2011 Mustang vs ?
1/3/10, 06:40 PM
#41
GT Member
Join Date: September 10, 2009
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats funny is price out a fully loaded Focus..you are at $20k, a new Corolla is $22k fully loaded and so on. In the scheme of things you get a lot of car for $30k in a new Mustang. Where they will have an issue is the fact you can get into a Nissan 370Z for the same price range. Granted the Stang has back seats and more utility but there is competition in this price range and almost good enough isn't good enough anymore and Ford has realized this. I predict an IRS in the next few years and put the LRA out to pasture or the glue factory.
Dave
Dave
1/4/10, 12:02 AM
#42
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 8, 2007
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who knows, maybe if the Mustang gets an IRS it will actually go out on a track...Wouldn't that be a sight! No SRA equipped Mustang has ever performed on a track! That would be impossible!
1/4/10, 03:10 AM
#43
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 25, 2004
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, a track is smooth and prepped for racing and the driver doesn't care what the car feels like, as long as it is fast. Not to mention, the racing series all work to make sure the cars are roughly equal in competition. It is more about the driver and team than the platform these days. That is why a TSX and a Mazda 6 can beat a BMW 3 in the SWC Series--when we all know RWD is better (as just one example).
1/4/10, 02:26 PM
#44
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 8, 2007
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If having a SRA is so ground-shatteringly bad, as so many of the SRA bashers seem to think, then there would be no SRA-equipped Mustangs out racing, and certainly not winning. Since that clearly isn't the case, maybe they should find something else to whine and cry about.
1/4/10, 02:29 PM
#45
Banned
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People who want IRS want it for the street. IRS > SRA on the street. No way to argue against that. Racetracks are PERFECT roads. The streets are not.
1/4/10, 03:46 PM
#46
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: August 7, 2004
Location: Socal
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you read the post above you? IRS is not for the track! It is for the STREET where you have potholes, bumps, grooves and other real-world conditions where even the most tuned and race-ready SRA skips like crazy. Nobody here is saying its "ground-shatteringly" bad, if it was we wouldn't all own a S197! We're just saying Ford can do better. If they can put a 412HP 5.0 in a 3600 lb car, then they sure as heck can get a lightweight and cost effective IRS into our cars.
Last edited by jedikd; 1/4/10 at 03:48 PM.
1/4/10, 03:55 PM
#48
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason SRA equipped Mustang's win races is because they run "class" series that handicap certain makes and models to make the competition equal. Compare the FR500C's allowed "mods" to a 997 Porsche. When all is said and done, Ford uses a SRA due to cost.
1/4/10, 04:05 PM
#49
Legacy TMS Member
1/4/10, 04:28 PM
#51
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave
1/4/10, 04:30 PM
#52
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps, rather, the Mustang is returning to its pony car roots after a long muscle car foray. Remember that the original Mustang was somewhat of a rebuttal against the powerful but cloddish "muscle cars" of its day, what with tasteful good looks, relatively compact size, a refined and stylish interior, an emphasis on overall performance balance with its smallish 260/289 all at a good value and affordability.
The Mustang and the pony car image started off as a stylish, refined, well balanced good performer and really wasn't until they started stuffing powerful but heavy big blocks in the gen 2 Stang in '67 that it started really devolving, in part, into a muscle car, forfeiting some of its distinguishing pony car traits in the process. The Mustang since then has been all around the map in terms of identity, often inhabiting several personae at once, from insipid 4-6 banger secretary's special, small block pony car/road racer (Shelby 350, Boss 302), big block blunderbuss (428 Mach I, Boss 429) and various other flavors too (SVO, SVT, etc.). Perhaps it is this very flexibility that has allowed the Mustang to remain so competitive for so long and to pigeon hole it into just one category -- crude muscle car for example -- would be a mistake in both heritage and for its future viability.
Simple crudeness or other lack of capability, competence or refinement should not be what identifies the Mustang as a pony car as that is ends up being a rather perverse and detrimental identity -- should we also be putting back leaf springs, drum brakes and skinny bias ply tires lest it starts handling above its station? How about flat vinyl seats and tacky trim to keep it from getting too fancy for itself? "Rawness" should not be conflated with driving enjoyment -- my daddies '71 Ford pickup was as raw as it gets but certainly no joy to drive -- but rather, proper control feedback and communication. Is the contention that the Mustang is no longer a pony car because it doesn't suck enough in enough areas? Should the Mustang's capabilities somehow be constrained because it is getting too close to an M3's overall performance excellence (for half the price)?
