Joes66Pony

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


Well...not to blown my own horn

I've driven..

2001 BMW M3
2004 Infiniti G35
1963 Corvette Stingray (with the fuelie 283 )
1999 Mazda Miata M5
2003 Nissan 350Z
2004 Lincoln LS8

snkbtn99

yes it would
[/b][/quote]
Like I said before, don't forget to include the fact of all the people that haven't driven one commenting on how it isn't neccessary .... You are correct ..There are a lot of people here that haven't driven the IRS Cobra that have zero room to talk ....

Then again ...this IS the Internet ....

Jack Frost

My '90 Gt and my '05 Gt are the ONLY RWD cars I've ever driven that have SRA.

Everything else had IRS.

Dr Iven

For the extra money, you're not only getting more power (a lot more) and a body kit. You're also getting larger Brembo brakes, an improved suspension (even if it is SRA), six-speed transmission, sweet wheels, better aerodynamics, more standard features, and more individuality over the high-selling base and GT models.

I think some of you aren't treating Ford like a business. Some of you are having pipe dreams that Ford is a charity existing only to deliver on every wish that you have, regardless of cost to the company and its shareholders.

Someone earlier mentioned that there are several or even many alternatives to the GT500 in the same price range.

Name 'em.

rhumb

Interesting SVT quote regarding benfits of IRS:

"Adrenalin incorporates the ride and handling benefits of this design, but specially tuned by SVT engineers to provide an added measure of road-hugging control. De-coupling the suspension to allow each rear wheel to operate independently brings significant advantages to ride and handling, as well as traction and control when the vehicle is driven at the limits."
(emphasis mine)

Interesting that they seem to acknowledge the "significant advantages to ride and handling" of an IRS, yet deny/downplay/ignore that fact in their most performance oriented regular production vehicle, the GT500, in which they imply that the advantages are somehow not very significant.

Take it as you may, but that is Ford/SVT's own words on their own products and designs -- they oughtta know best -- but it does seem to underscore the contention the retention of the SRA was primarily economic rather the performance/engineering driven.

Jack Frost

Company? Shareholders?

So, the customer isn't #1??!!!

Solid business plan you're promoting there.

If Ford can't deliver...somebody else eventually WILL. In case you haven't noticed, Ford's market share hasn't been increasing for a few quarters now.

Maverick128

It's probably just because it's a truck/SUV and offroading would be heck on your back with an SRA.

Jack Frost

Brilliant!

What say you, oh SRA faithful?

What would Carrol Shelby say to THAT?

V_hate

all i can say is you cant always get what you want so stop female ******* about stuff you have no control over

rhumb

As for what you're getting, pretty much the same statement applies to the pre-'99 Cobras and you were getting even more (IRS, designed for much less than $5K) in post-'99 Cobras.

Ford is a business, of course, and their primary interest is to make as much money as possible in any legal way they can. This does not necessarily comport with our interests as a consumer, however, and can easily clash against them. If they feel they can get a higher price above their actually product costs, then of course they will. However, this will be result in commensurately less value to us, the consumer, which is the only point I'm making.

As for your last point, you're unforetunately pretty correct, especially in terms of simple straight line speed. And thus, this becomes a classic case of what a lack of robust competition (market segment monopoly) will do, drive up prices beyond the cars real value, paid by us, the consumer.

Give Ford credit where credit is due in being the sole real survivor in the Pony Car market, kudos and hats off. But the other side of this coin is that we will be paying significantly higher prices than if there were a Camaro, Firebird, Cuda, Challenger, etc. The benefits of this situation basically accrue to Ford, not us, the consumer. And, being a member of the latter rather than the former, I am less than fully joyous in paying thousands more than I otherwise might be even as joyous (with a few reservations) as I am in having such a fine a car overall as the GT500 in the first place.

TomServo92

Bill Ford's philosophy is to concentrate on profitability, not market share. What good is market share if you give vehicles away to get it?

GM is a case in point: they gave away the vehicles and still lost market share. Look where that got them.

Jack Frost

As for what you're getting, pretty much the same statement applies to the pre-'99 Cobras and you were getting even more (IRS, designed for much less than $5K) in post-'99 Cobras.

Ford is a business, of course, and there overriding interest is to make as much money as possible in any legal way they can. This does not necessarily comport with our interests as a consumer, however, and can clash with them. If they feel they can get a higher price above their actually product costs, then of course they will. However, this will result in less value to us, the consumer, which is the only point I'm making.

As for your last point, you're unforetunately pretty correct, especially in terms of simple straight line speed. And thus, this becomes a classic case of what a lack of robust competition (market segment monopoly) will do, drive up prices beyond the cars real value, paid by us, the consumer.

