Ford already has the Australian control blade IRS that is “beefed” up. Like I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of Mustangs are stock and will never see the track. They serve their purpose as daily transportation. In the real world with bumps and potholes, an IRS really shines in ride and control.

 

don't know about that one brother! everyday drivin i aint felt much a difference between the two how fast you taking them turns haha!!!

 

Hear in Chicago, the roads this time of year are horrible. I have my Mustang and a IRS equipped car to choose from. I notice a difference immediately just driving in a straight line. The IRS car soaks up the bumps much better without the rear end getting unsettled. It also handles mid-corner bumps much better.

Sometimes I have been know to push the car hard around corners/on-ramps

Right now as a comprimise, I'd take a SLA front suspension and a Watts rear. That would tide me over until the next platfrom has an IRS rear!

 

sweeeeeeet

 

Honestly, I know that you guys can drive!! Here in Michigan, the spring flowers are in full bloom (Orange construction barrels, state flower of Michigan!!) so I fully know everything there is to know about potholes, bumps and such. And, yes, an IRS will soak up the potholes and bumps much better than a SRA, but the problem I have is that know one here ever compares the S197 against the previous platforms, just the competitors and possible competitors. Here at the plant, we use the same test track for both the Mustang and the Mazda, and yes the fully independent suspension in the Mazda works better, but the 'stang is right there with it!! And, its not like the IRS is some new technology, the Mercedes Gullwing had it in the '50's, Jags have had it for about the same. Except for the '99+ Cobras, this Mustang outhandles pretty much all other Mustangs hands down.

 

I say no to the IRS. I think the mustangs price is already too high. Carry over as much as possible and make the car cheaper.

 

Yes, beleive it or not, an SRA takes up more space than an IRS, not so much in the actual packaging of the suspension, but the space it has to operate in, the whole suspension is moving around where an IRS only moves at the ends.

 

This is a no BS'er, the 3rd Gen SLP SS Z/28 was able to best the C5 vette around one of GM's test venues.

 

Lol, last night I was on the way home from Va Beach, and it struck me how the roads in Va Beach and Chicago were very similar.



If Ford was sticking with the SRA for the next gen Mustang, that would prove to be an excellent upgrade, especially if the next car employs the "virtual pivot" front suspension.

 

Compared to which Mazda?

I know IRS isn't new, but it's what every performance car uses. The S197 handles pretty good from the factory. A lot of that has to do with the chassis rigidity. I'd love to see what a S197 with a well designed IRS rear could do. I think it would suprise a lot of people and elevate the Mustang up another level.

 

Come on guy's a live axle is good enough!

Ford should go back to 4 wheel drum brakes (w/modern manufacturing and modern metals they would be good enough).

Ford should also go back to leaf springs, that would be good enough!

How about going back to a carburetor, that would be good enough!

Hey a 4 speed manual would be good enough!

How about Bias-Ply tires, they could be good enough!

Hey a single cat 1.5" exhaust would be good enough!

Steel "Rally" wheels. they where good enough!

If Ford made all the changes listed above and passed the savings on to the customer we could have a new Mustang for $15,000 that was "Good Enough"!!

 

Well said

 

I drove my buddy's 2006 GTO a few weeks ago and it has IRS. It was a nice driving car, but that's it...just nice. Sure it had lots of power, it soaked up the bumps well, and it felt solid in the corners. It was quite frankly, very easy to drive. But boring.

I got back in my Mustang and immediately realized how much fun it was to drive, even compared to the GTO, Pontiac's (and really GM's) premiere sports sedan for the last 5 years. I don't know exactly what it was about the car that was boring (other than the looks) but it was just like driving a big cavalier in terms of handling and ride.

The Solid Axle in the Mustang makes it ride and feel, to me, like a Mustang. It would not be the same if the ride were super smooth, and it drove like a high class sporty car. The Mustang is NOT a high class sporty car, and I don't want it to be one either. I want it a little bit raw (but not too much), a little bit edgy, a little bit...Mustang.

I want to drive a Mustang that acts like Lt. Frank Bullitt, not Lt. Horatio Caine. They both get the job done, but Mr. Bullitt has more fun doing it.

 

whatsup brother do you have a list of your mods for 470whp?!

 

Wow, this "dead horse thread" still has a lot of life left in it!

Try comparing an IRS-equipped Mustang (Cobra) vs. something like my SRA 5.0 LX notch in a bumpy corner under acceleration - that will give a pretty good indication of the inherent difference between the two on the street. SRA more exciting? You bet! Not the kind that enhances driving though. If I had a hula girl on my dash, it wouldn't even compare to the jiggling and swaying going on at the rear axle on some of the more atrocious roads I've driven on in my area. BTW, I'm talking about a stock factory set up here, no aftermarket shocks, springs, control arms, or axle locating devices.
The Mustang not being a "high class" sport(y) car doesn't mean it has to handle like a truck (BTW, don't some Ford trucks/SUVs have IRS too?) or suffer from poor ride quality.

 

build it and i would buy it!

 

Are you trying to be funny?

 

Yep, and an airplane is not a true airplane unless it has a propeller, dangit! Who wants them smooth riding jets anyway?

Who says what the Mustang is, was, or ought to be in the future to remain competitive?

 

Since you seem to know that it's beef up, What's the rating? or any idea?
I agree most mustang owner wont see the track, but you better believe they will be researching it an making a inform decision based on those numbers and price. I feel that the majority of enthusiast will bash it based on the perception that it's heavy, hard to launch and expensive to fix.
Any of these untrue?


IMO:
SRA>IRS at the track, quick light to light bust where the majority of the mustang owners will be testing their cars: not that I condone this kind of behavior, but it true.

SRA<IRS at the road course it ownz but then again it's even less likely to see the avarage joe there.

True... the IRS does shine over pot holes and bumps but I think only if it's set up for a smoth feel. From my own experiance I've noticed that mid size sedans ussually do well in that kind of category.
I've also noticed that other sports cars whether it has an IRS or a leaf spring, it's ride quality isn't really any more confortable than that of my mustang (uca/lca,springs 18"s with 35B 40F series tires).

 

Another example would be lowly Chrysler. If Chrysler can find the time and resources to build SRT's and this new SRT8 Challenger, then Ford should be able to do the same! 400HP & IRS shouldn't be unreasonable in the Mustang.

GM certainly knows how to use their imagination. Performance for a reasonable price - GTO(400HP, $33K) & G8 GT (362HP, under $30k).
In past couple of years we have seen GM Sedans packing V8's with 303HP all around or under $30k.

IRS? What doesn't have IRS nowadays? Shouldn't be an issue. Just Ford being cheap!