holderca1

The choice of IRS on the Ford GT IS a statement on Ford's take on the IRS vs SRA debate...whether you like it or not.
[/b][/quote]
No, it shows me they weren't working with a limited budget.

holderca1

Could you be a little less hypocritical. You are one of the biggest advocates for IRS on this site, yet you still bought the car. hmmm :scratch:

oldskl427

I wouldn't mind seeing an IRS, but i'll hold my judgement until the performance and skid pad numbers come out for the SRA. If it performs and handles well i'll be pleased. Let's see what you can do Ford....

rhumb

I guess my take on this option is that Ford/SVT has basically already shown they can do that, for $35K, in the 2003-4 Cobra. And that, in a car never designed in the first place for an IRS. Component count for component count, the GT500 is VERY similar to the level of cost difference (~$10K) that the 2003-4 Cobra represented over the base GT, significantly less if you consider the absence of an IRS.

Sure, the motor's a bit bigger, but than a few cubes, it's almost identical in specs to the 4.6 SC, and it does have some more leather on the interior. But in terms of design/manufacturing costit should be within a couple hundred dollars or less of its predecessor's price premium over the GT.

And if all the blather about an IRS costing $5K to implement, then ought that amount saved by its absence in the GT500 be subtracted from the price differential -- so instead of the GT500 being $10K dearer than a base GT, it should be about $5K costlier than the $25K base GT, netting a nice $30K GT500. Are we basically being asked to pay $100/hp for the extra 100hp the GT500 has?

So where does this decontented GT500 (relative to the 2003-4 Cobra) justify rumors of a $40K price?

How was Coletti's team able to bring in a 400+hp (actual) IRS Cobra for under $35K and Thai-Tang's boys can't pull that off on a chassis designed for an IRS (if we're to believe him) with an extra $5K to play with?

Is it just me, or is this just not adding up? Was either the 2003-4 Cobra a fantastic bargain and feat of engineering aptitude or has the SVT lost its edge a bit with the GT500?

Don't get me wrong, its obviously a fantastic car ... at $30-32K! But at $35K? Or $40K??

MilStang

How is that? I used spruce log and smoother ride...which connotation are you referring to in the poll question?

I could care less if it is SRA or IRS, if Ford builds the car and it performs well then I will gladly take it. I was just trying to make a poll on the subject like we do so many other things. No it is not scientific, it is democratic, but I have no preference either way. This is an overly simplified poll, I made it that way to keep the bickering down and hopefully leave it more to a debate of the details. Instead it again starts to turn into a less than civil discussion. Debate the topic but don't resort to childish bickering. (and no this part is not directed at Dr. Iven)

And why this statement? It does have merit in showing what a majority prefer or want. No that does not mean that IRS is worthless, it just means so far that a majority don't want it. I am not proposing a theory or anything else, it is a simple poll.

I even added a statement with both the horsepower and IRS. I don't understand why you made this statement. Please elaborate if you will.

holderca1

I am just curious if any of those wanting IRS have actually done anything that would help make it a reality like write a letter to Ford. You are basically preaching to the choir when you come on here time and time again saying how its better, ect... Why don't you write a letter to Ford asking for a Track package for the Mustang GT. That's one thing I wouldn't mind having, it seems Ford usually falls short when it comes to offering performance or handling optional packages. Nissan does with the Z, GM does it with the Vette. I would love to see this package offered as an option on the Mustang GT.

14" Front/ 13" Rear Brembo Brakes
18" Wheels
255/45R18 Front/ 285/40R18 Rear Tires
Performance Shocks and Springs (Eibach specifically designed for the Mustang)
Independent Rear Suspension
6 speed manual transmission

00StangGT

being a dragger at heart I'll take my trusty, bullet proof, solid rear axel!

