What's the BFD with IRS?
11/12/08, 08:03 AM
#623
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 24, 2008
Location: Traverse City
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every one of your remarks has already been addressed ad nauseum in this thread and others. I'm not going to rehash them all here, I'm only going to reiterate that there is no longer any valid excuse left for Ford to be using an oxcart suspension in a 21st century performance car when no other manufacturer in the world would even consider such a Byzantine solution, for myriad reasons that have been pointed out repeatedly.
Is the solid axle good enough? Sure. But so is a carburetor and wind-up windows...and who wants those anymore, either?
Is the solid axle good enough? Sure. But so is a carburetor and wind-up windows...and who wants those anymore, either?
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.
11/12/08, 08:45 AM
#624
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 31, 2008
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11/12/08, 04:09 PM
#625
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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...?
11/12/08, 04:29 PM
#626
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by rhumb; 11/12/08 at 04:39 PM.
11/12/08, 06:55 PM
#627
V6 Member
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every one of your remarks has already been addressed ad nauseum in this thread and others. I'm not going to rehash them all here, I'm only going to reiterate that there is no longer any valid excuse left for Ford to be using an oxcart suspension in a 21st century performance car when no other manufacturer in the world would even consider such a Byzantine solution, for myriad reasons that have been pointed out repeatedly.
Is the solid axle good enough? Sure. But so is a carburetor and wind-up windows...and who wants those anymore, either?
Is the solid axle good enough? Sure. But so is a carburetor and wind-up windows...and who wants those anymore, either?
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.
11/12/08, 07:07 PM
#628
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
11/12/08, 07:13 PM
#629
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
Last edited by Hollywood_North GT; 11/12/08 at 07:14 PM.
11/12/08, 07:23 PM
#630
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 31, 2008
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
11/12/08, 07:31 PM
#631
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
11/12/08, 11:33 PM
#633
Cobra R Member
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.
C'mon guys Ford will build a Mustang with IRS when the Bean Counters let loose of the money, and not until then.
11/13/08, 08:16 AM
#634
Needs to be more Astony
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!
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!
Last edited by Knight; 11/13/08 at 08:19 AM.
11/13/08, 08:25 AM
#638
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).