Shelby GT500 Balance
4/29/05, 02:03 PM
#21
Cobra Member
Join Date: August 19, 2004
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think they'll ever get 50/50 without doing what Chevy did to the Corvette, which is mount a tranny (not transaxle) in the rear.... goofy, but impressive engineering.
If you look at the vintage Shelby's, the big blocks were heavier than heck in the front, and they handled like a plate of dog doo. To top it all off, the uper controll arms were mounted to the inner fender skirt and not the frame rails. I think that with today's technology, and the current chasis, they can make it handle just fine taking into account the current weight ratio.
If you push it out of a turn and you can't get it back before you wipe out.... you probably have no business driving it in the first place.
If you look at the vintage Shelby's, the big blocks were heavier than heck in the front, and they handled like a plate of dog doo. To top it all off, the uper controll arms were mounted to the inner fender skirt and not the frame rails. I think that with today's technology, and the current chasis, they can make it handle just fine taking into account the current weight ratio.
If you push it out of a turn and you can't get it back before you wipe out.... you probably have no business driving it in the first place.
4/29/05, 08:24 PM
#23
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 10, 2004
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by thezeppelin8@April 29, 2005, 6:42 PM
With HTT at the controls, i dont think there will be a problem with balance on this bad baby. They know what they are doing
With HTT at the controls, i dont think there will be a problem with balance on this bad baby. They know what they are doing
4/29/05, 08:47 PM
#24
GT Member
Join Date: April 6, 2004
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest...what do you folks care about balance? All most everybody seems to be concerned about is going in a straight line. Let's face it, this thing's will be a one trick pony with just enough handling to make sure it's doesn't kill anybody when the first turn pops up.
With an iron block 5.4 with a supercharger up front, you can bet that near 50/50 balance of the GT will be out the window real quick. I have a feeling thing's going to push or wade through the corners with that much mass up front.
With an iron block 5.4 with a supercharger up front, you can bet that near 50/50 balance of the GT will be out the window real quick. I have a feeling thing's going to push or wade through the corners with that much mass up front.
4/30/05, 03:31 PM
#25
According to the June 2005 issue of Hot Rod magazine:
"Due to the increased weight of the iron block 5.4L, Thai-Tang says the new Cobra will gain up to 350 pounds compared to the base GT and lose some of its front-to-rear weight balance. He estimates that GT500 will likely see about 56-57 percent of its static weight on the front wheels compared to 53-54 percent for the current 4.6L GTs. But despite the extra weight, he says 'It feels fantastic. It's really nimble and agile.'"
"Due to the increased weight of the iron block 5.4L, Thai-Tang says the new Cobra will gain up to 350 pounds compared to the base GT and lose some of its front-to-rear weight balance. He estimates that GT500 will likely see about 56-57 percent of its static weight on the front wheels compared to 53-54 percent for the current 4.6L GTs. But despite the extra weight, he says 'It feels fantastic. It's really nimble and agile.'"
5/1/05, 10:28 AM
#26
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 25, 2004
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Joes66Pony+April 29, 2005, 8:50 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joes66Pony @ April 29, 2005, 8:50 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>All most everybody seems to be concerned about is going in a straight line.
[/b]
[/b]
On this board perhaps, but I doubt that is the case in the rest of the world. And that one thing is what I am afraid of -- that Ford will remain a little too close minded and focused on the enthusiast and turn the car into a one-trick pony.
They have done well so far, though, so I have faith.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wolf@April 30, 2005, 3:34 PM
But despite the extra weight, he says 'It feels fantastic. It's really nimble and agile.'"
[/quote]
Let's hope that is true. I know they can do a lot with suspension tuning, but with the already stiff rear springs (to support the SRA) and now the very heavy front, they would probably have to stiffen up the rear even more to make it feel agile. And what will that do to everyday ride?
And not matter what you do, there is still almost 3,900 pounds that has to shift weight--and that doesn't happen instantly. There is no getting around physics.
