What's the BFD with IRS?
10/21/08, 06:30 PM
#321
i think they strive for putting in v8s in affordable cars that being said the 5.0 is of greater importance than an IRS. the bullitt with an updated SRA is more track capable than an RT with an IRS so lets not act like an IRS is end all for handling. an IRS is way better on the uneven streets no doubt but some people talk like the SRA cant turn for s--t when it can. h--l even know it all clarkson said it can when he drove the roush, the one he thought had an IRS, that had an upgraded SRA. so come on now, the IRS is good and better all around than the SRA, and its coming, but most will agree the 5.0 should come first
10/21/08, 09:12 PM
#322
Legacy TMS Member Pr
Originally Posted by MBK
i think they strive for putting in v8s in affordable cars that being said the 5.0 is of greater importance than an IRS. the bullitt with an updated SRA is more track capable than an RT with an IRS so lets not act like an IRS is end all for handling. an IRS is way better on the uneven streets no doubt but some people talk like the SRA cant turn for s--t when it can. h--l even know it all clarkson said it can when he drove the roush, the one he thought had an IRS, that had an upgraded SRA. so come on now, the IRS is good and better all around than the SRA, and its coming, but most will agree the 5.0 should come first
i think they strive for putting in v8s in affordable cars that being said the 5.0 is of greater importance than an IRS. the bullitt with an updated SRA is more track capable than an RT with an IRS so lets not act like an IRS is end all for handling. an IRS is way better on the uneven streets no doubt but some people talk like the SRA cant turn for s--t when it can. h--l even know it all clarkson said it can when he drove the roush, the one he thought had an IRS, that had an upgraded SRA. so come on now, the IRS is good and better all around than the SRA, and its coming, but most will agree the 5.0 should come first
10/22/08, 07:52 AM
#323
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 24, 2008
Location: Traverse City
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then too was the old 3.8 V6 "good enough," just like the SRA is. Only if you drive like an idiot on real world streets would a big, powerful V8, or IRS, make sense. So perhaps Ford, to increase affordability and save fools from themselves, should cease to offer the death-dealing 4.6, never mind the genocidal 5.4. Indeed, from an "idiotic" standpoint of street driving, a big powerful V8 makes much less sense than the increased stability and handling offered by an IRS. Perhaps Ford should quit offering disk brakes lest people try to foolishly stop to quickly?
It amazes me how the SRA is defended basically on the basis of low standards and mediocrity, i.e., it's good enough on flat, smooth roads if not driven in some performance-oriented manner. If the same standards and rationale were applied to the Stang's V8, we'd still have the flathead motor wheezing out a "good enough" 80 hp or so. In a sense, the upcoming 5.0, as good as that motor's likely to be, will be less a gamechanger than a bit more of the same -- bigger motor for more simple straight line acceleration -- same game as always.
Developing a fully fleshed performance envelope for the Mustang, now THAT would be a game changer, not that Ford hasn't toyed with that a bit in the past to various degrees of success (SVO, previous gen SVT Cobra, Boss 302).
It's high time that American car companies strive for genuine world class greatness at all levels rather than some provincial level of "good enough." And people wonder why, with such condescending attitudes and approaches, the big three, errr two and counting, are in such horrible straights.
It amazes me how the SRA is defended basically on the basis of low standards and mediocrity, i.e., it's good enough on flat, smooth roads if not driven in some performance-oriented manner. If the same standards and rationale were applied to the Stang's V8, we'd still have the flathead motor wheezing out a "good enough" 80 hp or so. In a sense, the upcoming 5.0, as good as that motor's likely to be, will be less a gamechanger than a bit more of the same -- bigger motor for more simple straight line acceleration -- same game as always.
Developing a fully fleshed performance envelope for the Mustang, now THAT would be a game changer, not that Ford hasn't toyed with that a bit in the past to various degrees of success (SVO, previous gen SVT Cobra, Boss 302).
