What's the BFD with IRS?
10/6/08, 09:02 PM
#42
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: June 19, 2004
Location: Phoenixville, PA
Posts: 6,840
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
And Max, whats wrong with Ford making a profit on their cars? Just gotta ask? They are a business, and a business that needs to make what they can to survive.
10/6/08, 09:04 PM
#43
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: June 19, 2004
Location: Phoenixville, PA
Posts: 6,840
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
10/6/08, 09:05 PM
#44
Bullitt Member
Join Date: February 2, 2005
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a logical thought, except the most powerful SN95 cars (03-04 Terminator Cobras) have the IRS, which was retroengineered for that chassis. Why would they put a "weak" IRS in the most powerful Mustang of that era?
Truth is, Ford can make an IRS for our cars and make it affordable as well. They have proven they can engineer both a SRA and IRS for the same chassis. My belief is that those desiring an IRS are in the minority, and most Mustang drivers could care less about the suspension. I would have paid a premium for the IRS, though, and at some point they will have to acknowledge the Camaro and Challenger have done it for similar cost.
Truth is, Ford can make an IRS for our cars and make it affordable as well. They have proven they can engineer both a SRA and IRS for the same chassis. My belief is that those desiring an IRS are in the minority, and most Mustang drivers could care less about the suspension. I would have paid a premium for the IRS, though, and at some point they will have to acknowledge the Camaro and Challenger have done it for similar cost.
10/6/08, 09:56 PM
#45
MOTM Committee Member
Personally, I couldn't care less which suspension it gets just give me the 5.0
10/6/08, 10:10 PM
#46
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've driven a 350Z that our dealership insurance agent was selling to his nephew via a "courtesy trade". He was getting his new Bullitt a few months back, and let me take it for a spin. No I didn't get on it, but just took it down the street and back. I gotta say, for a car with IRS, it was rather bumpy and the ride was harsh. More harsh than my GT. And if your wondering, his car was 100% stock.
And Max, whats wrong with Ford making a profit on their cars? Just gotta ask? They are a business, and a business that needs to make what they can to survive.
10/7/08, 12:36 AM
#47
Legacy TMS Member
I've driven a 350Z that our dealership insurance agent was selling to his nephew via a "courtesy trade". He was getting his new Bullitt a few months back, and let me take it for a spin. No I didn't get on it, but just took it down the street and back. I gotta say, for a car with IRS, it was rather bumpy and the ride was harsh. More harsh than my GT. And if your wondering, his car was 100% stock.
And Max, whats wrong with Ford making a profit on their cars? Just gotta ask? They are a business, and a business that needs to make what they can to survive.
And Max, whats wrong with Ford making a profit on their cars? Just gotta ask? They are a business, and a business that needs to make what they can to survive.
10/7/08, 01:21 AM
#48
Legacy TMS Member
I will attest to 350Zs being harsh, and will also throw in the Charger having a really soft/squrimy rear-end, as well as the Watts link on the Parnelli Jones edition being the best handling/riding SRA Mustang ever. That car rode awesome and handled so neutral and flat. It was amazing. If Ford could offer the Watts link standard, or at least on the GT and GT500, the development for the IRS would be pointless. The Watts link is the best of both worlds. And Saleen and other manufacturers have already done the development. They just need to produce it on a wider scale. Problem solved...
10/7/08, 04:03 AM
#50
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 8, 2004
Posts: 1,250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Ford could offer the Watts link standard, or at least on the GT and GT500, the development for the IRS would be pointless. The Watts link is the best of both worlds. And Saleen and other manufacturers have already done the development. They just need to produce it on a wider scale. Problem solved...
10/7/08, 08:53 AM
#51
Bullitt Member
Join Date: April 28, 2008
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will attest to 350Zs being harsh, and will also throw in the Charger having a really soft/squrimy rear-end, as well as the Watts link on the Parnelli Jones edition being the best handling/riding SRA Mustang ever. That car rode awesome and handled so neutral and flat. It was amazing. If Ford could offer the Watts link standard, or at least on the GT and GT500, the development for the IRS would be pointless. The Watts link is the best of both worlds. And Saleen and other manufacturers have already done the development. They just need to produce it on a wider scale. Problem solved...
10/7/08, 09:01 AM
#52
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 31, 2008
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a logical thought, except the most powerful SN95 cars (03-04 Terminator Cobras) have the IRS, which was retroengineered for that chassis. Why would they put a "weak" IRS in the most powerful Mustang of that era?
Truth is, Ford can make an IRS for our cars and make it affordable as well. They have proven they can engineer both a SRA and IRS for the same chassis. My belief is that those desiring an IRS are in the minority, and most Mustang drivers could care less about the suspension. I would have paid a premium for the IRS, though, and at some point they will have to acknowledge the Camaro and Challenger have done it for similar cost.
