2014 Mustang to get IRS?
3/28/10, 05:12 PM
#81
Legacy TMS Member
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.
And that is a big part of the car's appeal. If Ford abandons that, you would see the Mustang's popularity drop faster than a thermometer in liquid nitrogen.
Some examples of cars where the manufacturer decied to ditch the "affordable sports car" for a more upscale buyer; Toyota Supra, Mazda RX-7, Nissan 300ZX.
Notice 66.67% of those cars are not around and the reason being they decided to abandon thier affordable performance car status (IIRC there was some economic turmoil as well) and buyers abandoned them or went elsewhere for lower performing but sporty cars.
3/28/10, 05:59 PM
#82
Legacy TMS Member
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.
compared to the current chassis (just look at the Terminator guys). I'll ultimately reserve judgement until I can get my hands on one (and right around 2015 or 2016 I'll be in the market for another Mustang), but as it stands, IRS isn't a terribly compelling feature, currently I get 9/10ths of the performance of an IRS without the headache of added routine maintence (another nice feature of the current car is the mac strut front - simple and rugged). Would that last 1/10th be worth it? I honestly can't see it, I've driven both my former 07 GT and current Mustang past the point of common sense down a narrow, twisty and bumpy road and I haven't gone skittering off into the woods. Admittedly as delivered, the stock suspension on the GT had trouble but it was remedied by swapping out the suspension. The GT500 on the otherhand was just fine going down the same road (IMO the 07-09 GT Mustang's greatest weakness has little to do with the rear suspension design and has more to do with the damper tuning).
3/29/10, 06:38 PM
#83
legacy Tms Member
Thats sorta always been the Mustang's bag - a performance car for the average guy.
And that is a big part of the car's appeal. If Ford abandons that, you would see the Mustang's popularity drop faster than a thermometer in liquid nitrogen.
Some examples of cars where the manufacturer decied to ditch the "affordable sports car" for a more upscale buyer; Toyota Supra, Mazda RX-7, Nissan 300ZX.
Notice 66.67% of those cars are not around and the reason being they decided to abandon thier affordable performance car status (IIRC there was some economic turmoil as well) and buyers abandoned them or went elsewhere for lower performing but sporty cars.
And that is a big part of the car's appeal. If Ford abandons that, you would see the Mustang's popularity drop faster than a thermometer in liquid nitrogen.
Some examples of cars where the manufacturer decied to ditch the "affordable sports car" for a more upscale buyer; Toyota Supra, Mazda RX-7, Nissan 300ZX.
Notice 66.67% of those cars are not around and the reason being they decided to abandon thier affordable performance car status (IIRC there was some economic turmoil as well) and buyers abandoned them or went elsewhere for lower performing but sporty cars.
those willing to pay Corvette prices can get a Saleen/Roush/Shelby, who knows how many others...Ford needs VOLUME to keep/build their customer base- a lot of bang for the buck is a great way to do it- long as the 'buck' is comparable to competitors, and the 'bang' exceeds their offerings.
Last edited by ford4v429; 3/29/10 at 06:43 PM.
3/30/10, 04:57 AM
#84
Shelby GT350 Member
This is why i want the '11 because more than likely Ford will follow suit and put an IRS in the Stang. This could be the last SRA we see and the best that ever was.If it is anything like the Camaro's IRS they can keep it. They better just make sure it exceeds what they have now before adding it. tacbear is completely right also.
3/30/10, 08:08 AM
#85
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the current Mustang's handling prowess comes in spite of the SRA, not because of it, and reflects more a lighter car (than the Camaro or Challenger) and excellent suspension tuning and control weighting and feedback (much improved over the '05-'09 Stang and apparently something they continue to refine for '11.
The comment about the nimbleness of the Fox Stang is further confirmation of the advantages of less weight as they tended to come in around 3,200 lbs or less, some 400 lbs lighter than the current Stang and about the same difference between the current Stang and the Challenger. I think, too, that a lot of that agility was perceptual due to the low belt line and ample glass area giving the impression of a lighter, airier car than the current pudgy gun-bunker stylistic vogue, taken to an extreme by the Camaro but still somewhat true of the Stang and Challenger. Any handling benefits certainly were not the result of the Fox chassis wobbly 4-link live axle, the one that needed four shock absorbers to try to keep it from wiggling and jiggling.
As for gripes with the Camaro's handling, that is primarily a result of the suspension tuning -- a bit soft, its weight -- a bit high, and its lost-in-a-tub cockpit which gives a sense of isolation and enveloping mass. My guess is that Chevy will finesse the suspension tuning a bit but they're pretty much stuck with the mass and U-boat cockpit sight lines.
As for costs and maintenance of an IRS, one only need a quick glance to see a world of low cost, highly effective and reliable IRS systems. Remember though, low cost does not necessarily equate to high value. Ford could revert to a leaf spring Hotchkiss suspension, drum brakes and bias-ply tires to drive down the costs even more, but the value would plummet far more. The point of the Mustang is, of course, to be affordable but also high value. The trick is finding the sweet spot of these considerations.
Too often, I think, Ford has been a bit myopic about the low cost aspect without giving overall high value due weighting. This often resulted in Stangs that were cheap, but that clutched onto yestertech and ancient chassis for far too long. They only really got away with this because the were able to in lieu of effective direct competition, allowing Ford to be a bit complacent with the Stang's development, engineering and features. We got good cars, good enough in Ford's and many Stanger's minds, but hardly the Stang that could or should be for many others of us.
