SRA or IRS
GT Member
Joined: April 6, 2004
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Originally posted by dke@April 13, 2005, 10:56 AM
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).
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).
For me it's not so much the image of IRS. heck, if I wanted a car solely for IRS, I would have bought one a long time. But at this day and age, at a time when the Mustang needed to get into the 21st century, excluding IRS from the halo Mustang just seems very anachronistic and catering to a very small percentage of the Mustang crowd (at least that's they're argument....I think they just cheaped out because of the beancounters).
Bullitt Member
Joined: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
I'm not sure I got the point of your post -- but I think I agree with the last part.
So because GM screwed up worse, that should let Ford off the hook? That argument makes no sense to me. Personally, I think the Cadilac's are competing more with the Bimmers than the Mustang is (in the public's eye) -- though they're playing more in the 5 and 7 series. (But I find the caddy's too expensive, and they look they were designed by a Samurai with a sword and a block of wood). I don't know of anything in GM's stable that takes on the 3.
<!--QuoteBegin-Joes66Pony@April 17, 2005, 8:32 PM
For me it's not so much the image of IRS. heck, if I wanted a car solely for IRS, I would have bought one a long time. But at this day and age, at a time when the Mustang needed to get into the 21st century, excluding IRS from the halo Mustang just seems very anachronistic and catering to a very small percentage of the Mustang crowd (at least that's they're argument....I think they just cheaped out because of the beancounters).
[/quote]
I don't think anyone wnats a car JUST for IRS. But people want a car for dozens of reasons; but want to believe that it a technically advanced piece of machinery, with all the latest luxuries/technologies/ammenities. As you said, many think it has the rear-end it has just because bean-counters control Ford. And that's not a good marketing message. When you get to luxuries or ammenities, it isn't even close. Ford went for their old market (cheap), instead of the new market they were claiming to.
There's some irony here. The pontiac G6 is seen as "cheap" because it only has a 4 speed automatic tranny, while the competition has 5 or even 6. But the G6 has some of the best acceleration times and better milage in its class. But it doesn't matter; even if the 4 speed isn't holding it back, people THINK it is, and it is a barrier to sale. I see that like their version of SRA.
Originally posted by Joes66Pony+April 17, 2005, 8:32 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joes66Pony @ April 17, 2005, 8:32 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I can't help but think that people are still trying to run from the ghosts of GM's f-bodies. For a car that was supposed to take on the M3 and attract such buyers, they sertainly did things that would turn most potential M3 owners off.[/b]
So because GM screwed up worse, that should let Ford off the hook? That argument makes no sense to me. Personally, I think the Cadilac's are competing more with the Bimmers than the Mustang is (in the public's eye) -- though they're playing more in the 5 and 7 series. (But I find the caddy's too expensive, and they look they were designed by a Samurai with a sword and a block of wood). I don't know of anything in GM's stable that takes on the 3.
<!--QuoteBegin-Joes66Pony@April 17, 2005, 8:32 PM
For me it's not so much the image of IRS. heck, if I wanted a car solely for IRS, I would have bought one a long time. But at this day and age, at a time when the Mustang needed to get into the 21st century, excluding IRS from the halo Mustang just seems very anachronistic and catering to a very small percentage of the Mustang crowd (at least that's they're argument....I think they just cheaped out because of the beancounters).
[/quote]
I don't think anyone wnats a car JUST for IRS. But people want a car for dozens of reasons; but want to believe that it a technically advanced piece of machinery, with all the latest luxuries/technologies/ammenities. As you said, many think it has the rear-end it has just because bean-counters control Ford. And that's not a good marketing message. When you get to luxuries or ammenities, it isn't even close. Ford went for their old market (cheap), instead of the new market they were claiming to.
There's some irony here. The pontiac G6 is seen as "cheap" because it only has a 4 speed automatic tranny, while the competition has 5 or even 6. But the G6 has some of the best acceleration times and better milage in its class. But it doesn't matter; even if the 4 speed isn't holding it back, people THINK it is, and it is a barrier to sale. I see that like their version of SRA.
GT Member
Joined: April 6, 2004
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Originally posted by dke+April 18, 2005, 4:01 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dke @ April 18, 2005, 4:01 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not sure I got the point of your post -- but I think I agree with the last part.
So because GM screwed up worse, that should let Ford off the hook? That argument makes no sense to me. Personally, I think the Cadilac's are competing more with the Bimmers than the Mustang is (in the public's eye) -- though they're playing more in the 5 and 7 series. (But I find the caddy's too expensive, and they look they were designed by a Samurai with a sword and a block of wood). I don't know of anything in GM's stable that takes on the 3.
