LOL i'm sure it will be driveavble enough, It's not really a hardcore racecar.
But man 1G for a car this heavy, thats quite a task. I set .93 as a minimmum, hopefully it does a bit more with it's beefed up solid.

 

I also felt the poll was kind of biased: putting a "spruce log" up agaisnt a "real handling," "smooth riding" IRS doesn't exactly make the playing field level. However I am of the camp that thinks Ford knows what is best in the long run (whether that be performance or saving money [for us and them]), and will reserve judgement until a production version can be tested.

 

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.
[/b][/quote]
or 350Z Track Edition...but you have to compromise somewhere, if you want a softer ride, you have to give up handling and vice versa, true of both IRS and SRA.

 

I read an article this weekend on a few sports cars including the 05 Mustang. It was a comparison thing about cars in the 25K range, including an acura, a subaru, and a couple others. Im old fashioned as I dont consider those other ones my idea of a sports car but hey to each his own. Anyway they talked alot about the IRS thing and Fords reason for not having it and the guy had a personal opinion I liked. his opinion was that all of this new gadgetry is great whatever happened to knowing how to drive? I know Im gonna get flamed and Im not saying someone with a car with IRS doesnt know how to drive or anything like that but I just thought he had a great point about the driving experience and feeling the car. he did say that on bumpy roads it would be great to have the IRS but overall the drivers who tested the cars would take the mustang hands down.

 

IRS would be great, but hardly necessary for me. I'm going to take svt's word for it that this thing is really buttoned down and handles like a champ. If it turns our I'm wrong, I drive really freakin fast in a straight line and look as close to cool as a middle aged white guy can.

Works for me.

 

I absolutely agree! An SRA lets you ANTICIPATE what the car will do and give you more reaction time to correct when you are pushing the car's cornering envelope. Myf ather, an ex-racer who drove ARCAR and Indy cars has always said: "If you know how to drive, an SRA shouldn't matter." I completely agree.

 

Not sure what innate design aspect of a live axle/SRA would let you anticipate what a car might do any more than a decent IRS. Quite to the contrary, I have found the opposite to be true.

As more varied road conditions (bumpy, lumpy, uneven) come into play, a heavy live axle/SRA's lesser ability to react to surface changes, maintain contact and thus, adhesion to a road would introduce a significant random factor as to how it will react, one that would be quite difficult to anticipate with any degree of confidence.

An IRS, with significantly less unsprung mass and thus better able to maintain contact and adhesion, would generally be far more able to maintain a high degree of road contact, adhesion and control and thus lend for far greater confidence, consistency and ability to react.

Certainly some IRS's do have a degree of corrective articulation designed in, and some have gone a bit far in this lending a bit too much of a "helping" hand to the driver in this respect. But these geometry changes are generally very consistent, even if unwanted, in contrast to simply and suddenly losing road contact, adhesion and control, which is much more random, less consistent and far less predictable (hey, the suspension is basically out of control if the tires ain’t touching tarmac).

Perhaps some are thinking back to some squirrelly early IRS designs such as the simple trailing arms on old 911's, which were notorious for backing into the weeds around difficult turns, or perhaps old Spitfire, Corvair or Beetle swing axles, which were prone to jacking and going all bird-legged. But these designs have long gone the way of leaf-spring live axles.

Live axle/SRA designs simply don't have the capacity for such engineering sophistication (GM Quadrasteer designs excepted) and by default will, on smooth roads, tend to give you a fairly basic response to input, if not necessarily good results if one recalls the histrionics the old Fox body rear axle would go through. The SRA, being far better located on its axis and planes of motion, does far better than that design of course. However, it is still inevitably handicapped by its very high unsprung mass and the deleterious effects that mass and inertia has on its ability to comport to road irregularities on the vertical plane of motion, however tightly located on its axis and horizontal planes of motion.

I would have hoped that Ford, if given their decision to retain a live axle in developing the GT500, and for the coin it seems they might demand, would have at least been a bit more aggressive in putting that live axle on more of a diet to improve that weak aspect of the design.

Now this difference in capability basically applies to roads that aren’t smooth and are even less relevant on straight roads. If one is primarily concerned purely with smooth and/or straight road performance, then an IRS’s advantages are basically obviated to a large degree and a well located live axle can perform just as well or even better in a few very specific arenas such as drag racing.

Of course, driving skill is paramount in any car, of any design in any situation, and no suspension can substitute for that.

 

Ford knows best, huh? Is that why they issued a profit warning yesterday...amidst consecutive market share declines?

