GTJOHN

I agree! The Mustang shouldn't abandon it's roots. If Ford wants to compete with the BMW's of the world, they should create a new Lincoln or move the new T-bird into that segment.

rhumb

I don't think holding the Mustang to the highest in-class (or even somewhat above its price range) standards and technologies is necessarily abandoning its roots any more than, say, moving up to rear disc brakes, fuel injection, rack and pinion steering, ABS, or any other host of technologies. To assert otherwise would, perversely, be defining the Mustang mostly by its backwardness, crudeness and flaws.

While Ford has been somewhat myopic with the Mustang of late, being the only fish in the pond for a number of years, a lot of other fish are jumping into the Mustang's waters now and they are bringing leading edge technology to compete.

The Mustang has been about many things, even luxury cars (recall the various Grande and Ghia models in the past) and if "sophistication" means broad performance competence, then I see little wrong with that ("Oops, the Mustang's now handling too well, let's dumb it down with some leaf springs and bias ply tire lest it gets all highfalutin sophisticated on us..."

The Mustang does exist and must compete in the larger world outside the small cabal of enthusiasts and as such, must simply work better than the competition around it if it is to appeal to and sell beyond a market niche.

True, it must maintain it ineffable Mustang character and identity, a challenging task for any historied marque, but that shouldn't condemn it to backwardness nor crimp its capabilities by being shackled to some decades old technologies well past their effectiveness in a highly competitive market.

bt4

Just out of curiosity what 'leading edge' technology are you referring to? IRS? I'm not sure, but I thnk IRS first appeared around the turn of the 19th Century. Off the cuff, I think it was 1930, or somewhere around 1930 that Buick introduced it on its models. (The Covette uses leaf-springs, a technology that the Romans knew and used on their chariots. But I don't hear an out-cry about that ancient piece of technology on one of the best performance cars of today.) An IRS may have been cutting-edge back in 1932, but somehow it is hard to think of it in those terms today.

The Camaro V6 is a nice piece of work, but certainly no more advanced than the new 3.7 in the Mustang. The SS uses a push-rod V8, not exactly ancient, but certainly not leading edge technology. (GM has done a great job getting power and economy out of the design.) It isn't nearly as new a design as the new 5.0.

In dash, touch screen navigation is a relatively new feature--a feature you can have on a Mustang, but not on the Camaro--does Challenger offer one? A voice activated media center is a relatively new tech feature. It can be had on a Mustang. Is is available on a Camaro? Or, on a Challenger? (Just asking, I don't really know.)

I do know that Plasma Arc Wire Transfer, the process that produces a coating of steel oxide in the cylinder walls of the new aluminum 5.4 in the GT500 is not new in the airplane industry, but currently only two production cars use the technology, the Nissan GT-R and the GT500.

I'm not flaming you, I really am curious as to what new technology features Mustang competitors are bringing to the table, that the Mustang does't have. (I won't be in the market for a new car for two more years, so I really haven't done much shopping around.)

To be clear, I have no objection to an IRS--with a caveat. I am willing and happy to trade a good handling SRA for an excellent handling IRS. I am not remotely interested in trading an excellent handling SRA for a mediocre IRS and paying a premium for the privilge.

rhumb

Well, maybe not bleeding edge, but certainly better than last century's trailing edge (lively axles). As you note, automotive IRS systems date to the early 20th century, but that's a step forward from live axle which date to about the neolithic period or something. The Vette does use leaf springs, but don't confuse these with those propping up the back of your neighbors old pickup. The Vette's are lightweight transverse composite pieces that serve solely as a springing element with no locating functions. As such, I think they are a brilliant idea and I am surprised more companies haven't copied them as they are simple, very light, last forever, extremely compact and sit very low (CG).