<!--QuoteBegin-Joes66Pony@April 17, 2005, 8:32 PM
For me it's not so much the image of IRS. heck, if I wanted a car solely for IRS, I would have bought one a long time. But at this day and age, at a time when the Mustang needed to get into the 21st century, excluding IRS from the halo Mustang just seems very anachronistic and catering to a very small percentage of the Mustang crowd (at least that's they're argument....I think they just cheaped out because of the beancounters).
Originally posted by Joes66Pony@April 17, 2005, 8:32 PM
I can't help but think that people are still trying to run from the ghosts of GM's f-bodies. For a car that was supposed to take on the M3 and attract such buyers, they sertainly did things that would turn most potential M3 owners off.
I can't help but think that people are still trying to run from the ghosts of GM's f-bodies. For a car that was supposed to take on the M3 and attract such buyers, they sertainly did things that would turn most potential M3 owners off.
<!--QuoteBegin-Joes66Pony@April 17, 2005, 8:32 PM
For me it's not so much the image of IRS. heck, if I wanted a car solely for IRS, I would have bought one a long time. But at this day and age, at a time when the Mustang needed to get into the 21st century, excluding IRS from the halo Mustang just seems very anachronistic and catering to a very small percentage of the Mustang crowd (at least that's they're argument....I think they just cheaped out because of the beancounters).
There's some irony here. The pontiac G6 is seen as "cheap" because it only has a 4 speed automatic tranny, while the competition has 5 or even 6. But the G6 has some of the best acceleration times and better milage in its class. But it doesn't matter; even if the 4 speed isn't holding it back, people THINK it is, and it is a barrier to sale. I see that like their version of SRA.
[/b][/quote]
My point about the M3 is that everybody at SVT set the M3 as the target for the Cobra, the M3 was the benchmark. But with the GT500, it seems more like Ford (and many of the posters here) are still trying to chase away the ghosts of GM's F-Bodies. They seem more concerned about what GM and DCX is doing than what the Mustang's real competitors are.
So for a car that was supposed to go after the M3 and attract that sort of buyer, Ford and SVT seem to be doing everything they can to NOT attract it, and cater to the hardcore Mustanger, rather than expand the car's market potential.
Your point about the G6 is spot on. The LaCrosse is another example where the image and reputation of the company can really hurt a capabe car. The interior of the LaCrosse has been getting very good reviews...but because the market for so long has had a bad image of GM interiors, that the car is hardly getting noticed. You're right, the idea that Ford shelved IRS for cost cutting is the wrong message to send...and will come back to bite Ford.
GTR Member
Joined: October 30, 2004
Posts: 4,999
Likes: 0
[quote=Joes66Pony,April 17, 2005, 9:32 PM]
IRS weighs 150lbs more than SRA from what i hear
Originally Posted by dke,April 13, 2005, 10:56 AM
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).
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).
Mach 1 Member
Joined: March 16, 2004
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
You know... I am really sick of these threads about IRS and all. It was OK in the beginning, but now it's getting rediculous. It doesn't matter what any of YOU or I think. It's what it's logical for the producer and cost effective. Whether they have SRA or IRS is of no choice to anyone in the world unless you actually WORK for Ford and have undeniable proof one way or another that IRS will work better then SRA or visa-versa.
Just leave it to the manufacturer's R&D and step out of the way. Granted, as a consumer, what the consumer wants is sometimes helpful to the industry it also doesn't do one freakin thing to pursuade the mufacturer to sway one way or another if they don't see fit.
Some...MOST of you wouldn't even use 3% of the suspension's capabilities any how. Not to take one side or another, but looking at the 05's racing record I don't see any argument that needs to take place. I really don't care one way or another about the suspension setup as long as I can afford it and not loose control when I take a corner....that's it.
So Please...get off it.
Just leave it to the manufacturer's R&D and step out of the way. Granted, as a consumer, what the consumer wants is sometimes helpful to the industry it also doesn't do one freakin thing to pursuade the mufacturer to sway one way or another if they don't see fit.
Some...MOST of you wouldn't even use 3% of the suspension's capabilities any how. Not to take one side or another, but looking at the 05's racing record I don't see any argument that needs to take place. I really don't care one way or another about the suspension setup as long as I can afford it and not loose control when I take a corner....that's it.
So Please...get off it.
Bullitt Member
Joined: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Ford Racing (Mr. Doug), whether Ford's implementation adds less weight than a driver is not really the point. Other companies manage to add it AND have cars that weight less than the mustang (and are quieter and have chassis as stiff, etc.). So I have no doubt Ford could have made up those 150 lbs (and more) if they wanted.
