Ford could easily build a watts link suspension for the Mustang!! They have been putting watts links in Crown Vics for years!!

 

Couldn't you use the same system in the stang?

 

What everyone also forgets is that Ford yanked the IRS out last minute, and IIRC the changes that were made to the platform to accomodate the SRA, won't allow the room for an IRS to just be slapped in.
They'd have to change it back...not saying it can't be done, but the effort/$$$ for the extra couple of years.... would the benefits offset the cost/weight/peformance?
I don't know, I didn't build the car.

Then again its easy for us to say 'coulda woulda shoulda'...and everyone knows how to make a magic car that can satisfy everyones budget and wishlist

 

Of course not. Ain't gonna happen.

Look for IRS in 2015. Meanwhile, they will just refine what they're using now.

 

I never said Ford was smarter for sticking with a live-axle, just that they aren't stupid for doing so. If they can still handle decently and drive nice then who cares what type of suspension is used.

Also, thanks for proving my point with your second rebuttal to my post. You just said that comeptitors to the mustang don't all use v8's because they can do just as well with 6 and 4 cylinder engines. Most people would agree that a v8 in general is a better platform as far as performance is concerned. Yet not everyone goes tha route. Just like Ford doesn't use an IRS because the mustang has a similar handling threshold as their competition. What I mean by threshold, is it can handle around a track just as well with some simple modifications. Just like a 350z for example can compete with a GT down the 1/4 with a few modifications.

 

 

Ok, now your not comparing apples to apples! Your comparing the 2008 E92 M3 4.0L V8 to a Mustang? One is a mid $60,000 car (and a SICK car), but still a mid $60,000 car, vs a car that can be bought for somewhere in the low $20,000 with incentives! Come on!! Of course the BMW engine is powerful for its size. It only revs to 8,000 rpms and is derived from their V10 F1 (and M5/M6) cars, but again, its a car that costs almost $70,000!! And I bet that a good portion of the price of the M3 goest towards the cost of the motor. When you get high end components and an F1 team to develop the basis for this motor, its easy to have it! But again, price comes in play on this comparo. I know for a fact that most of us on TMS couldn't afford a Mustang at that price.

 

Heh, huge winner? When was 1/2 million in sales a huge loser?

 

I am not being picky. And anytime you want to put both of us of a road course, bring your wallet!

Why don't you compare the S197 to a 350Z. Both the 300ZX and 240X are old technology. The 350Z is much more composed in corners. My brother has one and I've driven it a lot. The difference in handling is night and day compared to my modded Mustang. My car is a lot faster though.

I believe it was John Colletti that compared the SVT Cobra to the M3. Why can't the ~44K GT500 by on equal performance terms to a ~45K C6 Vette? I don't think my standards are too high. Ford's are too low!

 

We will have to see. The GT has a LOT of work to do in terms of performance. Here's why I think that. C&D just did their yearly test at VIR. It's a pretty good test at the same track, conditions, etc. Well in 2006, a Ford Mustang GT ran 3.20.9. The new Cobalt SS ran a 3.12.5. That's over 8 seconds faster PER lap. The Camaro SS should be about 1-2 seconds faster at VIR, given what the comparison of the Cobalt SS vs Camaro SS ring times. I know this isn't 100% scientific and this is my personal hunch, but that's nearly a to second difference at VIR comparing a 06' Mustang vs Camaro SS. Again, this is just an analysis of times we've seen.

 

That was the point of my post...to get near M3 performance and sophistication at a cheaper price. A few corrections though...you can get a M3 now in the $55k range as long as you don't load the thing up, it revs to 8400rpm. However, all I'm asking is for Ford to up the ante a tad and give us a Mustang with near M3 qualities at a cheaper price.

I have owned 2 BMW E46 M3's and now a 08 328i 6spd sport package sedan along with a 997S. I would love to get a Mustang with it's updated interior and I feel sharper looks over the E92 with the right parts and Ford could probably do it for under $40k. It's just a wish..

I do realize when I made this post it was apples and oranges but with a 400hp 5.0L V8 already in the works how much more would it be for a proper IRS for a car it was already designed for. This is after all the original premise of the OP.