As you rightly note, the Mustang is suddenly adopting very contemporary technologies to very good effect, including the drive train (new 3.7 and 5.0 motors), some aspects of the chassis (electric steering) and interior appointments (My Sync, etc.). This approach does show that the Mustang can be both fully a car of today in its technology and capabilities yet still retain the overall spirit and character that defines it without being shackled to living in the past. Also, why wait for your competitor to bring out new features and technologies first and then only doing reactive catch-ups. There are many areas where the Mustang can be technologically leading edge and yet keep, even enhance, its image and character.

Adding an excellent and affordable IRS (Control Blade design perhaps) would be and easy low-hanging apple. What about a Power Shift (DCT) tranny? Or some Ecotech motors (4, 6 or even 8 bangers (new GT500 motor?), not to mention DI for that extra bit of power, economy and efficiency? What about pioneering affordable lightweight designs and materials? How about improving aerodynamics yet retaining the iconic Mustang image?

I am heartened by the sudden aggressive development cycle that seems to be going on with the Mustang and Ford cars in general. The lackadaisical days of pumping out bloated (in size, price and appetite) SUVs while letting the car lines coast along on barely good enough technology, design and features seems to be behind us. That, I think, bodes well for very exciting Mustangs in the future that will be the equal and better of its competitors around the world and will only ensure the Mustang's continued tenure as America's and even the world premier affordable performance sports coupe.

MBK

good irs = yes
bad irs = no, keep sra

that said, i think they have enough time to implement a good irs. also, please do not create a boat like challenger (though its an awesome car) and a problem riddled car like camaro (though awesome as well)

rhumb

Good anything = yes
Bad anything = no, work to make it good

I think too many obsess myopically and overly broadly about the cobbled-together SN95's IRS: SN95's IRS = bad thus, any and all IRS = bad.

Even the SN95's IRS was an improvement over the live axle, but that only moved the needle from very bad to merely bad (actually, it wasn't that bad despite some axle spline weaknesses that could afflict any rear suspension design). Neither of these represents what could have, should have and has been done in terms of modern suspension designs even back then, never mind today.

Both the Challenger and Camaro have excellent IRS systems, even if overly soft tuning and overly heavy cars don't make the best advantage of them. If you have quibbles about either car's handling now, imagine them clomping around on truck axles. Now that would be bad.

The Mustang's superior handling, through less weight and very good and improving suspension tuning, comes more in spite of the limitations of the SRA, not as a result of it.

Yes, the current SRA is better than both the SN95's efforts, but to infer that replace the SRA with an IRS would automatically retrograde to what was in the SN95 just doesn't make sense.

DynamicmustangGT

[quote]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B-2n...layer_embedded[quote]

Great now if they have IRS I'm gonna crash...

MBK

i didn't infer that; i wasn't even thinking about the SN95. if Ford just starts obsessing about throwing an IRS on there, sure we might get an SN95 IRS, but what would be worse is that we get something heavy like the Challenger that rides like grandma's 300C or something overhyped but with performance that barely met handling expectations like the Camaro. yeah, the 2011 Mustang is going to ream both of these cars... is it only because its lighter? i don't think its as easy as that; Ford did a great job designing the new Mustang as a total package, and i hope they do the same when they implement an IRS, which was the point of my post. i am confident Ford will have no problem designing the new Mustang with an IRS that is part of a total package and not just designed into the car to beef up the marketing brochure.

bob

Agreed, GM did a fine job with the F5's IRS, I wouldn't want anything less from Ford.

rhumb

I wasn't picking on you, per se, but there are a lot of folks on this board who do reflexively equate all IRSs with the SN95 experience.

In terms of getting something heavy and soft like a Challenger or Camaro, that would be in spite of also having an IRS, not because of. The "C" cars would still be big and heavy with buggy axles out back. It is the Stang being more right sized that allows it to handle so well and that presumably will be even more the case when redesigned (probably slightly smaller but 100-200 lbs lighter I predict).

There is no way we would get another SN95 type design. That was very peculiar to the circumstances and constraints the engineers were dealing with at the time. Given that, it was actually a fairly clever piece, if imperfect. Rather, any IRS will be baked into the design from the beginning, as was apparently, the case with the current S197 before some ham-handed, last minute penny-pinching meddling by upper management forced a last minute redesign to the SRA to ostensibly save money.