That thesis, and the concept of competition improving the breed, is, IMHO, clearly being shown now with the dizzying development of the Stang in the past couple years. I lay that directly at the feet of the Camaro and Challenger, if not also the Genesis Coupe and even 370Z. I have no doubt that we'd never see the level or pace of upgrades and development we are now enjoying without the pony car competition breathing down the Stang's neck. Just compare the scope, scale and rapidity of changes in the last 1.5-2 years with the previous 5.
My guess is that, of necessity and an overall new commitment to product excellence and continued development now exhibited by Ford, the Next Stang will be an even more capable and captivating performance car that will have fully world class features, engineering, and execution, yet still represent and excellent value at an affordable price point. It will have to for now, pony car enthusiast will only amble down to the local Chevy or Dodge, or even Hyundai or Nissan, shop to find a suitable sports coupe that does -- it ain't 2005-2009 any more.
The comment about the nimbleness of the Fox Stang is further confirmation of the advantages of less weight as they tended to come in around 3,200 lbs or less, some 400 lbs lighter than the current Stang and about the same difference between the current Stang and the Challenger. I think, too, that a lot of that agility was perceptual due to the low belt line and ample glass area giving the impression of a lighter, airier car than the current pudgy gun-bunker stylistic vogue, taken to an extreme by the Camaro but still somewhat true of the Stang and Challenger. Any handling benefits certainly were not the result of the Fox chassis wobbly 4-link live axle, the one that needed four shock absorbers to try to keep it from wiggling and jiggling.
As for gripes with the Camaro's handling, that is primarily a result of the suspension tuning -- a bit soft, its weight -- a bit high, and its lost-in-a-tub cockpit which gives a sense of isolation and enveloping mass. My guess is that Chevy will finesse the suspension tuning a bit but they're pretty much stuck with the mass and U-boat cockpit sight lines.
As for costs and maintenance of an IRS, one only need a quick glance to see a world of low cost, highly effective and reliable IRS systems. Remember though, low cost does not necessarily equate to high value. Ford could revert to a leaf spring Hotchkiss suspension, drum brakes and bias-ply tires to drive down the costs even more, but the value would plummet far more. The point of the Mustang is, of course, to be affordable but also high value. The trick is finding the sweet spot of these considerations.
Too often, I think, Ford has been a bit myopic about the low cost aspect without giving overall high value due weighting. This often resulted in Stangs that were cheap, but that clutched onto yestertech and ancient chassis for far too long. They only really got away with this because the were able to in lieu of effective direct competition, allowing Ford to be a bit complacent with the Stang's development, engineering and features. We got good cars, good enough in Ford's and many Stanger's minds, but hardly the Stang that could or should be for many others of us.
That thesis, and the concept of competition improving the breed, is, IMHO, clearly being shown now with the dizzying development of the Stang in the past couple years. I lay that directly at the feet of the Camaro and Challenger, if not also the Genesis Coupe and even 370Z. I have no doubt that we'd never see the level or pace of upgrades and development we are now enjoying without the pony car competition breathing down the Stang's neck. Just compare the scope, scale and rapidity of changes in the last 1.5-2 years with the previous 5.
My guess is that, of necessity and an overall new commitment to product excellence and continued development now exhibited by Ford, the Next Stang will be an even more capable and captivating performance car that will have fully world class features, engineering, and execution, yet still represent and excellent value at an affordable price point. It will have to for now, pony car enthusiast will only amble down to the local Chevy or Dodge, or even Hyundai or Nissan, shop to find a suitable sports coupe that does -- it ain't 2005-2009 any more.
Last edited by rhumb; 3/30/10 at 08:21 AM.
3/30/10, 03:40 PM
#86
I think the current Mustang's handling prowess comes in spite of the SRA, not because of it, and reflects more a lighter car (than the Camaro or Challenger) and excellent suspension tuning and control weighting and feedback (much improved over the '05-'09 Stang and apparently something they continue to refine for '11.
The comment about the nimbleness of the Fox Stang is further confirmation of the advantages of less weight as they tended to come in around 3,200 lbs or less, some 400 lbs lighter than the current Stang and about the same difference between the current Stang and the Challenger. I think, too, that a lot of that agility was perceptual due to the low belt line and ample glass area giving the impression of a lighter, airier car than the current pudgy gun-bunker stylistic vogue, taken to an extreme by the Camaro but still somewhat true of the Stang and Challenger. Any handling benefits certainly were not the result of the Fox chassis wobbly 4-link live axle, the one that needed four shock absorbers to try to keep it from wiggling and jiggling.
The comment about the nimbleness of the Fox Stang is further confirmation of the advantages of less weight as they tended to come in around 3,200 lbs or less, some 400 lbs lighter than the current Stang and about the same difference between the current Stang and the Challenger. I think, too, that a lot of that agility was perceptual due to the low belt line and ample glass area giving the impression of a lighter, airier car than the current pudgy gun-bunker stylistic vogue, taken to an extreme by the Camaro but still somewhat true of the Stang and Challenger. Any handling benefits certainly were not the result of the Fox chassis wobbly 4-link live axle, the one that needed four shock absorbers to try to keep it from wiggling and jiggling.
3/30/10, 03:56 PM
#87
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dang, I knew they were light! No wonder they feel nimble even with 70's era chassis. Imagine the current Stang with a quarter ton less weight holding it back.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post