It will be interesting to see how it comes out though...
5/1/05, 05:30 PM
#27
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You realize at 3900 lbs you're basically talking a Dodge Magnum? (The V6 version -- the V8 is 4100) -- but still. Also the weight distro is 52/48, which is better than the Cobra? (Or about the same as the AWD model).
That scares me. The charger has potential to be lighter, better balanced, and still has 425/420 hp, more amenities, possible AWD (?), and be cheaper -- which can probably eat a Mustang GT, and be a real threat to the Cobra in everything but the 1/4. (And if the Cobra is too traction limited, an AWD Challenger variant could even possibly BEAT a cobra in the 1/4). That perplexes me.
I also think that doesn't bode well for the Cobra. The charger is going to be seen as a better/cheaper car. More practical. Much more convenient. Has auto-stick. Incredibly nice interior. IRS. Whew. I realize it isn't the same car -- and the Cobra/Mustang has a better look, more sporty feel. But what happens if next year they come out with a coupe version of the charger, with a blown/turbo version of the motor (and a weight diet)? Seriously....
That scares me. The charger has potential to be lighter, better balanced, and still has 425/420 hp, more amenities, possible AWD (?), and be cheaper -- which can probably eat a Mustang GT, and be a real threat to the Cobra in everything but the 1/4. (And if the Cobra is too traction limited, an AWD Challenger variant could even possibly BEAT a cobra in the 1/4). That perplexes me.
I also think that doesn't bode well for the Cobra. The charger is going to be seen as a better/cheaper car. More practical. Much more convenient. Has auto-stick. Incredibly nice interior. IRS. Whew. I realize it isn't the same car -- and the Cobra/Mustang has a better look, more sporty feel. But what happens if next year they come out with a coupe version of the charger, with a blown/turbo version of the motor (and a weight diet)? Seriously....
5/1/05, 05:48 PM
#28
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by dke@May 1, 2005, 5:33 PM
You realize at 3900 lbs you're basically talking a Dodge Magnum? (The V6 version -- the V8 is 4100) -- but still. Also the weight distro is 52/48, which is better than the Cobra? (Or about the same as the AWD model).
That scares me. The charger has potential to be lighter, better balanced, and still has 425/420 hp, more amenities, possible AWD (?), and be cheaper -- which can probably eat a Mustang GT, and be a real threat to the Cobra in everything but the 1/4. (And if the Cobra is too traction limited, an AWD Challenger variant could even possibly BEAT a cobra in the 1/4). That perplexes me.
I also think that doesn't bode well for the Cobra. The charger is going to be seen as a better/cheaper car. More practical. Much more convenient. Has auto-stick. Incredibly nice interior. IRS. Whew. I realize it isn't the same car -- and the Cobra/Mustang has a better look, more sporty feel. But what happens if next year they come out with a coupe version of the charger, with a blown/turbo version of the motor (and a weight diet)? Seriously....
You realize at 3900 lbs you're basically talking a Dodge Magnum? (The V6 version -- the V8 is 4100) -- but still. Also the weight distro is 52/48, which is better than the Cobra? (Or about the same as the AWD model).
That scares me. The charger has potential to be lighter, better balanced, and still has 425/420 hp, more amenities, possible AWD (?), and be cheaper -- which can probably eat a Mustang GT, and be a real threat to the Cobra in everything but the 1/4. (And if the Cobra is too traction limited, an AWD Challenger variant could even possibly BEAT a cobra in the 1/4). That perplexes me.
I also think that doesn't bode well for the Cobra. The charger is going to be seen as a better/cheaper car. More practical. Much more convenient. Has auto-stick. Incredibly nice interior. IRS. Whew. I realize it isn't the same car -- and the Cobra/Mustang has a better look, more sporty feel. But what happens if next year they come out with a coupe version of the charger, with a blown/turbo version of the motor (and a weight diet)? Seriously....
