Motor Trend‘s Angus MacKenzie recently got some seat time in the new Shelby GT500, and calls it “a pretty impressive piece — fast, loud, and blessed with the best steering ever in an American Car.” “But,” writes MacKenzie, “the thing that annoys me most about the GT500 — about the whole 2010 Mustang range, for that matter — is the live rear axle. It’s the wrong technology, done for the wrong reasons; emblematic of the cynical ‘near enough is good enough’ attitude from Motown management that helped drive Detroit’s automakers into a ditch.” And thereby restarted a squabble that makes the global warming debate look like a lover’s spat.
MacKenzie claims that the Mustang was planned around the Autralian Ford Falcon’s independent rear suspension, but that “product development executive Phil Martens reportedly managed to convince Bill Ford Jr. he could save Ford $100 a car if the Mustang was switched to a live rear axle.” Plus, thanks to MacKenzie’s “well-placed sources” we learn “that once the noise, vibration and harshness, and driveline angle issues were solved, the S197’s live rear axle actually ended up costing Ford $98 per unit MORE than the low cost independent rear end originally developed for the car.” MacKenzie darns this boondoggle to heck, arguing that only “a tiny fraction” of Mustangs are drag raced regularly, thus justifying a solid rear axle. In the comments section, a horde of Mustang fanatics demurely dissent. And as embarassingly old-school as the live axle is, would the Falcon’s IRS really have improved the Mustang much?
“…only “a tiny fraction” of Mustangs are drag raced regularly, thus justifying a solid rear axle.” — what?
If you drag race, then you want a solid rear axle (and a locking differential) — every real drag race car has one. If you drive around town, then you want an independent rear suspension. What have I missed here?
Twotone
A recent poll revealed that 96.4% of Mustang owners and potential owners could care less what kind of axle is on their car.
And yet somehow Mustangs still sell. I can’t believe anyone would buy a car without IRS, just the idea makes me sick!
Get over it, MacKenzie, most people buying the Mustang don’t care, and anyone with any skill can work with the solid axle. Show me the 16 year old girl in the Mustang V6 automatic that even knows what a live axle is, and I’ll admit that maybe you have an argument.
Superbadd and 1169hp are correct. Unfortunately.
How bout give the GT a IRS, V6s get solid, and hairy chested drag racers can pony up for a “drag package”? Then if the GT has a standard IRS then the “track package” that Ford offers could be a real handling package like the Corvette’s Z71 option.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the live axle ended up costing more–not the first time an attempt to save money backfired. Too many times Detroit has sought to save money by carring over a platform or attempting to share parts across products, only to end up saving little if anything and suboptimizing the products in the process.
@Twotone I was also confused. The relevant quote from the original article is:
“There are a lot of good reasons why the rest of the world’s automakers stopped using the Mustang’s rear suspension layout decades ago. No matter how well set up, a live rear axle will never deliver the refinement, ride quality, and all-round traction of a well set up independent rear end. Yeah, yeah, I know drag racers like live rear axles, but let’s be honest, how many S197s actually spend their weekends pounding quarter miles? I’d be astonished if it’s more than a tiny fraction of the total number of Mustangs sold.”
The author is right, of course – relatively few people take their cars to the track. I love how so many of the comments on MotorTrend vehemently disagree with him.
Plus, thanks to MacKenzie’s “well-placed sources” we learn “that once the noise, vibration and harshness, and driveline angle issues were solved, the S197’s live rear axle actually ended up costing Ford $98 per unit MORE than the low cost independent rear end originally developed for the car.”
Keywords: Low Cost IRS.
The 1999 Cobra had such a system (hacked from the MN-12 Thunderbird) and the axle hop was terrible. So bad that people switched back on a regular basis. GTOs and 1st Gen CTS-Vs are the same problem, without the quick fix back to a solid axle.
If you make an IRS, it has to be far better than a band aid. Betcha the IRS in a Corvette, Supra, AMG Benz is far more expensive than what was in the Mustang and GTO.
Follow the money $$$ and the parts it can acquire.
+1 1169hp :
A recent poll revealed that 96.4% of Mustang owners and potential owners could care less what kind of axle is on their car.
And a surprising number of those owners don’t know if the car is FWD or RWD.
This debate reminds me of the carbeurators versus fuel injection debate that became very hot in the 1980s with the advent of TPI GM smallblocks and the Buick turbo V6 versus old school muscle car engines with their 4 bbl+ setups.
Yes, you can make a live axle handle. Yes, it’s good for drag racing too. Yes, it can be okay on the street. All of those things applied to carbeurators too. But it was clear then as it is today that fuel injection was an advancement and a better way of doing it.
I’ve driven quite a few Mustangs, I owned a hot-rodded Buick Grand National with it’s live axle out back for nearly 10 years. It’s amazing how similar the 2010 Mustang drives to the 20 y/o Grand National I had. They still jiggle, they still side-step, they still have the busy ass motion on the freeway and they still feel the same in the turns. Yes, they can turn. But not as well as a proper IRS setup.
Every other muscle car here and in Australia has IRS and there are no issues with it. They also ride, drive and handle better and have no issues drag racing at all.
As long as the Mustang remains a live axle car it will always have that as a huge demerit and turn off to many people, it will always be an issue just as the interior of the Corvette will always be an issue until they fix it.
My Fit’s solid rear axle does wonders for my drag racing…I can certainly attest to that. :)
As much as I love the IRS and would never buy a Mustang due to its lack thereof, I have to disagree with Mr. MacKenzie.
First, I’m not so sure he’s correct on the details of his story. The Mustang platform started as the Dew 98, which already had an IRS. It was re-engineered to have a live axle and other tweaks and in the process became so butchered, it could no longer be considered a Dew 98. I know the end result was close in cost to the Dew 98, but the IRS Dew 98 would have likely cost more by the time they got done tinering with it anyway. I would argue that it was a fruitless exercise and that the Mustang should have just been a Dew 98, but the sales results have more than paid for the adventure.
In the end, Mustang fans have spoken. They want the unrefined ride and tossable rear end, and marginally lower cost.
And a surprising number of those owners don’t know if the car is FWD or RWD.
And as more and more safety nanniess are mandated in cars, it will not matter whether a car is FWD or RWD.
I agree with TriShield.
Racing is supposed to separate the men from the boys. The boys whine and cry that with technology they can’t apply the same old rule of thumb band-aids and improve performance. The men suck it up, do a little learning and/or experimentation, and make the new technology perform even better.
Mustangs are designed and built for whiney-boy mullet lovers. Camaros always used to be the same way; which is why the Mustang will continue to kick the new Camaro’s butt.
Cars are more than specs, more than the sum of their parts.
The new Mustang is a special car, and it has a direct line of connection back to the iconic Mustangs of the 60’s and 70’s. People buy it for that connection, and for the unique driving experience that it offers as a modern muscle car.
When Ford built it, they didn’t benchmark BMW, Porsche, or Lotus. They figured out what made a Mustang feel and drive like a Mustang, then built one out of (mostly) 21st century parts. Maintaining that connection and those essential qualities was what they were going after.
Who cares if the Mustang has a live axle? Saying “I wouldn’t buy one because of it” is missing the point, and just proves that you’re not a Mustang person anyway. Look down on Mustang people if it makes you feel better…they don’t care and either does Ford.
Mustang buyers don’t want a Porsche, they don’t want a perfect man-machine interface, and they don’t care what’s on the spec sheet aside from horsepower, torque, a reasonably comfortable seat, and a good stereo. They want a friggin’ Mustang! Ford knows that changing that special formula is a road to ruin.
The Mustang needs an IRS not just for respectability but for the mental block that it will remove out of so many of its admirers’ heads. It’s psychological, folks. The time and effort put into any automotive system’s engineering can go a long way towards easing a car buyer’s conscience – even if said system isn’t the most direct route to the intended destination.
Yes, simplicity has its place in efficient engineering – think pushrods versus OHC – but sometimes it’s not about the end result of a particular design. It’s about the potential for continuous improvement. With an IRS, that potential is built in. How much more can the live axle be improved or refined? It hit a plateau ages ago.
(Most) drag racers’ perceived need for and exultation of the Mustang’s live axle is only further proof of the impermeable bubble they choose to live in. Angus McKenzie hit the nail on the head. I want Ford to succeed, but the Mustang, in its present iteration needs to crash and burn – hard.
I say give the next Mustang an IRS since it does have a better ride/handling merit over the ox-cart set up (i mean, simple geometry…what directly affects one wheel has an effect on other right?). If the drag racers out there cry foul, make a special drag racer edition for them so they can live their lives 1/4 mile at a time.
Besides, if Ford is indeed losing rather than saving money by using the SRA suspension doesn’t it make sense to use the better IRS system?
A recent poll revealed that 96.4% of Mustang owners and potential owners could care less what kind of axle is on their car.M
And that is exactly why GM and Chrysler are now bankrupt. Who cars about 6 speed automatic transmisions, OHC engines, independent suspensions, disc brakes, fuel injections? Just slap a badge on some carborated, pushrod, 2 speed auto, leaf sprung, unreliable s*it box and shove it out the door. The ignorant mullets that buy our products won’t even know the difference.
We’ll we know how that thinking worked out.
I worked for the tier 1 supplier who sold Ford the S-197 IRS modules…we fabricated the sub-frame and integrated the rear differential and other suspension bits from other suppliers, and delivered the whole package to Ford.
In 2005 dollars, it was a $1,800+ cost add. I imagine the cost now would be north of $2,500.
Best way to go here is what Ford is doing….let the aftermarket serve the gearheads, let Ford make cars for the masses.
They are in business to mass-produce cars, not satisfy purists. Perhaps, they could license and warranty a high-buck, 3rd party company to make limited edition rear-end swaps, and roll it into financing if the gearheads want to special order. But it just ain’t ever gonna make financial sense for Ford’s business model to make this a high-cost option for dealer’s to order on spec.
Ford is in the midst of Homer Simpson’s dilemma….if they offer the option and jack up the price to cover it, they are slammed for high prices. If they don’t they aren’t passionate about building cars to satisfy the supposed “purists”. Damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
The 1999 Cobra had such a system (hacked from the MN-12 Thunderbird) and the axle hop was terrible. So bad that people switched back on a regular basis.
Yeah, but wasn’t it a hack Frankenstein job of sorts? Basically forcing the old Fox platform to accept a rear subframe to house an IRS setup?….which is why it never worked as well in the first place.
I can recall reading a story, possibly in Motor Trend, in which someone in charge of the GT500’s development indicated that ‘no cost would be spared’, and that the target was the M3. Not a year later, and I read the phrase ‘live axle’. Which pretty much tells you what happened: 500+ horsepower and an ox-cart suspension = just as good as an M3, at least as far as Ford is concerned.
OK, some of you just HATE the live axle. So don’t buy a Mustang. Instead, go buy the other cars that give you the same level of performance for the Mustang’s price. Oh, Wait . . .
Regarding all ya’ll’s comments regarding the live axle….
I am happy with the fact that Ford chose to keep the live axle, because this means we have a CHOICE… either we can look at the camaro, or, we can look at the challenger IF we want IRS. Most people that buy these Mustangs don’t care, and we should be fine with that.
Ford could make a halo car that utilizes IRS, but I don’t think they need to… Dodge & Chevy got that figured out.
So lets all just be happy with the live axle because it works just fine. Ford can keep the crown for top sales, Chevy can keep the crown for best performance, and Dodge can keep the crown for best retro mix. Ford should concentrate on making its car faster and a little better performance wize, and Chevy can struggle to keep the sales up on its performance beast (which is to say, it will be harder to make money at the lower unit sales & lower margin.)