TwilightBlu, OK. You're sick of IRS posts. I was frustrated (as are many others) that Ford said they were going to have it, then said, "changed our minds". I get your point about leaving engineering to the engineers -- but that's not human nature. We compare things to decide on what is the better value -- and like it or not, if people had two identical cars, one with IRS and one with SRA, at the exact same price/features/etc, most would choose the IRS car. And most would be right to. That's the point many are trying to make -- Ford hurt themselves in a cost cutting measure.
TwilightBlu, OK. You're sick of IRS posts. I was frustrated (as are many others) that Ford said they were going to have it, then said, "changed our minds". I get your point about leaving engineering to the engineers -- but that's not human nature. We compare things to decide on what is the better value -- and like it or not, if people had two identical cars, one with IRS and one with SRA, at the exact same price/features/etc, most would choose the IRS car. And most would be right to. That's the point many are trying to make -- Ford hurt themselves in a cost cutting measure.
V6 Member
Joined: March 27, 2005
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Originally posted by dke@April 20, 2005, 4:28 AM
... if people had two identical cars, one with IRS and one with SRA, at the exact same price/features/etc, most would choose the IRS car. And most would be right to. That's the point many are trying to make -- Ford hurt themselves in a cost cutting measure.
... if people had two identical cars, one with IRS and one with SRA, at the exact same price/features/etc, most would choose the IRS car. And most would be right to. That's the point many are trying to make -- Ford hurt themselves in a cost cutting measure.
I own a '01 Cobra and I can not stand having the IRS...the wheel hop drives me nuts and it's very embarrassing when I have other passengers in the car with me.
Therefore I would be very skeptical about buying the GT500 if it had IRS. Because I would be afraid that it would also exhibit wheel hop under hard acceleration. Unfortunately for us, we probably would not get the opportunity to test drive one and determine whether or not it wheel hops. Hence I would choose the SRA (if it were an option).
Maybe this is the real reason SVT will not offer IRS; they don't want their flagship car wheel-hopping next to an M3. :bang:
By the way, is the wheel-hopping unique to the mustangs?...do other RWD cars with IRS wheel-hop too?
GT Member
Joined: April 6, 2004
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Auburnman+April 20, 2005, 8:07 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Auburnman @ April 20, 2005, 8:07 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-dke@April 20, 2005, 4:28 AM
... if people had two identical cars, one with IRS and one with SRA, at the exact same price/features/etc, most would choose the IRS car. And most would be right to. That's the point many are trying to make -- Ford hurt themselves in a cost cutting measure.
... if people had two identical cars, one with IRS and one with SRA, at the exact same price/features/etc, most would choose the IRS car. And most would be right to. That's the point many are trying to make -- Ford hurt themselves in a cost cutting measure.
I own a '01 Cobra and I can not stand having the IRS...the wheel hop drives me nuts and it's very embarrassing when I have other passengers in the car with me.
Therefore I would be very skeptical about buying the GT500 if it had IRS. Because I would be afraid that it would also exhibit wheel hop under hard acceleration. Unfortunately for us, we probably would not get the opportunity to test drive one and determine whether or not it wheel hops. Hence I would choose the SRA (if it were an option).
Maybe this is the real reason SVT will not offer IRS; they don't want their flagship car wheel-hopping next to an M3. :bang:
By the way, is the wheel-hopping unique to the mustangs?...do other RWD cars with IRS wheel-hop too?
[/b][/quote]
It's not unique to IRS at all...heck....watch "Bullitt" and you'll see McQueen got serious wheel hop out of that 9". And you can't really use your 01 as an example of why IRS is a bad idea. The IRS system used in 99-04 Cobras was a severely compromised set-up that had to be shoehorned into a chassis that was never designed for it.
Wheel hop is more down to suspension setting and tuning. There are plenty of RWD IRS cars that exhibit minimal to no wheel hop at all, just like there are SRA set ups that hop like grasshoppers.
Bullitt Member
Joined: September 28, 2004
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
JoesPony - Yeah, I have an M3 -- and I've hammered it in bumpy corners (or straight) and always been impressed with how well the wheels stay down. Now it is not exactly the torque of a V8 (let alone the cobra), but still. And I'd always thought wheel hop was more of an SRA problem, as every car that I had been in that had it was an older SRA car. (That isn't meant to inflame people, just let people know where I'm coming from).
V6 Member
Joined: March 27, 2005
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Joes66Pony+April 20, 2005, 10:22 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joes66Pony @ April 20, 2005, 10:22 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Wheel hop is more down to suspension setting and tuning. There are plenty of RWD IRS cars that exhibit minimal to no wheel hop at all, just like there are SRA set ups that hop like grasshoppers.
[/b]
[/b]
That's what I imagined, but I wasn't sure.
