As for chassis feel, so much of that depends on so many variables and tuning. 9/10ths and break-away handling characters can vary widely across suspension types, IRS or live axle, that it would be hard to make any broad generalizations there on that aspect.

Some of the most sublime, in-touch and communicative chassis in the world use IRS. On the other hand, there are plenty of others that are lacking in input in extremes. The Stang SRA, regardless of whatever other shortcomings it might have, seems to be quite well tuned in this regard.

You might also take a sport'n spin in, say, an RX-8 to get a feel what a top-notch IRS system can do and feel like, one of those on a country back road is like the difference between dancing in Doc Martins and dancing in a pair of Salvatore Ferragamos.

As for safety, a good suspension will only greatly contribute to it giving the drivers, even at less than a maniacal pace, greater control, feedback, stability and reserve grip and maneuverability should it be needed. It's that big, steaming SC 5.4 that's going to have the insurance underwriters grasping for their inhalers, not a hi-po suspension, which, if anything, would help mitigate the added risk from that 450+hp.

It's been my rule of thumb to bolster the brakes and suspension before I consider doing anything that would add a single HP to my rides, it is fool's folly to bump up the hp without first making sure you've likewise improved the chassis and brakes first to fully control that extra speed potential. To do the contrary is a bass-ackward and dangerous approach. One doesn't build a performance palace on the foundations of a chicken shed.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but an SRA's short comings are only apparent on a poorly paved, pot hole ridden twisty roads.

So, who in their right mind would decide to go 10/10th on this type of street? How many of us actually drive 10/10th on the street? I love handling as much as the next guy (I drive an EVO) but it's a rare day that I explore the handling limits of my car on a public road.

IRS may give a person better control but I don't think there's going to be that big of a difference between an SRA or IRS when casually driving. The difference would only become more apparent the closer you get to the edge on a poorly paved and twisty road.

IMO, the bigger issue isn't the type of suspension but the overall weight of the car. At 3600+ lbs, this will likely not be an agile car.

 

Nobody should be driving 10/10ths on any public road, whether in the straights or corners (why isn't anybody commenting on how dangerous a 450+ motor would be in the streets?).

And no, in casual driving on smooth streets, there isn't going to be much differnce between most any type of suspension. But then, driven casually on a smooth street, there isn't much difference between a 450hp car and a 150hp car is there, so why bother with one of those either?

What a good IRS will do is widen and deepen your safe and usable performance envelope everywhere. And the added suspension control, suppleness and adhesion will give you an extra measure of active safety and accident aviodance in sudden, emergency situations.

So perhaps a bit more balanced performance forus on the other 359 degrees of the performance envelope beyond dead ahead might not be so crazy, especially with gas prices soaring past $2 without looking back. As for safety, its far safer to have a car with an excellent suspension and modest power than a boatload of power and a modest suspension.

While the Stang will never challenge a Lotus Elise in dynamic finesse, there is certainly much that can be improved over the very good base that exists now. And its not only how fast a car will go -- bar room bragging test track numbers -- but how a car goes fast, its feel, balance, feedback and more subjective elements of the driving experience.

 

It just wouldnt be a mustang if it was IRS. Keep the muscle car erra alive!!

 

Can you adjust for a negative camber on a solid?

 

...or leaf springs, or pushrods, or rear drum brakes, or...???

How about keeping the Pony car era alive, i.e., more balanced performance coupes in the original spirit of the Mustang rather than straight line beheamoth muscle cars. The original Mustang was quite in distinction to the muscle cars of the day in that it was intended to be a smaller, lighter, trimmer and more balanced (i.e., between acceleration, handling and braking) than the big, fast but clumsy contemporary muscle cars.

In today's context, the more balanced handling benefits of an IRS would be well in keeping with the original spirit of the pony car Mustang. Indeed, Ford had an IRS option in the wings for the first gen Mustang, but then the bean counters killed it (sound familiar).

 

...or leaf springs, or pushrods, or rear drum brakes, or...???

How about keeping the Pony car era alive, i.e., more balanced performance coupes in the original spirit of the Mustang rather than straight line beheamoth muscle cars. The original Mustang was quite in distinction to the muscle cars of the day in that it was intended to be a smaller, lighter, trimmer and more balanced (i.e., between acceleration, handling and braking) than the big, fast but clumsy contemporary muscle cars.