How are they going to get around the increased weight of the iron block and the top heavy issue? I honestly have no idea, but I'm guessing they have some sort of tricks up their sleeves.
I guess the only thing that disturbs me, is that with Ford getting hammered by the high-tech imports that they would even CONSIDER going this route in our 21st century world.
5/1/05, 06:00 PM
#29
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with you Rob that there are better minds than mine on the problem. On the other hand, there's also been too many times where I saw companies do obviously stupid things, that everyone else thought "why didn't they see the obvious" -- so I've learned to ask and play "master of the obvious", because occasionally it isn't.
I see the Cobra facing stiff competition, and getting better. The Japanese and Germans are adding more displacement and ponies to their stables. Everyone but Yugo has more amenities in their cars. (Kidding guys -- step away from the flame throwers). Even little "ricers" like the EVO and STi are darned good cars with some serious handling. Is a modern interpretation of a 60's legend going to be enough? Not to beat the same horse, but I'd like to see a lot more modern in the mix, because I like competition, and think the Mustang is too good a legacy to lose.
I see the Cobra facing stiff competition, and getting better. The Japanese and Germans are adding more displacement and ponies to their stables. Everyone but Yugo has more amenities in their cars. (Kidding guys -- step away from the flame throwers). Even little "ricers" like the EVO and STi are darned good cars with some serious handling. Is a modern interpretation of a 60's legend going to be enough? Not to beat the same horse, but I'd like to see a lot more modern in the mix, because I like competition, and think the Mustang is too good a legacy to lose.
5/1/05, 06:06 PM
#30
GT Member
Join Date: April 6, 2004
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Robert@May 1, 2005, 5:51 PM
I guess the only thing that disturbs me, is that with Ford getting hammered by the high-tech imports that they would even CONSIDER going this route in our 21st century world.
I guess the only thing that disturbs me, is that with Ford getting hammered by the high-tech imports that they would even CONSIDER going this route in our 21st century world.
5/1/05, 06:32 PM
#31
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by dke@May 1, 2005, 6:03 PM
I'm with you Rob that there are better minds than mine on the problem. On the other hand, there's also been too many times where I saw companies do obviously stupid things, that everyone else thought "why didn't they see the obvious" -- so I've learned to ask and play "master of the obvious", because occasionally it isn't.
I see the Cobra facing stiff competition, and getting better. The Japanese and Germans are adding more displacement and ponies to their stables. Everyone but Yugo has more amenities in their cars. (Kidding guys -- step away from the flame throwers). Even little "ricers" like the EVO and STi are darned good cars with some serious handling. Is a modern interpretation of a 60's legend going to be enough? Not to beat the same horse, but I'd like to see a lot more modern in the mix, because I like competition, and think the Mustang is too good a legacy to lose.
I'm with you Rob that there are better minds than mine on the problem. On the other hand, there's also been too many times where I saw companies do obviously stupid things, that everyone else thought "why didn't they see the obvious" -- so I've learned to ask and play "master of the obvious", because occasionally it isn't.
I see the Cobra facing stiff competition, and getting better. The Japanese and Germans are adding more displacement and ponies to their stables. Everyone but Yugo has more amenities in their cars. (Kidding guys -- step away from the flame throwers). Even little "ricers" like the EVO and STi are darned good cars with some serious handling. Is a modern interpretation of a 60's legend going to be enough? Not to beat the same horse, but I'd like to see a lot more modern in the mix, because I like competition, and think the Mustang is too good a legacy to lose.
Well, guess what, it's the same in the real world. I honestly don't know how much of this is Ford pandering to its core customer base (short-sighted and could lead to corporate entropy) and how much of it is penny-pinching at a time when the company is hanging on by a thread. Probably a little of both, I suspect.
Still, the GT turned out reasonably well. Problem is, "reasonably well" isn't quite good enough in this marketplace. We used to make fun of Toyotas and Datsuns in the late sixties and early seventies. Now look at Lexus and Infiniti. Their quality control and technology is so far ahead of the best Ford can produce, that it's clear we got caught with our pants down and unclear whether we'll ever be able to catch up.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Buick bite the dust in the next couple of years as GM scrambles to remain competitive.