Truth is, Ford can make an IRS for our cars and make it affordable as well. They have proven they can engineer both a SRA and IRS for the same chassis. My belief is that those desiring an IRS are in the minority, and most Mustang drivers could care less about the suspension. I would have paid a premium for the IRS, though, and at some point they will have to acknowledge the Camaro and Challenger have done it for similar cost.
10/7/08, 09:04 AM
#53
Needs to be more Astony
The Cobra is not made for drag racing, it is designed as a sports car to compete with sports cars. That is why it had IRS.
10/7/08, 09:10 AM
#54
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both a live axle and an IRS, presuming both are equally competent examples of the genre (...my girlfriend's VW Beetle's IRS sucked compared to my Bullitt's SRA...), have both their good points and bad.
Live axle:
+: cheap, simple (less to go wrong), slightly lighter overall weight
-: ride OR handling, massive unsprung weight (more important to suspension performance), poor compliance over rough roads (not to be confused with smooth ride).
IRS:
+: ride AND handling, less unsprung weight, more tunable, good rough road compliance
-: more costly, greater overall weight, more complex.
Summary:
For a cheap, simple but limited capability suspension, the SRA is sufficient and probably even superior in the rather limited realm of drag racing. For a better overall (ride, handling, compliance, tunability) suspension at now nominal increases in weight and cost, the IRS is clearly the answer. A consideration is that many (most?) of the folks on this board focus rather narrowly on straight line, drag race type performance, so all the other advantages of an IRS become somewhat moot. Good IRSs, however, will give a better level of handling for a given level of ride quality (and visa versa) and simply better overall performance, compliance and resilience over rougher roads. No, IRS's appeal is not simply cushy ride quality as some try to dismissively assert, indeed, they can be tuned a taut as a bow string for Nth degree performance (see 350Z references).
Contemporary IRS suspension designs -- as opposed to, say, the cobbled SN95 Cobra's -- are indeed very affordable, reliable, rugged and lightweight, and can perform well on both track, road and strip, so I think the ardent "either/or" argument against IRS is at times dated. The ideal solution would be to have both options, which Ford seemed to be initially planning but then bailed out on in a fit of penny-pinching and, due to lack of direct competition, lack of foresight or real interest in expanding the Mustang's appeal.
It will be interesting now that real competition is appearing on stage -- the Challenger and Camaro -- both of which do come stadard with IRS systems, so these arguments may move from the hypothetical to being reality based once all three go head to head. It will be interesting to see how Ford responds and competes, whether to retreat to a bunker mentality of low cost and narrow focus or rather, to meet the new competition head on with high value and overall capability. Also interesting might be how current and future high fuel costs might shift the focus of performance away from simple broad-ax, big-motor straight-line acceleration to a more fully rounded concept incorporating also handling, braking, agility, balance and compliance.
Live axle:
+: cheap, simple (less to go wrong), slightly lighter overall weight
-: ride OR handling, massive unsprung weight (more important to suspension performance), poor compliance over rough roads (not to be confused with smooth ride).
IRS:
+: ride AND handling, less unsprung weight, more tunable, good rough road compliance
-: more costly, greater overall weight, more complex.
Summary:
For a cheap, simple but limited capability suspension, the SRA is sufficient and probably even superior in the rather limited realm of drag racing. For a better overall (ride, handling, compliance, tunability) suspension at now nominal increases in weight and cost, the IRS is clearly the answer. A consideration is that many (most?) of the folks on this board focus rather narrowly on straight line, drag race type performance, so all the other advantages of an IRS become somewhat moot. Good IRSs, however, will give a better level of handling for a given level of ride quality (and visa versa) and simply better overall performance, compliance and resilience over rougher roads. No, IRS's appeal is not simply cushy ride quality as some try to dismissively assert, indeed, they can be tuned a taut as a bow string for Nth degree performance (see 350Z references).
Contemporary IRS suspension designs -- as opposed to, say, the cobbled SN95 Cobra's -- are indeed very affordable, reliable, rugged and lightweight, and can perform well on both track, road and strip, so I think the ardent "either/or" argument against IRS is at times dated. The ideal solution would be to have both options, which Ford seemed to be initially planning but then bailed out on in a fit of penny-pinching and, due to lack of direct competition, lack of foresight or real interest in expanding the Mustang's appeal.