In today's context, the more balanced handling benefits of an IRS would be well in keeping with the original spirit of the pony car Mustang. Indeed, Ford had an IRS option in the wings for the first gen Mustang, but then the bean counters killed it (sound familiar).
[/b][/quote]
I agree with you, rhumb.

But hypothetical, academic arguments are one thing...and facts are something else. Honestly, these endless, rhetorical missives touting the superlatives of IRS that you're so fond of writing are not going to change Ford Motor Company's position one iota. Continuing to assert that Ford's decision to install an SRA on the Cobra was an ablative one, reminds me of the story of the frog and the scorpion; with Ford and the Mustang faithful in the role of the scorpion. It's in their nature to make these decisions; and further advanced by Ford's precarious financial situation.

 

From blue oval news:
* Ford Racing Mustang FR500C race car speeds to a first place finish in the Grand-Am Cup California 200.

* Ford Racing and drivers Gunnar Jeannette and James Gue capture the lead in the series' manufacturer and driver (GS class) championships, respectively.

* Ford Racing Mustang FR500C race cars take three of the top 10 finishing positions.

After a ninth-place qualifying position, Multimatic Motorsports drivers Gue and Jeannette worked hard to get to the front of the pack for a chance at the win. With only five laps remaining, Jeannette took advantage of a race re-start from a caution, and passed the Porsche 996 of Darren Law and Mike McCalmont on the outside of the oval at California Speedway going into turn 1.


Looks like the old spruce log works in turns too. What are you IRS guys gonna do when this rear end gives the majority what they want...dragstrip ability... and also handles like a...or better than a Porsche 996. Crow will be served in quantity.

 

The old GT-350R's held their own against the Vettes in SCCA B-Production back in the 60's. What's your point?

 

The old GT-350R's held their own against the Vettes in SCCA B-Production back in the 60's. What's your point?
[/b][/quote]
My point is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The simplest solution to a problem is always the best. Easy to work on, easy to modify, cheap, light, strong, etc. etc.
I've got no problem with it being an option, that way you guys can pay for it.

 

My point is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The simplest solution to a problem is always the best. Easy to work on, easy to modify, cheap, light, strong, etc. etc.
I've got no problem with it being an option, that way you guys can pay for it.
[/b][/quote]

Well, neither was the 5.0L Windsor or drum brakes. But eventually, especially given how competitive the market is, the simplest cheapest solution is not always the best.

 

[quote=Joes66Pony,April 6, 2005, 8:11 PM]
Well, neither was the 5.0L Windsor or drum brakes. But eventually, especially given how competitive the market is, the simplest cheapest solution is not always the best.

Apples and oranges. We are talking about IRS VS SRA in THIS car. Do they build a car that makes 30% happy or 70%. I know what I would do.

And IF a drum braked SRA 5.0 powered 2007 GT500 MATCHED the performance of a mod motored disc braked IRS 2007 GT500, which would be better? which would be cheaper?
We will get no where with this debate. All in all, I am thankful my current Cobra is a 1996 model, and when I get my 2007 GT 500 with its solid rear, I will be happy. And for your sake I hope the IRS is an option, but once again I don't want to have to pay for it.

 

But you're more than willing to pay for a "name"?

 

The problem is, at 40k its not cheap, its not cheap at 34k either. At one time Ford didnt think they could sell a 30k+ mustang without IRS. What changed? Oh yea they slapped SHelby on the side.

 

But you're more than willing to pay for a "name"?
[/b][/quote]
No, I'm not a fashion guy. If he worked on it and earned it, no problem. If I percieve it as a good value, I'll buy it.

 

I was refering to the SRA vs IRA debate. And no one knows how much it will cost yet.

 

And the answer is no.
Wonder what it's specs will be, since It will serve to carve corners yet be drivable on the roads with decent tire tread life.

 

And the answer is no.
Wonder what it's specs will be, since It will serve to carve corners yet be drivable on the roads with decent tire tread life.
[/b][/quote]


My concern would be the ride. In order for the SRA to be effective as a corner carver, you really have to compromise the ride quality.

 

The GT pulls a .89 skidpad, having the Cobra pull at least .93 will be ok.
This car is built with the track in mind, not the comfort of the commuters rear.

 

And the IRS supposedly pulled over 1.0G in testing. Yeah, in the end the car isn't built for a comfortable ride. But there's a point where too much kidney punishment is too much. We all remember the 87-93 5.0L's.