I'll say it again, it's choices like the 'nickel and diming' with the SRA that are resulting in Ford's poor corporate performance.

Yeah, the '05 mustang is selling well...but I'll hazard to guess most of the sales are repeat mustang owners (like myself). The key is...I'll bet it's not selling where Ford *needs* to sell: those that have NEVER owned a mustang before...those that are buying the RX-8, Mazda 6, Corvette, 350Z etc. That crowd will never consider a SRA on any car...let alone on something the calibre of the SVT.

The stated objective of the '05 mustang is to ingrain brand loyalty into the youth market...hoping those that buy the '05 will eventually 'trade up' to the more up scale Ford brands as they mature economically.

Will it the '05 mustang has this desired effect? Only time will tell.

 

Ford knows best, huh? Is that why they issued a profit warning yesterday...amidst consecutive market share declines?

I'll say it again, it's choices like the 'nickel and diming' with the SRA that are resulting in Ford's poor corporate performance.

Yeah, the '05 mustang is selling well...but I'll hazard to guess most of the sales are repeat mustang owners (like myself). The key is...I'll bet it's not selling where Ford *needs* to sell: those that have NEVER owned a mustang before...those that are buying the RX-8, Mazda 6, Corvette, 350Z etc. That crowd will never consider a SRA on any car...let alone on something the calibre of the SVT.

The stated objective of the '05 mustang is to ingrain brand loyalty into the youth market...hoping those that buy the '05 will eventually 'trade up' to the more up scale Ford brands as they mature economically.

Will it the '05 mustang has this desired effect? Only time will tell.
[/b][/quote]
You don't know what you are talking about, Mustang sales account for a small percentage of Ford's total sales. Ford Truck and SUV sales are down which is a large bulk of it's total sales and is why Ford's total numbers are down, it's not because a SRA is in the Mustang. And the list of cars you listed that the Mustang should be stealing sales from is pretty rediculous as well, the RX-8 and Mazda 6, not to mention the 6 is a mid-size sedan both put money in Ford's pockets. Corvette and Mustang are far from comparable, one is a 2-seater and at least $15k more. 350Z also no back seat, and I won't buy a car that is 2-seat only.

 

You're missing my point, which was that the '05 Mustang was intended to reach out to new markets.

And Ford only owns 33% of Mazda, a minority stake...so the RX-8 and 6 don't put that much money into Ford's pocket.

You don't think my lineup of cars is relevant. Well, at the dealership where I bought my '05, there was an Audi Quattro TT that was traded in for a '05...and that's what I'm saying about trying to reach new markets.

 

I would agree that Ford ought not to satisfy themselves by simply preaching to the choir in terms of who their trying to appeal to with the new Stang, and perhaps ending up being a bit narrow in reach by only listening to that choir.

While the Stang’s sales are, nicely, quite nice now, there probably is some point in that a lot of that may be a flood of pent up demand from the Mustang faithful finally thankful to actually have a truly new horse, not a gussied up 1/4 century old gray mare.

Ford can, should and must reach out beyond the safe and snug if they wish to regain, first, customer respect and then market share. I think Ford is playing it too safe in some regards with not only the Stang, but also the 500 and other products, which seem to reflect as much a bean-counter’s approach to financial and marketing woes (i.e., cut back and cut corners and play it safe, assuaged by marketing's self-gratifying pollings) as an engineering approach (let's spend what necessary up front to earn back our market share and profits). I highly suspect this bean-counter’s strategy is what really doomed the IRS, which SVT had been saying they were going to do for the SVT, rather than reflecting a true engineering-style decision to stem the money hemorrhage through producing excellent, world-class product.

So while the choir -- the drag racing faithful who've stuck with the mediocre chassised Fox-Stang purely for its V8 RWD chassis -- are quite content with a spruce log rear, other, more broad-minded potential converts (customers) may not be quite so blasé with the ride/handling compromise that results. They may well rightly ask why they should accept a bumptious rough road ride for a level of handling Ford's competition delivers without glutteal punishment, even if they don't have a clue as to what the tech specs of their respective cross-shopped rides are.

Ford will of course insist that the SRA is every bit as good as a contemporary IRS, what else would they say -- "Sorry for the second rate rear end, the suits in accounting made us cut corners somewhere and marketing said the drag racers would be content with leaf springs out back." And it probably is good enough in a lot of measures. But in this ultra-competitive environment, is good enough good enough? Will the dollar saved today be 2 dollars lost in the future?

