Interesting quote from Corral.net talking about a development mule, etc:

http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=647398

Pretty much what I suspected.

The $36K sounds reasonable given past Cobras and the lack of a presumably expensive IRS (I'll bet a lot of the cost was run-up due to inept project management as Coletti and team (and pretty much every other manufacturer in the world) had shown earlier that an IRS can be done affordably, reliably and effectively).

Guess $4K to stroke ol Shelby's ego or something. Mighty expensive stickers and emblems, would rather that $4K went into something that made the car function better.

Perhaps this guy's source is right and it might appear a few years down the line yet in response to customer demand and competitive pressure and we'll get full spectrum handling fully on par with the powertrain.

 

...like the IRS.

It does make sense, but $4k sounds awefully high. I imagine some of that (if it is real) is Ford profit taking and not going directly to Caroll's pockets. Which is good, because Ford needs it right now.

I also think Ford is keeping the IRS in reserve to bring it back out when interest dies a little -- no reason to put all the cards on the table when you can't produce enough to satisfy demand as it is. Plus, this means they can keep the platform that much longer without a ground-up re-do.

Not how I would play it, but logical none-the-less.

 

Not how I would play it either, and it tells me that Ford is catering to their lowest common denominator buyers as more and more people shift to imports and Ford hemorrhages more and more money. It's a Pleistocene strategy that this car should have long since been elevated above, and if left uncorrected will spell the evenual end of Ford Motor Co.

 

I'm still amazed at the number of people on this board who obviously really only care about wether or not there is an IRS under the rear and could, in truth, care less about wether or not that improves handling, ride, or the balance between the two significantly. Why do I say this? Several of these folks have at times wondered aloud (or at least on their keyboard) over the Nissan 350Z for one.

Why does this prove my point? The 350Z handles pretty good, but not nearly good enough to justify it's "What, you plan to keep those kidneys?" ride. In fact, even with improvements made during it's short lifetime the car is still no marvel of ride and handling. Even in the softer-riding, non-Track models this car just rides harshly.

Do we get incredible handling back for all this punishment? Not really. The car is not what one would call predictable when driven hard and I don't mean this in a rwd 911 Turbo "fun" kind of way. Drive one and you will see what I mean. And, while I don't have testing equipment my limited seat time in both leads me to the same conclusion as most of the major auto rags. In the non Track-model versions the 350Z is really not a significantly better handling car than the Mustang GT.

In fact, given the Mustang's seriously better ride and skinny, all-season tires the fact that the 350Z cannot kick the SRA-equipped Mustang GT's hiney all over the place says volumes. When sitting in the seat, the Mustang feels more predictable, better planted on all but seriously rough roads, and just plain more fun than the Nissan.

IMO the G35 in both versions is a much better balance between ride and handling on the same chassis than is the 350Z. But, that is not the point. This is a best effort car from Nissan and should put the Mustang on the trailer with no excuses given it's price and IRS, but it just does not do it.

So, how can the same people who swoon over the 350Z in spite of all of it's imperfections effectively trash an as-yet untested car with what promises to be a seriously improved version of an already impressive suspension? Easy....for a large portion of the naysayers handling, balance, and ride are not the real issues here as some have likely figured out already. Wether or not that car has an IRS regardless of handling is obviously playing a large role in this debate.

 

Actually, if you go back and have a look, most of the automotive press rank the 350Z as a significantly more poised handler than the GT.

And the 350Z's rougher ride has nothing to do with having an IRS. In fact, if it didn't have IRS, the ride would be beyond punishing...it would be intolerable.

 

I'm not the type to do this but your last phrase there, contradicts itself.
YOu are right that the IRS has nothing to do with it's harsh ride. That is due to the springs and shocks. But then you say that if it didn't have IRS it would be worse? Thought that had nothing to do with the harsh ride?
If it had a SRA, it would have to have a higher ride height which would allow for softer settings, whether or not they would put that in, who knows.

 

Because of the increased unsprung weight of an SRA, Nissan would have to use even stiffer rear springs which would make the ride even worse.

So, no, the statement is not contradictory at all.

 

Yeah stupid beer swilling knuckle dragging slack jawed troglodytes.

