Maybe next time Ford surveys Mustang owners about which rear assembly they want they'll get a different answer.

 

While I'd love a Watts link or SRA, they did a good job with the SRA.
I'm not defending it, but most people have no flippin idea what rear end it has in it.

 

the SRA guys should ask themselves, what other production sports cars offer a SRA? I honestly feel Ford needs to finally get with the times and catch up to the competition. As a huge Mustang fanatic I'm insulted by Ford's lack of effort of one of it's most popular models.

I can totally understand why Ford didn't put the IRS in the 05-09 model. The car was all new, had no real "muscle car" competition, and was a huge leap forward from the 99-04 model. Now along with a larger growing segment of RWD imports Ford also has to contend with long time rivals, Chevy and Dodge.

As a long time Mustang fan I have to say i'm growing tired of Ford dropping the ball with the Mustang when they are ahead of the game. Ford's fox body Mustang for the most part dominated the overweight F-body twins until the 4th gen cars appeared. Not only was the Mustang put to shame in the HP wars but also in suspension and handling. GM had 6 speeds since 93' yet the only Mustangs out there with a 6 speed are the high end SVT models. Now with the new Camaro we see IRS, a 422 HP v8, 300hp v6!, 6 speed manual and auto trannys.....

Ford needs to nut up and add a 6 speed, IRS and put the 5.0 in production as soon as possible (non of this 11' model nonsense)! Why release a new Mustang with a carryover motor! Why has ford gotten complacent? What, if any true mechanical enhancements does a 09' model have from the original 05'? I think it is foolish to think Ford will sell the 10' on looks alone, from what I gather we won't have anything to look forward to until 11'. (Sorry for the rant, i'm in a bad mood, yet what I'm saying is sad but true fellas)

 

No, they SHOULDN'T be surveying Mustang owners at all. They SHOULD be interviewing BMW and Nissan Z owners and heck even Camaro/GTO owners, and say "What would make YOU buy a Mustang?" Mustang fan boys, will buy a Mustang no matter what they stick in it, you've got THEIR money already. If the 2015 Mustang comes out as a plug in hybrid Minivan, Ford will still sell them out to fan boys.

 

Like I said, this is getting ugly and for no reason at that. Why debate something when neither side is going to give in. This is just taking up bandwith

 

I can see the benefits of IRS in a daily comfort and bumpy road handling way. But to me i could care less. It doesn't bother me that the SLA is bumpy and the tail shimmys on bumpy curves. I'm not against having it unless it adds price to the car. if price remained and weight is only slight increase then I would be fine with having it.

 

I went to Gingerman raceway and had no complaints about an SRA. It never argued with me nor hampered my performance.

 

While I am on the "please add IRS" side of this ballgame, I must interject.
You are correct, basically the fourth gens mopped us in all segments. Including price. This led to the ultimate demise. I can barely afford the GT mustang as it is, (and I am a Purchasing Manager of 10 years). if you add a 6 speed, add IRS, add an all aluminum 400+hp 5.0 engine, you're looking at a mustang GT that bases at north of $30,000.00. A $500.00 a month car payment on a 0% interest 5 year loan, not that ford will offer 0% on a new introductory model, but you get the picture.

In 2002, the base mustang GT was $23K, the base trans am was $28K. Market couldn't support the high end price.

Unfortunately I believe the same would happen to the mustang if all the goodies were added.

It has been said, although I don't know how engineering feasible it is, that we need to keep the GT what it has been, the affordable bang for your buck mustang, and have SE that get the goodies.

I think this is what we will see. But I agree, aside from trucks, what other vehicle has SRA in it?

 

I understand that we would all would like to see the GT stay in more or less of the same price point, but I feel Ford can, with perhaps a -$2000 bump in MSRP. Look at the R/T Challenger, a car that costs a little less than $3000 more than the GT. This car offers IRS, standard 18' wheels, 6 speed and a 370HP Hemi. I also know that the Challenger is bigger and slower than the Mustang but it does still offer all this cool stuff on the base V8 model.

