "Power is nothing without control"

 

yes it would

 

yes it would
[/b][/quote]
And make sure its a RWD with IRS, a FWD with IRS is a completely different animal.

 

maybe ford is waiting to see if chevy comes out with a new camaro in a few years, until then an SRA might be "good enough"