Somebody needs to do them a favor and get them all in spot and drop a MOAB on them so the mustang can evolve into Enzo fighter it should have always been

 

Simply having an IRS is and of itself no guarantee of excellent handling and ride qualities, though, in general, a good IRS ought to offer better handling and ride than a live axle. But the final judgment, as in any engineering endeavor, is in the execution of the details. And in any suspension, the details of geometry, tuning, calibrations, etc., can make a huge qualitative difference in how the thang actually works, whether on track, strip, or most challengingly, on real world roads.

The Mustang's SRA live axle design is probably getting to about as good as that type of design can get, and it is pretty darned good, especially if bang for the buck is factored in and the buck variable is given lots of weighting in the equation. But alas, as mentioned ad nauseum, any live axle design does have rather significant inherent weaknesses and liabilities, no matter how well executed.

Of course, the best live axle design can be compared to a mediocrely executed IRS design ("Gee, the Mustang's SRA handles better than my '53 Beetle's swing axle IRS, so see, IRS's all stink"). And the 350Z does seem to suffer from some overly stiff, non-compliant tuning.

I might suggest, for comparison, something from the Ford extended family for another comparison: the RX-8, which I think represents one of the finest street tuned suspensions today. At once reasonably supple over the bumps, yet very well controlled, communicative and poised in any maneuver over any road surface. And that car starts at around $25K with a boatload of features -- engineering and comfort -- so were not talking some exotic with stratospheric pricing.

Again, no one is suggesting that the Mustang's SRA rear suspension stinks, indeed, it's probably the epitome of the type (live axle). Rather, I think what we IRS advocates are suggesting is that the Stang could move its dynamic qualities up another significant notch with an IRS option available in the more premium versions and make it a truly fully fledged, world class car in all performance categories, not just a straight line bomber down the 1/4 mile.

The live axle does make very good sense for the lower end models (base, GT) in view of the bang for the buck and affordability factor, and perhaps too in more single-focus drag varients (Mach Is). But it makes far less sense for the putative nth degree GT500 ultimate Mustang ROAD car, unless that too, whether by design or economically driven default, is also now aimed as a more narrow focus straight-line boomer.

Apparently, given some recent inside rumors and leaks, SVT did have a fully engineered IRS ready to roll, one that according to the grapevine even launched well for the benefit of the quarter horses, but that it was killed by *****rdly accountants to the dismay and great disappointment of the engineers.

While the drag racers certainly won't care as Nth degree chassis/ride/handling dynamics is as important to them as auto-sensing cup holders, those who do look for the same level of performance excellence in the other 359 degrees of the performance compass beyond dead ahead are understandably disappointed.

Of course, HTT and SVT are putting the best face on a situation forced on them by Ford's corporate suits and bean counters (the very ones who've gotten them in such dire financial straights), desperate to stem short term fiscal hemorrhaging, and the GT500 will be a fine performance piece still, especially in terms of drive train performance. But not the fully fleshed world class car on all criteria as was intimated by Ford and expected by many.

But presumably if the engineering is essentially done, that bodes a bit better for an IRS option to be available in the future, perhaps in response to upcoming competition, once Ford extricates itself out of its current financial miasma.

 

Exactly.

 

Or at least a person of modest income's M3/M4 fighter

 

Well, I personally could care less about the ride... but then again, I'm only 21 (soon to be 22).

I personally am looking forward to an SRA '07 Shelby. Especially since the '05 Mustang GT in the Grand AM Series is kicking SERIOUS butt. It's won 4 out of the 5 races in the series so far and has beaten out IRS brands like BMW and Porsche. Can't argue with those numbers!

 

True. I think we're redundantly rehashing academic arguments here that may have nothing to do at all with the car's ultimate, aggregate performance.

In the absence of news, we just need something over which to ruminate, cogitate and argue.

 

Yeah, but can Ford afford to do that, and can we as Mustangers allow Ford to do that. In this ultra-competitive market, Ford really can't hold anything back, especially if the engineering and resources have been expended on things like IRS.

Also, another thing to consider that every decision HTT and Ford has made with the Mustang, whether right or wrong, has been justified by the market. So giving Detroit's rather insular thinking, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", I don't see Ford rushing out making any major or significant improvements to the Mustang. Also, with Ford hemmorhaging money and being reduced to "junk" bond status, their not going to be keen on spending money on what is essentially a niche product.

As much as I hate to admit it, I don't think we're going to see IRS in this platform Mustang ever. From Ford's POV, no matter how much we b**ch and moan, there's no reason for it. The SRA is good enough. Also, unless Ford gets it's financial house in order, this may be the last generation Mustang we ever see.