It's high time that American car companies strive for genuine world class greatness at all levels rather than some provincial level of "good enough." And people wonder why, with such condescending attitudes and approaches, the big three, errr two and counting, are in such horrible straights.
10/22/08, 08:59 AM
#324
Legacy TMS Member Pr
10/22/08, 10:34 AM
#325
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 28, 2008
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to say it, but I agree with Rhumb on this.
Those who understand handling dynamics know that an IRS, if PROPERLY TUNED, will be superior to a SRA on ALL SURFACES (with the possible exception of a drag strip - pretty narrow focus for a broad-spectrum vehicle, IMHO).
While I have nothing against more hp, and am also anxiously awaiting the 5.0, I honestly think that the greater gain in making the Mustang "world class" would be in giving it a world-class suspension. State of the art, at this time, is IRS. Ipso facto.
Look what BMW has done over the years. For generations they were "underpowered" compared to the competition, yet have long been the standard for ride and handling due to the emphasis on developing the suspensions. They have only recently begun adding hp to cars that were already superior to everything else in their class, even with less power. Killer combo, handling + hp...
Those who understand handling dynamics know that an IRS, if PROPERLY TUNED, will be superior to a SRA on ALL SURFACES (with the possible exception of a drag strip - pretty narrow focus for a broad-spectrum vehicle, IMHO).
While I have nothing against more hp, and am also anxiously awaiting the 5.0, I honestly think that the greater gain in making the Mustang "world class" would be in giving it a world-class suspension. State of the art, at this time, is IRS. Ipso facto.
Look what BMW has done over the years. For generations they were "underpowered" compared to the competition, yet have long been the standard for ride and handling due to the emphasis on developing the suspensions. They have only recently begun adding hp to cars that were already superior to everything else in their class, even with less power. Killer combo, handling + hp...
10/22/08, 11:17 AM
#327
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 24, 2008
Location: Traverse City
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to say it, but I agree with Rhumb on this.
Those who understand handling dynamics know that an IRS, if PROPERLY TUNED, will be superior to a SRA on ALL SURFACES (with the possible exception of a drag strip - pretty narrow focus for a broad-spectrum vehicle, IMHO).
While I have nothing against more hp, and am also anxiously awaiting the 5.0, I honestly think that the greater gain in making the Mustang "world class" would be in giving it a world-class suspension. State of the art, at this time, is IRS. Ipso facto.
Look what BMW has done over the years. For generations they were "underpowered" compared to the competition, yet have long been the standard for ride and handling due to the emphasis on developing the suspensions. They have only recently begun adding hp to cars that were already superior to everything else in their class, even with less power. Killer combo, handling + hp...
Those who understand handling dynamics know that an IRS, if PROPERLY TUNED, will be superior to a SRA on ALL SURFACES (with the possible exception of a drag strip - pretty narrow focus for a broad-spectrum vehicle, IMHO).
While I have nothing against more hp, and am also anxiously awaiting the 5.0, I honestly think that the greater gain in making the Mustang "world class" would be in giving it a world-class suspension. State of the art, at this time, is IRS. Ipso facto.
Look what BMW has done over the years. For generations they were "underpowered" compared to the competition, yet have long been the standard for ride and handling due to the emphasis on developing the suspensions. They have only recently begun adding hp to cars that were already superior to everything else in their class, even with less power. Killer combo, handling + hp...
10/22/08, 12:06 PM
#328
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: February 17, 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Handling, schmandling...we arent talking about a race car. We are talking about a street car. If IRS was so important to vehicle dynamics then why dont we see it on every single car and truck produced? No one denies that an IRS isnt better, but its not necessary. Otherwise we would all be driving all wheel drive, four wheel steering, rollbar toting, airbags with a computer that drives for us.
Almost all cars have IRS. Front wheel drive cars are generally by definition independent in the rear. Most modern RWD car Platforms HAVE gone IRS.