The irony is that after all was said and done, that fire-drill redesign ended up adding to the cost and price of the Mustang in the end all for a lesser suspension design. Presumably, the IRS that was originally intended for the Stang was a modified version of the LS design, probably done up in steel rather than aluminum bits. Another possibility is that it was basically a control blade design, whether originally or as a post SRA redesign, redesign.

As for being soft, that is a matter of suspension tuning, more specifically, spring and shock rates and bushing durometers (hardness). Any suspension can be tuned for a pillow soft ride or for race track handling firmness. What an IRS does allow is a better ride AND better handling at the same time than a heavy live axle, in which case you must sacrifice much more of one OR the other. The Mustang, too, can be tuned very softly too, as any (pre '11?) V6 model will demonstrate.

That gives rise to another canard that some anti-IRS adherents trot out in that an IRS, or its proponents, are only interested in a cushy ride and turning the Stang into a plush luxo mobile. Hardly! We adherents are only interested in primarily improving the Mustang's overall handling, not only on smooth test tracks but more so, on rough and tumble real world roads. A more resilient ride - not to be confused with soft - would also result conferring the ability to absorb and shrug off bumps that would have a live axle skittering off into the ditch (a huge safety consideration, too). It is merely icing on the cake that for a given level of handling capability that an IRS tends to offer a more compliant ride that won't have one cringing at the very thought of a mid-corner frost heave jarring one's fillings loose.

That the Next Stang will likely share a platform with the Aussie Falcon and likely other cars as a global RWD platform makes an IRS almost a given as nobody else but some old school Stang drag-racers would continence such yestertech as a live axle on anything beyond a pickup truck. Given the Aussie experience with IRS designs in big, honking V8 sedans and coupes hooning around the outback and racetracks to excellent effect, I don't think we Yanks have anything to fear in moving the Mustang's butt into the 21st century.

xlover

i dont think we have alot to worry about the next gen IRS being poorly tuned, ford has seemed to put a premium lately on doing everything "right" and "best" everytime they release something. In thier strategy of continuous improvement I cant imagine they would release an IRS system on the 2014 that wouldnt be able to handle anything the brembo 2011 or the 2012 boss could. just like the base GT in 2010 had the bullet suspension and the 2011 has most of the 2010 track pack suspension elements. I am wishing and hoping their bench mark for the 2014 is a 9/10ths M3 for 5/10s price.

MBK

exactly. its going to be awesome anyway you cut it. just look at the new dyno numbers on the 5.0. ford is tearing it up.

rhumb

The pieces are now starting to come together rather quickly, aren't they. It's got the power, the tranny, the brakes, attention to suspension tuning...slap in an IRS to take the handling to the next level and bam, you're there!

MARZ

You're right-on-the-money, rhumb. As great as the current Mustang is -- even as great as its handling is with its solid rear axle -- imagine how much better it can and will be with a well-engineered IRS!

bob

Would it? What if Ford when Ford installs an IRS, road holding, and transient manuevering numbers barely change (if at all).

The prevailling assumption is that an IRS is somehow going to elevate the Mustangs handling to a whole different level in every dimension. I strongly suspect when an IRS becomes available its not going to be the earth shattering improvment folks are making it out to be. I also strongly suspect the "fun to drive factor" will drop a bit as well.

Yes... I'm resigned to it, and if we are getting IRS I also want my cake and ice cream as well, so my demands are this; Mustang's IRS needs to function as well or better than the IRS in both the Camaro and the Corvette and it needs to be at the very least as tough or tougher than the stick axle in the car currently and cost of ownership will not be substantially different (rear end alignments will be minimal and the component life of the IRS will be no different compared to the stick axle no matter what I choose to do with it).

rhumb

In all likelihood, the numbers will probably change very little from the current stick axle, but that misses the whole point and advantage of an IRS. It is not in generating peak numbers, heck, a go-cart suspension is probably best for that, but rather, to significantly broaden and enhance a car's handling capabilities in far more road conditions beyond a smooth test, or even race, track. That, and maintaining a high level of capability without unduly compromising ride quality and suspension compliance over bumps and broken pavement.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "fun to drive factor," but if that means white knuckle wrestling a poor handling car into some semblance of control, then yes, the "fun" to drive factor would drop, precipitously. You could, however, lash on some soft-shouldered, Mileage Master tires with a tread compound befitting bowling shoes, get some wimpy shocks and overly hard springs and voila, your fun to drive factor returns.