5/1/05, 06:40 PM
#32
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fierce agreement on all that. I don't think Buick will be enough for GM either. I think they'll play hardball with the Unions in the U.S. -- "we'll keep shutting down factories until you re-negotiate deals to be more in-line with what Japanese/Euro auto workers get." Tough, but they're playing poker for the future of their company. If they don't win, they will continue to die slowly.
Ford isn't far behind.
Ford isn't far behind.
5/1/05, 09:24 PM
#33
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: August 17, 2004
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have done well so far, though, so I have faith[QUOTE]
Me to Mike, here's why!
I was in construction work for 32 years. Ran big trucks out of gravel quarrys back in the 80's. After driving several + owning 2 of my own, I noticed every truck, Freightliner, Western Star, International, all, except the Fords were coming up with broken frames, mine included.
Could'nt figure out why, and why so many of the guys owned Fords, so I climbed underneath one day to check it out. Could'nt believe what I was seeing. frame within a frame. pretty smart. Also, the frame rails themselves act like springs. I even tried putting 28 ton on a Ford that my friend owned. [most broke well before that point] Still could'nt break it.
Now, I'm thinking, either Ford was that far ahead of everone else in the 80's, or everyone else was that far behind. Either way, I would almost think it would be suffice to say the engineers probably have the weight issue handled on the Shelby.
Me to Mike, here's why!
I was in construction work for 32 years. Ran big trucks out of gravel quarrys back in the 80's. After driving several + owning 2 of my own, I noticed every truck, Freightliner, Western Star, International, all, except the Fords were coming up with broken frames, mine included.
Could'nt figure out why, and why so many of the guys owned Fords, so I climbed underneath one day to check it out. Could'nt believe what I was seeing. frame within a frame. pretty smart. Also, the frame rails themselves act like springs. I even tried putting 28 ton on a Ford that my friend owned. [most broke well before that point] Still could'nt break it.
Now, I'm thinking, either Ford was that far ahead of everone else in the 80's, or everyone else was that far behind. Either way, I would almost think it would be suffice to say the engineers probably have the weight issue handled on the Shelby.
5/1/05, 09:46 PM
#34
GT Member
Join Date: April 6, 2004
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=Merlot,May 1, 2005, 9:27 PM]
They have done well so far, though, so I have faith
Me to Mike, here's why!
I was in construction work for 32 years. Ran big trucks out of gravel quarrys back in the 80's. After driving several + owning 2 of my own, I noticed every truck, Freightliner, Western Star, International, all, except the Fords were coming up with broken frames, mine included.
Could'nt figure out why, and why so many of the guys owned Fords, so I climbed underneath one day to check it out. Could'nt believe what I was seeing. frame within a frame. pretty smart. Also, the frame rails themselves act like springs. I even tried putting 28 ton on a Ford that my friend owned. [most broke well before that point] Still could'nt break it.
Now, I'm thinking, either Ford was that far ahead of everone else in the 80's, or everyone else was that far behind. Either way, I would almost think it would be suffice to say the engineers probably have the weight issue handled on the Shelby.
I've never doubted that Ford trucks are the best in the business. I only wish Ford spent that much time and effort in their cars as they did in their trucks. You look at the F150, it's without a doubt the best engineered product in their entire vehicle line (I would say the 500/Freestyle is more Volvo than Ford). The Super Duty pickups are unquestionable the toughest, strongest trucks in the market.
Remember, this is the same company that let the Mustang stagnate with the same chassis for 25 years. Plans on keeping the Crown Vic on the same chassis for another 8 years. Doesn't plan on updating the Ranger until at least 2010. And let Lincoln become a former shadow of itself while Caddie is actually being mentioned in the same breath as BMW for driving dynamics.
My fear is that Ford has been justified in their decisions regarding the Mustang....therefore delaying any possible improvements. That seems to be the MO of the Big Three (especially Ford).
They have done well so far, though, so I have faith
Me to Mike, here's why!
I was in construction work for 32 years. Ran big trucks out of gravel quarrys back in the 80's. After driving several + owning 2 of my own, I noticed every truck, Freightliner, Western Star, International, all, except the Fords were coming up with broken frames, mine included.
Could'nt figure out why, and why so many of the guys owned Fords, so I climbed underneath one day to check it out. Could'nt believe what I was seeing. frame within a frame. pretty smart. Also, the frame rails themselves act like springs. I even tried putting 28 ton on a Ford that my friend owned. [most broke well before that point] Still could'nt break it.
Now, I'm thinking, either Ford was that far ahead of everone else in the 80's, or everyone else was that far behind. Either way, I would almost think it would be suffice to say the engineers probably have the weight issue handled on the Shelby.
Remember, this is the same company that let the Mustang stagnate with the same chassis for 25 years. Plans on keeping the Crown Vic on the same chassis for another 8 years. Doesn't plan on updating the Ranger until at least 2010. And let Lincoln become a former shadow of itself while Caddie is actually being mentioned in the same breath as BMW for driving dynamics.
My fear is that Ford has been justified in their decisions regarding the Mustang....therefore delaying any possible improvements. That seems to be the MO of the Big Three (especially Ford).
5/1/05, 09:58 PM
#35
Legacy TMS Member
Originally posted by dke@May 1, 2005, 5:33 PM
You realize at 3900 lbs you're basically talking a Dodge Magnum? (The V6 version -- the V8 is 4100) -- but still. Also the weight distro is 52/48, which is better than the Cobra? (Or about the same as the AWD model).
That scares me. The charger has potential to be lighter, better balanced, and still has 425/420 hp, more amenities, possible AWD (?), and be cheaper -- which can probably eat a Mustang GT, and be a real threat to the Cobra in everything but the 1/4. (And if the Cobra is too traction limited, an AWD Challenger variant could even possibly BEAT a cobra in the 1/4). That perplexes me.
I also think that doesn't bode well for the Cobra. The charger is going to be seen as a better/cheaper car. More practical. Much more convenient. Has auto-stick. Incredibly nice interior. IRS. Whew. I realize it isn't the same car -- and the Cobra/Mustang has a better look, more sporty feel. But what happens if next year they come out with a coupe version of the charger, with a blown/turbo version of the motor (and a weight diet)? Seriously....
You realize at 3900 lbs you're basically talking a Dodge Magnum? (The V6 version -- the V8 is 4100) -- but still. Also the weight distro is 52/48, which is better than the Cobra? (Or about the same as the AWD model).
That scares me. The charger has potential to be lighter, better balanced, and still has 425/420 hp, more amenities, possible AWD (?), and be cheaper -- which can probably eat a Mustang GT, and be a real threat to the Cobra in everything but the 1/4. (And if the Cobra is too traction limited, an AWD Challenger variant could even possibly BEAT a cobra in the 1/4). That perplexes me.
I also think that doesn't bode well for the Cobra. The charger is going to be seen as a better/cheaper car. More practical. Much more convenient. Has auto-stick. Incredibly nice interior. IRS. Whew. I realize it isn't the same car -- and the Cobra/Mustang has a better look, more sporty feel. But what happens if next year they come out with a coupe version of the charger, with a blown/turbo version of the motor (and a weight diet)? Seriously....
Chrysler has said they won't build a coupe but you never know. Competition is good. It should make the GT-500 even better!
5/2/05, 12:38 AM
#36
GT Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 16, 2004
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Joes66Pony@May 1, 2005, 9:49 PM
I've never doubted that Ford trucks are the best in the business. I only wish Ford spent that much time and effort in their cars as they did in their trucks. You look at the F150, it's without a doubt the best engineered product in their entire vehicle line (I would say the 500/Freestyle is more Volvo than Ford). The Super Duty pickups are unquestionable the toughest, strongest trucks in the market.
Remember, this is the same company that let the Mustang stagnate with the same chassis for 25 years. Plans on keeping the Crown Vic on the same chassis for another 8 years. Doesn't plan on updating the Ranger until at least 2010. And let Lincoln become a former shadow of itself while Caddie is actually being mentioned in the same breath as BMW for driving dynamics.
My fear is that Ford has been justified in their decisions regarding the Mustang....therefore delaying any possible improvements. That seems to be the MO of the Big Three (especially Ford).
I've never doubted that Ford trucks are the best in the business. I only wish Ford spent that much time and effort in their cars as they did in their trucks. You look at the F150, it's without a doubt the best engineered product in their entire vehicle line (I would say the 500/Freestyle is more Volvo than Ford). The Super Duty pickups are unquestionable the toughest, strongest trucks in the market.
Remember, this is the same company that let the Mustang stagnate with the same chassis for 25 years. Plans on keeping the Crown Vic on the same chassis for another 8 years. Doesn't plan on updating the Ranger until at least 2010. And let Lincoln become a former shadow of itself while Caddie is actually being mentioned in the same breath as BMW for driving dynamics.
My fear is that Ford has been justified in their decisions regarding the Mustang....therefore delaying any possible improvements. That seems to be the MO of the Big Three (especially Ford).
You have to look at the business case. Keep in mind that Ford's profit margins are pathetic, compared to Toyota. Ford kept the Fox Mustang for 25 years because it was tough for them to cough up the cash for the R&D required to engineer a new platform, especially for a niche vehicle like the Mustang. With the Crown Victoria, yeah, the Panther is an ancient platform-- but it's easily-modified (hence cop cruisers and taxi cabs), and they have an extremely loyal customer base. Old people like body-on-frame full-size cars with soft suspensions. Period. The Panther platform has paid for itself over a decade ago, and it's still raking in cash.
Regarding the Ranger, yeah, I seriously wish they would have done something about that sooner...
Anyway, back to my original point. Ford stuck hundreds of millions into the development of the 2004 F-150, Expedition, and Explorer because they were all raking in the cash. If any one of those 3 vehicles slipped behind the competition, the results would be absolutely disasterous for Ford-- there might not even be a Ford, by that point.
If the Mustang's sales drops, Ford will survive.
If the Crown Vic's sales drops, Ford will survive.
If the F-150's sales drops, or is bested by the competition, Ford Motor Company is pretty much SOL.
Money that was invested into the truck and SUV development equates to less money that could be spent on car development. That's just the way of it. That's how business works.
5/2/05, 12:46 AM
#37
GT Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 16, 2004
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Joes66Pony@April 29, 2005, 8:50 PM
With an iron block 5.4 with a supercharger up front, you can bet that near 50/50 balance of the GT will be out the window real quick. I have a feeling thing's going to push or wade through the corners with that much mass up front.
With an iron block 5.4 with a supercharger up front, you can bet that near 50/50 balance of the GT will be out the window real quick. I have a feeling thing's going to push or wade through the corners with that much mass up front.
There was a time when the automotive press looked at an upcoming sportscar and laughed at it, predicting relentless oversteer, due to its rear-engine/RWD layout.
That car was the Porsche 911, and it has been the standard for sportscar handling ever since.
If the automotive industry has proven anything, it is that any "inherent" drawback can be made good through the use of superior engineering.
This is also the argument I throw in the face of the simple-minded idiots screaming their lungs out for IRS, as if it were a mystical, magical cure for everything from cancer to civil war.
5/2/05, 04:16 AM
#38
Originally posted by grabbergreen+May 2, 2005, 12:49 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(grabbergreen @ May 2, 2005, 12:49 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Joes66Pony@April 29, 2005, 8:50 PM
With an iron block 5.4 with a supercharger up front, you can bet that near 50/50 balance of the GT will be out the window real quick. I have a feeling thing's going to push or wade through the corners with that much mass up front.
With an iron block 5.4 with a supercharger up front, you can bet that near 50/50 balance of the GT will be out the window real quick. I have a feeling thing's going to push or wade through the corners with that much mass up front.
[/b][/quote]
It is a known fact that if the states below the Mason Dixon line had had IRS there never would have been a civil war!
5/2/05, 04:34 AM
#39
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IRS is not mystical or magical -- it as an engineering solution to a problem, that is better than the alternative for 95%+ of the cars on our public roads. Saying that all those advocating it are "simple minded idiots screaming their lungs out" is known as an ad-absurdium attack -- it is trying to make your opponents position look absurd (or take their position to an absurd level) because you are so insecure with your own position that you can't defend it with better logic/reasoning/positions. I prefer to be more mature/responsible than that.
The point is that IRS offers some things better that I want. It offers less unsprung weight which means better ride control, and more opportunities to balance both poor-road ride with performance (in poor road ride conditions). SRA just has more mass and reactive energy on a bump to deal with -- which is physics. A good design can compensate for some of that. A bad IRS design can obviate most of its potential advantages. But I can wish for better rough-road ride options, or a technology that will be seen as more competitive without being a screaming moron.
Also your 911 analogy sort of supports the opposite of what you intend as well. The luddites in the 60s felt that front engine/rear-drive and certain tradeoffs were the way to go -- but the newer technologies worked better. (they put ego/emotion above engineering). Now some Mustang purists are doing the same thing with a spruce log; "IRS is unneeded, it'll never work, etc, etc".... but it does for almost every competitor. So how long are they going to be flat earthers and catch on that maybe every other car engineering team has some point.
Personally. It isn't one issue that gets me, it is the combination of them. Cheap rear-end design, mediocre interior with few of the amenities of the competition, questionable balance in their sportiest of versions, fewer options than the competition (? auto tranny, etc.). And so on. I'm starting to see a pattern that says, "Chevy Nova with a V8" rather than what they said which is "German Killer". Why is it so wrong to want this car to do what they said it would -- take on the foreign cars head on? Of course it'll be a year before I know -- so I'm not willing to bury a car that I haven't seen the final specs on yet. But there are some red flags.
The point is that IRS offers some things better that I want. It offers less unsprung weight which means better ride control, and more opportunities to balance both poor-road ride with performance (in poor road ride conditions). SRA just has more mass and reactive energy on a bump to deal with -- which is physics. A good design can compensate for some of that. A bad IRS design can obviate most of its potential advantages. But I can wish for better rough-road ride options, or a technology that will be seen as more competitive without being a screaming moron.
Also your 911 analogy sort of supports the opposite of what you intend as well. The luddites in the 60s felt that front engine/rear-drive and certain tradeoffs were the way to go -- but the newer technologies worked better. (they put ego/emotion above engineering). Now some Mustang purists are doing the same thing with a spruce log; "IRS is unneeded, it'll never work, etc, etc".... but it does for almost every competitor. So how long are they going to be flat earthers and catch on that maybe every other car engineering team has some point.
Personally. It isn't one issue that gets me, it is the combination of them. Cheap rear-end design, mediocre interior with few of the amenities of the competition, questionable balance in their sportiest of versions, fewer options than the competition (? auto tranny, etc.). And so on. I'm starting to see a pattern that says, "Chevy Nova with a V8" rather than what they said which is "German Killer". Why is it so wrong to want this car to do what they said it would -- take on the foreign cars head on? Of course it'll be a year before I know -- so I'm not willing to bury a car that I haven't seen the final specs on yet. But there are some red flags.