To discuss your other options, AWD is not more fuel efficient, and drastically changes the weight of the vehicle, not to mention transmission complexity. Comparitively IRS is straight forward, is comparable in weight to SRA, uses the same drivetrain as SRA, and has no effect on fuel.
Again Four wheel steering is insanely complex, offers little real world aplication, drasticaly increases the weight, and is a nightmare to work on.
As for Rollbar toting, most cars today implement the "ring" design in their unibody chassis. These loops form rollbars internal to the vehicle. So while not a shiny chrome tube going up and over, most cars implement this.
Airbags are standard, and with the government mandate for ABS and ESC, we do/will have computers that drive for us implemented soon.
Not that I disagree with your point. I hold that to keep the mustang affordable we must conceed somewhere. I hate turning corners over bumpy pavement in my 05, and my 04 roush, but I do not think I could afford a 5.0, 6 speed, IRS equipped 2011. Base price would definitely have to be north of $30K.
Last edited by jarradasay; 10/22/08 at 12:09 PM.
10/22/08, 12:12 PM
#329
V6 Member
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Location: Hagerstown, MD
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We do know that the GT isn't getting a IRS, but do we know for sure what is going to go into the GT500?
Could that possibly end this petty bickering, offer both, you just will have to pay for a package that includes an IRS (GT500). It would hold to what we were originally told about the GT500 having an IRS, maybe it was developed but never put to production for "cost" but they will now use it b/c of competition. That would also carry with recent traditions of GT having SRA and SVT having IRS.
Could that possibly end this petty bickering, offer both, you just will have to pay for a package that includes an IRS (GT500). It would hold to what we were originally told about the GT500 having an IRS, maybe it was developed but never put to production for "cost" but they will now use it b/c of competition. That would also carry with recent traditions of GT having SRA and SVT having IRS.
10/22/08, 12:13 PM
#330
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Horsepower, schmorsepower...we arent talking about a race car. We are talking about a street car."
As far as a performance street car, it is far safer and saner to have too much handling, so to speak, than too much horsepower, i.e., the first focus for safe street performance ought to be, well, after excellent brakes, excellent handling. It is very easy to swap out the argument in terms of the excellent handling an IRS would confer and the excellent power the 5.0 will likely impart.
IMO, the Stang already has excellent straight line performance, barely a click behind my M3 which would make a credible world-class performance car benchmark -- danged impressive for a car that rolled out of the showroom for maybe half the price.
Where the Stang's performance envelope is a bit thin and flaccid are the brakes -- good for one or two half-decent stops and then up in smoke -- and the handling -- fine on smooth flat roads, but then, what other than the very worst suspensions aren't. It would just seem quite safe, sensible and reasonable to attend to these areas first before even considering one more HP. So I would respectfully disagree that the 5.0 is the most important thing that could be done to gird the Stang's loins. The Stang already has an excellent basic chassis and front suspension, plus a slightly lighter and more compact size lend it some innate competitive advantages against the Challenger and Camaro that could well be leveraged.
Perhaps due to costs and Ford's dire situation, caused much by its overall good enough philosophy and myopic reliance on truck and SUV sales, the suspension we see is the suspension we'll have until the next full platform update.
As far as a performance street car, it is far safer and saner to have too much handling, so to speak, than too much horsepower, i.e., the first focus for safe street performance ought to be, well, after excellent brakes, excellent handling. It is very easy to swap out the argument in terms of the excellent handling an IRS would confer and the excellent power the 5.0 will likely impart.
IMO, the Stang already has excellent straight line performance, barely a click behind my M3 which would make a credible world-class performance car benchmark -- danged impressive for a car that rolled out of the showroom for maybe half the price.
Where the Stang's performance envelope is a bit thin and flaccid are the brakes -- good for one or two half-decent stops and then up in smoke -- and the handling -- fine on smooth flat roads, but then, what other than the very worst suspensions aren't. It would just seem quite safe, sensible and reasonable to attend to these areas first before even considering one more HP. So I would respectfully disagree that the 5.0 is the most important thing that could be done to gird the Stang's loins. The Stang already has an excellent basic chassis and front suspension, plus a slightly lighter and more compact size lend it some innate competitive advantages against the Challenger and Camaro that could well be leveraged.