If you idea of a fun factor involves handling precision and capability maintained deep into the most challenging back road turns, shrugging off all manner of pothole and frost heave without getting bucked into a ditch, a while not giving your GF or SI kidney pains with a coal cart ride, then I would surmise an IRS will only enhance ones driving fun.

Of course, a LOT of this, regardless of suspension design, has to do with how well said suspension is tuned as the devil is in the details, not the just a spec sheet. Ford really does seem to be getting this more and more lately, that its not only how fast a car goes but how well a car goes fast, that truly makes for the fun to drive factor. That has often escaped Detroit suspension engineers (and others too) in the past, but Ford really seems to be "getting it" on this aspect these days.

I would presume Ford, as evidenced by how well it is engineering other elements of the Stang lately, would also do a very competent job with an IRS, not only in terms of function, but also robustness, durability and cost of ownership. The IRS systems on both the Camaro and Challenger seem to work very well, even if the tuning might be a tad soft and they have to hoist up rather plump rears.

There are any number of IRS systems in very high HP cars to clearly show that a properly designed one, like any competently design component, can be very robust and reliable. Its all in proper and competent engineering and in that aspect, an IRS is no different than any other car component or system. Just look at all those crazy Australian RWD, IRS V8 cars hooning around the rutted roads of the outback should you have any doubts regarding either the effectiveness, ruggedness or fun-to-drive of a good IRS system.

In that regard, I think the Aussies have done a better job of bringing mid to large RWD V8 performance cars into the 21st century than the U.S. has, which has too often been mired in yestertech. Some of the better big V8 RWD cars such as the Magnum, Challenger, Charger, G8 and Camaro are based on foreign chassis (German E-class Mercedes for the Chrysler cars and Aussie chassis for the GM models.)

If you shed preconceptions about IRS systems necessarily being heavy, soft, weak and expensive -- just look at all the light, firm, rugged and affordable IRS systems all around you -- then I think one can look for an IRS Stang not with resignation but rather, eager anticipation.

xlover

the best sports cars in the world are IRS becuase IRS when well tuned is just better there are things no solid axle can do no matter how good the tuning that an IRS can simply becaue each wheel is independent.

ford4v429

IMO Mustangs #1 'must have' is low price, if the average working guy cant afford it, its too much.

if a good IRS can be added at the same price(as its soon to be the last rear drive ford car, axle production might be comparable to a cross-platform IRS costwise? not the cost of the axle, but the cost of the plant that builds the axle too).

I still wish theyd offer a stripped 4/6 cyl model for 15-ish...think it could be done, and think it could take back a lot of college kid cube/scion/whatever to the domestic market...

xlover

i disagree, i would be fine if the GT went up in price as long as the capabilities made an equal leap up. let the powerful 6cyl version take up the mantle of that 28-35k range. i dont really understand why the average working guy needs to be able to afford it, as long as the ford sells the correct amount of units to recoup and profit on the development investment they will be happy. if it requires a higher price to maintain that margin for a better car then so be it. personally i would rather have the better car than a worse one that many can have for cheap. i dont think we can really have it both ways. if we can then more power to ford.

tacbear

Because that is why the Mustang came into existance in the first place, the Mustang isn't a Ford GT. Using your logic Ford should build a 1000 hp 3000# IRS, Carbon Fiber, World beating Supercar and call it the Mustang! But then only a hand full of peolple would be able to afford one. Most Mustang enthusiast want a powerful, good handling, good looking car that they can personalize.