It will be interesting now that real competition is appearing on stage -- the Challenger and Camaro -- both of which do come stadard with IRS systems, so these arguments may move from the hypothetical to being reality based once all three go head to head. It will be interesting to see how Ford responds and competes, whether to retreat to a bunker mentality of low cost and narrow focus or rather, to meet the new competition head on with high value and overall capability. Also interesting might be how current and future high fuel costs might shift the focus of performance away from simple broad-ax, big-motor straight-line acceleration to a more fully rounded concept incorporating also handling, braking, agility, balance and compliance.
10/7/08, 09:12 AM
#55
Cobra Member
Join Date: June 25, 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not having IRS doesn't bother me, but it just seems odd that it doesn't have it.
My source told me that during meetings prior to the 2005 Mustang Launch, there was one man that was Pro-IRS. He wouldn't let the subject go. He said the Mustang must have IRS. Somebody got sick of him, and he got fired.
The next Gen Mustang "should" have IRS. Guess what? Its still on schedule-lol
My source told me that during meetings prior to the 2005 Mustang Launch, there was one man that was Pro-IRS. He wouldn't let the subject go. He said the Mustang must have IRS. Somebody got sick of him, and he got fired.
The next Gen Mustang "should" have IRS. Guess what? Its still on schedule-lol
10/7/08, 10:44 AM
#56
Needs to be more Astony
10/7/08, 12:05 PM
#57
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2008
Location: Pacific NW USA
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The problem with your logic is, most serious drag racers are replacing their 03-04 IRS rear ends with a straight axle setup. There are a number of places marketing these changeovers...
That's a logical thought, except the most powerful SN95 cars (03-04 Terminator Cobras) have the IRS, which was retroengineered for that chassis. Why would they put a "weak" IRS in the most powerful Mustang of that era?
Truth is, Ford can make an IRS for our cars and make it affordable as well. They have proven they can engineer both a SRA and IRS for the same chassis. My belief is that those desiring an IRS are in the minority, and most Mustang drivers could care less about the suspension. I would have paid a premium for the IRS, though, and at some point they will have to acknowledge the Camaro and Challenger have done it for similar cost.
Truth is, Ford can make an IRS for our cars and make it affordable as well. They have proven they can engineer both a SRA and IRS for the same chassis. My belief is that those desiring an IRS are in the minority, and most Mustang drivers could care less about the suspension. I would have paid a premium for the IRS, though, and at some point they will have to acknowledge the Camaro and Challenger have done it for similar cost.
10/7/08, 12:13 PM
#58
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: November 14, 2007
Location: Pacific NW USA
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
6 Posts
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.
10/7/08, 12:20 PM
#59
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: November 14, 2007
Location: Pacific NW USA
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
6 Posts
Look, we're all going to continue to disagree on the merits of SRA vs IRS in our beloved Mustang. Just know that the "everyone else is doing it" argument doesn't work for me, and it's a rather juvenile argument anyway. Even my teenage daughters have given up using that kind of argument on me for everything they want.
10/7/08, 01:00 PM
#60
I'd say that if you took two new Mustangs, one SRA and one IRS and picked 10,000 owners of S-197s (regardless of trim) at random to test drive them and didn't tell them that there was any thing different about them, 90% of them couldn't tell you what the difference was (if they noticed any at all) and half of those wouldn't even know the difference between IRS and SRA unless you explained it to them. The only people who argue about this (or even know what rear suspension it has) are the true car enthusiast, people who have read that SRA is bad in magazines, listen to Jeremy Clarkson bash American cars, and the internet racers who base their opinion of a car on the numbers a magazine test says it does on a track (but will never achieve it or even try it for themselves if they had the car). Do you think the 16 year old fat chick down the street with the V-6, auto, 'vert knows what rear end it has? The fact is, the majority of Mustang owners fall into that category.
I personally don't care if is has IRS or not. I don't drag race mine, and I don't take it to the track. And I highly doubt that your handling is restriced by the SRA on the street. If it is, you are headed to jail or the morgue because I have yet to find a public road where I can push mine to it's limit without being reckless, irresponsible, putting someone else's life in danger, or just plain stupid.
The only reason I would object to them changing to an IRS is if it added significantly more weight. The car is porky enough as it is, it doesn't need even more fat to haul around.
I personally don't care if is has IRS or not. I don't drag race mine, and I don't take it to the track. And I highly doubt that your handling is restriced by the SRA on the street. If it is, you are headed to jail or the morgue because I have yet to find a public road where I can push mine to it's limit without being reckless, irresponsible, putting someone else's life in danger, or just plain stupid.
The only reason I would object to them changing to an IRS is if it added significantly more weight. The car is porky enough as it is, it doesn't need even more fat to haul around.
Last edited by Rather B.Blown; 10/7/08 at 01:10 PM.