Perhaps due to costs and Ford's dire situation, caused much by its overall good enough philosophy and myopic reliance on truck and SUV sales, the suspension we see is the suspension we'll have until the next full platform update.
10/22/08, 12:33 PM
#331
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2008
Location: Pacific NW USA
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The Mustang is still the quintessential secretary car.
Perhaps, if the mustang were selling to the same crowd as the BMW but that is simply NOT THE CASE!
The people buying the lion share of Mustangs, are never driving them hard, rarely if ever able to distinguish SRA from IRS in their daily commute regardless of the differences. The Mustang is still the quintessential secretary car and is competing with the likes of the SOLID REAR AXEL front wheel drive Toyota Camry not the BMW.
Have you driven a Camry? The SRA Mustang is LIGHT YEARS ahead of that...
The people buying the lion share of Mustangs, are never driving them hard, rarely if ever able to distinguish SRA from IRS in their daily commute regardless of the differences. The Mustang is still the quintessential secretary car and is competing with the likes of the SOLID REAR AXEL front wheel drive Toyota Camry not the BMW.
Have you driven a Camry? The SRA Mustang is LIGHT YEARS ahead of that...
I hate to say it, but I agree with Rhumb on this.
Those who understand handling dynamics know that an IRS, if PROPERLY TUNED, will be superior to a SRA on ALL SURFACES (with the possible exception of a drag strip - pretty narrow focus for a broad-spectrum vehicle, IMHO).
While I have nothing against more hp, and am also anxiously awaiting the 5.0, I honestly think that the greater gain in making the Mustang "world class" would be in giving it a world-class suspension. State of the art, at this time, is IRS. Ipso facto.
Look what BMW has done over the years. For generations they were "underpowered" compared to the competition, yet have long been the standard for ride and handling due to the emphasis on developing the suspensions. They have only recently begun adding hp to cars that were already superior to everything else in their class, even with less power. Killer combo, handling + hp...
Those who understand handling dynamics know that an IRS, if PROPERLY TUNED, will be superior to a SRA on ALL SURFACES (with the possible exception of a drag strip - pretty narrow focus for a broad-spectrum vehicle, IMHO).
While I have nothing against more hp, and am also anxiously awaiting the 5.0, I honestly think that the greater gain in making the Mustang "world class" would be in giving it a world-class suspension. State of the art, at this time, is IRS. Ipso facto.
Look what BMW has done over the years. For generations they were "underpowered" compared to the competition, yet have long been the standard for ride and handling due to the emphasis on developing the suspensions. They have only recently begun adding hp to cars that were already superior to everything else in their class, even with less power. Killer combo, handling + hp...
10/22/08, 12:36 PM
#332
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 24, 2008
Location: Traverse City
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Horsepower, schmorsepower...we arent talking about a race car. We are talking about a street car."
As far as a performance street car, it is far safer and saner to have too much handling, so to speak, than too much horsepower, i.e., the first focus for safe street performance ought to be, well, after excellent brakes, excellent handling. It is very easy to swap out the argument in terms of the excellent handling an IRS would confer and the excellent power the 5.0 will likely impart.
IMO, the Stang already has excellent straight line performance, barely a click behind my M3 which would make a credible world-class performance car benchmark -- danged impressive for a car that rolled out of the showroom for maybe half the price.
Where the Stang's performance envelope is a bit thin and flaccid are the brakes -- good for one or two half-decent stops and then up in smoke -- and the handling -- fine on smooth flat roads, but then, what other than the very worst suspensions aren't. It would just seem quite safe, sensible and reasonable to attend to these areas first before even considering one more HP. So I would respectfully disagree that the 5.0 is the most important thing that could be done to gird the Stang's loins. The Stang already has an excellent basic chassis and front suspension, plus a slightly lighter and more compact size lend it some innate competitive advantages against the Challenger and Camaro that could well be leveraged.