I feel Ford, like Dodge can upgrade these cars with much less cost than Chevy's Camaro. For the most part the Challenger is a slightly retuned 2 door Charger with new sheet metal. The 10' Mustang is basically a refresh of the current car. Both have already put the platform to market, hasn't some of this stuff paid for itself yet? Is Ford really trying to keep costs down for us or are they just being cheap? Come to think of it doesn't a current GT500 cost more than a C6 Vette with all kinds of high tech goodies, How about the new Subaru WRX vs GT Mustang? Perhaps it's just me but it seems that the Mustang has lost the crown of the "best bang for the buck" that it held for so long.

Sorry if i seem like a pessimist but I have a feeling that i'm either gonna try to by a GT500 below MSRP or wait a long time before I purchase a new Mustang.

 

The last gen F-bodies did, indeed, beat the pants off the Mustang on paper, with all their sophisticated drivetrain goodies. But GM had to skimp on the rest of the car to make it cost-competitive with the more "primitive" Mustang, which was much more drivable in real-world conditions, ultimately to the F-body demise.

The same thing could happen this time around...

 

all it really needs is the 5.0... the 5 speed is fine, heck the evo has a 5 speed, offer a better trans as an option and just upgrade the suspension and offer a new one as an option, but the 5.0 should be in there

 

I still think that, in order to appease both sides, Ford should, at the very least, offer an IRS as an option.

 

The only real advantage to IRS is marketing.....and to shut up all the bone headed journalists who always harp about it.

I personally don't care, but if it captured a few more sales then it's OK.

 

Huh? Marketing?

SRA is an inferior suspension, period. Ford uses and SRA to keep cost down OR pad their profits.

 

Word of god.

 

I think the demise of the F body is debatable. Personally I think GM's marketing of both cars was terrible. Ford has made a big deal about the 94' 99' 05' and now 10' Mustangs, yet I barely remember any press for the 93' or 98 Camaro. It seems that the Corvette got all the attention. Another key issue was that GM let the car get stale. While Ford gave the mustang all new sheet metal in 99', Chevy simply gave the Camaro a new front bumper and head lights. From the fenders back a 93' Camaro was pretty much the same thing as an 02' model. I look at it like this, why should I pay $30,000 for an 09' GT when my local dealer has a 06' GT with 5k on it for $18,000? Both cars are pretty much identical in looks and performance, right?

 

Exactly. I have no issue with people saying they happen to prefer the SRA because they use their cars primarily for drag racing, but to say there are no advantages to IRS, is just plain insane. Ford uses SRA, because they don't have the development dollars to develop a top quality IRS, and would rather give you a top quality SRA. It's a cost cutting measure, plain and simple. Ford just better hope the Camaro SS/RS comes in well above the price of a GT. Though, if we consider the empirical evidence, as long as they can sell plenty of V6 models to housewives and posers, they won't really mind too much.

 

If you have any doubt about how cheap Ford is, just look under your car at the rusting rear axle. I paid north of 50g for my Gt500 vert and they couldn't paint the axle? If they can't afford $2 for paint, what makes you think they're gonna spring for IRS?

 

+1. Why pay for something some of us don't want? Make it in option, or part of an SE package that caters to corner carving, but leave it off the standard list of equipment!

 

Probably because developing and offering two completely different suspensions in a bargain performance car isn't cost effective for Ford. I'm guessing that two different suspensions requires other mechanical and engineering adjustments to be made on the assembly line as well, complicating the whole process.

As to the argument about SRA being a cost cutting measure: sure, it cuts costs for Ford. But don't think for one moment that they're passing those savings onto us customers. They're pocketing it for themselves.

There's simply no economic or practical reason Ford could not offer the current Mustang GT with IRS for a price within $1000 of what we're now paying.

No other performance coupe on the planet...in the world...in the entire known universe, uses SRA. Hmmmmmm... I wonder why?