One of the first reviews I read about the new Mustang years ago talked about managing expectations. Putting in a live rear axle isn’t ideal but is good enough considering the bang-4-buck proposition of the Mustang. Sajeev made the point, a cost saving IRS would have opened the door for reviewers to say “Nice car, but the rear suspension isn’t nearly as effective as [insert competitor car name here]”.
Why not offer an option? Because that creates a manufacturing variance that adds cost and complexity.
Let’s face it, the Mustang doesn’t pretend to be an F430 or a 911 Turbo but it doesn’t carry their price tag either. I haven’t seen many reviews that belittle the Mustang for its handling and they seem to like them here at TTAC.
It’s important to please everyone, but it’s important to turn a profit too – sometimes you can’t do both.
jpcavanaugh: Back in the day when the Mustang was cheap the lack of IRS was forgivable. But Ford is moving it up-market and a 2010 Premium GT with axle package can set you back $35K – a price point at which a solid axle looks very much out of place. I love the look of the new Mustang but both the new 5.0 and IRS can’t arrive soon enough.
No matter how well set up, a live rear axle will never deliver the refinement, ride quality, and all-round traction of a well set up independent rear end.
Well, yes, but we’re not exactly talking about the 3-Series, here. A well-set-up independent rear axle that can take the kind of pounding a Mustang driver will inflict is not cheap to do on a front-engine, rear-drive car. Either it costs more than the Mustang, is cribbed from an amortized design, or doesn’t have to cope with the power levels.
Ford already had a very good rear-drive chassis with IRS in the DEW98 and it cost a mint even in a Lincoln. Chrysler had to crib amortized bits from Mercedes and it still cost them a lot. GM cannot make the cost of Zeta work on a mass-market car. Nissan offsets the 350Z base with higher-margin Infinitis, Toyota doesn’t even sell a rear-driver that isn’t a Lexus. BMW and Mercedes have long since amortized the costs of their cars, and don’t sell cheap, either. Mazda makes a cheap rear-driver that only has to deal with a third of the Mustang’s output.
I think Ford has a point, here, or at least they did when the Mustang was originally developed. Maybe the next iteration of the chassis might be able to leverage lower costs of design, but that’s hard to say.
If the live axle has actually ended up costing Ford more than an independent rear suspension then that is a bit embarrassing, but I highly doubt that is true.
A live axle is more durable than any similar cost independent rear suspension, there aren’t linkages to bend, there aren’t tons of cheap rubber bushings to fail, and there isn’t the need for constant alignments.
Also, it is very difficult to engineer out IRS wheel hop in powerful cars.
A double wishbone front suspension is better than a Macpherson strut front suspension, but that doesn’t stop BMW (except for the new 7, the old 7 had struts) or Porsche (except for the Cayenne and certain 911s) from using struts.
SupaMan : Yeah, but wasn’t it a hack Frankenstein job of sorts? Basically forcing the old Fox platform to accept a rear subframe to house an IRS setup?….which is why it never worked as well in the first place.
And that’s what I am questioning about the new S197’s budged minded IRS, the one that MT is talking about. We never saw a super fast Lincoln LS or Jag S-type with a stick that can duplicate the demands of a Mustang GT. And by the time they mangled the platform for a live axle, that lightweight IRS won’t work.
This would be the SN-95 all over again.
Ok, look at the GTO: it was never designed for a live axle but it sure as hell needs one. IRS systems have to be over-engineered (relative to the Mustang’s niche engine) to handle the massive axle hop potential of a big V8 and a manual tranny.
Vettes don’t have a big problem with axle hop, but then again, they don’t trade for 25-30k. That’s my point.
With the new Camaro having an IRS, we’ll be able to watch the market decide what matters.
Maybe 96% of Mustang owners don’t care, but I’d like to know how many people DIDN’T buy a Mustang because of the solid rear axle.
If I had to choose between the Camaro and Mustang today, I’d choose the Camaro, and the IRS would be part of that decision making process.
I think MacKenzie missed the point. That a Mustang have or not a IRS is not important to Mustang buyers. If it were, be sure market Ford’s market researches would have told them exactly that.
Ford did the IRS with the previous gen Cobra… and people switch to live axle, because of wheel hop but also for breakage.
Want IRS?… maybe Ford should have studied the possibility of offering the system as a no cost/very low cost option. This is a valid idea.
That way, people like MacKenzie would be happy.
I’m pretty much sure he doesn’t own one… nor plans to buy one.
Farago, you should post here what kind of “dream machines” does that magazine people drive.
AFAIK, Chrysler will offer a drag race version of the Challenger.
As someone pointed up there, a Mustang is NOT a BMW, nor it’s intended to the same customers.
It’s about doing burnouts on any street that a live axle does well and is wanted for, not drag racing at the track. No Mustang owner I know has gone to the track but many a burnout has been done on some road away from cops.
The live axle is part of the character of the Mustang. Taken away or changed and it’s character changes. If IRS is so great, why don’t hobbyist put IRS in older muscle cars with solid axles? AFAIK, they don’t because the character of the car would change.
The comments remind me of a discussion I had with a Harley Davidson owner. No matter what, he never considered buying anything other than an HD. It doesn’t matter if jap(his words) bikes were better handling, more technology, more power (way more), better braking, etc. He wanted a Harley, in much the same way Mustang owners want a Mustang. It didn’t matter that Japanese made better V-twins in every measureable and objective criteria. There is no comparison shopping with these buyers.
So Ford is right in going live axle to lower costs, as their customers don’t care. As long as the customers image expectations are met in the showroom, it’s good enough.
Only problem is that this strategy will never win new customers away from other brands. Honestly, have you ever known anyone trade in their japanese/german coupe for a mustang??
98% of buyers in the muscle/pony car segment couldn’t discern between live axles and IRS if their lives depended on it.
I guarantee you there isn’t one person here that could decrease their lap time by .1 seconds if an IRS was swapped in.
Forget the snob appeal of having buzz word components. Tha ‘Stang suspension works beautifly.
There are people who buy Mustangs for ride quality? Really?
Someone posted this link on TTAC a while back, a historical overview of IRS in Mustangs along with a kit to retrofit an IRS to a new Mustang. The interesting point was that the father of Mustang IRS thought the system in the last Cobra to be a “piece of sheet”
http://www.mustangirs.com/
Also, I wonder if the Mustang is the last nameplate that can get away with the attitude of “good enough”. Even the Corvette had to re-earn its stripes after the 70’s but people bought Mustangs whether they be I4, V6 or V8s. Never really dug them except for the SVO so I guess it’s not my kind of car.
How come live axle Mustangs routinely win Koni GT races against BMWs and Porsches?
I’ll admit it, I drank the Cool-aid when in a cult. The LS cult had many meetings, one at the Wixom assembly plant with much time spent at the Dearborn test track.
At the test track garages, there was a highly modified LS (Actually, Mustang test mule) with a 4.6 DOHC engine and suspension tweaks. In the cult, it was called “The Car”, and many thought it was meant for production as a LS.
The engine provided too much torque for the rear end. As we were piloted around the track, the driver could invoke axle-tramp almost at will. But goodness gracious, the sound of that thing screaming on the track was fantastic.
The DEW 98 platform and rear suspension was an expensive design, but it couldn’t be tuned to remove the axle hop from a higher torque engine, as told to me by Jonathon Crocker. (DEW 98 suspension engineer.)
The cost cutting of attempting to carry over as much of the DEW platform killed the thought of I.R.S. on the Stang. Once the platform was heavily re modified into the new S197, it was probably easier to accept the live axle rather than design another I.R.S. set-up.
Just my two cents worth on the matter.
I wonder how many people who fawn over the beloved ’85-87 RWD Corolla will turn around and complain about a solid axle mustang. The whole IRS debate sounds like the same kind of fixation people had on the Corvette’s leaf springs.
Most people won’t notice or care. I have a 350Z and a friend of mine has a V6 mustang. If you got someone who didn’t know or care about cars, the mustang is a better value proposition. It rides well, it’s roomier, feels torquey and cost a little over half as much as the Z.
Ford developed a proper IRS for the Mustang back in 1965, but the original car sold so well with the horse cart suspension, Ford never bothered to put the IRS into production.
If you want an after market Mustang IRS that will bolt in to a new ‘Stang, see here:
http://www.mustangirs.com/
Also, I wonder if the Mustang is the last nameplate that can get away with the attitude of “good enough”.
I don’t think you get it. Apparently Ford nor their Mustang customers seem to care. Either you want (can afford/talk the SO into, etc) a Mustang or not.
I hear AWD beats 2WD in handling and finesse. Why doesn’t Mazda offer cheap AWD on the Miata?
Along the same lines, Audi charges BMW 3-series prices for the A4…and yet FWD is clearly inferior to RWD in a ‘sports sedan’. How dare they?
Again, either you’re in the market for that kind of car or not.
@ Sajeev Mehta:
+1.
The GTO was a squirrely bastard and hard to launch. If the IRS on that car was supposed to add refinement, ride quality, and traction- it sure wasn’t working. A well-tired F-body was more planted in all but extreme pavement conditions.
I own a Mustang and I rented the car Robert Farago reviewed in the last Mustang GT review.
I can tell you guys the live axle makes a difference, and anyone who doesn’t feel it has very little driving sense.
It took me one turn to realize how awful LRA can be sometimes. I laid down the power, my rear wheel hit a manhole and skipped the car and nothing happened for few good milliseconds as my entire rear was airborn and my rear wheels spun uselessly. Meanwhile, any 140bhp RWD Miata would have powered through the obstacle like nothing. It was very frustrating to see a 2010 Mustang handle and behave so similarly to my 2002. “Good enough” indeed.
When RF took it for a spin, It took him 45 seconds to point out the side-ways movement and the axle hop in the car.
That said, I do appreciate the car for its hairy-chested manliness. I’m just not sure I’ll own another one. No girl wants to drive it because the clutch is too heavy and the gearbox takes some serious biceps and lats to operate, and throttle tip-in is too aggressive (“I’ll spill my latté”). And I do like those things about the car.
There’s no more beer here; let’s go find another party.
He wanted a Harley, in much the same way Mustang owners want a Mustang. It didn’t matter that Japanese made better V-twins in every measureable and objective criteria. There is no comparison shopping with these buyers.
Couldn’t agree with you more, wiggles. Ford, Mustang and live axle apologists just don’t get it. Ford put an IRS in the Explorer. The Explorer. A body on frame SUV. And they won’t put one in the Mustang? Their so called performance car? Lord have mercy…
Really want to know how good (bad) the live axel setup is? Check out Top Gear.
Ford, Mustang and live axle apologists just don’t get it. Ford put an IRS in the Explorer. The Explorer. A body on frame SUV. And they won’t put one in the Mustang? Their so called performance car? Lord have mercy…
It makes sense, especially since the Explorer is generally used as a butch minivan, and families care about head-tossing bumps a lot more than Mustang drivers ever would.
I don’t think anyone argues that the Mustang’s rear suspension allows a level of crudeness in the body motions that doesn’t happen in an IRS rear-driver; the point is that there is no IRS-equipped rear-driver in the Mustang’s price range that doesn’t either a) lose money or b) leverage another product.
This is typical Ford. Cut corners and let the bean counters win.
The REGULAR spec 2010 Mustang GT is murdered by the REGULAR spec 2010 Camaro SS.
The Camaro SS handles just as good as a Mustang with the silly track pack.
If the ox cart suspension is so good, why does the re-skinned Taurus have IRS? Why does the re-skinned Fusion have IRS? Why does the Explorer have IRS? Why does the Expedition have IRS?
Things are so backwards at Ford, their big, lumbering SUVs have IRS…but their closest thing to a “drivers car” has a log for a rear axle.
I think Ford’s new slogan should be:
“One step forward, two steps back”
Mustang buyers don’t want a Porsche, they don’t want a perfect man-machine interface, and they don’t care what’s on the spec sheet aside from horsepower, torque, a reasonably comfortable seat, and a good stereo. They want a friggin’ Mustang! Ford knows that changing that special formula is a road to ruin.
Amen brother. I didn’t buy my ’95 Cobra convertible cause it was a scalpel in the twisties. I bought it for its last production, made in Cleveland V-8, its very quick off the line, and the looks I get driving her around. Plus, I wanted one since high school and can easily afford to maintain and modify it, which I can’t say for the Acura NSX I also would like to own.
Loyal Mustang enthusiasts are a touchy bunch. They darn near staged a riot when Ford introduced the modular 4.6L V-8 back in ’96 and did figuratively storm the Bastille when Ford was going to replace the Mustang with the Probe in ’93.
You are correct that many Americans do not care or have no idea about their rear suspension. However, they DO care about stoplight to stoplight speed, or your 0-60 times. The Mustang has been designed from the very first V-8 motor emplacement for stoplight drag races, not carving the Italian Alps.
IRS is for wimps.
Too bad for Mustang haters the car will continue to sell and will probably outsell, outrun, and out handle the crap out of its pony car competition once the new 5.0 comes out.
IRS is for wimps.
Tell that to Michael Schumacher…
Or Ferrari
Or Aston Martin
Or Mercedes
Or Audi
Or the Ford GT
Or Lotus (Ah…but what does Lotus know about making a car take a turn…?)
Like the others have said, the car sells. Their isn’t a manufacturer out there that wouldn’t like to sell the Mustang. If every car in Ford’s stable sold half as well as the Mustang, they would be very profitable.
I knew a guy who was involved with the development of the 5th gen car. He said they developed the car for IRS, but they choose against it for the cost. I don’t remember how much he said they saved, but it was decent. Ultimately, if they can sell it with the live axle, they will. He said that the theory was that id sales drop off because of the lack of IRS, they will add that IRS. However they would be fools to not sell it with the live axle.
The one thing I don’t get is why the GT500 has the live axle. The ultimate Mustang, sold for that price should have IRS.
There are those that wouldn’t buy the car because of the live axle but they are rare. It’s just like I won’t buy a new car with drum brakes. The OEMs don’t care what I think, because the vast majority of car buyers are clueless about it.
Look! You cannot build a Porsche 911 on a Mustang budget. The Mustang and Camero are throwback muscle cars providing good acceleration, erotic noise, and, hopefully, enough suspension and brakes to keep the wild asses alive.
Hi guys,
As an Aussie, I don’t fully understand all of the emotions behind a lot of the comments, but you guys really are missing out. The IRS in question is fitted to the Australian made Ford Falcon. It can handle the high power and torque. In Australia the Falcon has a range of engines, topping out with a 5.4 litre V8 315kw (422hp) & 551 Nm (406 ftlb) and a Turbo 4 litre 6 cyl 310 kw (416) & 565 Nm (417 ftlb). These things do 13.5 over the 400m (1/4mile) drag, straight out of the factory. Not bad for a 4 door sedan.
I guess my point is that this IRS is a good system and it works, and works well with high power.