Perhaps due to costs and Ford's dire situation, caused much by its overall good enough philosophy and myopic reliance on truck and SUV sales, the suspension we see is the suspension we'll have until the next full platform update.
As far as a performance street car, it is far safer and saner to have too much handling, so to speak, than too much horsepower, i.e., the first focus for safe street performance ought to be, well, after excellent brakes, excellent handling. It is very easy to swap out the argument in terms of the excellent handling an IRS would confer and the excellent power the 5.0 will likely impart.
IMO, the Stang already has excellent straight line performance, barely a click behind my M3 which would make a credible world-class performance car benchmark -- danged impressive for a car that rolled out of the showroom for maybe half the price.
Where the Stang's performance envelope is a bit thin and flaccid are the brakes -- good for one or two half-decent stops and then up in smoke -- and the handling -- fine on smooth flat roads, but then, what other than the very worst suspensions aren't. It would just seem quite safe, sensible and reasonable to attend to these areas first before even considering one more HP. So I would respectfully disagree that the 5.0 is the most important thing that could be done to gird the Stang's loins. The Stang already has an excellent basic chassis and front suspension, plus a slightly lighter and more compact size lend it some innate competitive advantages against the Challenger and Camaro that could well be leveraged.
Perhaps due to costs and Ford's dire situation, caused much by its overall good enough philosophy and myopic reliance on truck and SUV sales, the suspension we see is the suspension we'll have until the next full platform update.
Money, ultimately is what preventing the use of IRS. It will probably be in the next new version, but for now the SRA does a good job for most consumers. And those of us who like to live on the ragged edge always want more.
Like I have said before, if they can manage to make the IRS do a better job than the craptastic GTO's IRS, I will accept it. But not yet.
As for reliance on SUVs and truck sales, go back a few pages and read my response to that. In short everyone did, not just ford. No one saw the huge jump in gas prices.
10/22/08, 12:37 PM
#333
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 24, 2008
Location: Traverse City
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps, if the mustang were selling to the same crowd as the BMW but that is simply NOT THE CASE!
The people buying the lion share of Mustangs, are never driving them hard, rarely if ever able to distinguish SRA from IRS in their daily commute regardless of the differences. The Mustang is still the quintessential secretary car and is competing with the likes of the SOLID REAR AXEL front wheel drive Toyota Camry not the BMW.
Have you driven a Camry? The SRA Mustang is LIGHT YEARS ahead of that...
The people buying the lion share of Mustangs, are never driving them hard, rarely if ever able to distinguish SRA from IRS in their daily commute regardless of the differences. The Mustang is still the quintessential secretary car and is competing with the likes of the SOLID REAR AXEL front wheel drive Toyota Camry not the BMW.
Have you driven a Camry? The SRA Mustang is LIGHT YEARS ahead of that...
10/22/08, 12:38 PM
#334
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 24, 2008
Location: Traverse City
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We do know that the GT isn't getting a IRS, but do we know for sure what is going to go into the GT500?
Could that possibly end this petty bickering, offer both, you just will have to pay for a package that includes an IRS (GT500). It would hold to what we were originally told about the GT500 having an IRS, maybe it was developed but never put to production for "cost" but they will now use it b/c of competition. That would also carry with recent traditions of GT having SRA and SVT having IRS.
Could that possibly end this petty bickering, offer both, you just will have to pay for a package that includes an IRS (GT500). It would hold to what we were originally told about the GT500 having an IRS, maybe it was developed but never put to production for "cost" but they will now use it b/c of competition. That would also carry with recent traditions of GT having SRA and SVT having IRS.
10/22/08, 12:50 PM
#335
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 31, 2008
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the m3 is an awesome car no doubt. bmw makes excellent cars. an irs is a better suspension, if executed correctly, no doubt, but there is a divide when it comes to what it needs. the mustang has always been about styling, sound and speed. the car already has the styling, but it needs the speed and sound of a DOHC 5.0; the IRS will come in due time. mechanically, for now, i am putting 5.0 at the top of my list and brakes, as you said.