71mach1_429

[SIZE=7]First drive it, then talk about it!![SIZE=1] if you haven't driven it how can you truly give an answer???

distortion

The same people keep talking about how the IRS is modern and more advanced, which is fine, but do we really need it this time around, maybe. Have any of you driven it yet? Did not think so. Tone down a bit, go drive one, report back. In the mean time, don't act like we are all stupid for being OK with a good handling car (can speak for the current mustang gt) even though Ford did not use the most advanced IRS available.
Is the combustion engine the most advanced or effecient thing around? Lets go throw rocks at the Ford headquarters untill they give us a different engine.

Joes66Pony

Not to sound facetious, but don't you think that hasn't crossed our minds.

I for one have, on several occasions. Problem is, it doesn't seem to be registering with the folks at Dearborn, especially HTT. I mmean let's think about it...the Shelby GT500 is the top of the line Mustang, the end all of Mustangs. If IRS is not available on the GT500, what incentive does Ford have to install in any other Mustang.

From Edmunds.com

So there we have it. As defeatist as that may be...I don't think we'll see a properly designed IRS in the Mustang anytime soon, at least until the next gen, which given Ford's history may be another 10-15 years.

Joes66Pony

I argue that yes we do. If Ford plans on keeping this chassis competitive for the next few years (or decades given Ford's history), it needs to be able to provide features and technologies that keep it current and competitive with it's competition. Right now, Ford is simply relying on the Mustang name and tradition.

You know, it took us 10 years since the first modulars in Mustangs to get a mass production 5.4L in the Stang. I for one am not willing to wait another 10 years for IRS in the Mustang.

And yes, for automotive applications, the internal combustion engine IS the most efficient method to power vehicles.

holderca1

I am sure it has crossed your minds, but has anyone voiced their opinion directly to Ford rather than just at a Mustang forum? If there are a large number of people not just asking for something, but demanding it, maybe Ford may consider it. I know they are one of the top 5 companies in the U.S., but I don't think have employed mind readers yet.

crazyhorse

Don't underestimate how much this forum is a voice to Ford. Big brother is watching. Brad has actually traced the IP addresses.

Robert

That would be the nationality of the person who knocked O5GT down and made him cry like a little girl.

one2gamble

at close to 40K yes you do in fact "need it". Why be stuck in the past, why continue to give out the perception, fact or fiction that the mustang is a one trick pony.

The car already comes in about 300lbs more than it ever should---strike 1
No IRS - strike 2

I dont know that there is or ever will be a 3rd strike for the mustang. It has a strong following that isnt going away but I dont see why Ford cant finally give us what we all want....an option.

OBleedingMe

My personal feeling on SRA and IRS from my racing experience is that SRA gives you more solid feel. You feel more connected to the car. You can anticipate what the car will do under acceleration/braking/cornering. IRS gives you more of a feeling of "float." Your not sure what the back end will do at times. It's also much more delicate, prone to breakage, and alignment nusances - especially under high-torque applications. Yeah, it's true that IRS will help you over the bumps a little easier, but that's negated by the fact that you never really know what the back end's going to do. I'd rather be connected to the car and be able to anticipate and correct rather than be forced into a situation of last-instant-pray-I-don't-smack-the-wall correction.

Crap, I know I'll probably get flamed, but jeez! Some of these posts demanding a "smoother ride"... they're really crazy. This is performance car to the CORE. This is not a family-oriented car. This is not a car meant for senior citizens (see vettes, lol) or those with terrible aches and pains. This is a fast car with a rigid suspension/chassis and a beast of a motor. With this sort of a car you make sacrafices to certain creature comforts. If you can't handle it (and there's no shame in it) get a Lexus or Infinity luxury coupe. They're still fast, but the designers had the comfort of the driver in the forefront of their minds.

slavehand

Did you mean coupe? 'Cause I have yet to see a sedan Mustang. Just curious. I would love to see pics of a sedan Mustang or if I'm missing something, please fill me in. Thanks.

slavehand

Yeah, but comparing the platform of the GT to the platform of the Mustang is like comparing muzzle loader to a fully automatic assault riffle. They both shoot bullets and operate from the combustion of gun powder. The cars, both have 4 wheels and operate off of gasoline and are built by Ford.

Would you want to pay $140K+ for a vehicle w/ a solid rear axle? And yes I know that the price isn't going just towards IRS.

I understand your opinions, I think. But you need to have closer comparisons to get your point across better.

rhumb

I would have to politely disagree with some of your assertions here. As for IRS feeling more "floaty," and that's a somewhat vague term, and disconnected from the road, I would strongly argue that a good IRS is much more likely and able to actually keep you connected to the road, especially over less than perfect surfaces, and far more confident that the back end will maintain adhesion and control.

Indeed, one of the main weakpoints of a live axle is its huge unsprung weight and mass, the resultant inertia and how that can seriously compromise its ability to follow surface contours, lumps and bumps and thus maintain contact and adhesion. Regardless of how well that axle is located, the simple physics of its moving mass and inertia are pretty unavoidable.

While this factor becomes less relavent over very smooth roads and the drag strip where the suspension actually moves very little, an IRSs greater capacity to maintain contact and adhesion over a far wider range of driving circumstances and conditions would greatly expand the Mustang's useful performance envelope and overall level of control, safety and thus, confidence.

IRS's will be somewhat more complicated and thus, with age somewhat more prone to things getting out of adjustment and leading to some deterioration in handling, much as might loose suspension bushing or steering ball joints on an independant front suspension. But this trait is certainly not inherent in an IRS design like, say, the unsprung mass issue in a live axle/SRA design. IRSs can offer more means to tune the ride and handling characteristics of a car, a good think I would think for those interested in upping a cars performance like most of us here. But that, of course, also means there's the added possibility of doing that poorly, as one could also end up accelerating more slowly by bad drivetrain modifications and adjustments. And that can very easily lead to the darty characteristics you've described. But I would say that is the exception to an IRS, likely due to something being out of spec, than an inherent characteristic.

As for reliability, a live axle generally has a bit of an innate advantage by dint of simply fewer parts to statistically go awry, all else being equal. But a huge factor is, rather, the quality of the design, engineering, materials and contruction of the system, be it IRS or live axle, and there is no inherent reason why an IRS, or any other car component, can't be designed to a very high level or reliablility at any power/torque level.

As for ride, I think there are two perspectives to look at this and I think they often get mingled in this IRS discussion. One is simple ride comfort, i.e., isolation from the lumps and bumps of the road surface. The other is ride resilience, the ability to absorb and control the impact and resultant suspension movements and deflection from those lumps and bumps yet maintain full tire contact with the road surface, tire adhesion and thus control and acceleration/cornering/braking capacity in a much wider range of conditions.

While some disparage the appeal of an IRS as simply a desire for the former, rather, it is the latter, the significant expansion of the Mustangs USABLE performance envelope in a far wider range of real world conditions.

These are two fairly distinct goals and discussions, but suffice to say, I think few are simply after a cushy ride, but rather, want a Mustang that is able to perform better, more securely and safely, over a much wider envelope of driving situation and conditions. I see this at the very heart of what a Mustang is about as a 21st century performance car.

OBleedingMe

No, no. You're not understanding me. Not disconnected from the road tire-wise. In other words, when you push the car to edge you can FEEL what the car is going to do better with an SRA. When you push a car with an IRS to the edge, you usually can't feel what the car is going to do until it's nearly too late. You can ANTICIPATE with an SRA, do you understand what I'm saying? And float isn't a vague term. It's a commonly used word to describe when a car's rear end feels like it's very light/shimmying through a corner, that you're not sure if the car is pushing, loose, or what. Anyone else out there with track/road course experience, I know you guys understand me!

Anyway, if what you say is true, that most people just want an IRS so they can take the curves over bumpy/badly paved roads at high-speed, that's fine. I have no problem with that. It's your life/insurance, and be prepared to pay a high premium for a high-performance IRS.