Rather, keep it true to its pony car heritage by offering great overall balanced performance, sleek and refined good looks, great features and comfort all at an affordable price, just like the original pony car, the Mustang. I think the '11 should be complemented for keeping the pony car fresh, modern and competitive nearly a half century after its intro and not as some throwback retro-relic identified more by what it does badly than what it does well. That the Mustang is becoming so capable on so many fronts, getting remarkably close to becoming a working man's M3, one of the world's paragons of driving and performance excellence, is reason to cheer, not despair.
The Mustang and the pony car image started off as a stylish, refined, well balanced good performer and really wasn't until they started stuffing powerful but heavy big blocks in the gen 2 Stang in '67 that it started really devolving, in part, into a muscle car, forfeiting some of its distinguishing pony car traits in the process. The Mustang since then has been all around the map in terms of identity, often inhabiting several personae at once, from insipid 4-6 banger secretary's special, small block pony car/road racer (Shelby 350, Boss 302), big block blunderbuss (428 Mach I, Boss 429) and various other flavors too (SVO, SVT, etc.). Perhaps it is this very flexibility that has allowed the Mustang to remain so competitive for so long and to pigeon hole it into just one category -- crude muscle car for example -- would be a mistake in both heritage and for its future viability.
Simple crudeness or other lack of capability, competence or refinement should not be what identifies the Mustang as a pony car as that is ends up being a rather perverse and detrimental identity -- should we also be putting back leaf springs, drum brakes and skinny bias ply tires lest it starts handling above its station? How about flat vinyl seats and tacky trim to keep it from getting too fancy for itself? "Rawness" should not be conflated with driving enjoyment -- my daddies '71 Ford pickup was as raw as it gets but certainly no joy to drive -- but rather, proper control feedback and communication. Is the contention that the Mustang is no longer a pony car because it doesn't suck enough in enough areas? Should the Mustang's capabilities somehow be constrained because it is getting too close to an M3's overall performance excellence (for half the price)?
Rather, keep it true to its pony car heritage by offering great overall balanced performance, sleek and refined good looks, great features and comfort all at an affordable price, just like the original pony car, the Mustang. I think the '11 should be complemented for keeping the pony car fresh, modern and competitive nearly a half century after its intro and not as some throwback retro-relic identified more by what it does badly than what it does well. That the Mustang is becoming so capable on so many fronts, getting remarkably close to becoming a working man's M3, one of the world's paragons of driving and performance excellence, is reason to cheer, not despair.
1/5/10, 12:13 AM
#54
Legacy TMS Member
If Ford where to go IRS on the S-197 it would most likely add another 100 pounds or so when you include that cradle (which it would need, there are very few RWD unibody cars with big torque and big power engines that bolt the IRS directly to the unibody).
1/5/10, 10:15 AM
#55
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 23, 2008
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy enough with the actual IRS components, but so not gonna happen when they cradle the IRS for unibody duty unless Ford can come up with a cradle cast or forged from magnesium or aluminum or alloy of the two (as these are the most likely canidates).
If Ford where to go IRS on the S-197 it would most likely add another 100 pounds or so when you include that cradle (which it would need, there are very few RWD unibody cars with big torque and big power engines that bolt the IRS directly to the unibody).
If Ford where to go IRS on the S-197 it would most likely add another 100 pounds or so when you include that cradle (which it would need, there are very few RWD unibody cars with big torque and big power engines that bolt the IRS directly to the unibody).
Dave
1/7/10, 02:08 AM
#56
Legacy TMS Member
I was just commenting on Jedi's "Ford can design a lightweight IRS" 80 pounds is pretty good considering I was using the Camaro's IRS as a reference. GM's IRS sans cradle isn't all that heavy compared to an SRA, but add the structure needed to carry it and another 100 pounds pops right up.