Give Ford credit where credit is due in being the sole real survivor in the Pony Car market, kudos and hats off. But the other side of this coin is that we will be paying significantly higher prices than if there were a Camaro, Firebird, Cuda, Challenger, etc. The benefits of this situation basically accrue to Ford, not us, the consumer. And, being a member of the latter rather than the former, I am less than fully joyous in paying thousands more than I otherwise might be and as joyous (with a few reservations) in general at having such a fine a car as the GT500.
[/b][/quote]

And therein lies the heart of the problem in the American car industry and the ever accelerating decline in market share.

European and Japanese automakers subscribe to the notion that if you take care of the customer, the profits will take care of themselves.

Whereas with Ford and GM (which is on life support), far too long it's ALL BEEN ABOUT THE MONEY...the customer is secondary, and this is especially evident with the nickel and diming of customer by Ford with decisions such as putting a SRA on the latest gen Mustangs.

Ford created the new generation Mustangs for the purpose of attracting the youth market, and hoping those customers will eventually trade up to Ford's upmarket brands as they 'age'.

Alas, I don't see this happening. Nobody that I know under 30 is considering the '05 Mustang solely based on the SRA. And this bodes ill for the company down the line, because despite it's current scorching sales, the kind of customer that is buying the Mustang is NOT the customer base Ford should be attracting.

Dr Iven

You don't know me, but I'm 21. I'd love an '05 Mustang as much as the next guy.

snkbtn99

This is the most important part of the statement .... Most of those out there that say that IRS is not advantageous probably have NEVER driven an IRS car and a live axle car at their limits on a track, thus don't understand the advantages of it.

The debate goes on and on and on

rhumb

And I think also what factors in to this discussion is a talking past each other.

Many, perhaps most, on this board seem to be specifically interested fairly narrowly in drag racing as their performance medium and assessing criteria. These tend to look at the Mustang more as a "muscle car" in the mold of, say, a 428 Mach I or Boss 429.

Others take a much broader view and assessment as to what criteria establishes a good performance suite. This group tends to see the Mustang more as a "pony car" in the spirit of a Shelby GT350 or Boss 302.

For the former, the drag racers, suspension performance really is quite unimportant, with the main focus really being on drivetrain performance. As long as a suspension holds still, holds together and holds straight, any additional capability is rather abstract and irrelevent and certainly not worth any additional cost, complexity or weight. Beyond a relatively modest level of suspension performance over ideal surfaces, any extra time, money or effort spent on a suspension is only seen as taking away from the primary intereste, dead-stop straight-line speed. Indeed, in that venue, a live axle is not merely good, or even just good enought, but rather, is THE ideal suspension solution.

For the latter, straight off-the-line performance is but one aspect in a wide range of interrelated vehicle dynamics that comprise the full performance suite. Acceleration is quite important, sure, but only as an integrated and balanced component of all other aspects of a vehicles dynamics such as steering, cornering, suspension compliance (as distinct from just a plush ride) and braking, and also, the interplay and balance of all these elements together over a range of driving surfaces, conditions and situations. In this more complex and challenging venue, the benefits conferred by a good IRS are well worth the added costs, complexity and overall weight. While the SRA is good, quite good, the question as to whether it is good enough or even ideal for their needs/wants is far more debatable, hence the debate.

So perhaps, as we discuss this very interesting topic, we need to be quite mindful of these different perspectives and resultant expectations. It is quite easy to be "preaching to the choir" on the merits of SRA/IRS.

I would suspect then, that the musclecar mavens feel perfectly served by the former and all this fuss is but pointless, well, fuss or even some sort of assault on what they perceive as the ideal platform for their needs and wants.

On the other hand, the ponycar pundits feel their needs and desires are not nearly so fully served by the SRA, as good of an SRA as it is, and even rather let down by the expectations sown by Ford's own promises and statements regarding the availability of an IRS and want to not to be continue to ignored, dismissed or patronized by Ford but rather, hold them to their own words and higher aspirations.

AbusiveWombat

From reading this thread and many others I've come to a few conclusions (correct them if they're wrong):

1.) SRA can perform at the same level as IRS in buttery smooth road conditions. If this is the case then you track junky should be just fine. After all, most tracks do not have the imperfections that are encounted on the street. The '05 mustangs seemed to fair well in the Grand Am race taking 1st and 2nd. For those of you complaining about bump steer on the street, are you really going to be pushing the car that much on the street? and on a poorly paved street at that? I love handling as much as the next (I drive an EVO), but I never go 10/10th on the street...that's a sure formula for disaster (yours or someone elses).

2.) HTT stated that the SRA saves 180 lbs and $5000. How many of you would be complaining about a 3780 lbs car coming in at ~$45k if IRS was standard or an option? I know I for one would be very upset with a 45k price tag, let alone a nearly 3800 lbs pig.

3.) SRA is stronger and less prone to wheel hop. I know one of the major complaint from most '03-'04 owners was wheel hop. Personally I see this as a much bigger issue than anything else. What fun is 450 hp if you can't put it to the ground, or if you're worried about breaking axles. On the street, acceleration is the one area that you can push on a daily basis. If the SRA puts the power down better and more reliably then I'm all for it.