Here’s a link to an article with the Falcon FPV F6 Turbo:
http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/wheels/site/articleIDs/AC57A58F5B13A48FCA2574F300188DFA?
open&fullarticle=yes
I was part of the development team, and can tell you it was a HUGE internal battle. It was one of the reasons the Chief Engineer lost his position. The decision was literally made Sunday night between the new chief engineer, finance chief, and the head of product development. At the time it was assumed to be anywhere from $100 to $250 dollar advantage, depending on who was cutting the data. Unfortunately, they were using badly flawed data. Not only that, but the car was designed for IRS, and to switch back to a live axle added sprung and unsprung weight. There was literally a couple of dozen engineers working 12 hour days to get the suspension back on track {pun intended}. I was surprised that anyone bothered to do a followup analysis, but what was reported is accurate.
This is so typical of what goes on in all the OEM’s, someone who doesn’t have a clue, will make a decision based on flawed data. If a study doesn’t have the correct data to support the decision, they will continue to study it until the data agrees with the decision.
WRT to the customer perception, this is a perfect example. 99.99% of the customers don’t care, BUT it is infinitely easier to isolate NVH with an IRS over solid rear axle. What the customers will notice is less noise, less bouncing around, less road vibration. What Ford should have done for this car was to continue with the IRS (and it was one of the reasons the car was late) and offered a solid rear axle after market package for those few that truly wanted to plant HP to the ground.
P71:
I’d tell that straight to Mr. Schumacher’s face. I’d also tell him that F1 is for women. Most advanced cars in the world and by far the most boring races GREAT JOB! Lawn mower racing is more entertaining than F1.
All those high end brands cost a bajillion dollars and still aren’t half as manly as a Mustang. High end imports say I have teh tiny penis and big bank account.
Ford GT isn’t even made anymore because of lack of machismo, Lotus makes Go-Karts that are so light that even w/ LRA they’d take turns well.
Essentially a Mustang w/o quarter mile inspired handling and dirt cheap v8 power and kick ass looks (subjective as that is) is a girly ass car that would be like every other sports/wannabe muscle car out there. If you don’t like it fine, but don’t act like the Mustang as a whole would be a better experience with out hair raising handling on account of an IRS which is hella overrated in the first place. If anything the Mustang is getting too soft and handles too well. The Mustang puts hair on your chest and vag on your dick and should be respected as such.
I’d give my left nut for a Mustang fitted with the Oz Falcon turbo straight 6 and Falcon IRS. Think budget BMW with style.
MgoBLUE: “With the new Camaro having an IRS, we’ll be able to watch the market decide what matters.”Don’t know if it means much but doesn’t the new Challenger have an IRS, too?
Sometimes I wonder if V8 Mustang owners want that LRA not so much for drag racing but controlled tail-out slides and drifts on smooth surfaces. With the traction control turned off, it’s not particularly difficult and it does give a minor thrill.
Things are so backwards at Ford, their big, lumbering SUVs have IRS…but their closest thing to a “drivers car” has a log for a rear axle.
A big part of the reason Ford put IRS in their SUVs was to package a fold flat third row seat.
Well Bojack, not everything can be as exiting as cars turning left for several hours.
I have an 89 5.0 LX.
The best part about it is that the LRA lets you have an exciting ride within the speed limit. :)
Next best is the top goes down.
Finally it is really inexpensive to maintain.
MBella:
Even the Nascar road courses (they exist) are more exciting than F1. Every F1 race I’ve ever seen is bullshit dull because they have a field of what seems like 15 cars each one 2+ seconds apart on the track. They even manage to make the pit stops dull by having 40 guys and only one lug nut per wheel or something and cars so light you can jack them up with a hand truck.
Indy is similar to F1 and still manages to be more entertaining. Tractor pulls are better than F1.
Indy is similar to F1 and still manages to be more entertaining. Tractor pulls are better than F1.
It depends on what constitutes exciting. Nascar et al is exciting in the same way that Deal or no Deal is. Basically it’s not really about driving any more than the cheap trills of pointing at a box and finding a possible prize.
That said, modern F1 is about the worst display of driving talent ever. The few instances of real racing is brilliant, but the system is very risk averse.