Now this is comparing the F5's IRS to the 4th gen's 10 bolt (7.5 ??????) with 28 spline axles. Ford's IRS relative to the larger 8.8 with 31 spline axles might look better simply because the 8.8 in the S-197 is alot stouter compared to the GM 7.5 (pretty sure of that).
Ultimately I have other more practical reasons for liking an SRA in the Mustang along with a mac strut front end all of which goes back to cost of ownership due to maintenece. I've personally never have had to get an alignment on any Mustang I've owned. The simple and rugged nature of the chassis not only saved me the small expense of an alignment, but also the big expense on tires. Something I see with far more frequency on SLA and IRS or SLA/IRS cars.
Now this is comparing the F5's IRS to the 4th gen's 10 bolt (7.5 ??????) with 28 spline axles. Ford's IRS relative to the larger 8.8 with 31 spline axles might look better simply because the 8.8 in the S-197 is alot stouter compared to the GM 7.5 (pretty sure of that).
Ultimately I have other more practical reasons for liking an SRA in the Mustang along with a mac strut front end all of which goes back to cost of ownership due to maintenece. I've personally never have had to get an alignment on any Mustang I've owned. The simple and rugged nature of the chassis not only saved me the small expense of an alignment, but also the big expense on tires. Something I see with far more frequency on SLA and IRS or SLA/IRS cars.
Last edited by bob; 1/7/10 at 02:16 AM.
1/7/10, 11:56 PM
#57
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 25, 2004
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just commenting on Jedi's "Ford can design a lightweight IRS" 80 pounds is pretty good considering I was using the Camaro's IRS as a reference. GM's IRS sans cradle isn't all that heavy compared to an SRA, but add the structure needed to carry it and another 100 pounds pops right up.
source: http://www.thecarconnection.com/full...d_mustang_1999
"The IRS assembly weighs about 80 pounds more than the solid-axle setup on the Mustang GT
, but it allows a 125-lb reduction in unsprung suspension weight.".......
"It’s amazing, though, how aggressively you can drive the Cobra now. You can throw it very hard into corners — even bumpy ones — without worry that the rear will slide out unpredictably."
Really, I think there is a lot of misinformation and fear of change that keeps the SRA alive, so let's try to stick to sourceable information as much as possible.
Personally, I would love to see what Ford can do if they put their minds to it with the notion that all lines would have the IRS (to keep production prices lower), yet still keep the SRA for the Cobra Jet so draggers could swap it back in if they wanted. Everyone wins (including Ford). The rare cost of an alignment would surely be worth the better ride and performance for me!
1/8/10, 10:47 PM
#58
Legacy TMS Member
I am interested to hear why you think the IRS would add 180#, when the last IRS Ford used (to shoehorn into an SRA chassis) only added 80# total. And, that chassis was never supposed to have an IRS--opposed to the S197 which, if we are to believe the rumors, was originally designed for an IRS.!
Furthermore I suspect that Ford didn't really have some lightweight IRS to shoehorn in there, rather its because the 8.8 is rather beefy and the net gain with the IRS was only 80 pounds (had Ford used the 7.5 across the board for SRA the figure would have been higher closer to the 100 pounds I've been talking about).
1/17/10, 02:39 PM
#59
Cobra R Member
Join Date: December 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1,708
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Keep in mind...you have almost 10 years of inflation. You take $14k with an avg. of 3% inflation a year and it comes out to around $19k. Pretty much what you can buy a V6 Stang for today. Also keep in mind that a new V6 Mustang has more content...you can get Nav and a lot of other creature comforts you couldn't get in 2000 not to mention a much better put together car.
Dave
Dave
Who here on this forum has been getting a 3% raise in pay every year? Hasent been me/ So if you say its normal with inflation, thats one thing, but peoples pay hasent been rising at 3% yearly, so that fact remains the same .Prices rising wayy too fast for the middle class
Last edited by UnrealFord; 1/17/10 at 02:41 PM.
1/17/10, 02:55 PM
#60
Cobra Member
Who here on this forum has been getting a 3% raise in pay every year? Hasent been me/ So if you say its normal with inflation, thats one thing, but peoples pay hasent been rising at 3% yearly, so that fact remains the same .Prices rising wayy too fast for the middle class