I was always one to put down SRA's until I found out that a TransAm beat out countless EVO's in SCCA finals last year to take the crown. With IRS and AWD the EVO looks like a slam dunk over a TransAm. How about we reserve our judgement of the SRA until we see some test numbers? If HTT built a better mouse trap that not only saves 180 lbs and $5k but performs at a similar level as a car with an added 180 lbs and IRS then I'm all for it.

HTT has admited that in his competition stable he has a GTO, M3, and C6. With the exception of the GTO, those are some pretty worthy competitors. Ford did a similar thing when designing the GT and had in their stable a Ferrari 360 and Viper...guess which car came out on top?

rhumb

AbusiveWombat, nice post, one of the best balanced and thoughtfull defenses of the SRA over IRS I think I've seen.

As for point one, I think we, and most pretty much agree, especially regarding smooth track performance. As for street benefits, I see them not so much as being able to push deeper with 10/10ths driving, though the argument might be made that increasing adhesion is, in itself a safety benefit, but rather, as the ability to maintain optimal road adhesion and control throughout the entire range of driving dynamics and road surface conditions to be encountered off track. Again, this is as much a safety and overall vehicle control issue rather than license to drive like a madman through the school zone.

As for point 2. I have more than a few reservations about both weight and price. HTT has been on the record of saying and promising any number of things regarding the Mustang, more than a few of which have not panned out or proved accurate. I think that reflects more on his professional rather than personal credibility and believe he really does want the best for the Stang. Saw him on Charlie Rose show and seemed like a real good guy overall. My impression is that he probably did want the IRS and whatnot but that those plans got undercut by the narrow-minded suits in marketing and accounting. I imagine that HTT, being the good up-and-coming corporate star has been forced to put the best public face forward on these happenings. Weight gain might be believable but the $5K figure is pretty ludicrous. Did the '99 Cobra's price premium go up $5K over the '98's when it went to IRS? No, rather, its price premium went DOWN $800 from 27% to 20% - this in a chassis never ever intended for an IRS, which, the S197 presumably is, according to HTT at least.

3. Maybe, but a lot of variables here. As for less wheel hop, its hard to presume just how good/bad a clean sheet IRS might be over the SRA. Certainly the '99-'04 IRS was a bit jumpy off the line. But rember why the SN95 live axle Stang's had a brace of shocks to lash down off the line, not to mention various component strength upgrades over the years so it would hold together too -- both the same problems laid at the feet of IRSs in general but solved over time with good engineering. Should we have, on the basis of the SN95 live axle's early woes have dismissed all live axle in general? Or is the lesson that proper and diligent engineering is the approach to take on developing any compnent. Just about any IRS, even the somewhat slap-dash Cobra's, is better able to keep its wheels on the ground over less than creamy roads once your rolling, so I guess it depends on what circumstances your talking about as to whether one or the other is better. As for strength, well, as mentioned, that's just simple good engineering regardless of type.

Of course, neither suspension type, nor any other component, will have an insurmountable advantage over another. While the EVO's IRS and AWD may well have given it a substantial leg up over the Trans Am it might not have had otherwise, it obviously didn'e seem to be enough to carry the day. But I think any incremental improvement in overall capability is generally good, including the manifold real benefits an IRS can add to a car's performance envelope.

And, as you well note, the final proof will be in the pudding, or rather, putting tire to tarmac and seeing just how well the GT500s SRA does or doesn't work and, as HTT says, we need to just wait and see. Hopefully, he is right here.

AbusiveWombat

Thanks for the reply rhumb. You make some very good points. I too question the 5k number for IRS but then again, I've never developed or manufactured a car in my life. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Maybe Ford will surprise us with IRS in January. After all, they must be aware of the entire automotive world questioning their SRA decision.

rhumb

That would be schweet. There was some talk of a surprise, maybe they simply didn't have time enough to get it ready for NYC and are more testing the waters to see how well an SRA only GT500 goes over. And just what's taking the so dang long to come out with the GT500 anyway...hmmmm, makes inquiring minds wonder. But my fear is that the penny pinchers rather than the engineers are calling the shots and this and the poor SVT group is left with putting as best a face on this as they can. You can't well expect them to say, "Well, you stinkers are stuck with a stinky truck axle because the tight-bungs in accounting Scrooged us out of that hot IRS we've been cooking up to smoke the M3s in the corners as well as the straights."

But enthusiast uprisings have kicked Ford into doing the right thing before, remember the '99 Cobra HP debacle. Maybe a similar hue and cry by the press and enthusiast public will do the same here.

OBleedingMe

Hey!! I'm 21 and I bought an '05 Mustang. I've got plenty of friends who are absolutely IN LOVE with the '05 Mustang. heck, I got a friend who has an EVO (not the high-end model, though) who wants to trade it in and start making payments on an '05 Mustang.

In fact, the only guys I know under 30 who DON'T like the new Mustang are ricers and people I've smoked, lol. But hey, that could just be here at the Jersey shore.