i want wind up windows

 

What about wind down windows? Both would seem to have their advantages.

 

Carburetors are not good enough. EFI is vastly superior. Roll up windows are more expensive to produce than power, but do the same thing.
Every example you come up with that is superior, cost much more and then compromises on other key aspects if it doesnt cost significantly more.
How many of these IRS equipped cars, with comparable performance, can I get off of the showroom floor for mid twenties? Right now, not just coming to market.

 

excellent point. we've come along way with technology, hard to believe we are where we are these days

 

Why do you still cling to the erroneous belief that Ford's price point on the Mustang is any less with SRA than it would (make that could) have been with IRS...?

 

IIRC, Ford circulated a consumer poll a year or two ago that got leaked out. On it, they included a question as to whether people would pay $X more for an IRS and the X amount was somewhere in the range of $500, an order of magnitude less than the $5K malarky Ford circulated around as the added cost for an IRS around the release of the S197.

As for a mid $20's RWD performance coupe, one need look no further than Ford's corporate partner Mazda to find a very sophisticated front (twin forged aluminum A-arms) and rear (multilink setup with forged AL bits) suspensions, not to mention a CF drive shaft for good measure. Of course it doesn't have the Mustang's grunt, but it does show that a highly sophisticated and effective IRS is not the sole providence of high-brow performance car elite. Don't forget the Camaro, too, will have an IRS dealing with 300hp for the mid $20s too and well over 400hp for around $30K.

Of course what will really bring this discussion to earth will be the inevitable comparison tests between the three pony cars that will presumably include evaluations more challenging to a suspension than drag racing on smooth roads where a go-cart's suspension would well suffice. Judging a suspension on its drag strip capabilities is like judging a drive train on a skid pad -- the predictable result of either would be the low expectation's "good enough" that is so often the heard regarding the SRA.

I'd be careful of the race car comparisons as it seems that the Stang is doing well in spite of its rear suspension -- by dint of a lot more HP and other mods not allowed its effete IRS competition -- not because of it. That it takes an extra 1.8 liters displacement and 100+hp on relatively smooth race tracks to keep competitive with the IRS equipped competition (last generation E46 M3s) maybe says less good about the SRA than one might care to trumpet.

 

With all due respect, you still don't get where I am going with my remarks. It isn't like IRS is some brand new technology, it has been since the earlier part of the 1900's. Again, if the mustang handles fine on the track and isn't that bad on the road, why oh why is it necessary for it to have one? I mean other than getting recognition in magazines, what monetary benefit is there for Ford to do this?

Is it your assertion that they will gain sales from it? If so, how many? How many people won't buy a mustang just because it has a live-axle? And conversely, who wouldn't buy the mustang if it did have an IRS?

You almost act like the mustang is some sort of exotic that needs to be the best in every category of performance (I know I'm exaggerating).

As for the bolded statement, I mean come one, you couldn't come up with better examples? I highly doubt a carburetor equipped car could pass emissions testing. If by some miracle it did, they don't get very good gas mileage which, I understand the mustang isn't known for fuel economy. However, more people wouldn't buy the mustang if it got single digit fuel economy than those that won't buy it for its SRA setup. The manual window comment has already been covered so I won't go over it but ya it is more expensive.

Hopefully, this makes my comments make a bit more sense. I am not trying to pick on you or anything but I am just puzzled by the IRS proponents obsession with bashing the mustangs live axle setup for seemingly insignificant reasons.

 

A IRS is progression. You can either embrace technology or resist it. The people resisting it will be left behind. Why are people against building a better Mustang?

 

Because your definition of "fine" is a relative term that every other car maker in the world rejected YEARS ago.

Because I would prefer NOT to feel the shudder of every pothole and road imperfection travel up my spine as I'm driving, or twitchiness of the rear end when going around a corner on those very same roads...at even 30 MPH.

That's why.

As to the rest, I think it was eminently explained here.

 

who is against progression? to me, progression is a DOHC 4V 5.0 offered for under 30K, which not only produces more power but also better gas mileage. that is far more important to me than an IRS that improves everday handling (I never Auto X). to me a car is 30% engine, 30% looks and 40% everything else. the powertrain and styling comes before every other improvement, seeing that with a few upgrades (Remember Top Gear mistook the Roush SRA for an IRS) can handle pretty darn well. i think people are stuck on this IRS thing because the automobile media almost neurotically overemphasises the point, yet when a Cobalt SS/TC does well with a torsion beam, or the Mustang wins races (Despite upgrades, its still an SRA), people tend to not stop and think, they just go forward parroting the "dinosaur suspension" cliches. no offense, an IRS is better overall than an SRA, but to me and many others, for a Mustang there are more pertinent upgrades, the DOHC V8 being being at the forefront

 

The 5.0L is coming, don't worry. Ford now needs to upgrade the brakes and suspension to handle the added power.

 

The gift that keeps on giving.

 

Talk About Beating A Dead Horse!!! 32 Pages in this post?

C'mon guys Ford will build a Mustang with IRS when the Bean Counters let loose of the money, and not until then.

 

This is a topic that the two groups have to agree to disagree.


Too bad ford can't make it an option. I wish ford would go back to the 1960's model, where you can order basically any part individual and make it a truly custom car for yourself. I would order a base car with a gt500 engine!

 

NO IT ISN'T!

 

YES IT IS!

 

YOU'RE WRONG!

I READ IT ON TEH INTERNETS!

 

Heck, given Detroit's and Ford's dire future, we'll be lucky just to have a FoMoCo or Mustang at all. Detroit's, and yes, America's, shortsighted splurge in gas swilling trucks and SUVs may well represent the death knell for Detroit. While Ford does have a raft of excellent, efficient Euro models -- and a dear few domestic models -- I'm not sure they'll get here in time to save the day.

As for the Mustang? Is the big motor approach to performance a swan song? Perhaps, rather than the ever-more-horsepower approach as exemplified by the upcoing 5.0, Ford should, or will be forced to, take a more holilstic approach to performance that better emphasizes overall vehicle dynamics vs. unidimensional straight line grunt ... which would imply things like IRS over ever more liters displacement. Some argue that the SRA is "good enough" for street driving, but that could just as readily be said of the current 4.6 (though I hate using this suitable-level-of-mediocrity argument in any realm).

 

YOU'RE WRONG! I WIN.

 

ahaahhaa