 

Agreed Rhumb (et al). The point was to be able to penetrate new markets, not just the old ones. Ford even said "Cobra goes after 3 series". Most bimmer drivers aren't going to want a second rate rear-end. And Ford gave everyone ammo to attack them with. Ever driver that looks at the mustang and audi and 3 series, toyota/lexus, etc., the Germans/Japanese car dealers are going to say, "what else you looking at? Oh, that stang? Kinda retro, 1960's interior, and the back end is from the 50's". Most drivers don't know much, but they'll get the point, and it will be harder for Ford to make the sale. That doesn't mean it won't sell, just less than it would have.

 

The majority of those buyers could care less about SRA vs IRS. They buy the cars because they look cool and/or have status. I bet if you polled all new Mustang Buyers, not just the enthusiast types on these boards, that a significant portion don't even know the difference.

 

Couldn't disagree with you more.

How do you explain the hot selling WRX's and EVO's??? It's not just the ricer set buying up those cars...I also see a lot of 30+ executive types driving those cars...and they sure didn't buy them for their looks.

The average car buyer today is more sophisticated than ever in terms of what they want both on the outside AND the inside.

 

And for those who think an IRS can't handle a drag strip too (from The CarFanatics.com):

http://familysedan.crawlinjunk.com/marko-845-incar.wmv

8.45@162mph

Marko's White Supra, built by SPE.

full weight, equipped w/AC, stereo, powersteering, full interior.
With the 200+lb roll cage it weighs ~3600lbs

It holds the record for fastest street car on an IRS (independant rear suspension).

The quickest full wt street trim car belongs to Chad a Viper owner, it has trapped 170mph, and has run 8.75@168.
It is also the only 6spd manual IRS equipped car to run the 1/4mi in the 8's.

Marko just put down 1491rwhp
which translates to 1900hp or roughly 6 times the Supra's original hp
at this power level it might just run 7's

OEM block
OEM rearend w/TRD LSD.

Marko has driven it over 5000mi this summer, he even lets valet park it when he goes out.

 

Couldn't disagree with you more.

How do you explain the hot selling WRX's and EVO's??? It's not just the ricer set buying up those cars...I also see a lot of 30+ executive types driving those cars...and they sure didn't buy them for their looks.

The average car buyer today is more sophisticated than ever in terms of what they want both on the outside AND the inside.
[/b][/quote]
I can explain it 3 ways.

1. cool car
2. fast car
3. bang for buck

I don't like the look of them, but, I'm sure they do.

Same thing, if you poll those guys, I bet very few would say "I bought this car because it has IRS" They might say "because it handles well", but, as has been discussed, SRA can handle well also.

 

Look, there are multiple issues with IRS/SRA

1) Technology -- from a more advanced technology point of view, IRS is better. It handles the bumpies better, has less unsprung weight, is considered more modern. That's why almost everyone has gone to it.

2) Marketing -- from a hype point of view people hear popular and think it means good. It takes one dealer/friend to put FUD (Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt) in someone's mind. "That's old school, not in a good way". And you made the sale harder. "Now with Bran" sells stuff -- doesn't matter if it is better, it matters if people think it is better.

From both views, if you're going to take on the Germans and Japanese, IRS was a better choice. From engineering, it's a little grayer. On the track, I don't doubt that SRA can be the better choice, at least in some cases. On the strip, I don't doubt it either. But if you're different than everyone else, and your different is seen as less than by most of the buying public and non-partisan gear-heads, then you're going to have a tougher time making a sale. And that was the purpose -- to step the car up a league, not hold it back. Instead they're catering to the old-schoolers who would buy it either way.

The car is still a good car. It will make sales because of its power/cost, because of its style/cost -- but it without things like SMG/DSG or IRS it is going to fail to capture the people that are into the image of having the latest-greatest, of having the best technology/cost (or just technology at any price). So it is a much tougher sale up the food chain. Which frustrates me because I wanted to see Ford penetrate new markets easier. Every troglodyte or rice-driver can use tired arguments like "sure it's cheap, because it was built that way", or smack like that. And that is nobody's fault but ford. Almost every other manufacturer out their makes their performance cars with IRS -- so this will be seen as a weakness. (Whether it is one or not).

 

I agree. Wheather it's a weakness or not, it will certainly be in the back of my mind when it comes to making a decision to buy or not to. The problem is that this is such a rare car, a testdrive will be: 1.) hard to come by and 2.) will be too short or over the wrong type of streets to reveal any problems. So in the end I'll be left questioning the SRA. I'm already lean toward the Corvette as it is...this and the weight could put me over the edge.

 

It's still enough to have controlling interest in Mazda.

 

go buy a buick, your either gay, too old, or caniadian/french
[/quote]


What a jerk!