Dave

 

You may have missed the sarcasm in my post...I actually agreed with you. I don't own the E46 M3 anymore, I moved on to a 07 997S. That being said the Bullitt won't beat a E46 M3 in the twisties, just isn't going to happen. I drove a Bullitt at Willows Springs and no way would this car beat my E46 M3 on a road course. BTW, there have been a few guys who have run in the 12's with a stock E46 M3. They launch so nice, I have seen 60 ft. times on these cars as low as 1.74 sec with stock tires. My time at Willows wasn't timed so I have no way in knowing but my E46 M3 was much more precise. I will say this though, the Bullitt I drove it was substantially better than the 06 Mustang GT I drove there as well.

Dave

 

Sorry Dave, but the reason most people buy a mustang is because its cheaper than other offerings out there. I'm NOT paying close to $40,000 for a mustang! If I had $40k to spend I could easily pony up another $15k for a M3 or just get a 135. Everyone here that wants IRS thinks that everyone drives on the roads like you do. I dont care if the IRS does drive better, the SRA is adequate for daily driving and ALL normal driving situations. If I need it to handle better than it does, I can modify it with either a Watts link or other aftermarket items. If it still doesnt handle good enough, I didnt buy the right car! Dont FORCE me to buy something I dont need because you want something to do a better job than what its designed to be. IMO, if you NEED the IRS, look at vehicles that have typically in the past come with them already. The mustang has always been a mass market vehicle and by putting in the IRS, I believe you will go too far up the ladder for a lot of people, whether they cant afford it or not. Nothing personal, just my rant.

 

I understand the logic in your post, but this is 2008. I would agree that we didn't need an IRS back in 94' or 99' but now an IRS is pretty much the industry standard for a sport/ sporty car. A vast majority don't want to turn to the after market to make their car equal to the competition. A huge reason why I bought my Cobra is because I didn't want to mod a GT to reach F-Body, Corvette levels, I let Ford take care of that. I don't think Ford is forcing anyone to do anything. People are just defending Ford for being cheap plane and simple. You don't see Dodge and GM guys *****ing about their GTOs, Camaros and Challengers HAVING AN IRS.

I'm not sure about the other people here but I like in Massachusetts, right in the heart of New England (GO RED SOX). Unlike warmer parts of the country, we have poor, cracked up roads in much of the state. It is on these roads that everyday driving can be effected by a SRA. I feel i'm more qualified than some here because I own both an IRS and SRA equipped Mustangs. I can't even begin to describe who much better of a ride my 03' has in comparison to my 97'. I understand that the current 05-09 generation is a much better setup than my 97' but it still skips and hops over rough pavement. I think something like this could be a deal breaker for many considering the Mustang along with it's competition that does offer the IRS.

The funny thing is everyone considers price to be the main issue here, I know i've said it before but Dodge's base V8 Challenger comes with an IRS for under $30,000. Lets also not forget that it was Ford who actually first started putting an IRS in the Mustang back in 99'. The Cobra in both 99' and 01' sported an IRS and were in about the same price range as an SS Camaro with a SRA. According to my research the bump in price for an IRS equipped Cobra in 99' over the SRA 98' was just $1760. Lets not forget that the 99' also had more power, and improved suspension and at the time all new styling.

 

I understand your viewpoint, but I have driven one of those GTOs many times. Working in the car business, I am able to drive pretty much whatever I want including the BMWs. Therefore, the wheelhop and ratcheting I felt when under full throttle shifts wasnt pretty with the IRS and no, I didnt notice enough of a difference to warrant the IRS. Same with C6s and C5s.

 

Why is this debate still going on! Make it stop! No ONE side is going to win. No matter what Ford does. Just be happy your driving a Mustang at all. Trust me, I can't wait to get home and even SEE one, much less drive one.

 

Because I'm still at work and nothing is going on.

 

As others have mentioned, IRS is not "too far up the ladder", since every other car in the world uses it. Using that analogy, the Mustang isn't even ON the ladder. Fact is, you're not going to see this debate on the forums of other performance cars. Why? Because their cars don't use SRA anymore.

I'd love to substitute the words IRS and SRA for fuel injection and carburetor, and then see how this argument ended up. It's like arguing on behalf of leeches and bloodletting in a modern hospital.

 

What really annoys me about the SRA, more than anything else. Is that dreadful wheel hop whenever going over pavement bumps. Especially when your right in the middle of shifting gears.


At any rate: I wonder if upgrading to LCA relocation brackets, would at least reduce the amount of wheel hop.