5/2/05, 05:37 AM
#40
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by dke@May 2, 2005, 4:37 AM
IRS is not mystical or magical -- it as an engineering solution to a problem, that is better than the alternative for 95%+ of the cars on our public roads. Saying that all those advocating it are "simple minded idiots screaming their lungs out" is known as an ad-absurdium attack -- it is trying to make your opponents position look absurd (or take their position to an absurd level) because you are so insecure with your own position that you can't defend it with better logic/reasoning/positions. I prefer to be more mature/responsible than that.
The point is that IRS offers some things better that I want. It offers less unsprung weight which means better ride control, and more opportunities to balance both poor-road ride with performance (in poor road ride conditions). SRA just has more mass and reactive energy on a bump to deal with -- which is physics. A good design can compensate for some of that. A bad IRS design can obviate most of its potential advantages. But I can wish for better rough-road ride options, or a technology that will be seen as more competitive without being a screaming moron.
Also your 911 analogy sort of supports the opposite of what you intend as well. The luddites in the 60s felt that front engine/rear-drive and certain tradeoffs were the way to go -- but the newer technologies worked better. (they put ego/emotion above engineering). Now some Mustang purists are doing the same thing with a spruce log; "IRS is unneeded, it'll never work, etc, etc".... but it does for almost every competitor. So how long are they going to be flat earthers and catch on that maybe every other car engineering team has some point.
Personally. It isn't one issue that gets me, it is the combination of them. Cheap rear-end design, mediocre interior with few of the amenities of the competition, questionable balance in their sportiest of versions, fewer options than the competition (? auto tranny, etc.). And so on. I'm starting to see a pattern that says, "Chevy Nova with a V8" rather than what they said which is "German Killer". Why is it so wrong to want this car to do what they said it would -- take on the foreign cars head on? Of course it'll be a year before I know -- so I'm not willing to bury a car that I haven't seen the final specs on yet. But there are some red flags.
IRS is not mystical or magical -- it as an engineering solution to a problem, that is better than the alternative for 95%+ of the cars on our public roads. Saying that all those advocating it are "simple minded idiots screaming their lungs out" is known as an ad-absurdium attack -- it is trying to make your opponents position look absurd (or take their position to an absurd level) because you are so insecure with your own position that you can't defend it with better logic/reasoning/positions. I prefer to be more mature/responsible than that.
The point is that IRS offers some things better that I want. It offers less unsprung weight which means better ride control, and more opportunities to balance both poor-road ride with performance (in poor road ride conditions). SRA just has more mass and reactive energy on a bump to deal with -- which is physics. A good design can compensate for some of that. A bad IRS design can obviate most of its potential advantages. But I can wish for better rough-road ride options, or a technology that will be seen as more competitive without being a screaming moron.
Also your 911 analogy sort of supports the opposite of what you intend as well. The luddites in the 60s felt that front engine/rear-drive and certain tradeoffs were the way to go -- but the newer technologies worked better. (they put ego/emotion above engineering). Now some Mustang purists are doing the same thing with a spruce log; "IRS is unneeded, it'll never work, etc, etc".... but it does for almost every competitor. So how long are they going to be flat earthers and catch on that maybe every other car engineering team has some point.
Personally. It isn't one issue that gets me, it is the combination of them. Cheap rear-end design, mediocre interior with few of the amenities of the competition, questionable balance in their sportiest of versions, fewer options than the competition (? auto tranny, etc.). And so on. I'm starting to see a pattern that says, "Chevy Nova with a V8" rather than what they said which is "German Killer". Why is it so wrong to want this car to do what they said it would -- take on the foreign cars head on? Of course it'll be a year before I know -- so I'm not willing to bury a car that I haven't seen the final specs on yet. But there are some red flags.
The Mustang caters to a particular market segment, and Ford's research has probably demonstrated to them that all they need to do is make a car that will cater to their lowest common denominator demographic, and they'll turn a tidy profit.
Judging from most of the posters on this board, they're smack dab on target.
I guess the simple answer is: if you're not happy with what this new Cobra has to offer, then buy something else. God knows there's enough choices out there right now.