10/22/08, 12:52 PM
#336
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We do know that the GT isn't getting a IRS, but do we know for sure what is going to go into the GT500?
Could that possibly end this petty bickering, offer both, you just will have to pay for a package that includes an IRS (GT500). It would hold to what we were originally told about the GT500 having an IRS, maybe it was developed but never put to production for "cost" but they will now use it b/c of competition. That would also carry with recent traditions of GT having SRA and SVT having IRS.
Could that possibly end this petty bickering, offer both, you just will have to pay for a package that includes an IRS (GT500). It would hold to what we were originally told about the GT500 having an IRS, maybe it was developed but never put to production for "cost" but they will now use it b/c of competition. That would also carry with recent traditions of GT having SRA and SVT having IRS.
To finally roll out the IRS which, by many accounts, was a hairsbreadth away from release but nixed at the end due to rather cynical penny pinching and lack of any direct competition to compel Ford to do so. But perhaps now with the fresh new Camaro and Challenger on the scene, Ford won't be able to be so glib, cheap and complacent. Ahhh, ain't competition a grand thing for all!
Presumably, but not definitively, the IRS Ford was fussing with resembled the Aussie Control Blade setup which by all accounts is a fantastic piece -- compact, rugged, effective and affordable. While I'd love to see it in a lighter, more road-racing inspired Stang -- a GT350? -- than the seriously fast but nose heavy and slightly plodding GT500, it would be nice to see it at all, if for no other reason than to give some comparative objectivity to these perennial IRS vs SRA discussions.
10/22/08, 01:00 PM
#337
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or perhaps that best/worst(?) of both worlds, the DeDion suspension?
10/22/08, 01:01 PM
#338
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 24, 2008
Location: Traverse City
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An IRS option, at least for the GT500, would perhaps be more conceivable. I've long argued that the current GT500 isn't quite worth the surcharge over the standard Stang GT, particularly in relation to what the SVT Cobra's (lesser) surcharge was over its contemporary GT for more additional stuff (IRS primarily).
To finally roll out the IRS which, by many accounts, was a hairsbreadth away from release but nixed at the end due to rather cynical penny pinching and lack of any direct competition to compel Ford to do so. But perhaps now with the fresh new Camaro and Challenger on the scene, Ford won't be able to be so glib, cheap and complacent. Ahhh, ain't competition a grand thing for all!
Presumably, but not definitively, the IRS Ford was fussing with resembled the Aussie Control Blade setup which by all accounts is a fantastic piece -- compact, rugged, effective and affordable. While I'd love to see it in a lighter, more road-racing inspired Stang -- a GT350? -- than the seriously fast but nose heavy and slightly plodding GT500, it would be nice to see it at all, if for no other reason than to give some comparative objectivity to these perennial IRS vs SRA discussions.
To finally roll out the IRS which, by many accounts, was a hairsbreadth away from release but nixed at the end due to rather cynical penny pinching and lack of any direct competition to compel Ford to do so. But perhaps now with the fresh new Camaro and Challenger on the scene, Ford won't be able to be so glib, cheap and complacent. Ahhh, ain't competition a grand thing for all!
Presumably, but not definitively, the IRS Ford was fussing with resembled the Aussie Control Blade setup which by all accounts is a fantastic piece -- compact, rugged, effective and affordable. While I'd love to see it in a lighter, more road-racing inspired Stang -- a GT350? -- than the seriously fast but nose heavy and slightly plodding GT500, it would be nice to see it at all, if for no other reason than to give some comparative objectivity to these perennial IRS vs SRA discussions.
Rumor has it that the GT500 will have aluminum block, so then it wont be so nose heavy.
10/22/08, 01:03 PM
#339
10/22/08, 01:04 PM
#340
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 24, 2008
Location: Traverse City
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts