I think the most important consideration is:

SRA<IRS on real world roads, where 99% of Stangs are driven 99% of the time. The expanded ride:handling envelope, i.e., having better handling AND a better ride, is where the greatest argument for an IRS is to be found, not the "good enough" either/or compromise offered by the SRA. In today's highly competitive world, it is excellence that carries the day, not "good enough." To imply that excellence is only a providence for the well-heeled is, I think, a very dismissive and condescending attitude to assume regarding the Mustang and its enthusiasts.

Sure, the SRA is cheap and simple, but as TACBEAR argues, that would argue for many other deletions from the Stangs current technological repertoire. While that may get you a cheap car, I don't think that will give you better value, to make that distinction.

As to what the Stang "is" or "ought" to be, well, that's basically a philosophical Rorschach test as the Stang is actually many different things to many people. But I don't think it ought to be relegated to being an archaic museum piece, technologically frozen in time to the late '60s. The current Stang is stuffed with technologies and features not even dreamed of back then.

Certainly the Stang should reflect a unique and distinctive character, but it should also be a fully modern interpretation that is fully competitive with its contemporaries, not mired in some misbegotten sense of nostalgia. Sure, a live axle has had its day and even probably does a bit better in some very limited circumstances, as did leaf springs, carburetors and drum brakes in their day. I can still recall the hue and cry that the roll out of these technologies caused the traditionalists who had to be dragged screaming and kicking into the present. The Stang's competitors have moved resolutely forward and the Stang should too. Ford, with the Model T and flathead V8, has a long tradition of bringing "premium" technologies, affordably, to the common man, but in the case of the Stang, its premier halo car, it has done just the opposite and is, rather, grudgingly bringing up the rear of the parade.

 

Was Ford naive in thinking that the Mustang would never see any true competition again? Maybe.
Even with this new facelift and DI V8 on the way, will it be enough to last another 4 model years until the redesign?
IMO, Ford needs to speed the process up. I would be pressing for 2012MY with GDI 4, 6 & 8 on the new platform.

 

SRA vs. IRS a dead horse, never. It could be a two post thread about lollipops vs. butterflies and the instant someone mentions SRA vs. IRS the race is on. There are just two very passionate camps on the matter.

IMO if Ford were to do both rear suspensions, the best way to implement it would be to make either a no cost option and by that I mean include the cost of the more expensive rear suspenion on all cars while reaping greater profit on the cheaper SRA equipped vehicle thereby offsetting some of the cost of offering two rear suspensions.

 

Hmmm.... good question, the fox platform managed to last 25 years with just one major overhaul (not that this was a good thing). It has staying power, but there are other forces currently at work here beyond the added competition. I don't know how far along the next gen Mustang was, but I suspect the new CAFE reqs and the ever rising cost of fuel has certainly changed things.


GM has already admitted the diamond in the crown, the corvette, will be smaller and lighter while utilizing smaller displacement lower power engines to improve mileage while still offering comparable acceleration. Alot of people are guessing the current ZETA Camaro will be a short run with a smaller lighter car replacing it. I suppose so too for the Mustang.

Of course all this could change yet again if the governent seriously considers and implements strict limits on carbon emissions.

 

Umm, the Mazda6, the one thats built on the same line that the Mustang is built on.

 

Woot!! Another Mustang II!!

 

The 6 isn't built on the S197 platform, its built on the CD3. It shares some parts-bin bits with the Mustang, which is why putting them on the same line made sense, but otherwise they have nothing in common.

 

In this day and age IRS is simply the norm. Anything else is a futile attempt of apologies. Our Mustangs aren't the hand built and qwerky Morgan Plus Eights.

Having said THAT, my old Miata with IRS is a lot rougher on bumps than my 05 Mustang GT. Personally I don't care, but if it's a mass market car IRS is the benchmark. It's just marketing and image.

 

Well, that's really the 800 pound gorilla in the room that too few people want to talk about. As I said, Ford didn't pass any savings on to us by not installing the IRS...instead, they installed an SRA - charged us all for IRS - and pocketed the difference.

 

You kidding? they probably charged us double to recoupe the R/D of re-engineering the 05 to HAVE a SRA

 

I knew the money came from somewhere, thanks for clearing that up. The SRA attracted me to the car. Perception is reality and I wanted a REAL muscle car.

 

Could aways keep a stripper with the SRA and call it the LX model, no stripes/scoops/fogs, just the better S500 stereo, 3.73's and the safety goodies....

 

Really? Would've never thought that since I WORK there!! I NEVER said anything about them being the same platform, I just said that they use the same test track for both cars, with the 6 having an IRS, albeit being FWD, they both have about the same NVH and perform about the same in the other test sections.

 

Easy there, cowboy. I didn't see the OP where you were making a statement about testing, without which the second post appears to responding to Max2000's request to see an IRS-equipped S197. Simple misunderstanding.

 

Sorry, not upset, just making it clear on what I meant.

 

Then we are to assume you will be lobbying for leaf spring, drums brakes, flaccid steering and bias ply tires and steel wheels -- all hallmarks of a "real" muscle car.

Personally, I ascribe to reality being reality and am lobbying for a real performance car for today, with real performance in all parameters, rather than a nostalgic museum piece pining of days gone by.

As for heritage, I would rather the Mustang return a bit more in character to its original pony car roots and character, which were in quite some contrast to the muscle cars of its day.

 

I like the solid rear axle. That doesn't mean that I automatically like drum brakes or carburators, leaf springs or bias tires. I think everyone agrees that those things are outdated, and their time is gone.

Just because the solid axle is dated doesn't mean I don't like it, and it doesn't make it terrible. If you don't like the solid axle, go buy a GTO or a new Camaro.

 

Well, I guess all of you guys wanting/needing an IRS could always go buy a G8 GT, '05+ GTO or a Charger, since you just gotta have an IRS. Or a used Mustang Cobra. I prefer the SRA and the rest of the modern conveniences that my '07 has. My other 2 Mustangs are older models and I know the limitations of each design and I believe the modern Mustang is a VAST improvement over them. I don't know where this "buggy-suspension, drum-brake, leaf-spring" stuff has come from but the only '05+ Mustangs that are museum pieces are the GT-500's not being driven and the ones bought by Ron Pratt at Barrett-Jackson!!

 

Btw, I fully agree with this statement!!

 

Which is precisely the argument us IRS'ers are making, that the live axle is outdated and its time has long since gone. I'm sure there are some who'd like drum brakes, carbs and leaf springs for essentially the same argument they make for the live axle -- they're cheap, simple and don't detract from straight line speed.

Perhaps Ford ought to offer a drum brake, live axle drag pack for the Stang to excel in that one exceedingly narrow performance measure. But for the vast majority of real world road driven Stangs, the live axle, however improved from previous version, is as outdated and compromised as drum brakes. Sure, they both work "well enough," if you define well enough far enough downwards, but neither are fully competitive with today's contemporary performance standards.

Of course, Ford could defer and simply send potential performance coupe customers looking for fully contemporary levels of performance to GM and Dodge, but that hardly seems like a particularly successful strategy for corporate success, which perhaps explains Ford's dismal economic position today. Better that Ford stes up to the plate with a Stang that meets all its competitors head on in all performance categories rather than ceding sales now that the Stang ain't the only fish in the pony/muscle car pond anymore.