not sure where you get your bimmers but the 328 the base 3 series sedan starts at over 33k and the coupe starts at over 36k.

 

Probably should have said the 1 Series as I think the 128i starts at $29.2K, though it gets quickly pricier if you even so much as glance at the options list.

 

I've heard the argument being that the Mustang is affordable, which it is. Adding 500 dollars for an IRS rear to the MSRP won’t affect sales. If you cannot afford to pay 500 dollars more, you honestly should be looking at a much cheaper car. Adding 1-2K to the cost of the Mustang won’t affect sales in my opinion. Do the math over the typical 48 or 60 month loan. Again, if you cannot afford the extra couple of bucks a month, you should be looking at a much cheaper car. I know that might not be the PC opinion, but look around. All of these idiots that overleveraged themselves in the last 5-7 years are the reason why we responsible consumers are being leaned on. End rant…

 

Its a balancing act thought, adding 500 here 500 there and you end up with a much more expensive car.

I would rather they use the cheapest hardest interior plastics in the world on the interior and add IRS then paying 500 more for IRS.

 

While the word "fine" is a relative term, I am using more subjectively than anything else. I am telling you, my car does NOT shutter over pot holes. If yours does than you are simply going too fast over them when you turn. Plus, how often are you even hitting poor quality pavement? Most of my driving is on normal road, not roads with chunks missing from it. I also try to avoid such potholes just because they screw up your alignment.

Who cares what every other automaker does? Does every other automaker offer a v8 engine with 300 hp for 26k? No, they don't. You still haven't told me what benefit there is to Ford in this. Honestly, how many people are going to suddenly buy the mustang because it has IRS?

 

Because most competitive car buyers, as opposed to specific model fanboys, do care what other automakers do and sell.

And no, no other maker offers a car with a V8, 300hp and cute little ponies sprinkled around the exterior, but then, nobody has been arguing against this, the Mustang's main strengths. Rather, it is concern over the Mustang's main weaknesses against its competition that drives much of this IRS discussion, in this instance, elements of its chassis design.

I hardly see advocating the addressing of the peculiar weak points in the Mustang's performance envelope as being somehow subversive to the Stang's overall image or viability. Quite to the contrary, I think addressing these weaknesses will further strengthen and deepen the Mustang's broader market appeal and boolster its long term market appeal and viability against the onslaught of new direct and indirect competitors.

Ideally, Ford would do as with the SN95 chassis and offer both options: a live axle for drag racers and penny pinchers and IRS (though much better implemented) for the real road overall performance drivers. The added $500, as revealed by that owner survey of a year or so ago, sounds like a performance bargain, especially given how readily people are to spend nearly $2K for an utterly worthless, performance-wise, California Special package or the see-all-the-pretty-birdies-in-the-trees glass roof option. What does it say about Ford's commitment to driving enthusiasts when they divert all these development and production resources to tape stripes, fake scoops and skylight fluff rather than real performance meat.

Realistically, presuming it doesn't fold up altogether, Ford's dire circumstances means that we're pretty much stuck with what we now have, chassis wise, regardless of the merits for an IRS. I suspect that in the inevitable head-to-head comparisons and competition with the Camaro and Challenger, this will prove to be a significant ***** in the Stangs's overall performance envelope, especially for the '10 lacking the 5.0 to act as a counterbalance in the performance envelope. Or will the extra oomph of the 5.0 more starkly reveal the shortcomings of the SRA in other than strip and stoplight racing?

Likely the Stang will seek competitive refuge in bargain basement pricing, even if, in absolute costs, it won't be too much cheaper and in terms of overall performance value, it might be a wash at best. All this, of course, remains bench racing till the competitors meet each other on street, strip, track and road and the hard numbers start coming in.

 

cute little ponies?!

 

Take it from me, I have driven solid axle cars for MANY Years, and the last two Thunderbirds I've Owned have had Independent Rear Suspension. If You Want To Know if there is a Difference between driving a car with a SRA or IRS, Come Drive Down here in Florida, Tampa Specifically.

We Have HORRIBLE ROADS!!! Almost every road here in Tampa has Pot Holes, or Patches in it. Even Bayshore Blvd., Where there are Multi Million Dollar Homes, is one of the worst roads I've driven on. Expansion Joints, Pot Holes, Patches etc.

So driving on Bad Roads is a Daily Thing for me, and to tell you the God's Honest Truth, the Multi Link IRS in my 89 Supercoupe, and my 97 LX4.6 Thunderbirds, really doesn't make that Big A Difference to me! If you are going around a corner or a curve and you hit a pot hole, expansion joint or patch, it Does Not Matter! It's Going To Bounce the Entire Vehicle!

Where IRS Makes the most sense is on a Well Maintained Road, or Race Course where the wheels can move freely without being bounced by rough roads. That is where an IRS setup Shines Over a SRA. But in Real World Driving, It's Just More Parts to Wear Out In My Opinion!

The SRA is Far More Durable! I NEVER Had to Replace Suspension Bushings or Axle parts on a Car Equipped with a SRA, but I've had to Replace several Bushings on Both my IRS equiped Thunderbirds, as well as Seals for the CV Joints in the rear of my 89.

Just My 2 Cents on the IRS vs SRA Debate.

 

Agreed, Offering both is a good idea if Ford can manage it financially. But you left out the Kool-aid drinking part, "real Kool-aid drinking road overall performance drivers". Letting Mustang buyers choose with their wallet I believe would illustrate that the VAST majority of Mustang buyers STILL wouldn't pay extra for IRS.

Throw the $2000 Navigation system in there too...