 

How some people can flip out and doom an entire line of cars because of one special edition car that won't make Ford 1/100th of what it makes in its more mainstream lineups (even if it sells like hot cakes) and HASN'T EVEN BEEN PRODUCED YET is beyond me.

Just wow... I sincerely think some people here may be eating their words in five years.

 

On the flip side of the coin, 95% of the people on here are wetting themselves over car that hasn't gone into production yet. From listening to people, you'd think the GT500 would spank everything this side of a Ferrari Enzo.

Let's be honest, neither side has been honest or objective in this matter.

 

No IRS here I'm a true blue SRA guy. Plus there's less to fix and when you have to fix it its easier and cheaper.

 

The RX8's IRS is not the only reason for its great handling. There are a lot of other factors that make much bigger differences.

Weight:
RX8: 3080 #
MGT: 3500 #
GT500: 3600-3800#

Engine placement:
RX8: front-mid engine placement
MGT: front engine
GT500: ditto

Weight distribution:
While both the MGT and RX8 share similar weight distribution (50/50) the placement of the weight makes a large difference. RX8 has the majority of it's weight concentrated between the axles. Where as the MGT has the weight closer to the poles.

Center of gravity (one of the biggest factors). The RX8's engine may be 1/2 ot a 1/3 the size of the MGT's 4.6. It's able to place the weight back and really low to give the car a very good low center of gravity. This low center of gravity is what allows the RX8 to run supple spring rates and still run 70+mph slaloms.

Like it or not, no matter what kind of suspension the GT500 has, it will never handle like an RX8. IRS may make it handle marginally better but it's certainly won't work wonders. And for $5k price tag, the difference between the IRS and SRA may be so small that frankly, I'd rather save the money or put the money where it would make a significant difference.

 

Awww, now your beating me to my argument that the Stang ought to go to a two-cylinder, cast iron, flathead, carburated motor than that fancy-smancy foreign look'n 3V V8, made out of aluminum (I heard French cars make their motors out of aluminum and you all know what THAT means!) Think of all that money saved from all those silly cylinders and how easy it is to fix and maintain that thang -- ain't noth'n to go wrong with it, just like that live axle.

As for comparisons with other cars, of course you don't want to go too far ("well, the RX-8 has a Nav system, so the comparison's totally moot..."), but I do think it does, BROADLY, indicate the role a good IRS, in concert with other design elements of course, can play in greatly expanding a vehicle's ride AND handling dynamic envelope.

And certainly low weight, low CG, low polar moment of inertia, etc. can also play significant parts in a vehicles performance, many of which, by the way, the S197 HAS adopted over the antedeluvian SN95 chassis to good effect (nobodies arguing that the S197 chassis is a total flop -- quite the opposite, it's generally excellent -- just that they might have gone that extra yard on the premier model to make it fully world class in all aspects).

Certainly any Mustang will never handle with the deft adroitness of an RX-8, but that's not to say its dynamic ride/handling envelope can't be improved.

I think that $3K-$5K-$8K-whatever other silly numbers are thrown around in terms of IRS cost is just total bunk. Judging by SVT's ability to develop an IRS for a chassis never even intended for one at a very minimal cost premium (see my other posts on this topic) clearly belies these numbers, unless the current SVT crew are just inept or something.

But in terms of money spent vs benefit gained, after a certain point, just how much benefit is gained by another 75-100hp the GT500 will have over the extremely fast Cobras of 2003-4? Some argue against IRS in that its benefits in Nth degree handling can't/ought not to be realized on the street anyway. But really, is 500hp any more safe or usable on the street either? Is this single-minded focus on HP and straight line speed, and resultant HP war, getting a bit out of hand? But that's for another topic really.

 

Not to pick on you directly. But it seems like everytime this IRS/SRA debate comes up. Someone inevitably brings up a historical point of view that is completely irrelevant. Such as 2 cylinder engines. Or my other favorite... Buggy suspension. I tell you what. Since you and the others have asked such a question. I will work to build such a mustang. From a body in white. Then you will be forced to buy it. Since it is the car you talk about. When I say I don't mind the SRA. At least I am willing to buy the car I am talking about. Mind you I do wish IRS was an option. And if it was. I would more than likely add that option to my car. But I am not bitter that they did not add it.