<!--QuoteBegin-Joes66Pony@April 20, 2005, 10:22 AM
And you can't really use your 01 as an example of why IRS is a bad idea. The IRS system used in 99-04 Cobras was a severely compromised set-up that had to be shoehorned into a chassis that was never designed for it.
[/quote]
Granted, the 99-04 Cobra's IRS was compromised from the beginning, but I wasn't trying to say that IRS, in general, is a bad idea. Just that it was a comprised setup in my car. Nevertheless, it still serves as a good example of Ford's finished product. So that's why I made a point to say that maybe the REAL reason why we won't see an IRS in the GT500 is because it would be comprised in some manner. And perhaps Ford realized this, so they thought the car will be better off with a SRA than to use a comprised setup with IRS. In other words, as low-tech as the SRA may seem in the public's eyes, at least Ford won't catch the harsher critizism from the public if they went with a comprised IRS system.
GT Member
Joined: April 6, 2004
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Auburnman+April 20, 2005, 10:12 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Auburnman @ April 20, 2005, 10:12 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
That's what I imagined, but I wasn't sure.
<!--QuoteBegin-Joes66Pony@April 20, 2005, 10:22 AM
And you can't really use your 01 as an example of why IRS is a bad idea. The IRS system used in 99-04 Cobras was a severely compromised set-up that had to be shoehorned into a chassis that was never designed for it.
Originally posted by Joes66Pony@April 20, 2005, 10:22 AM
Wheel hop is more down to suspension setting and tuning. There are plenty of RWD IRS cars that exhibit minimal to no wheel hop at all, just like there are SRA set ups that hop like grasshoppers.
Wheel hop is more down to suspension setting and tuning. There are plenty of RWD IRS cars that exhibit minimal to no wheel hop at all, just like there are SRA set ups that hop like grasshoppers.
<!--QuoteBegin-Joes66Pony@April 20, 2005, 10:22 AM
And you can't really use your 01 as an example of why IRS is a bad idea. The IRS system used in 99-04 Cobras was a severely compromised set-up that had to be shoehorned into a chassis that was never designed for it.
[/b][/quote]
You're right. And it wouldn't be an issue for me if it was the case. But right from the beginning, we were assured by HTT and Ford that the S197 chassis was designed for IRS right from the start. Installing IRS into the 05 Mustang was not in issue because the car was engineered for it right from the beginning. If the chassis wasn't designed for it, then I'd have no problem with SRA and would be singing it's praises. That not being the case, not including IRS in the GT500 or the Mustang in general (even as an option) just smacks of the beancounters throwing their weight around at a time when Ford needs to move ahead in their products.
I mean I'm surrised it took Ford to catch up with the imports and actually offer Variable Valve Technology for their engines, something the Japanese have been doing for the last decade or so.
V6 Member
Joined: March 27, 2005
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Montrose@April 20, 2005, 2:06 PM
Instead of SRA, what I really want is a SFA. Now, that would be retro.
Instead of SRA, what I really want is a SFA. Now, that would be retro.
GT Member
Joined: April 6, 2004
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Don't give the beancounters anymore ideas
GT Member
Joined: April 6, 2004
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Here's reason # whatever as to why we won't see IRS in the Mustang any time soon. You drag guys can start singing your hoseannas now.
Time to give up the heritage HTT. It works great with the look of the car....but it's 2005. By 2008 that spruce log is going to get very long in the tooth.
The latter dynamic brought up audience questions regarding why neither a six-speed manual transmission nor independent rear suspension appear in the final car.
Rather than give a political answer, Thai-Tang was direct on both counts, saying they had to make a choice between incremental performance improvements versus how much the equipment would add to the MSRP. And while the solid rear axle remains a bone of contention for hard core fans, Thai-Tang said he was convinced the majority of Mustang buyers were not among those calling for an independent rear.
In terms of the former dynamic -- honoring the Mustang tradition -- Thai-Tang said the team "showed a lot of reverence for the Mustang" and made a conscious decision to "go back and embrace our heritage."
Rather than give a political answer, Thai-Tang was direct on both counts, saying they had to make a choice between incremental performance improvements versus how much the equipment would add to the MSRP. And while the solid rear axle remains a bone of contention for hard core fans, Thai-Tang said he was convinced the majority of Mustang buyers were not among those calling for an independent rear.
In terms of the former dynamic -- honoring the Mustang tradition -- Thai-Tang said the team "showed a lot of reverence for the Mustang" and made a conscious decision to "go back and embrace our heritage."
Time to give up the heritage HTT. It works great with the look of the car....but it's 2005. By 2008 that spruce log is going to get very long in the tooth.