This has been my experience driving both IRS and SRA since my 1966 Triumph TR4A IRS to the most recent 2008 Corvette...


Good Luck with that, even then the IRS Kool-aid drinkers won't admit they were wrong in insisting that the IRS suspension is the end all do all "Holy Grail" of evolutionary steps in the Mustang. It is not.

 

Nobody's saying IRS as any sort of cure-all, but like fuel injection over carburetors or disc brakes over drums, it will be a clear step forward in overall vehicle performance.

 

Well, if you consider 20 MPH over road patches or undulations in a 30 degree curve too fast, then I guess I'm going too fast.

No such troubles doing the same road in my friend's IRS equipped car, however.


I live in a large urban area where building and development has flourished over the past six years (had to pull three nails out of my back tires in a two week period alone!). Many of the roads here are heavily patched and some have potholes, too, so I know what I'm talking about.

I guess if one lives in a rural, low-traffic area, it doesn't matter.

Ford should, because their customers are looking at those other automakers - much more than they've been looking at Ford in recent years, judging from Ford's dire financial straights.

That myopic attitude is precisely why the Blue Oval is desperately trying to play catch up right now.

So Ford offers it for $26,500 with the IRS added. Now you satisfy the performance crowd who otherwise might consider a Mustang were it not for the spruce log; you silence the critics; and you bring the car into the dynamic envelope of its direct competition.

Perhaps the question you should be asking is: how many people are NOT buying it because it doesn't (aside from the Mustang faithful)?

 

My friend, common sense is dead. You are beating a dead horse. For the people that want an SRA, better buy up some used Stangs. The future of the Mustang is an IRS rear and the car will be better because of it.

 

The question is how many people are going to buy the Camaro, 370Z, Hyundai (name escapes me), and Challenger. Ford's monopoly on the market is becoming fragile. Hell, we don't even know if Ford will be operating in 2-3 years in the same capacity.

 

IMHO it is MUCH LESS of an evolutionary step than either electronic fuel injection and certainly disc brakes. A more realistic comparison to the IRS versus SRA differences and benefits debate would be comparing Double Wishbone suspension systems to MacPherson Strut suspension systems.

There are many objective lists comparing the Advantages and Disadvantages of Double Wishbone suspension systems with the Advantages and Disadvantages MacPherson Strut suspension systems. Perhaps someone should post such a comparative list of the pros and cons for both IRS & SRA systems here...

 

Here's a thought, how about an SE model for those who want the IRS.
What do you guys think?

Sorry if someone has already mentioned this but 34 pages is a lot to go thru.

 

Common sense is dead?

Do you realize how many decades it took the entire automotive industry (not only Ford) to move to front disc brakes as STANDARD on every one of their cars? Everyone understands the disc brakes clear superiority over drum brakes. The cost difference to the car manufactures between disc and drum brakes has historically been a single digit dollar amount. Yet car buyers went many decades and perhaps thousands of lives lost due to disc brakes NOT being a standard feature on all automobiles since the 60's. Do you realize that you can still buy cars with rear drum brakes?

In your wildest dreams the difference between IRS and SRA is nowhere near as important or drastic and has a far smaller direct impact on automotive/passenger safety than disc versus drum brakes do.

The timing of IRS's arrival on the base Mustang (or any Mustang) is simply NOT that pressing of an issue. Just ask Ford.

IRS suspension is NOT the end all do all "Holy Grail" of evolutionary steps in the Mustang, common sense indeed.

 

What you really need to ask yourself is this: why have all other manufacturers the world over almost completely abandoned SRAs in passenger cars, and 100% of all manufacturers for all performance coupes?

If SRA is dynamically superior - or no worse than - IRS, then why did not Ford use it in the GT supercar?

The answer to this question has been - and always will be (no matter WHAT the pro-SRA pundits say) - $$. Ford can make more money offering an inferior suspension in the Mustang while charging almost the same money as it would cost if they put in an IRS. It's how they've done it for the past 30 years, it's how they're doing it now...and it's one component of the larger systemic problem that has led them to within a stone's throw of Chapter 11.

 

the major component of a stone's throw away from chapter 11 is not lack of an IRS on a Mustang, its the UAW costs and movement away from trucks, lets be fair here, GM is a stone's throw away, Ford is not

 

Yeah, let's be fair, indeed.

To your first point: the major component of a stone's throw away from chapter 11 is not lack of an IRS on a Mustang, its the UAW costs and movement away from trucks... I said that the unwillingness to adopt technologies that the rest of the automotive world went to YEARS ago (IRS being but one major example in Ford's case) is part of a series of systemic mistakes that domestic automakers have been making for the past three decades - always taking the cheap route. UAW costs are certainly a problem (as are legacy costs), but movement away from trucks is no excuse whatsoever. The imports - clearly seeing in THEIR crystal ***** - that cheap oil wouldn't last forever, figured out how to make money on passenger cars as opposed to banking everything on trucks. Apparently the domestic automaker's crystal ***** were clouded by greed combined with short-term vision.

To your second point: GM is a stone's throw away, Ford is not. You betcha Ford is a stone's throw away from bankruptcy. Depending upon which reports you read, the company only has one to two years left before the money runs out. I call that a stone's throw. Think the economy is going to turn around within 24 months? Think again. If Ford can't start selling vehicles in much greater numbers in that time (when consumers are severely cutting back on automotive purchases), then they won't survive either, unless they get either a government bailout or merge with another foreign automaker.

 

uaw is a huge issue; its a cost that foreign automakers simply do not have. if you call ford a stones throw away then what do you call GM and chrysler?